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

[MB]

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?

Would you say that a man who believes that Christ died for his sins was burried and rose again on the third day and is now with the Father, is truly Christian? If so then any Mormon, Catholic, JW, or Jew, or branch dividian, who believes the same of Christ is saved. The Bible says he is. There is only one way, there is no other, that way Is Jesus Christ.

The things Calvinist fail to notioce is that Eph 2:8 tells us that with out faith there is no grace because it is through faith that we even have grace. Grace does not come to anyone with out faith...
MB

 

[JesusFan]

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

adam had 'free will' as you and the other Non cals have defined it here on the BB, and when he fell... No longer had it, neither do ANY except for Jesus afterwards!

Think that distinction IS imporant, as it underxcuts your belief that man can come to God and receive jesus by "act of own free will"...

What specifically did I say that contradicts that truth?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

IF Adam, holding to the type of "free will" that youwould require to get saved as you suggested failed, how can ANY get savedtoday UNLES God does that saving act of Grace, as we no longer even possess means to obey god as Adam once could have!

 

[glfredrick]

Would you say that a man who believes that Christ died for his sins was burried and rose again on the third day and is now with the Father, is truly Christian? If so then any Mormon, Catholic, JW, or Jew, or branch dividian, who believes the same of Christ is saved. The Bible says he is. There is only one way, there is no other, that way Is Jesus Christ.

The things Calvinist fail to notioce is that Eph 2:8 tells us that with out faith there is no grace because it is through faith that we even have grace. Grace does not come to anyone with out faith...
MB

Wow... Just wow.

:BangHead:

 

[Skandelon]

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.

glf, with all due respect, you need to be more specific. Above your reply there are three separate posts from me (2 addressed to you and one to Christos), and I am not sure to what point you are addressing in this comment.

You accuse me of "pouncing" (another word for replying to an argument in a debate forum, no less), and I'm now accusing you of making blanket and unfounded accusations against me. I'm fine with people accusing me of things, I really am. I just insist on specifics. Quote my actual words and then show why my comment is "misrepresentative," for example. Use my actual words and then show what you agree with and where I have contradicted myself on my blog or in previous posts. I welcome you to show my contradictions and I think in doing so you will either realize your accusation is unfounded OR you will give me an opportunity to clarify my intent. But all this mudslinging at generalities gets us no where.

 

[Christos doulos]

I welcome you to show my contradictions and I think in doing so you will either realize your accusation is unfounded OR you will give me an opportunity to clarify my intent. But all this mudslinging at generalities gets us no where.

My friend. Why does the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture bother you so? Is it perhaps you don't really understand calvinism?

Your quote:

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?"

That is not mainstream Calvinistic teaching.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

You do know we are in agreement on this point, right? I mean, you do understand that our point of contention is about the effectuality or irresistibility of the means God uses to intervene, right?

There is nothing we can do on our own accord, including "belief" that will gain us one iota with God.

Again, you do understand that we agree here as well, right? When you say "nothing we can do on our own" what you seem to imply is that we (non-Calvinists) believe that what we do is without God's gracious help. Again, the difference is in regard to the irresistibility of that help. Okay?

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:

Both Cals and non-Cals affirm that faith is a condition for salvation, so I'm not sure how our answers would differ to the questions you pose here.

The only weakness these questions seem to pose are ones of the Calvinistic belief that men are born unable to believe God's revealed salvific truth. For instance, why would God permit fallen humanity to believe many biblical truths but not the 'salvific' ones, as may be the case for the religious sects you mentioned?

 

[Skandelon]

My friend. Why does the Calvinistic interpretation of scripture bother you so? Is it perhaps you don't really understand calvinism?

I see that you ignored my response to your similar accusation above and continue to persist without support for your argument.

My friend, why does the non-Calvinistic interpretation of scripture bother you so? Is it perhaps you don't really understand it?

That is not mainstream Calvinistic teaching.

Maybe you missed my response to this above? Please read it and then come back. Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

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

Christos, I have taken the liberty to repost my response here so you won't miss it...

 

[Christos doulos]

I see that you ignored my response to your similar accusation above and continue to persist without support for your argument.

My friend, why does the non-Calvinistic interpretation of scripture bother you so? Is it perhaps you don't really understand it?


Maybe you missed my response to this above? Please read it and then come back. Thanks

I apologize as I didn't see your response. To answer your question. I grew up in the pentecostal faith as far removed from Calvinism as one could be, so I don't have a problem with a non-calvinistic approach as long as it isn't heretical or abhorrent. i.e. arminian view-one can earn their own salvation :BangHead:

I read your beginning statement in the link you gave me and I somewhat agree with your approach. I only ask is if your quarrel is with hyper-Calvinist, then please address your threads more specific.

 

[Christos doulos]

Christos, I have taken the liberty to repost my response here so you won't miss it...

LOL......Please call me doulos or CD. I am not Christ :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I apologize as I didn't see your response. To answer your question. I grew up in the pentecostal faith as far removed from Calvinism as one could be, so I don't have a problem with a non-calvinistic approach as long as it isn't heretical or abhorrent. i.e. arminian-one can earn their own salvation

I read your beginning statement in the link you gave me and I somewhat agree with your approach. I only ask is if your quarrel is with hyper-Calvinist, then please address your threads more specific.

Well, if you read through that thread I linked to in my reply you will notice that many here would vehemently deny that is a "hyperist" view. When I said "doesn't REALLY love or desire their salvation," I'm referring to salvific love and sovereignly will. As I acknowledged before, I know mainstream Cals teach that God has a 'common love' for all mankind and an expressed pleasure in seeing all come to repentance, but on the other hand they "REALLY" affirm that God doesn't savingly love the reprobate or sovereignly desire for their salvation, obviously. That is all I was alluding to in my comment. The fact that some find the need for such qualifications proves the justification of its distain.

 

[Skandelon]

i.e. arminian view-one can earn their own salvation :BangHead:

I meant to reply to this point...

Arminians DO NOT believe "one can earn their own salvation." That is a misrepresentation.

 

[Christos doulos]

That is all I was alluding to in my comment. The fact that some find the need for such qualifications proves the justification of its distain.

I can understand why that bothers you. That is difficult teaching, but you have a problem. If God savingly loves all then why aren't all saved?

Somehow man's will is more powerful than God's love? or that God leaves those who have hard hearts which lends credence that salvation is dependent on wills?

For me that is hard teaching my friend.

I am not saying that the Calvinistic approach to scripture answers all the questions, because it doesn't. But imo it is the best approach in understanding scripture we have.

 

[Skandelon]

I can understand why that bothers you. That is difficult teaching, but you have a problem. If God savingly loves all then why aren't all saved?

Because God's plan to 'make the rocks cry out' is not his primary desire. Of course God has the ability to MAKE worshippers, whether from rocks or flesh. But scripture seems to indicate that God is 'seeking' those who believe and worship him, not that He is deterministically causing them to worship him as he would the rocks if no person chooses to do so. God's apparent will is for men to 'humble themselves' so as to be exalted.

Somehow man's will is more powerful than God's love?

This question presumes God's will is not to give man a free will and thus His love MUST somehow supersede His will to create free moral creatures. In other words, you are assuming that the Calvinistic way (to irresistibly save that which you love) is the only option to express love, which is the fallacy of question begging.

 

[Christos doulos]

But scripture seems to indicate that God is 'seeking' those who believe and worship him, not that He is deterministically causing them to worship him as he would the rocks if no person chooses to do so. God's apparent will is for men to 'humble themselves' so as to be exalted.

My friend. What makes you so special from an unbeliever who is more moral than you, gives more than you, more kind and loving than you? What is it about you that is able to believe and yet the other person can't?

This question presumes God's will is not to give man a free will and thus His love MUST somehow supersede His will to create free moral creatures. In other words, you are assuming that the Calvinistic way (to irresistibly save that which you love) is the only option to express love, which is the fallacy of question begging.

My friend. I was not begging the question as I wasn't referring to "irresistible grace" I was referring to scriptural interpretation.

Let's look at it this way. If as you claim that man has free will, then he or she can freely choose the righteousness of God, but man is spiritually dead and cannot choose the things of God, so how is man free if he can't even choose God independent of God changing him?

My friend. I see where you are coming from and I agree that there are passages that support your point of view, but there are also mine. It's a paradox and to dismiss calvinism altogether would not be a good thing at all.

 

[convicted1]

I meant to reply to this point...

Arminians DO NOT believe "one can earn their own salvation." That is a misrepresentation.

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

 

[convicted1]

My friend. What makes you so special from an unbeliever who is more moral than you, gives more than you, more kind and loving than you? What is it about you that is able to believe and yet the other person can't?



My friend. I was not begging the question as I wasn't referring to "irresistible grace" I was referring to scriptural interpretation.

Let's look at it this way. If as you claim that man has free will, then he or she can freely choose the righteousness of God, but man is spiritually dead and cannot choose the things of God, so how is man free if he can't even choose God independent of God changing him?

My friend. I see where you are coming from and I agree that there are passages that support your point of view, but there are also mine. It's a paradox and to dismiss calvinism altogether would not be a good thing at all.

What makes me special? Christ died for me. He died so that I could live. He wore a crown of thorns so that I could wear a crown of righteousness. He wore a scarlet robe so that I could wear a long white robe, the wedding garment, if you will, and be clothed in His righteousness.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to chime in.

 

[Skandelon]

My friend. What makes you so special from an unbeliever who is more moral than you, gives more than you, more kind and loving than you? What is it about you that is able to believe and yet the other person can't?

This is a popular approach for Calvinists, but they fail to see that they are actually committing the fallacy of question begging. Allow me to explain. In essence you are asking me to define what determines my freedom, which presumes determinism.

As I've said time and time again, "What you need to realize is that the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explaination is required. Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way: "the choice between available options "is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94)."

Further, I might turn the tables on you by asking you to speculate as to why some believers affirm the 'truth' of Calvinism, while others reject it? Are you better, smarter or in any way more worthy to receive these truths? See my point?

My friend. I was not begging the question as I wasn't referring to "irresistible grace" I was referring to scriptural interpretation.

Right, the scriptures that you interpret to teach 'irresistible grace,' same thing...

Let's look at it this way. If as you claim that man has free will, then he or she can freely choose the righteousness of God, but man is spiritually dead and cannot choose the things of God

Paul also refers to believers as being dead to sin, does that mean they too can't respond to the temptations of the evil one? Calvinists make the error of taking Paul's analogy of spiritual death too far, after all if man was truly a 'corpse' in this regard then he wouldn't be able to adamantly rebel against the gospel either, would he? How many corpses do you see say, "I don't want that!"

Point being that the analogy of death is to indicate natural separation and enmity with God, not total inability in the face of God's gracious and powerful provisions for reconciliation.

I affirm that men are born enslaved, which is why God sent a truth that can set them free.

I affirm that men are born enemies, which is why God sent an appeal to be reconciled.

I affirm that men are born dead, which is why God sent a life-giving gospel wrought by the Spirit of God Himself.

To deny that Gospel's sufficiency to save is unfounded biblically and it gives unbeliever the perfect excuse for not believing it. What better excuse is there than, "God didn't grant me the faith to believe that message?" I believe all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

so how is man free if he can't even choose God independent of God changing him?

God uses MEANS to change men. He used a blinding light to change Paul's mind and a big fish to change Jonah's mind. Why assume that he would use some secret inward working to change pre-selected members who listen to their message?

Of course God could snap his fingers and make Paul or Jonah believe and preach where he wants them to go, but that is not the MEANS God uses. He uses outward means (blinding light, big fish, The Gospel). These means, though resistible, are non-the-less powerful in accomplishing their purpose. Those who resist them by 'trading the truth in for a lie' do so to their own peril are are completely without excuse. They don't reject God because God first rejected them....they reject God despite his love, provision and appeal for them to turn and be saved.

 

[MB]

My friend. What makes you so special from an unbeliever who is more moral than you, gives more than you, more kind and loving than you? What is it about you that is able to believe and yet the other person can't?

Who says he can't? You do right. The Bible certainly doesn't

My friend. I was not begging the question as I wasn't referring to "irresistible grace" I was referring to scriptural interpretation.

Let's look at it this way. If as you claim that man has free will, then he or she can freely choose the righteousness of God, but man is spiritually dead and cannot choose the things of God, so how is man free if he can't even choose God independent of God changing him?

God has already chosen to be the propitation for the whole world. Do you deny this?
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

How could it be a particular few and still be the whole world He died for?
You're not going to be one of those Calvinist who attempts to redefine scripture to fit your doctrine are you? If you deny this it's exactly what you'll have to do.

My friend. I see where you are coming from and I agree that there are passages that support your point of view, but there are also mine. It's a paradox and to dismiss calvinism altogether would not be a good thing at all.

I have yet to read even one scripture that supports the doctrine of Calvinism. You really need to prouduce them so I can refute your claims about them.
MB

 

[Christos doulos]

What makes me special? Christ died for me. He died so that I could live. He wore a crown of thorns so that I could wear a crown of righteousness. He wore a scarlet robe so that I could wear a long white robe, the wedding garment, if you will, and be clothed in His righteousness.

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I wanted to chime in.

No my friend. What makes you so special that you could believe, but someone who is more moral than you, someone more sensitive than you you can't believe.

How can you believe but they can't?