I will pretend for a minute that I an a Calvinist

[slave 4 Christ]

The False antithesis between Monergism and Synergism

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/184

It is we that will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom it is said... “The will is prepared by the Lord” [Prov. 8:35].... It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you walk in my statutes” [Ezek. 36:27]. It does not, therefore, depend on the man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy [Rom. 9:16] (Oden, ibid., quoting from Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will, p. 53).

If this is the definition of synergism, I agree. Somehow though, I seriously doubt the non-cal will accept this quote as true synergy.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Take from it what you will, or nothing at all.

well it might have more credibility if it was written by a believer of Doctrine of Grace ......maybe in an attempt to reconcile something. However its clearly written by a fellow who is trying to justify his Armenian stance (see the Faith statement). Sorry.

 

[Amy.G]

How do you know that? You say it with such assurity.

Phil 3
4 although I once also had confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised the eighth day; of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; regarding the law, a Pharisee; 6 regarding zeal, persecuting the church; regarding the righteousness that is in the law, blameless.

 

[quantumfaith]

It is we that will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom it is said... “The will is prepared by the Lord” [Prov. 8:35].... It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you walk in my statutes” [Ezek. 36:27]. It does not, therefore, depend on the man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy [Rom. 9:16] (Oden, ibid., quoting from Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will, p. 53).

If this is the definition of synergism, I agree. Somehow though, I seriously doubt the non-cal will accept this quote as true synergy.

The whole notion of prevenient grace is that God grants requisite grace to each person to be able to respond to God's revelation of himself, in creation, in His Word and through His Spirit.

 

[Skandelon]

The whole notion of prevenient grace is that God grants requisite grace to each person to be able to respond to God's revelation of himself, in creation, in His Word and through His Spirit.

But, doesn't even that statement presume that God's revelation of himself isn't in itself gracious and sufficient to accomplish its intent to "reveal?"

 

[kyredneck]

Phil 3
4 although I once also had confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised the eighth day; of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; regarding the law, a Pharisee; 6 regarding zeal, persecuting the church; regarding the righteousness that is in the law, blameless.

Did you catch that last phrase?:

"...regarding the righteousness that is in the law, blameless"

He didn't say the righteousness that is of the law, he said the righteousness that is in the law.

This is Paul prior to his CONVERSION:

...the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God. Jn 16:2

Abraham lied, Moses killed, Jacob cheated, David murdered; what makes Paul any worse than these?

 

[quantumfaith]

But, doesn't even that statement presume that God's revelation of himself isn't in itself gracious and sufficient to accomplish its intent to "reveal?"

I agree, but I would simply say that God's grace in all its forms is much beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now youse guys aren't being true to the OP & pretending your Calvinists :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I agree, but I would simply say that God's grace in all its forms is much beyond my ability to comprehend.

:thumbsup: We certainly agree on this point. All the more reason not to draw conclusions about it which scriptures themselves do not draw...something both 'systems' are guilty of doing at times, IMHO.

 

[quantumfaith]

:thumbsup: We certainly agree on this point. All the more reason not to draw conclusions about it which scriptures themselves do not draw...something both 'systems' are guilty of doing at times, IMHO.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

But, doesn't even that statement presume that God's revelation of himself isn't in itself gracious and sufficient to accomplish its intent to "reveal?"

Yes, this is my problem with Calvinism, I believe it denies the power of God.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The gospel itself is all that is needed to enable any man who hears it to believe. It is the message it conveys, the understanding it gives a man who otherwise would be ignorant of how to be saved.

Calvinism denies that the gospel has power, they believe that a man must be supernaturally regenerated before the gospel can have any effect on a man.

2 Tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

The gospel alone is all that is needed to ccnvert men. By the gospel men are not only enlightened to have knowledge so that they can believe, but they are drawn by the message of love that God loved us even while we were sinners and sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins and rise to life again.

That is not good enough for Calvinism, to them a man is a spiritual corpse that cannot hear or respond to the gospel. But Jesus said the dead can hear his voice, and those that hear (believe) shall live.

We see this in the same chapter of 2 Timothy 3;

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Natural man is ignorant and cannot possibly know of Jesus and the salvation he offers absent the word of God. It is the knowledge the word of God provides that enables a man to believe, and the drawing power of his message of love.

But there is no extra power needed, the gospel alone is enough to enable any man to believe if he will choose to do so.

 

[glfredrick]

OK, first of all, I am the "elected", the 'prechosen" and the "special" one.

Secondly, all of you that love the Lord, but are not "elected" are just left out.

And mostly, why would I bother to even share the gospel with you if you have no chance of going to heaven?

Luke? Rick? Can you explain this false gospel that you preach?

John

Your first mistake was in not holding to the Scriptures -- something Calvinists are rather famous for doing.

You might start with the set of verses that says: "Our Father in heaven. Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN...:

 

[Benjamin]

Your first mistake was in not holding to the Scriptures -- something Calvinists are rather famous for doing.

You can say that again! :thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

You can say that again! :thumbsup:

Oh the importance of punctuation and clarity.

"Let's eat grandma." or "Let's eat, grandma!

Such mistakes are so easy to make.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh the importance of punctuation and clarity.

"Let's eat grandma." or "Let's eat, grandma!

Such mistakes are so easy to make.

:laugh: Wonder if Guy Frederecks knows he just got "Punked" By Benny?!?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[annsni]

Your first mistake was in not holding to the Scriptures -- something Calvinists are rather famous for doing.

You might start with the set of verses that says: "Our Father in heaven. Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN...:

I was looking to see if we were on Candid Camera!!!!!!!! Or if it was Body Snatchers or something!

 

[convicted1]

Your first mistake was in not holding to the Scriptures -- something Calvinists are rather famous for doing.

What? Are you saying Calvinists are rather famous for not holding to the scriptures? :laugh: I know what you meant, just poking a little fun at you. I pray that you don't take offense to this. :love2:

 

[glfredrick]

double post

 

[glfredrick]

:laugh: Wonder if Guy Frederecks knows he just got "Punked" By Benny?!?:smilewinkgrin:

I created my own strawman argument... :thumbs: That's what I get for trying to debate after 2 days with over 30 hours of work...

In the spirit of the issue: :smilewinkgrin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQxhdxFN0qE

Back to the discussion at hand, the OP fallacy is indeed that Calvinists fail to heed the Scriptures. That is often the implication of the thought behind strawman arguments against Calvinism:

Our "logic" is so "strong" that we cannot heed Scriptures that tell us to evangelize or that human beings are free moral agents culpable for our sin, even if we sin without realizing it.​

That would be an utter fail on the part of the OP for two reasons, first the great testimonies of Calvinists who have, if anything, been more evangelistic than most Arminians down through the ages (taking into consideration that the terms Calvinist and Arminian only stem from the late 1500s onward). Spurgeon, Whitfield, Edwards and a host of others would suggest otherwise. Second, that we are told by God in the Scriptures to evangelize and conversely, we are never told that the "elect" are simply translated into heaven, so as long as this fallacy continues to be pressed forward the answer will always be satisfying to the anti-cal crowd, while the reality of Calvinistic church activity is something other than the strawman argument.

 

[gb93433]

Anyone who filters the scriptures through a systematic theology is doomed to the limits and errors of the systematic theology. He fails to interpret beginning at the most basic level. Imagine someone who speaks English interpreting what someone else says through the filter of a dictionary written by someone whose mother tongue is Chinese written in the early 1800's.