Dominion vs determinism 2

[Psalty]

Because Calvinists have to add into what paul wrote “that God made you believe”. You dont actually believe it at face value.

 

[DaveXR650]

Bonar's comment leaves a few questions, how can inability be willful? If one is unable to do something the will/ability to do otherwise is not an option.

Even when he said "You disobey and disbelieve willingly." That requires the ability to choose not inability.

Another comment "No one forces you to do either." flies in the face of calvinist divine determinism.

Calvinist determinism and free will, the ability to choose otherwise, are not compatible.

Whether you hold to divine determinism or the DoG/TULIP we see that man does not have the ability to choose otherwise.

Honestly, you have to figure this out or we can have no meaningful discussion because we can't agree on the basic terms. Bonar was considered by some to be a little too much "free grace", but I can get a similar quote from John Owen. You have got to stop arguing against a straw man you have made up. At least with me. I don't believe the way you describe Calvinism any more than you do. But you're going too far with your concept of free will.

 

[Ben1445]

That is simply Calvinism. What you and others think is Calvinism is actually hyper-Calvinism. Read Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray (Banner of Truth).

I will look for it.
But the fact is that if Christ died for all, all may be saved. The elect is then defined by those in Christ instead of those who have been determined to eventually be in Christ.

Hyper or not, this problem exists.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Because Calvinists have to add into what paul wrote “that God made you believe”. You dont actually believe it at face value.

I assume that this little gem is in response to what I wrote.
Who the xxxx are you to tell me what I believe?

 

[Ben1445]

It's funny you mention Spurgeon. Everybody claims him. When I was younger I was a genuine fundamentalist. I even had my own subscription to Sword of the Lord. And my first introduction to Spurgeon was when I asked my pastor who the bearded guy was on the cover of one of the issues. He said "that's Spurgeon, and he's OK". A Calvinist on the cover of Sword of the Lord. That's crossover appeal!

I’m aware of how Calvinist he was. He and I disagree on some things. But we agree that the blood of Christ is able to cover every sinner. (Not that it will, but that the power of God is not limited by sin)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I will look for it.
But the fact is that if Christ died for all, all may be saved. The elect is then defined by those in Christ instead of those who have been determined to eventually be in Christ.

Hyper or not, this problem exists.

Romans 9:13. 'For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' Calvinists have the same Bible as you do, and they believe it all.

 

[Psalty]

This is what we have to get straight or we will continue to talk past each other. (Everyone. I don't mean in any way to pick on you personally as your point is well taken.) I might be wrong and if I am show me where, but in Calvinist theology no one ever is claiming that we are unable to do what we most want to do. That's free will.

Calvinists believe that God has decreed that human will is unable to respond in any positive way to the gospel, and that God has shut all human hearts to desiring the gospel.

This means that the idea of having a will that will never choose God is somehow all just because of their desire not desiring the Godly thing… is completely the opposite of choice. You have to take it one step further back. And as soon as you see that Calvinists believe that God is choosing that humans cant believe or be saved, will is no longer involved. Correct me if I got that wrong, but this is very established doctrine from calvinists.

And you are totally correct in you assessment of our wills as being changeable, malleable, and fickle. All I am saying is that even when confronted with multiple factors, along with various temptations, along with circumstances and opportunities and so on, the choice you make at that time, because it is the choice you finally decided upon - is the choice you had to make in order for it to be the result of your true free will. When you guys raise the objection that you could have done something different, that is not the issue. All that does is point out that you are actually guilty of what you did choose - if it really was your free choice. Had you done something different, well good, but the only thing that could have caused that would have been that you willed something different. I know it sounds weird, but just think about it for a minute and you will realize that without understanding this we will argue indefinitely over something that in principle we probably actually agree on.

It sound like a definitional argument to me. “If something happens, then it was determined and you could not have done otherwise.”
Would that be an accurate assessment of your argument before I go on to answer it? I want to make sure Im fully understanding you.

 

[Silverhair]

2nd [Particular] Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 IX:1. God hath endued the Will of Man with that natural liberty, and power of acting upon choice; that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
[Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19] The Westminster and Savoy Confessions are similar.

Then way do you hold to divine determinism and DoG/TULIP?

Both of which rule out free will.

 

[Psalty]

Romans 9:13. 'For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' Calvinists have the same Bible as you do, and they believe it all.

The Calvinist translation:
Romans 9:13. 'For whoever ((God has effectually made to believe and)) calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Its not the same thing by a longshot.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Then way do you hold to divine determinism and DoG/TULIP?

Both of which rule out free will.

They do not rule out free will. Just read the extract from the 1689 Confession.
The fact that you have to face is that God is a whole lot smarter than you are. '"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."'

 

[Ben1445]

Romans 9:13. 'For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' Calvinists have the same Bible as you do, and they believe it all.

How do you tell the difference between the hyper and not?
Many times I have been told that the non elect cannot call because they were not elected.
And there is the rub.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Calvinist translation:
Romans 9:13. 'For whoever ((God has effectually made to believe and)) calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Its not the same thing by a longshot.

You won't have a serious conversation about these things. I'm wasting my time. Cheerio.

 

[DaveXR650]

“If something happens, then it was determined and you could not have done otherwise.”
Would that be an accurate assessment of your argument before I go on to answer it? I want to make sure Im fully understanding you.

I have to go for now so I can only answer quickly but let me just say this. If something happens and it was what you truly wanted to do according to your own free will, then yes, it had to happen that way. The reason being, you did act freely and according to your own will which by definition was what you most wanted to do. Therefore, given your own free will, at that particular time, you could have done no other thing - and had that be your own choice.

 

[SovereignGrace]

How do you tell the difference between the hyper and not?
Many times I have been told that the non elect cannot call because they were not elected.
And there is the rub.

Hyper-Calvinists believe that God will save ppl who’ve never heard the word of God. That is not biblical, as faith comes by hearing (or reading as well, imo) the word of God.

 

[Psalty]

You won't have a serious conversation about these things. I'm wasting my time. Cheerio.

Never address the root, just keep assuming it so people can never pin down the fact that calvinism contradicts itself so much. Just how all your other threads end. Just like all calvinists.

I will continue with Dave, farewell.

 

[Psalty]

I have to go for now so I can only answer quickly but let me just say this. If something happens and it was what you truly wanted to do according to your own free will,

How would you know if it was what you truly wanted to do? This is where I am trying to figure out if this view just defaults back in to “if it happens, it was destined”.

then yes, it had to happen that way. The reason being, you did act freely and according to your own will which by definition was what you most wanted to do. Therefore, given your own free will, at that particular time, you could have done no other thing - and had that be your own choice.

I know many atheistic/agnostic determinists simply believe that all circumstances, chemical reactions, past experience, future perceived needs are all ingredients in what results in “choice” and nothing could have been otherwise. They usually reject a will/mind driven top-down view of choice making. Would you say that your view is similar, in that all of these things affect your will and you could not do otherwise?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How do you tell the difference between the hyper and not?
Many times I have been told that the non elect cannot call because they were not elected.
And there is the rub.

At last a sensible question! Thank you! 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' That's in the Bible and therefore non-negotiable.
But men and women will not call on the name of the Lord. John 3:19. 'And this is the condemnation; that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.' Romans 3:11. 'There is none who seeks after God.' 1 Cor. 2:14. 'But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.....' Jer. 13:23. 'Can the Ethiopean change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to doing evil.'
The non-elect cannot call upon the Lord, not because He prevents them, but because they have wicked, unbelieving hearts. Therefore God, in His great mercy, has chosen a great crowd of men and women, from every nation, tribe, people and tongue, for salvation, and has opened their hearts to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Titus 3:3-7. For we ourselves [Paul and Titus] were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts amd pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' [see also Ephesians 2:1-10]

Through God's mercy and the new birth, men and women who, of their own free will, rejected God, now, of their own free will, renewed by the Holy Spirit, trust in Him and receive salvation.

Very quickly, hyper-Clavinists believe that the Gospel should not be preached to all, but only to "sensible sinners." Well, if they were sensible they wouldn't be sinners! Calvinists, including Calvin himself and A.W. Pink, believe that the Gospel should be preached freely to all, and sinners tols that if they will repent and trust in Christ, they will be saved.

 

[Silverhair]

Honestly, you have to figure this out or we can have no meaningful discussion because we can't agree on the basic terms. Bonar was considered by some to be a little too much "free grace", but I can get a similar quote from John Owen. You have got to stop arguing against a straw man you have made up. At least with me. I don't believe the way you describe Calvinism any more than you do. But you're going too far with your concept of free will.

Dave my understanding of free will, the ability to choose otherwise, is biblical. That is why we can and are held responsible for the choices we make. How do you not see this?

I have never even suggested that man just picks some idea out of the air but have said many times that God uses various means to draw us to Himself. The drawing gives the person the information but the person has to choose what they will do with that information.

It seems to me that you are still to much of God has to change you before you can believe? But then the question is why does He not change everyone since He wants all to come to repentance.

You say I am going to far with my understanding of mans ability to choose, how so?

 

[Silverhair]

You won't have a serious conversation about these things. I'm wasting my time. Cheerio.

You say @Psalty will not have a serious conversation re Rom 9:13 but is this "God has effectually made to believe and" not what calvinists say.

What does your DoG/TULIP tell us?

 

[Psalty]

The non-elect cannot call upon the Lord, not because He prevents them, but because they have wicked, unbelieving hearts.

And why do they have wicked hearts, Martin?
Because on calvinism He decreed them to that fate.

You calvinists can be so dishonest.