confused about Calvin

[bjonson]

sigh...

This conversation is getting so careless...

watchman, it's amazing that Jesus said believing is the work of God and yet you summarily dismiss it.

me4him, Check your Matthew reference because Jesus said He wanted to gather "your children" under His wing but the religious leaders prevented it. Big difference.

As for Calvinist's leading people astray, I am simply dumbfounded that anyone could accuse Whitefield, MacArthur, Spurgeon, etc. of that. I mean, where do I even begin??

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Scott J:

Originally posted by Me4Him:
[qb]

We don't say that men are puppets and do not exercise their will to make choices... that is how non-calvinists choose to mischaracterize our view since they cannot actually address our points as they stand.

We do you keep blaming "THEY", according to Calvin, "GOD" is orchastrating the event, isn't he??

No. They rejected

They did reject it... according to their own sinful nature.

Was God offering them something "THEY",... "COULDN'T RECEIVE", is "God" really that "dumb"???

Would God make the offer if his intent wasn't to give, and why wasn't it "received"???

NO... it is a near total mischaracterization of what calvinists believe.

The issue is clear, we either have "Free will" to accept/reject God's offer, or we don't, not much you can trip over there.

Once you get passed the "Mental block" prevalant with Calvinist, to "SEE" that people's lives (Sin Nature) aren't changed by their "WILL".

Ro 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.


And they "refuse to hear" by "CHOICE",

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

you'll discover why they wasn't "his Sheep", but could have been, Jesus was only send to "THEM".

We don't say that men are puppets and do not exercise their will to make choices... that is how non-calvinists choose to mischaracterize our view since they cannot actually address our points as they stand.

I don't think you'll post anything different than what has been posted, but give it try.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by bjonson:
sigh...

This conversation is getting so careless...

watchman, it's amazing that Jesus said believing is the work of God and yet you summarily dismiss it.

Jesus calls, if we ""WILL"...BELIEVE" or not is a "CHOICE" we make, not God, "AFTER" we believe, God saves, not before.

"BY FAITH", who's faith, mine or God's, am I saved???

me4him, Check your Matthew reference because Jesus said He wanted to gather "your children" under His wing but the religious leaders prevented it. Big difference.

They didn't keep all the people from believing, can anyone keep you from "believing"???

As for Calvinist's leading people astray, I am simply dumbfounded that anyone could accuse Whitefield, MacArthur, Spurgeon, etc. of that. I mean, where do I even begin??

All those "MEN" can "LIE", but it's "impossible" for God, where is your faith, in men or God??

 

[bjonson]

me4him,

 

[Linda64]

Rejecting those who are already damned because of their own sin is not hte same as damning them, since they are alerady cursed as a result of their sin.

All are sinners (Rom. 3:23)
All without Christ are under God's wrath. (John 3:36).
We are all damned to hell without Christ. People choose to go to hell by rejecting Christ (Rom. 6:23)

There is NO place in Scripture that says that God damns anybody to hell--hell was not created for man, but for the devil and his angels (Matt.25:41)

No Jesus, know hell.

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by bjonson:
sigh...

This conversation is getting so careless...

watchman, it's amazing that Jesus said believing is the work of God and yet you summarily dismiss it.

me4him, Check your Matthew reference because Jesus said He wanted to gather "your children" under His wing but the religious leaders prevented it. Big difference.

As for Calvinist's leading people astray, I am simply dumbfounded that anyone could accuse Whitefield, MacArthur, Spurgeon, etc. of that. I mean, where do I even begin??

Okay, let's look at the whole passage:

Then they said unto him, What must we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom He hath sent (John 6:28-29)

Jesus was answering a person that, obviously, felt that one has to earn favor with God. It was the person asking the question that brought up works, not the Lord Jesus.
Let me use another passage to make my point. You know that someone called Jesus "Good teacher," and Jesus replied "Why callest thou me good, there is none good but God." If we apply your reasoning there, we would conclude (as cults love to do), that Jesus was saying that He was neither good nor God. Of course, we know that He was (and is) both.

"watchman, it's amazing that Jesus said believing is the work of God and yet you summarily dismiss it."
The cultist would say, using the above illustration:

"Christian, it's amazing that Jesus said He was not God, yet you summarily dismiss it."

 

[EdSutton]

bjonson, I'm back. It does seem that maybe you are the only one that actually read what I wrote. Thanks for taking the time. Either that, or the others were too dumbfounded that this dumb old farm boy would make such an idiotic statement. So just for the fun of it, I am going to repeat it. I challenge you folks, think about it! It is totally sincere, and I will return to it. As the teacher said, "There will be a test!"
Here it is again:
"Think about this, all! Calvinism in the final analysis is no different from Arminianism, and vice versa. When the smoke dies down, after I am, I am sure, thoroughly castigated, I will get back and explain why. So far, I have run into exactly four other people who see this. In His grace, Ed"

I am not sure why the long litany of names supposedly with one person or another keeps arising. After all:

"Calvinism is just another name for Christianity." (Charles Haddon Spurgeon)

Gotta' be true, 'cause Spurgeon said it. Although I gotta' admit, I do wonder, at times, if the Lord Jesus Christ might beg to differ? Ed

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Watchman:
"watchman, it's amazing that Jesus said believing is the work of God and yet you summarily dismiss it."

Where does it say that believing is the work of man?

 

[bjonson]

"Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”" (John 6:28-29, ESV)

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by bjonson:
me4him,

YES???

I'm at a lost to explain why "calvinist" find it so hard to believe that the "Redemption" effort of God is not as "total" as the fall. (All men)

Scripture teaches that neither Jesus/Law came to "Condemn" the world, but to "Save".

The "Law" came to show us what was sin, and "convince" us that we sin, Jesus came to pay the requirements of the law (death) for sin, and to as many as will believe, even the "whole world".

Yet, some deny this offer of salvation is made to the whole world, and that the "condemned" are by the "ELECTION" of God rather than "THEIR....UNBELIEF".

However "unbelief" can't be eliminated from the plan of salvation unless "Belief" is also eliminated, and with them will go the "LAW" of "justification" and "condemnation".

This of course means that "NNE" is subject (under) to the law, or will be Judged by the law, but are under/judged by "ELECTION".

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:

but he that believeth not is condemned already,

BECAUSE

he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If man's final destination is determined by "God's Election", rather than God's Judgment according to the "LAW" and man's "Belief/Unbelief", the plan of salvation as decribed in the Bible is "totally wrong".

Many "ARE CALLED", and "their Unbelief" is the only thing keeping them from being "CHOSEN".

 

[HankD]

There is the fact of God's sovereignty in the salvation of the human race.
There is the fact of the human responsibilty of faith in the salvation of the human race.

How to put them together is the problem.

Personally I can't pitch a tent in either camp, Calvin or Arminius.

IMO there is something missing which is either not revealed or we can't presently comprehend about our Father's plan of salvation of the human race.

One thing we can know for certain is that His plan is perfect in every detail and His Holy character is beyond reproach.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

HankD

 

[EdSutton]

Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps Calvin was not a 'Calvinist', nor 'Arminius' an 'Arminian'?
Ed

 

[Bro. James]

Putting them together is the problem?

Some would say TRYING to put them together is the problem. The sovereignty of God and the depravity of man are diametrically opposed. There is no God did His part, now man must do his part.

Salvation is of the Lord. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any one should boast. We are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

Man has not faith of himself--God gives the faith. Man is infinitely depraved. God is infinitely holy.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

Originally posted by Me4Him:
[qb]

We don't say that men are puppets and do not exercise their will to make choices... that is how non-calvinists choose to mischaracterize our view since they cannot actually address our points as they stand.

We do you keep blaming "THEY", according to Calvin, "GOD" is orchastrating the event, isn't he??</font>

First, "according to Calvin", doesn't limit the biblical truth of the Doctrines of Grace.

Second, calvinism is a misnomer in the sense that his personal beliefs and explanations on every single point aren't shared by everyone who ascribes to the general conclusions of TULIP. Calvinism predates Calvin by about 1400 years.

Finally, "orchestrating the event" implies that God binds rather than frees a person when He sovereignly chooses to free them from the bondage of sin. You elevate man's will to the point of making it supreme and any choice made effecting the man a violation of that supremacy.

I doubt that Lazarus was offended that Christ imposed His will on him by resurrecting him. I doubt many prisoners would be insulted that a governor acting at his own pleasure surprised him by commuting his sentence.

Are you offended that God ordained your physical life and your parents conceived you without giving you a choice?

Sorry, but this whole notion that a sovereign act of God on our behalf and for our good is somehow an egregious violation of our right to choose for ourselves is bankrupt.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No. They rejected

They did reject it... according to their own sinful nature.

Was God offering them something "THEY",... "COULDN'T RECEIVE", is "God" really that "dumb"??? </font>[/QUOTE]No... He's that gracious realizing that if He just made an offer, no human being would choose Him while dead in sin.

Would God make the offer if his intent wasn't to give, and why wasn't it "received"???

Because man is not good... and God's justice is demonstrated by man's willful rejection.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />NO... it is a near total mischaracterization of what calvinists believe.

The issue is clear, we either have "Free will" to accept/reject God's offer, or we don't, not much you can trip over there.</font>[/QUOTE] No. The issue is clear but that isn't it.

The issue is do we have goodness within ourselves and of ourselves to willfully grasp salvation without God's purposeful, effective intervention. By definition, grace is unmerited favor. If the reason we are saved is that we made a good choice while others made a bad choice... then we are saved by the merit of a good choice that you demand must have been independent of God's special choosing of us.

Once you get passed the "Mental block" prevalant with Calvinist, to "SEE" that people's lives (Sin Nature) aren't changed by their "WILL".

Correct. They aren't. And until that nature is changed, they will not accept Christ.

Ro 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Not quite sure what you are trying to prove here since this deals with the internal battle a believer experiences with sin. You have plucked this from a context that shows that the "will" present within Paul was from God... not himself.

And they "refuse to hear" by "CHOICE",

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

The context isn't specifically salvation... none the less, it is not in the nature of false professors of Christ to hear... exactly what I pointed to before.

you'll discover why they wasn't "his Sheep", but could have been, Jesus was only send to "THEM".

All you have to do is read the text and accept what it says. Jesus specifically told the non-believers in John 10:26 that they "believe not, because ye are not of my sheep"... and specifically NOT that they were not His sheep since they didn't believe.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We don't say that men are puppets and do not exercise their will to make choices... that is how non-calvinists choose to mischaracterize our view since they cannot actually address our points as they stand.

I don't think you'll post anything different than what has been posted, but give it try.

</font>[/QUOTE]You might try responding to what we say rather than what you would like for us to have said.

 

[Me4Him]

I think the focus is too much on "this world", rather than the "world to come".

God created and gave man the "free will" to dominate "this world", and man fouled it up, so "this world" is only a "separating place" between those who by their "Free will" "CHOSE" to live in accordance "With God" and those who won't.

The "TRUE", "WILL OF GOD" was expressed in the "Original Creation" of a perfect world and God/Man "walking/living, in harmony" with each other, and that is the "Future".

All the sin/evil of this world "Certainly isn't", "God's will", regardless of what Calvin or anyone else thinks.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:

God created and gave man the "free will" to dominate "this world", and man fouled it up, so "this world" is only a "separating place" between those who by their "Free will" "CHOSE" to live in accordance "With God" and those who won't.

Basically... separation of the good/wise from the wicked/foolish... based on their "good" "free will" and good deeds.

You are free to believe that if you like but it isn't biblical.

Was that a freudian slip to capitalize "Free will"?

The "TRUE", "WILL OF GOD" was expressed in the "Original Creation" of a perfect world and God/Man "walking/living, in harmony" with each other, and that is the "Future".

So you are arguing that man can thwart the will of God?

The "True will of God" is that He be glorified... the very existence of man has its purpose in that one truth.

All the sin/evil of this world "Certainly isn't", "God's will", regardless of what Calvin or anyone else thinks.

I believe that God has a permissive will and a perfect will.

Unless you ascribe to a God that is not omnipotent then sin certainly occurs in accord with his permissive will. Since it is vital to His redemptive plan... it is virtually impossible to say that its existence in not in accord with His perfect will. Not the act of sin. Not the guilt of sin... but rather the existence of it.

IOW's God created the possibility of sin when He gave Adam His one commandment. God did so knowing that Adam would violate that command and that Christ would come as Redeemer.

 

[Me4Him]

You elevate man's will to the point of making it supreme and any choice made effecting the man a violation of that supremacy.

Man's "Will" is "supreme", where salvation is concerned, unbelief will "PREVENT" God from saving that person, and it's the only reason preventing "ALL MEN" from being saved.

Paul made it clear, he had the "will" but not the means to be righteous, it's the "combination" of Man's will (belief) and God's Grace that saves.

You have plucked this from a context that shows that the "will" present within Paul was from God... not himself.

If the "WILL" had been God's, why did Paul say he had one, but not the other, does God will exist without the "Enable"??

No... He's that gracious realizing that if He just made an offer, no human being would choose Him while dead in sin.

Because man is not good... and God's justice is demonstrated by man's willful rejection.

Offering a gift to someone who doesn't possess the means to receive it, is an "excercise in futility", why offer if they're not able to receive it??

The issue is do we have goodness within ourselves and of ourselves to willfully grasp salvation without God's purposeful, effective intervention. By definition, grace is unmerited favor. If the reason we are saved is that we made a good choice while others made a bad choice... then we are saved by the merit of a good choice that you demand must have been independent of God's special choosing of us.

You deny then that "Salvation" is a "GIFT" of God only given to those who "WILL" believe/receive it by, "FAITH", and that the "offer" is made to "ALL MEN".

Do I need to say, you've just denied the whole Bible???

 

[Me4Him]

So you are arguing that man can thwart the will of God?

I suppose it was "God's will" that Adam/Eve obey Satan rather than God, and 3/4 of his creation ends up burning in hell with Satan, is that what you call "God's will"??

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You elevate man's will to the point of making it supreme and any choice made effecting the man a violation of that supremacy.

Man's "Will" is "supreme", where salvation is concerned,</font>[/QUOTE] Cite scripture please.

unbelief will "PREVENT" God from saving that person, and it's the only reason preventing "ALL MEN" from being saved.

Sin condemns men. Unbelief is listed as "a" sin. Please cite scripture that says God's will is thwarted by the choice of men not to believe.

Paul made it clear, he had the "will" but not the means to be righteous, it's the "combination" of Man's will (belief) and God's Grace that saves.

If you are referring back to Romans 7 again the source of that "will" is relevant. Verse 25 ascribes it to Jesus... not Paul.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You have plucked this from a context that shows that the "will" present within Paul was from God... not himself.

If the "WILL" had been God's, why did Paul say he had one, but not the other, does God will exist without the "Enable"??</font>[/QUOTE] The short answer is that he didn't say that. He said the will was present with him to do good.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No... He's that gracious realizing that if He just made an offer, no human being would choose Him while dead in sin.

Because man is not good... and God's justice is demonstrated by man's willful rejection.

Offering a gift to someone who doesn't possess the means to receive it, is an "excercise in futility", why offer if they're not able to receive it??</font>[/QUOTE] Why did Christ resurrect Lazarus seeing he was unable to ask for it? How about the maiden? The demoniac specifically opposed healing.

BTW, who claimed that a dead man could accept anything? It wasn't me. A dead man must be made alive before he can accept a gift.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The issue is do we have goodness within ourselves and of ourselves to willfully grasp salvation without God's purposeful, effective intervention. By definition, grace is unmerited favor. If the reason we are saved is that we made a good choice while others made a bad choice... then we are saved by the merit of a good choice that you demand must have been independent of God's special choosing of us.

You deny then that "Salvation" is a "GIFT" of God only given to those who "WILL" believe/receive it by, "FAITH",</font>[/QUOTE]No. I assert that only the elect having been regenerated... resurrected from their state of spiritual deadness will believe/receive or possess saving faith.

and that the "offer" is made to "ALL MEN".

The gospel isn't offered to all men.

If the offer is made to all men then God is judging unfairly when he condemns a sinner who lived and died without ever hearing how to be saved.

This is one of the typical problems you folks have. It isn't "unfair" that God only extends salvation to some... since absolutely NONE deserve it in the first place. The non-elect are no more deserving of salvation or even the chance for it after someone else was saved than they were before.

You can't escape this problem biblically whether you believe man's will or God's will is the critical component of individual salvation since, practically, not everyone hears the gospel or hears it with the same clarity.

Do I need to say, you've just denied the whole Bible???

No. I have denied your unbiblical interpretation of things. The "meat" of your response does not come from the Bible.

The Bible does not exalt the will of man nor his glory. You make salvation ultimately dependent on man's choice for its effectiveness thus rendering ultimate glory to the man for his "goodness" in choosing wisely.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So you are arguing that man can thwart the will of God?

I suppose it was "God's will" that Adam/Eve obey Satan rather than God, and 3/4 of his creation ends up burning in hell with Satan, is that what you call "God's will"?? </font>[/QUOTE]Did God know it would happen? Could God stop it if He wished?

Yes. These things happen according to the permissive will of God or they cannot happen at all.

Now, I have answered your question, answer mine and stop evading. You probably know that the only answer consistent with your argument is contrary to the God of the Bible... which is why you rather use misdirection than give a straight answer.