Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

Each point builds on the other. If men are totally depraved (nothing in man that merits salvation) then they are saved independent of themselves. God choses them apart from their fallen nature / corruptable will. If this is true then God's grace will prevail over man's stubborn will. It is to save these people, those who are given by God to Christ that Jesus died. Jesus did not die to save those who will not believe. If salvation is a work of God then it will be accomplished, regardless of human will.

What point do you believe can be changed to an opposing view without altering the consistency in the Calvinistic argument?

 

I believe that the heart of man is wicked, that not one of us will seek after righteousness, which means that no one can come to the Son except the Father draw him. So Jesus died, then, to save those the Father draws (to save those who believe). Those God draws will come (God’s purposes will be accomplished), and those who believe will have everlasting life.

 

No, not at all.

Like you I believe that I am right in what I believe. If thought I was wrong and you right, then I'd change my belief and we'd agree.

The case in the long, drawn out discussion of Penal Substitution is a good example. I respect men (like Piper, Wright, Sproul, Beeke, etc) who, although differing in interpretation, are biblical in their approach. But these men acknowledge what is of Scripture and what is not (they seem to be able to identify what is their understanding and what is the actual biblical text). This is different from claiming that at every turn God chose to imply, rather than have written down, such a vital doctrine.

That said, I do not have much patience with dishonesty, and that is what we often see in these types of discussions. One side pulls out quotes and misapplies them to suit their agenda. We saw this in the Penal Substitution thread and we see it in accusations against Calvinists.

So when I say "biblical illiteracy" I mean things like saying "forsake" in Psalm 52 has the exact meaning of God abandoned Jesus not to the Cross but while He was on it. I mean reading "dying he died" to mean, because of the grammar, that Adam died twice - an immediate spiritual death followed by a physical death. We have to be able to distinguish between our interpretation and what is really written, while holding our interpretation as true.

 

It means that Total Depravity necessitates Unconditional Election.

If Total Depravity necessitates Unconditional Election (and within Calvinism it does) then to reject one but hold the other is inconsistent to Calvinism.

Perhaps. I've seen the tide change a few times, but the "young, restless, and Reformed" can be a pretty nasty bunch. I think it's because many have been exposed to shallow doctrine for a long time before becoming Calvinists.

 

No. In my view it doesn't differ at all. My view is Monergism, but my disagreement with Penal Substitution is enough that I would not consider myself a Calvinist. The way we would look at the Cross is different enough, I believe, to warrant the distinction regardless of our ultimate conclusions.

 

Monergism - the theological doctrine that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit Definition of MONERGISM

the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. the definition of monergism

noun, the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit alone is responsible for the spiritual regeneration of human beings Monergism definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Collins English Dictionary cites it's first use in 1889 (whereas it traces the word "synergism" to 1819).

synergism - the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

 

I view "Monergist" as the belief that salvation is entirely the work of God, independent of man's will. A Calvinist is, of course, a Monergist. But I do make a distinction. The primary reason is the "I" in TULIP. While I believe that Christ died for all men, but to save only those who believe, I think that most Calvinists would disagree with me in how we view the Cross and individual atonement (I do not believe God punished Christ as the substitute for those who will believe, but rather that Christ became the representative of mankind). So yes, definitions are very important to prevent people from talking past each other.