Fatalism, Irresistible Grace and Misunderstanding

[Rippon]

Ed , get out your magnifying glass and review John 6 for just a glimpse of the biblical fact that the elect are effectually called -- drawn by the Father to Christ . It is demonstrated scores of times in the Bible -- but you can't find it ?!

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Can You Give an Example You Would Agree With?

Martin:

What always amuses me is how most Calvinists, invariably claim that those who take an opposing view of Calvinism either: misunderstand it, misrepresent it, can't understand it or is creating a Straw Man. In my years of dealing with Calvinists, most will not accept any definition of Calvinism unless the definition validates Calvinism’s five points.

Let me give you a friendly challenge: Please quote (and cite the source) for everyone a brief definition of Calvinism, from a well-known opponent of Calvinism, that you would agree satisfactorily defines Calvinism for you.

Would you please do that for me?

Thanks,

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Lou Martuneac]

What is Calvinism's Rationalistic Fatalism?

In any event... Martin neglected to include the complete note I posted on Calvinism's Rationalistic Fatalism. For those who have not yet had the opportunity to read it, I will repost it here.

The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.

Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine. Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken.

One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome of any.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Well Said on Sovereignty & Freedom

I don't generally hear "non-Calvinists" refer to Calvinism as "fatalism," though quite clearly in its extreme expressions it is.

Most often Calvinism is spiritual determinism -- to deny that is to deny the very basis of the system -- God's sovereignty choice of "the elect" without regard to the active decision of the "elect" individual acted upon (monergism).

It doesn't matter how one slices and parses it, that IS determinism. The question then becomes, which concept of God is greater -- the concept of a God who decrees EVERY single detail and decision in all spheres of life and existence because He is "Sovereign," or the concept of a God who allows his creation free moral agency and the ability to choose, yet He still KNOWS all things and is Sovereign in the whole process...?

In short, freedom of will is no threat to -- nor is it a denial of -- the Sovereignty of God.

JD:

Here you have very nicely articulated a truth about the sovereignty of God and free will of man. (Both of which are vital doctrinal truths.)

I have maintained that God's sovereignty is actually magnified when we allow for the free will of man and His sovereignty to co-exist and His sovereignty is done no damage.

You may have to charge me a copy-cat fee. I am saving your post to my files.

Well said!

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The Many Dangers of...

To All:

Here is a link I fequently provide when Calvinism is under discussion. The series of articles answers many of the problems with a Calvinistic approach to theology.

The series of articles are by Brother George Zeller. The articles are highly readable. For those of you who are not entirely familiar with Calvinism, especially its inherent dangers, this link is a must read. Visit

The Dangers of Reformed Theology.
​

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[Rippon]

Lou , for someone who doesn't want to have a C vs. A debate you sure do stir the pot . Mr. Zeller is off-the-mark when it comes to the subject of Reformed theology . Since you claim he is the one folks should consult for the dangers of Calvinism that puts you on shaky ground . You remind me of that Examiningcalvinism guy .

Zeller represents mainstream Calvinists as actually radical adherents of reformed theology -- " ... extreme Calvinists would say that the cross was designed for only the elect ." Why would this be considered "extreme" ? Calvinists believe that the Bible teaches that the scope of Christ's redemptive work was indeed for the the elect only . That's not new news , is it ?

Another Aldrich quote : It's [ Reformed Theology ] extreme Calvinism forces it to have a gospel only for the elect ." A couple observations here . The Gospel needs to be liberally ( in the old , best sense of the word ) proclaimed universally . We as Christians are urged to to so by Divine Command . But , again , the elect are the only recepients of the Good News -- The Lord sees to that . The non-elect will get the bad news .

Using Horatius Bonar to support a nonCal position is futile . Mr. bonar wrote many things on Calvinistic teachings . In "The Work Of Christ " he specifically deals with specific redemption and those "all" and "world" texts . He comes down squarely in favor of the classical Calvinistic stance .

I was surprised to see what many regard as the arch hypercalvinist -- William Huntington -- used to support your camp's view that the law is not applicable today . You and Mr. Aldrich would certainly be against him in practically the rest of his theological views --- but Aldrich never so much as mentions Huntington's real extremism . I do believe that the moral law needs to be preached . We are still to follow the Law though under grace .

 

[Martin]

What always amuses me is how most Calvinists, invariably claim that those who take an opposing view of Calvinism either: misunderstand it, misrepresent it, can't understand it or is creating a Straw Man.

==If you go back you will see that I was refering to your "fatalism" charge. A charge which either represents a misunderstanding of Calvinism or a deep-seated distrust in God. Which is it? I imagine it is the former and not the latter.

Let me give you a friendly challenge: Please quote (and cite the source) for everyone a brief definition of Calvinism, from a well-known opponent of Calvinism, that you would agree satisfactorily defines Calvinism for you.

Would you please do that for me?

==Calvinism, for me, is the five points. To get a definition of Calvinism you must first define the five points (or in some folks cases four points).

A popular level treatment of the five points:

http://www.monergismbooks.com/fvpts8278.html

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Name & Cite

Martin:

I have to be gone for most, if not all of today.

When I come back I want to see who you can name and cite with source, who is a well-known opponent of Calvinism, but defines the five points in a way that would cause you to say, he got it right.

I asked you to do this for me last night. I trust you will be able to cite one for the thread.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

[skypair]

==Since I believe that God is sovereign over all things (Is 46:8-11) I believe that all things are in His plan. That does not mean He approves of all things, or that He causes all things, but it does mean nothing happens outside of His plan. Those God elects come to Him (Jn 6:37), those who are not elect continue in their sin and rejection and end up in hell (Rom 9:18,21, etc). That is known as the doctrine of preterition.

Our issue, as in most on this subject, is that the "electing" comes AFTER the foreknowledge of who the believers are. That makes it so that, as Bill Bright used to say, "God has a [step-by-step] plan for your life" but not for the lost person's.

Of course, God makes "allowances" that there are lost people down here! :laugh: But as Calvinism also believes, He lets the lost pretty much do as they please and He merely "ordains" the consequences. That, for instance, why the Christian gets killed on the highway by a drunk driver. God didn't want the Christian to die but God does not control the drunk and his behavior.

==So you think the lost world, lost men, are outside of God's sovereign control?

Only because you overrate God's "sovereign control." He controls their destiny. He has written it all down for them.

==No it does not "make" them but it [God's work] is the cause/reason [of their salvation].

Absolutely! Calvies just have the wrong "mechanics" in mind. :laugh: Drawing is like "dating." "Coming" is like getting a proposal and accepting. Being "given" is entering into marriage at the wedding! There. I've had to tell you what your own vocabulary couldn't!

==All the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus (Jn 6:37) and will recieve eternal life (Jn 17:2). The elect will believe.

Don't you see how silly that is? You aren't "given" before you believe. Even in marriage (by way of illostration), it rarely works that way. How many women have said they would change their husbands once they were married -- and then couldn't?

God knew about you before you believed. He made a plan for your life before you believed. Then in the course of time He called and, just as He "suspected"/foreknew, you were drawn and quartered --- I mean drawn, came, and given!!

==That is not what Scripture says though. The Scripture says "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me". The giving causes, or is before, the coming (see also Rom 8:29-30).

Like I said before, we first come to the Father through justification. The primary illustration of this is that the OT saints have NOT even seen Christ yet. They haven't been given to the Son yet, have they?? No. Not till the MK. They will be resurrected justified by the Holy Spirit who will sanctify them when they see Jesus.

We live in an awkward time for Calvin in that he never even conceived that men could have been saved any other way than the way they are in this "church dispensation." That is another "leak" in his theology. But the fact is that in the OT, saints were only justified, the True Sacrifice not having come yet! Notice that only after He arose were they taken to heaven from sheol. BUT it takes hearing of the name of Jesus and naming the name of Jesus to be sanctified by the indwelling Spirit. So, if you are confused, you are confused staying with Calvin.


skypair

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Disagreement among Calvinists

Calvinism, for me, is the five points. To get a definition of Calvinism you must first define the five points (or in some folks cases four points).

This demonstrates that even among Calvinists there is disagreement on the Limited Atonement (LA).

LA is- Limited Atonement is that Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.

"And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 Jn. 2:2).

Calvinism's idea that the shed blood of Jesus Christ was not meant for the whole world is distasteful to many in the Calvinist camp.

Calvinism's Limited Atonement completely contradicts 1 John 2:2 and many other passages of Scripture. Many Calvinists, however, force into the verse what they must to maintain the integrity of a LA, and hence not break the circle logic of the five points.

Good example of what I wrote earlier,

"The 'circle logic' of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. One must approach the system with reason rather than faith."

LM

 

[skypair]

Ed , get out your magnifying glass and review John 6 for just a glimpse of the biblical fact that the elect are effectually called -- drawn by the Father to Christ . It is demonstrated scores of times in the Bible -- but you can't find it ?!

Rip --- try this paradigm on your Calvinist terminology

Drawn -- Come -- Given

It's like the wedding imagery the Bible uses so often -- first you date, then the proposal, then the wedding where you are given by God as the bride. Are you the bride of Christ. Or just "shackin' up waiting for the proposal (given -- come)?

skypair

 

[skypair]

==A charge which either represents a misunderstanding of Calvinism or a deep-seated distrust in God. Which is it?

I imagine that you are not giving us all the options. How about "...or either I [martin] don't understand fatalism." :1_grouphug:

skypair

 

[Martin]

Martin:

I have to be gone for most, if not all of today.

When I come back I want to see who you can name and cite with source, who is a well-known opponent of Calvinism, but defines the five points in a way that would cause you to say, he got it right.

I asked you to do this for me last night. I trust you will be able to cite one for the thread.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

==Why would I want to define Calvinism using the definition of a person who does not believe Calvinism? Would you define Christianity using the definition of a person who is a well known oppnent of Christianity?

 

[Martin]

Our issue, as in most on this subject, is that the "electing" comes AFTER the foreknowledge of who the believers are. That makes it so that, as Bill Bright used to say, "God has a [step-by-step] plan for your life" but not for the lost person's.

==Foreknowledge is not God looking down through time, seeing who would believe, then electing them. Biblical Foreknowledge is God knowing His own from all eternity.

God didn't want the Christian to die but God does not control the drunk and his behavior.

==Well, a lot of good that does us! So you are claiming God had no control over the events that took the life of that believer. Just making sure.

Absolutely! Calvies just have the wrong "mechanics" in mind. Drawing is like "dating."

==Since Jesus says those who are drawn are raised, I think it is a bit stronger than dating (Jn 6:44).

You aren't "given" before you believe.

==My Bible says we are given, then we come to Christ and recieve eternal life (Jn 6:37, 17:2). You are turning what Scripture says on its head.

 

[JDale]

JDALE , in post #15 you indicated that we've gone around the barn a few times about the issue of "free will " . I assure you -- I'm only a prepubescent on the BB , and you are a virtual infant . You can go back a lot further on the subject here than your more recent offerings . You haven't settled matters here on the subject -- just as you feel that we haven't on the other side of the aisle .

Rip:

You're not telling me anything I don't know. Still, you and I have discussed this topic, and we have some idea of how each of us believe on the issues, and where we differ. I doubt either of us really believe we can persuade the other. In that case, I don't fell like another lap around the barn. Eh, the theological chase is fun in a sprint, maybe even cross-country -- but I'm too old for marathons anymore!

JDale

 

[skypair]

==Foreknowledge is not God looking down through time, seeing who would believe, then electing them. Biblical Foreknowledge is God knowing His own from all eternity.

It "isn't" true only because it "can't be" and sustain your theology. Take off the "Calvin-colored glasses," friend. Does the passage really say "For whom God did predestine, He also did predestine?" Rom 8:29 No. That's a foolish statement.

==Well, a lot of good that does us! So you are claiming God had no control over the events that took the life of that believer. Just making sure.

Yes I am. I am going to start a thread on a quote from R.C. again "there is no such thing as 'chance.'" Well, scripture doesn't agree. Solomon said "The race is not always to the swiftest ... but time and CHANCE happeneth to all." So R.C. needs to get a time machine, go back and tell Solomon that he was wrong.

==Since Jesus says those who are drawn are raised, I think it is a bit stronger than dating (Jn 6:44).

Well, you know all through the Bible there is the typology of marriage between God and Israel or Christ and His church. I think it is quite valid and scriptural to show the correct useage of "drawn - come - given" in that language and in that pattern. And especially since you don't seem to have the ideas arranged in any rational pattern yourself.

==My Bible says we are given, then we come to Christ and recieve eternal life (Jn 6:37, 17:2). You are turning what Scripture says on its head.

Just so we know what verses you are talking about:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." ------- There is a change of tense here that makes it a bit confusing. Father gives (present); shall come (future). So firstly, I don't think this is definitive enough to make a case either way. Obviously, God didn't give Jesus everyone at the moment in time that He was saying this. So it is likely that God gives them when they come -- ergo, what I said.

"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." ------- This only uses the one term give/given. A little hard to make out an order on this one.

skypair

 

[npetreley]

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." ------- There is a change of tense here that makes it a bit confusing. Father gives (present); shall come (future). So firstly, I don't think this is definitive enough to make a case either way. Obviously, God didn't give Jesus everyone at the moment in time that He was saying this. So it is likely that God gives them when they come -- ergo, what I said.

Wow! A masterpiece of double-talk and twisted reasoning. I salute you.

 

[Rippon]

Mr. Skypair has indeed some airy thoughts . But though they have the characteristic of air and its insubstantial qualities -- he is inventive . Turning passages in John 6 around so that they are unrecognizable is his new specialty .

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Just One Will Do

==Why would I want to define Calvinism using the definition of a person who does not believe Calvinism? Would you define Christianity using the definition of a person who is a well known oppnent of Christianity?

Martin:

That was not my request.

Please show, from a non-Calvinist, a defintion of Calvinism that you would at least find agreeable enough to say that he has at least captured the essence of Calvinism from which a discussion can begin.

My point is simple: The Calvinist will accept no defintion unless it 100% validates the claims of Calvinism.

Thanks,

LM

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

How many "calvinists" define those who do not hold to the heretical doctrine of irresistbale grace as arminians? They all are wrong each and every time.