Fatalism, Irresistible Grace and Misunderstanding

I'd say your responses, here, say far more than enough.

How about "My way, or the highway!"?

Or, in the alternative, "I get to make all the rules!"

Same difference!

Ed

 

All the father gives to Jesus

All the Father gives to Jesus which is believes in Him will come it is believers, because God say's believers will have eternal life.

They will come, but the scripture tells us we must go out, because they cannot come unless the Father draws Him, and the Father draws them through His Word, so must go out because we are the Fathers messenger.

No one can come unless the Father draws Him, is a message to those who know God loves the world that He sent His Son to reach the world with the Gospel

 

Laugh with Me!

Ed:

That is about it. Most of the Calvinists I deal with will not accept any attempt at defining Calvinism unless it is 100% aligned with their personal beliefs. They won't accept anything that even comes close as a point from which to begin a discussion.

I can't tell you how many times the Calvinists I encounter demand a fair defintion, and then will categorically reject any sincere attempt at it.

They most often will say, "You need to define my positon (Calvinism) in a way I would agree to before we can discuss/debate it." That is verbatim!

Then when you do not agree 100% with them the reply is: You don't understand, you can't understand, you misrepresent us, you are creating a Straw Man; and on-and-on it goes.

Laugh with me!

LM

In Defesne of the Gospel

 

Why wouldn't we want a definition that is not 100% what we believe? Do you want to start with a partial truth? If you can not defeat a system with debate, then attack it. Laugh with me! R B

 

Huh? It sounds to me like what you're saying is that you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion. You reserve the right to redefine terms in order to discuss any given topic. What's the point of that?

As I showed in the discussion of Lordship Salvation, I'm perfectly willing to adapt to your definition of LS, but you need to give me a definition before I can discuss it intelligently. If it means you need to demonstrate lordship in order to be saved, then I see no connection with Calvinism. If it means that salvation results in a lordship relationship with Jesus, then I'd have to say it does have a connection to Calvinism. But if you insist it means X, and then claim something based on definition Y, there's no point in even discussing it with you because you aren't giving a definition and sticking to it.

Same goes with Calvinism. If you expect to discuss it intelligently with a Calvinist, then you're going to have to find out what he/she means by Calvinism and go from there. What's wrong with that? Anything else leads to nothing but chaos and confusion.

 

Making My Point for Me

RB/All:

As I said, any sincere attempt at a definition of Calvinism (and Lordship Salvation) is treated by Calvinists with suspicion and contempt as though it is an attack, a lie and misrepresentation.

As for "defeat a system" goes- the debate is never going to be settled this side of Heaven. The Scriptures defeat Calvinism’s rationalistic fatalism and the circle logic of T-U-L-I-P. That is enough for me.

Many have noticed and are alarmed over the recent resurgence of Calvinistic and Covenant theology in Baptist circles. My main goal is to biblically expose the errors and extremes of Calvinism and Lordship Salvation so that unsuspecting believers will be able to recognize these extra-biblical systems and thereby avoid being caught up in these errors.


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

This is my point, too. I get the impression that Lou is fighting Lordship Salvation in terms of requiring Lordship in order to be saved. I agree with that, but I say I don't see the connection with Calvinism. To prove there is a connection, he quotes someone who describes Lordship as evidence of salvation, not a prerequisite for salvation. Huh? This doesn't make sense to me.

The only way to have an intelligent discussion about anything is to declare and come to some agreement upon the definitions and terms first. Otherwise you'll be arguing about two different things and you'll get nowhere. If you want to argue Calvinism with a Calvinist, find out first what he believes about Calvinism. Otherwise you ARE likely to misrepresent his views. If you want to argue Arminianism with an Arminian, find out first what he believes about Arminianism or you ARE likely to misrepresent his views.

This seems ridiculously obvious to me.

 

Those are reasons for saving man GENERALLY, not specific men. Did you notice the word "us" in both selections?

Hey, I been trying to tell you that. YOU're not worshipping God in truth.

Then He is pretty close to the one true God. All your God lacks is love for His creation. In fact, the God you describe appears to be an arbitrary judge in that he "elects" certain undeserving criminals over other undeserving criminals with no regard to repentance.

That would be impossible, mart. God is making me say what I say and making you say what you say. How could we have a different God --- He rules all things including my mind and yours. He controls what I type to you. As Sproul would say, "If on molecule wasn't under His control, He wouldn't be God," right?

Problem now is how do we decide who God is? You say one thing that God makes you say from scripture and I say another that God makes me say from scripture. How do we determine who is right? And does that make God wrong or lie because He makes us say distinctly different things?

So there is no "chance." So 1Cor 15:37 should read "...it may be [on purpose make it] of wheat..." Or Like 10:31, in the Good Samarian, "...and by [purpose] there came down a certain priest..." Deut 23:10 wouldn't make much sense -- "If there be any man ... not clean ... by reason ../ that chanceth him by night..." Do you acknowledge that man is allowed options -- even equally good options -- which contribute to tragic outcomes that God did not intend? Or do you continue to insist that "their blood is on God's hands?"

Thus, God foreknows what will happen --- He does not directly control events that have to do with the will of man else, if He is Who He says He is (loving, merciful, etc.), He would save everyone. But you likely won't see this because your theology denies God's own words on this account.

That's the scenario for the OT saints, for sure. They have never seen Christ but God has saved them, justified them, already. They will be "given" in the REGENERATION/resurrection of the just, come/believe on Christ, and receive eternal life (no 2nd death). I got no problem with that.

But as you can see, they BELIEVED and were given faith long before their regeneration. And belief, as now, is the prerequisite to faith, regeneration, and salvation. In some ways, I believe God has 2 flocks just to show us this salvation "procedure."

skypair

 

martie,

Most Calvinists are people who received Christ according to free will but who have naively walked away from the truth to follow man's perversion of Christianity.

I say this is agreeable because we ought to be able to start from the "unity of the Spirit," Eph 4:3, (of our common conversion) and be able to work from there toward a "unity of the knowledge and of the faith of Son of God," Eph 4:13, wherein the deeper truth YOU seek lies. That is, brother with brother ought to be able to come "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (4:13) according to scripture!

This offering could obviously NOT be worked out between a lost and a saved man. If, for instance, if one is going to insist that Christ is right and the other that Calvin is right, the "unity of the Spirit" -- of "one God, one faith, one baptism..." 4:4-5 -- is not there, is it? And there is no "agreeable definition" whereby we can begin discussion, is there?

skypair

 

Realize, npet, that these things have been hashed out for us by Calvinists for a long time and they have, therefore, designed their "escape clauses" whereby commonly understood English can be made to say something quite different before the critic than it does to the adherent.

LS is a prime example! JM equates the LS "faith response" to God to what free willers call "repentance and receiving" Christ, 1Cor 15:1-3. Deep in his heart, JM wants to make salvation "conditional." He KNOWS the "elect" must "respond" to God, but he can't get around his "monergistic" theology unless he invents some kind of commitment. I honestly think JM is trying to do the right thing in the wrong way.

skypair