Fatalism, Irresistible Grace and Misunderstanding

[Martin]

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.

==The passage says, "For those whom He foreknew" (Rom 8:29). It does not say "what" He foreknew, it just says "those whom He foreknew". God knew them in advance. God knows, and has always known, who His people are (2Tim 2:19). In fact Scripture says that those who are His are chosen and elected. Based on what? Based on "the kind intention of His will" (Eph 1:5) and "according to His own purpose and grace" (2Tim 1:9). It is not based on man, on man's choices, it is based on God's election.

Yes I am.

==I asked you if you were "claiming that God had no control over the events that took the life of that believer" (events caused by a lost person) and you said "yes". Well, if that is truly your belief, then we are not worshipping the same God. My God is sovereign over all the universe (Ps 103:19). My God can do all things (Job 42:2), my God reigns (Ps 93:1), is King forever (Ps 29:10, 47:2), My God does whatever He pleases and nobody can stop Him (Ps 135:6, Deut 32:39, Job 9:12, Rom 9:19), my God rules over all things (Deut 10:14, 1Chron 29:12), my God has eternal dominion (Dan 4:34-35), my God's plans stand and are not undone by mortal man (Ps 33:8-11, Is 46:10). In fact, my God controls the rise and fall of all kings (2Chron 20:6, Rom 13:1, Prov 21:1, Dan 2:21). My God has control over the activity of all angels including Satan (Job 1:6-12).

In short, if you believe that anything is outside of God's control and power then we are not even talking about the same God. The one God of heaven rules over all things. His Hand is not restricted by anyone or anything.

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.

==Ecclesiastes (9:11) is written from the perspective of a man searching for meaning (etc) in this life. To use this verse in an attempt to undermine the sovereignty of God is a serious misapplication. If I wished I could undo your whole assertion just by looking back up to verse 7. Or, if I wished to pull something out of context (etc) like you have, I could use 9:5 to say that there is no life or reward after death. However I would be wrong in saying that because that would be (a) ignoring the context of the verse and (b) ignoring the rest of Scripture. Your approach to Ecc. 9:11 suffers from both of those problems.

Well, you know all through the Bible there is the typology of marriage between God and Israel or Christ and His church.

==At this point we don't need to refer to typology because we have a clear statement from Jesus: Those who are drawn are raised up (Jn 6:44). Stop trying to make things more difficult than they really are.

"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.

==Really? I am not confused by it. I have never read any scholar/teacher, regardless of their views on Calvinism, who was confused by it. I find it interesting that you believe there is something in John 6:37 that is confusing.

Father gives (present); shall come (future).

==The present and future tenses only mean that those the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him after the Father gives them.

So firstly, I don't think this is definitive enough to make a case either way.

==See, you find this confusing because it says something you don't want it to say. You have difficulty with this verse because it contradicts your "theology" and instead of dumping your theology and sticking with Scripture you are doing backflips in a vain attempt to get Scripture to agree with you. John 6:37 is about as "definitive" as it gets. All the Father gives to Jesus, will come to Jesus. Next point...

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.

==Actually the text puts the giving before the coming and recieving eternal life (Jn 6:37, 17:2). So, you are wrong.

"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.

==Well let's think big picture here. Jesus gives eternal life to those the Father has given Him, right? According to John 17:2 the answer is right. Now who, in Scripture, gets eternal life? Those who believe in Jesus (Jn 3:14-16), those who come to Jesus (Jn 6:37-40). So what must happen to those the Father has given to Jesus? They must come to Him/believe in Him and recieve eternal life. So, in the big picture, the order is clear. I think the problem here is that you don't like what the text is saying so you are trying to make things more difficult than they really are. The text of Scripture is amazingly clear.

 

[Martin]

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.

==Off the top of my head I am not aware of any definition by a non-Calvinist that I would accept. I don't say that because there are none out there, I'm sure there are, but because I don't know of any. I just don't have the time to do a lot of research on that point. Still, though, I am not sure that I care how a non-Calvinist defines Calvinism.

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

==So??

 

[EdSutton]

==Off the top of my head I am not aware of any definition by a non-Calvinist that I would accept. I don't say that because there are none out there, I'm sure there are, but because I don't know of any. I just don't have the time to do a lot of research on that point. Still, though, I am not sure that I care how a non-Calvinist defines Calvinism.



==So??

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

 

[psalms109:31]

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.

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

2 Corinthians 5:16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Romans 10:11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

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

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Laugh with Me!

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:

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

 

[reformedbeliever]

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!

The when you do not agree 100% 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

 

[npetreley]

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.

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.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Making My Point for Me

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

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

 

[Martin]

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.

==Of course, you realize, that I said I would accept a definition written by someone who was not a Calvinist. However I am not aware of any definition written by a non-Calvinist that I would accept. I'm sure there are some out there, but I am just not aware of them. Probably because I actually spend very little time researching this issue nowadays. I will come back around to it in the future I am sure but right now my research efforts are focused on other issues (theologically and historically).

They won't accept anything that even comes close as a point from which to begin a discussion.

==That is not true at all.

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.

==I have not demanded any sort of definition from you. I only ask, in general, that those who discuss the issue know what they are talking about. I have run into several people on this board who do a lot of anti-Calvinism posting, but when I (or others) start pushing the actual theology it becomes very clear that the person does not understand the theology known as Calvinism. They understand "sound-bites" and blustery statements but they don't understand the technical points of Calvinism. In the past I have spent a lot of time trying to properly understand the various forms of Arminianism and the different positions they take on these issues. I expect those who wish to discuss this issue to do the same thing (no matter which side they take). I have read Robert Shank, I have even read Dan Corner, I have read other Arminians as well. Have I read those folks because I enjoy their writings? Far from it. I spent time reading and studying their writings so I could understand their position(s) better.

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!

==Are you actually complaining about Calvinists wanting to discuss this issue with someone who understands the topic of discussion. I think everyone, Arminian and Calvinistic, neads to desire intelligent discussion with people who know what they are talking about. Why spend a lot of time running around in circles with someone who has no clue what they are talking about?

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.

==If that is the response you are always getting then may I suggest you carefully examine how you are presenting your material. Maybe you are wording things wrongly, or maybe you don't understand Calvinism as well as you think, or maybe you are creating strawmen. I don't know, but I do know that there are plenty of Calvinists who are happy and willing to discuss this issue with anyone who is willing to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[npetreley]

==If that is the response you are always getting then may I suggest you carefully examine how you are presenting your material. Maybe you are wording things wrongly, or maybe you don't understand Calvinism as well as you think, or maybe you are creating strawmen. I don't know, but I do know that there are plenty of Calvinists who are happy and willing to discuss this issue with anyone who is willing to have an intelligent discussion.

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.

 

[skypair]

==The passage says, "For those whom He foreknew" (Rom 8:29). It does not say "what" He foreknew, it just says "those whom He foreknew". God knew them in advance. God knows, and has always known, who His people are (2Tim 2:19). In fact Scripture says that those who are His are chosen and elected. Based on what? Based on "the kind intention of His will" (Eph 1:5) and "according to His own purpose and grace" (2Tim 1:9). It is not based on man, on man's choices, it is based on God's election.

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

==I asked you if you were "claiming that God had no control over the events that took the life of that believer" (events caused by a lost person) and you said "yes". Well, if that is truly your belief, then we are not worshipping the same God.

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

My God is sovereign over all the universe (Ps 103:19). My God can do all things (Job 42:2), my God reigns (Ps 93:1), is King forever (Ps 29:10, 47:2), My God does whatever He pleases and nobody can stop Him (Ps 135:6, Deut 32:39, Job 9:12, Rom 9:19), my God rules over all things (Deut 10:14, 1Chron 29:12), my God has eternal dominion (Dan 4:34-35), my God's plans stand and are not undone by mortal man (Ps 33:8-11, Is 46:10). In fact, my God controls the rise and fall of all kings (2Chron 20:6, Rom 13:1, Prov 21:1, Dan 2:21). My God has control over the activity of all angels including Satan (Job 1:6-12).

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.

In short, if you believe that anything is outside of God's control and power then we are not even talking about the same God. The one God of heaven rules over all things. His Hand is not restricted by anyone or anything.

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?

==Ecclesiastes (9:11) is written from the perspective of a man searching for meaning (etc) in this life.

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.

==Well let's think big picture here. Jesus gives eternal life to those the Father has given Him, right? So what must happen to those the Father has given to Jesus? They must come to Him/believe in Him and recieve eternal life.

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

 

[skypair]

martie,

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.

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

 

[skypair]

You reserve the right to redefine terms in order to discuss any given topic. What's the point of that?

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