If....then....

[Pastor Larry]

Helen,

When I sent you my personal email this morning, I had not read your post to me. I did not intend to because I felt that the points had been adequately made and I did not want to carry on. I was reaching out to try to explain off the record where I was coming from. I have great respect for you and did not wish to take you on publicly. I was willing to let your misrepresentations stand in order to avoid the conflict. Now you have left me no choice. After returning from lunch, I did read your post and am beside myself. You have misinterpreted much that I have said. You have distorted it in spite of my attempts to clarify. You have failed to deal with relevant passages. You have failed to exegete the passages you have dealt with. You have been inconsistent in your argumentation. I shall show all of this. I have tried to treat you with dignity and respect and I will continue to do so. I do not intend to let this become a tit for tat kind of deal. I have explained to you what I believe and why I believe it off the record. I will address only a few points here.

To begin with, I addressed a number of passages that you did not address. Why? You cite them in your quotation of me and immediately leave them. You cannot simply ignore the Scripture you do not like.

In the discussion of “tendency,” you have not dealt with the relevant passages. Chet questioned (rather denied) the teaching of total depravity and I listed a number of passages that clearly teach it. And the point stands: there is no “tendency” in dead. I do not argue that we do not have sinful tendencies. We certainly do. But why do we have them? Because we have a sin nature that is totally depraved.

First of all, you did not deal with what the Bible refers to as 'dead.' It never refers to dead as 'spiritually unconscious'.

To my knowledge, I did not refer to “dead” as spiritually unconscious. You have attributed something to me I did not say and built a huge straw man out of it. Spiritually dead is spiritually separated from God. Dead includes inability to respond, now and in hell. It does not mean unconscious. Hell is eternal conscious torment for the spiritually dead.

On Romans 7, let me make some comments. Your position on Rom 7:7-11 has numerous problems but I will point out a few that preclude the possibility of your interpretation. You cannot take this passage separate from the rest of Scripture. Let me demonstrate the inconsistencies.

1) The Law in view is the Mosaic Law (as in 5:13 and most of the Pauline uses). Throughout Romans, Paul is addressing the fact that salvation cannot come by keeping the Law. The references to Israel and the oracles of God make this clear. He is also demonstrating that sin does not come by the Law. The Gentiles who do not have the Law are a law unto themselves (Rom 2 – proving that sin does not require the Law and that the Law in view is the Mosaic Law).

2) Paul is not saying that without the law there is no sin. Rom 2:12 says that those who sinned without the law[/I] will perish without the law. In Rom 5:13, Paul is clear that sin existed in the world before the arrival of the Law. Clearly knowledge of the Law is not necessary to be dead in sin.

3) Your position would make the law bad because without knowledge of the law, man would not be a sinner and would not be responsible for sin; it is only with the Law that man become condemned. Therefore, the law becomes the bad guy condemning people to sin and hell. Yet Paul rejects this conclusion in v. 7 and v. 12. Rather than the Law being bad, the law is good. What is bad? Man is. In your view, it would be better for people never to know the Law and thus never be condemned by it. But alas it is to no avail anyway because Paul declares that all men have a conscience that either excuses or accuses them (Rom 2:12-14). 2 Cor 3 also makes clear that the Law was not bad; the problem was the inability of the people to keep it. While your position would make the law bad, Paul is defending the goodness of the Law and pointing out that the Law exposes the sinfulness that is already in him.

4) Your position that knowledge of the Law brings sin and spiritual death destroys Rom 5. There, the modus operandi of justification is laid out. We became sinners in the same way we become righteousness – by imputation. You have denied the imputation of Adam’s sin and instead have chosen a form of pelagianism which denies the teaching of Rom 5. We are sinners because we are in Adam. We choose to sin because we are in Adam. We are guilty because of Adam’s sin (“for by disobedience of one many were made sinners;” “by the transgression of the one the many died” – not “by the knowledge of the Law many were made sinners or died;”) We became sinners by imputation and inherited a sin nature. We did not develop one. Just as we become sinners by being “in Adam” so we become righteous because we are in Christ.

5) Your position has rendered unnecessary the death of Christ (not intentionally to be sure). You have posited that people are not sinners until they choose to sin. Therefore, one might never choose to sin and therefore not be a sinner. In so doing, they get to heaven by their own righteousness. Paul says in Gal 3:21 21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." You, by tacitly suggesting that righteousness can come by the Law, have rendered needless the death of Christ.

So in what sense did “Sin kill Paul”? Most likely in the sense that “forbidden fruit is sweetest.” The Law exacerbated the lusts and passions and exalted self above God. Paul likely uses coveteousness because it refers to the inner desires of the heart rather than outward actions. Therefore, sin is an attitude, not merely an action. “Those whose lives are filled with coveting are guilty of the fundamental sin; by desiring what was forbidden they thereby show that they treasure and delight in someone or something more than they delight in the one true God” (Schriener, BECNT; cf Moo, NICNT).

We are only held accountable for the sins we consciously choose in deliberate rebellion against God's law, and thus against God.

Then why do those who sin without the Law perish without the Law?

Now go to Exodus and Leviticus and see that there was a sacrifice for unknown sins. Unintentional sins. These are sins committed apart from knowledge of the law.

Now this is interesting. Why is there a sacrifice for sins for which one is not held responsible? This contradicts your whole contention. If there is no responsibility than there is no need for a sacrifice. The demand for a sacrifice shows that there was responsibility.

We die later, when we consciously rebel. But we have been sinning all along. If you do not see what he is saying about this, you are missing part of the incredible mercy and love of God!

This is most interesting to me. We have been sinning but we are not spiritually dead yet? I do not see any place for a life of sin in the category of spiritually alive.

Going on down your post, I would rather not deal on a personal level with your evasion of the fact that you accused me of getting my theology from fairy tales. What is interesting is that when I said something about the clear message of the Bible (which is where I do get my theology, by the way,) you came back with "Never have truer words been spoken."

On fairy tales, you inferred a theological point from them (that everyone was seeking something higher and better). I simply said that was a not a good place to get theological points from. It’s still not but since you clarified, I felt no need to address it again. As for the clear message of the Bible and my “never truer words were spoken” I was agreeing with you. That is the clear message of the Bible.

You said you were being charitable to me and encouraging me to study more. I did not see your insults as particularly charitable, but be that as it may, I checked my work with both Sproul and MacArthur when I translated their material for the deaf and I received approval from both. I do know what they were talking about! They agreed that I did!

Sorry you misunderstood. As I have read Sproul and MacArthur, and Murray, and Piper, and Whitefield, and Spurgeon, you are not here representing them very well and to prove it, read the next quote where you have totally misrepresented things.

You stated later that you are responding here because you see a danger in what I am advocating theologically. That is silly by your own theological stance, Larry! If those who are saved are saved and those who are damned are damned through nothing anyone can do or decide or think or say or anything else, then it does not matter one tiny little iota what anybody promotes theologically in terms of any man's salvation. God has already decided, according to you, with nothing to do with man's thoughts, choices, or anything else. So why worry?

This is embarrassing. If you know reformed theology like you claim to, then how can you make such a misrepresentative statement unless your intention was to mislead. We worry because God has commanded us to go into all the world and preach the gospel because he has sheep out there who are not of this fold. He is calling out a people for himself from every tribe and tongue and people and nation and has chosen to accomplish that work through us.

And do not, please, misrepresent me as saying that our salvation does not depend on the grace of God. It does. Entirely.

Then why this whole thread? You have repeatedly stated that it depends on man’s choices.

 

[russell55]

The above comment seems to demonstrate the point of my previous message; it is divine sovereignty that determines who is lost and who is saved, according to the Reformed Tradition, and not divine mercy.

That's because that's what the particular scripture quoted--first the passage from 1 Cor 2 that you quoted, and the one from chapter 3 that I quoted--focuses on: It is God who gives the increase. Therefore, God is the one who produces the harvest.

And of course, it is through His application of His divine mercy that He saves people. It is a merciful act from a gracious God that uses our words "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

But this particular passage, chosen by you to prove your point, focuses on the sovereignty (or power) of God in salvation.

 

[Eric B]

But you don’t have one verse of Scripture to prove that. Use Scripture. I used Scripture to demonstrate that you have a flawed basis for your thought. But you won’t accept it.

As Chet says, you are mis-understanding scripture and doing more proof-texting than proper hermeneutics. These temporal judgments you mention are not the same as Hell, and "death" is not understood by them either, so you cannot use this to suggest that these people actually would want Hell. If that's the case, then maybe they are right, and they will actually have a good time there. Yeah, let's soften up non-election that way, and whether they had a chance to be saved won't matter as much.

It is very clear. In v. 6, there is a wisdom from God that is not the wisdom of the rulers of this age. It is a wisdom predestined before the ages to our glory which the rulers did not understand. If they had understood it (the wisdom of a Christ crucified [see 1:18ff]), they would not have crucified the Lord of glory and contributed to the plan of God.

This is at best ambiguous. You cannot prove from that verse that their motive would have been to try to avoid contributing to the plan of God, or otherwise. Anyway, Jesus also said that if Sodom and other wicked people saw the works of Christ, they would have repented, and this was the point and the principle I was trying to get out of that other verse. If I happen to be wrong on that verse, it still stands elsewhere.

You try to explain what the Bible does not teach but you cannot do it according to Scripture. You pick the ones you like and ignore the rest. You have to take into account all of Scripture.

I do, but it's you who pick the ones you like and ignore or reinterpret the rest, and then say, "See, I have more scripture than you".

But Scripture disagrees with you. I have read the passages you talk about and none of them says anything that I disagree with. What these verses say is completely coherent with what I believe. It is the other verses that are a problem for you.

No they are not, because you are not dealing with them, but instead throwing other scriptures that others (maybe not me) have already answered. You just didn't accept those answers, so you treat them as non-existent.

Meanwhile, what about the exegetical questions above that you are simply brushing aside. [/qb]Where??

The ones you just brushed aside ("does He pretend to weep for people He had no desire of saving anyway? Do His decrees contradict His nature?" Also forgot: Is His plan revealed in scripture to fill up Hell with the majority of man?)

Notice that you are the one arguing the logic of how can be fair if he doesn’t give all an equal chance and how illogical it is to talk of vessel of wrath prepared for destruction while talking about not desiring the death of the wicked. I have no logical necessity to try and figure that out. You are the one trying to put the logical pieces together. I do not believe that God is illogical. I think we are finite and should accept what he says.

Once again, you say this, but then chide me for not answering some unanswerable (this side of eternity) question. This is a "fundamental attribution error". You attribute the questions I pose to you about God's character as just my "trying to piece it all together", but your questions are legitimate "exegetical" questions that the whole understanding of the issue rests on. My lack of answers (and claim we can't figure it out) is supposed to be the ultimate proof my position is wrong, but then your lack of answers is "just accepting what He says" because we are "finite". Or you say you don't understand what I am saying, and claim no further end can be accomplished to the discussion. No wonder you think you're so right about this stuff.
It's obvious that somewhere there lies a line of "theological ignorance" (As Philip Yancey calls it), defining a limit to our knowledge, especailly with certain paradoxes created by the gulf between God's real and ours, which He crosses in dealing with us. You read certain scriptures and try to place this line after a postulation of many men having no chance of salvation. I see other scriptures this contradicts and say you have already crossed the line. You then say "no, you just ignore these scriptures over here, yet in dealing with those scriptures over there you are [I am] the one crossing the line trying to 'figure it all out', and make God 'fair'". But the scriptures I use are much clearer than the ones you are using. Remember, interpret cloudy scriptures in light of clear ones, and remember, If God though enough to have Peter warn us about how Paul's writings were easily misunderstoon because of their deepness, then we should be exercising more caution in yanking passages and building all sorts of questionable doctrines upon Paul. (It's significant that Calvinism is attributed to "Paul" as much as Augustine and Calvin to try to make it biblical. But once again, noone in the Church until Augustine interpreted these passages this way).

1) You assume that man deserves a chance and it is unfair for him not to have one. Yet Scripture says no such thing.

Scriptures say God is not trying to send people to Hell (by preterition or "reprobation" or whatever else you call it). Forget the "fairness" straw man already, because this is the real issue, which you are not dealing with.

2) You are not interested in fairness with yourself. You do not want God to treat your fairly because then you would spend eternity in hell.

Nobody says this. So since the whole issue of "fairness" is moot, let's deal with the issue of whether God really wants to preterition people to Hell according to His scriptures ("fair" or not). You're the one actually partaking in the concept of "fairness" by insisting Hell is "fair" for the "sinners" who had no chance of salvation. (Once again, trying to soften the whole idea).

Sub or infra lapsarianism is not moderate Calvinism. It is a different interpretation of certain issues. Calvinism is determined by a belief in the sovereignty of God. When you limit it and deny it, you are no longer a Calvinist.

And that's exatly what supralapsarians say about your position. Not so much here, (but some of your debates elsewhere have touched upon it though), but on the Reformed board Ray and I were on, they picked apart your position and cast into the outer darkness of "Arminianism".

By necessity in your view, people are saved by their own recognition of their need and thus their own response.

This may be "technically" true, but the Bible doesn't speak technically; in salvation God is credited with salvation, because He is the one who authored the whole plan in the first place.

[ April 22, 2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Kiffin]

Whew! What an intense discussion

I continue to be amazed how non Reformed people define what we Reformed people believe. A good example is,

There is no need to struggle for with those who reject God, to cry for those who cannot understand God's way of salvation, to plead for God's mercy in the midst of judgment; because even the exact number is tabulated within the immutable mind of God; the Reformed Christian has no need to wrestle for the lost or wayward believer, at least, not really. The part may be played out but, essentially, such concern for the lost is irrelevant when the true implications of Reformed theology are seriously considered.

Maybe you should read the diary of David Brainerd, the early Colonial Calvinist missionary as he prayed for the salvation of the Indians he preached to and that his mission work literaly destroyed his health. Read Whitefield's diary or read about how John Calvin's Church of Geneva sent out hundreds of missionaries into Europe as well as the dilegent mission and evangelistic work of the Huguenots in France, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, John Bunyan and C.H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon's book The Soul Winner is a must read.

Calvinism believes that whosoever is saved is saved by God's grace alone,(Eph. 2:8-10) and that it rests on the foundation of God's action in Christ and His choice(predestination) from before the beginning of time (Acts 13:48).

At the same time we do affirm "Whosoever will" (John 3:16, Rev. 22:17) and that we are to pray for and witness the Gospel to all men. Calvin stated And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

We do not affirm free will but human responsibility (John 1:12-13). God has ordained us as instruments to proclaim his Gospel. There is even warnings that if we fail to witness that their blood is on our hands (Acts 20:26-27,31). Calvin warned that those who refuse to evangelize in his commentary on Acts 20:26 that if anything perish through their negligence, an account may be required at their hands; yea, that unless they show the way of salvation without guile and crooks, the destruction of those who go astray may be imputed unto them.

There are many great Biblical truths that are hard to understand such as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation but we know are true. Calvinism believes and confesses Unconditional election and Whosoever will not by trying to rationalize how this is true (as Arminians and the Non Reformed seek to do) but confess them both as true because this is what Scripture teaches.

[ April 22, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[Nelson]

Kiffin: I continue to be amazed how non Reformed people define what we Reformed people believe...Maybe you should read the diary of David Brainerd...

Nelson: I did not define what Reformed people believe, however, I do appreciate the criticism because it brings up a worthwhile topic - for another board of course - which I have been thinking about the past few weeks regarding the effect one's theology has on their conduct.

I've read David Brainard and, for me, he is on the top ten list of "must-read" books for Christians (along with Charles Finney's autobiography) and I envy his relationship with God. He was one of the first books read when I first became a new believer (Finney came much later).

I grew up spiritually with Spurgeon and Andrew Murray.

I have a very close friend who follows the Reformed tradition and we share freely about our beliefs. His Christian temper is envious. I attended a couple of James White's debates, which were excellent though I don't agree with his theology with particular reference to his Reformed views. In his debate with a Catholic on the issue of "justification by faith alone", I feel he lost (although I could not fully agree with the Catholic); but on another debate with another Catholic on purgatory, White won hands down (I wish I were able to go on the Alaskan cruise White's ministry is having).

Admittedly, there are quite a few of those who do not fully follow through on the real implications of their theology (myself included and I think all of us do to one degree or another).

If one has taken my statements as a put-down of people who believe in the Reformed tradition, that was not my intent. My intention was to share my view regarding where the implication of such teachings may lead; that is why I stated, "concern for the lost is irrelevant when the true implications of Reformed theology are seriously considered."

I have witnessed persons who hold to the Reformed theology alleviate responsibility towards the lost because "only God can save," which is true but only in a certain context (while the opposite is true in cases of those who are inclined towards Arminianism; some have gone to far with their "responsibility" and have forced the issue).

My criticism was directed towards the Reformed teachings and what they implied, not the Reformed community.

Someone had stated that there are those who believe like a Calvinsist but live like an Arminian and vice-versa. Again, Finney had once instructed ministers that if your congregation is basically Arminian then preach like an Calvinist and vice-versa.

I wonder sometimes how much our conscious theological beliefs really influence and affect our conduct?

[ April 23, 2002, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

As Chet says, you are mis-understanding scripture and doing more proof-texting than proper hermeneutics

It is my misunderstanding because it doesn’t agree with your position. I am more than willing to talk about any Scripture you want to put forth. I have already volunteered to Chet to do that.

On 1 Cor 2 you say, This is at best ambiguous. You cannot prove from that verse that their motive would have been to try to avoid contributing to the plan of God, or otherwise.I think it is pretty clear from the text. The point of the text is the contrast between “us” and “them,” “divine wisdom” and “man’s wisdom.” The crucifiers thought they were being wise by crucifying a messianic pretender. Thus the message of salvation is foolish: A crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, Jesus also said that if Sodom and other wicked people saw the works of Christ, they would have repented, and this was the point and the principle I was trying to get out of that other verse. If I happen to be wrong on that verse, it still stands elsewhere.

But they didn’t. What about Isa 6 where God blind and deafens the people so that they will not hear and repent? This is not quite so easily done away with.

I do, but it's you who pick the ones you like and ignore or reinterpret the rest, and then say, "See, I have more scripture than you … No they are not, because you are not dealing with them, but instead throwing other scriptures that others (maybe not me) have already answered. You just didn't accept those answers, so you treat them as non-existent.".

You name the text and I will discuss it.

The ones you just brushed aside ("does He pretend to weep for people He had no desire of saving anyway?

I think Christ was genuinely weeping over the people’s rejection of him. I think he desired to save them but did not decree to do so for reasons that are a part of his plan and not our knowledge. I am willing to let my own lack of knowledge stand here so as not to contradict Scripture.

Do His decrees contradict His nature?"

Apparently at time they do. He decreed to allow Job to undergo tremendous suffering. He decreed that his Son should be brutally murdered and killed. He decreed that Paul should have a thorn in the flesh. The problem here again is our inability to comprehend the infinite perfection of God.

Is His plan revealed in scripture to fill up Hell with the majority of man?

Yes.

Now, notice above that I am willing to not have every answer. Are you? I do not pretend to have it all figured out. I do not deny the scriptural teaching that God elects people in accordance with his sovereign grace and will as you do. I do not deny the scriptural teaching that man is totally depraved and thus unable to come to God on his own as you do. Neither do I deny that God desires all men to be saved.

The problem with your answers, IMO, is that they deny clear and explicit Scripture. I do not. When you deny that God elects for salvation based on him and not based on man, you are denying explicit Scripture. I know you have creative ways to get around that such as foreknowledge (I found another proof that your position is wrong this morning) but it simply doesn’t add up.

Consider 1 Peter 1:20 where Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. The context is his appearing for salvation. This cannot be simple prescience. It must determinative as Acts 2:23 tells us.

But the scriptures I use are much clearer than the ones you are using. Remember, interpret cloudy scriptures in light of clear ones, and remember, If God though enough to have Peter warn us about how Paul's writings were easily misunderstoon because of their deepness, then we should be exercising more caution in yanking passages and building all sorts of questionable doctrines upon Paul. (It's significant that Calvinism is attributed to "Paul" as much as Augustine and Calvin to try to make it biblical. But once again, noone in the Church until Augustine interpreted these passages this way).

Your passages are not much clearer by any means. I don’t accept that premise at all. And to say that no one interpreted it this way until Augustine is to plainly ignore the words of Christ and Paul and Peter and John.

Scriptures say God is not trying to send people to Hell (by preterition or "reprobation" or whatever else you call it). Forget the "fairness" straw man already, because this is the real issue, which you are not dealing with.

I don’t think God is trying to send people to Hell. God doesn’t try to do anything; he simply does it. Man is already condemned.

Nobody says this. So since the whole issue of "fairness" is moot, let's deal with the issue of whether God really wants to preterition people to Hell according to His scriptures ("fair" or not). You're the one actually partaking in the concept of "fairness" by insisting Hell is "fair" for the "sinners" who had no chance of salvation. (Once again, trying to soften the whole idea).

How am I trying to soften the whole idea?? I believe God’s holiness is so immense that eternal hell is the only just and fair punishment for those who violate it. Men are sent to hell for their violation of God’s holiness and for no other reason at all. God would be unjust to send people to hell for all eternity if that was not the just recompense of their acts.

And that's exatly what supralapsarians say about your position. Not so much here, (but some of your debates elsewhere have touched upon it though), but on the Reformed board Ray and I were on, they picked apart your position and cast into the outer darkness of "Arminianism".

Well, they can do that. There are some differences of opinion. I admit that there are people more Calvinistic that I am and I contend that they violate clear Scripture and theology.

PL: By necessity in your view, people are saved by their own recognition of their need and thus their own response. Nelson: This may be "technically" true, but the Bible doesn't speak technically; in salvation God is credited with salvation, because He is the one who authored the whole plan in the first place.

Wow here is a first. Someone admitting this. For some time I have been accused of saying you guys believed something you don’t believe. Let the record show that it has been admitted.

To answer, I contend this is exactly what makes your position unbiblical. I can grant a lot of latitude but this is where it stops. Salvation does not rest in any way, form, or fashion on something in man …not even his ability to recognize his need. We cannot simply write this off to a technicality.

 

[Eric B]

I think it is pretty clear from the text. The point of the text is the contrast between “us” and “them,” “divine wisdom” and “man’s wisdom.” The crucifiers thought they were being wise by crucifying a messianic pretender. Thus the message of salvation is foolish: A crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms.

"Man's wisdom" could still refer to their belief that Jesus was a threat, and thus needed to be eliminated. It could possibly be as you say, that they were trying to thwart God's plan. But this assumes they knew He was from God in the first place, and would deliberately try to thwart the plan just by killing Him. But their intentions were not addressed here, so that's why it is ambiguous. So this is a petty tangent.

But they didn’t. What about Isa 6 where God blind and deafens the people so that they will not hear and repent? This is not quite so easily done away with.

Just like Romans 9 (which draws on Isaiah), this is talking about the nation as a whole. If you take it to mean every single individual, then there would have been absolutely no righteous in all of Israel, and no prophets, no John the Baptist, and no righteous parents for Jesus to be born to. If individuals are already incapable of repenting, why would it be necessary to "harden" them?

Apparently at time they do. He decreed to allow Job to undergo tremendous suffering. He decreed that his Son should be brutally murdered and killed. He decreed that Paul should have a thorn in the flesh. The problem here again is our inability to comprehend the infinite perfection of God.

He never said it was not apart of His nature for people (including His Son) to suffer here on earth, because that leads to a better end. The problem once again is a failure to distinguish earthly pain from eternal Hell.

I think Christ was genuinely weeping over the people’s rejection of him. I think he desired to save them but did not decree to do so for reasons that are a part of his plan and not our knowledge. I am willing to let my own lack of knowledge stand here so as not to contradict Scripture.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Is His plan revealed in scripture to fill up Hell with the majority of man?

Yes.
Now, notice above that I am willing to not have every answer. Are you? I do not pretend to have it all figured out.I do not deny the scriptural teaching that God elects people in accordance with his sovereign grace and will as you do. I do not deny the scriptural teaching that man is totally depraved and thus unable to come to God on his own as you do. Neither do I deny that God desires all men to be saved.

The problem with your answers, IMO, is that they deny clear and explicit Scripture. I do not. When you deny that God elects for salvation based on him and not based on man, you are denying explicit Scripture. I know you have creative ways to get around that such as foreknowledge (I found another proof that your position is wrong this morning) but it simply doesn’t add up.

Consider 1 Peter 1:20 where Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. The context is his appearing for salvation. This cannot be simple prescience. It must determinative as Acts 2:23 tells us. </font>[/QUOTE]

PL: By necessity in your view, people are saved by their own recognition of their need and thus their own response. Nelson: This may be "technically" true, but the Bible doesn't speak technically; in salvation God is credited with salvation, because He is the one who authored the whole plan in the first place.

I think you're getting me confused with Nelson. That was my statement you quoted above, (responding to one of your responses to him), but I never argued from "foreknowledge" or "prescience". I gave all that up before I came to this board, realizing it was above our knowlege. Yet, you still persist in attributing my position to "having it all figured out", while
attributing your interpretations of scripture as "not denying what it says", and then claiming to "let your lack of knowledge stand" of His "reasons that are a part of his plan and not our knowledge" when there was no other way out. Just like your bold denial that God creates people for Hell, becauser "it's all their own choice", but then you said "Ultimately God is responsible for sending people to hell", and now "Yes", God does want to fill up Hell. You cannot attribute illogic to "it's above our reason", but then criticize me for saying that how election and man's choice of salvation fit together are the mystery.

Another glaring hole in the theory, involving man's "inability" is that you say only someone regenerated first can be the "whosoever" that will "call on the Name of the Lord" to be saved, (because the unregenerate only "run away from God", "think nothing of Him", "don't care", etc). Yet, if they don't "persevere to the end", they were never elect at all, no matter whether they thought they believed, and you even admitted a possibility that your belief may end up "vain". But then how was this "non-elect" person able to stop running, choose "contrary to his nature" and "call on the Name of the Lord" in the first place (how was he able to get so close?); and now, someone did call on the Lord and was not saved.

Your passages are not much clearer by any means. I don’t accept that premise at all. And to say that no one interpreted it this way until Augustine is to plainly ignore the words of Christ and Paul and Peter and John.

Precisly the point is that the words of Christ, Peter, Paul and John were interpreted by Augustine in a way that noone before him ever did.
You say your scriptures are clearer, and mine are not. This is just "I say, you say". God not delighting in the death of man sounds much clearer than passages discussing His untimebound perspective, involving election. One concept is definable and comprehendable on earth. The other is not [completely].

I don’t think God is trying to send people to Hell. God doesn’t try to do anything; he simply does it. Man is already condemned

"trying" is a figure of speech. What I was trying to say was God isn't creating reasons to send people to Hell (having them be born sinners, keeping them unable to repent, but holding them responsible anyway to condemn them) (Sometimes it's hard to articulate some of this stuff properly, especially when I'm in a ruch to get to bed early)

How am I trying to soften the whole idea?? I believe God’s holiness is so immense that eternal hell is the only just and fair punishment for those who violate it. Men are sent to hell for their violation of God’s holiness and for no other reason at all. God would be unjust to send people to hell for all eternity if that was not the just recompense of their acts.

What I'm saying is that you're criticizing my belief purely because you think it is based on "fairness", but now you are defining what is "fair" or "just". If fairness is deficient, it's deficient. If not, it's not. If the people violated Him because they had no other choice, (they did not ask to be born a sinner, or begin individually, consciously in an unfallen state and choose sin like Adam, and the only answer to this, Romans 9 "vessels of wrath", has been disproven regarding individuals) then that calls into question your whole notion of "fairness", not mine. You're using it part of the way, and not being consistant with it.

To answer, I contend this is exactly what makes your position unbiblical. I can grant a lot of latitude but this is where it stops. Salvation does not rest in any way, form, or fashion on something in man …not even his ability to recognize his need. We cannot simply write this off to a technicality.

But elsewhere, you affirm that man must hear and believe the Gospel to be saved, and criticize as "unbiblical" those Calvinists who say the Gospel is not needed, because it's ALL God's doing. Don't you see where they are being consistant with your statement above.

[ April 25, 2002, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Nelson]

by Kiffin: Calvinism believes that whosoever is saved is saved by God's grace alone (Eph. 2:8-10)…

I am unaware of any Bible verse, including the above cited, that states salvation is solely by grace and without faith explicitly or implicitly. It does say grace is without works.

The verse cited in Ephesians states that salvation is “by grace” (as the foundation upon wherein salvation is procured) “through faith” (as the conditional means on man’s side to procure it).

Anyway you look at it, it does not say, “And by grace you have been saved without faith;” but “by grace you have been saved through faith.”

I notice that Galatians 2:16 states, “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (NAS).

...and that it rests on the foundation of God's action in Christ and His choice(predestination) from before the beginning of time (Acts 13:48).

Regarding Acts 13:48, as stated in Coffman Commentaries, “…this means that ‘As many as were disposed to accept God's plan, according to which they had been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, believed.’ Before the world was, God ordained that people who would hear his word and submit their will to his would receive eternal life, and that those who would not do this could not receive eternal life. There is nothing in this place that suggests any ‘immutable decree’ regarding specific individuals, the ordination in this place having reference, not to individuals at all, but to classes of people [i.e. believers].”

At the same time we do affirm "Whosoever will" (John 3:16, Rev. 22:17)…

Interpreting the text in John as Kiffin proposes above, results in a logical contradiction inherent in the text between “whosoever will,” as a general application open for all, and confining the meaning and intention of the word “world” to particular individuals of a definite and immutable number.

…Calvin stated And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

For a teacher to tell her 30 students, “All of you may go on a trip to the zoo,” but having the intention, from the beginning, of actually taking only 7 particular students and leaving the rest to stay in class under a substitute teacher has nothing to do with favor and everything to do with deception.

It is a logical contradiction to assert that God “invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ” and yet, at the same time, assert that he has purposely chosen a particular few of an immutable number; even worse, it makes God out to be untrue to His word and an inherently contradictory Being.

We do not affirm free will but human responsibility (John 1:12-13).

Kiffin and the Reformed teachings may not affirm free will, however, the Bible affirms both free will and human responsibility. Common sense affirms that neither can be affirmed without affirming the other. The verse cited clearly assumes free will: “as many as received Him.”

There are many great Biblical truths that are hard to understand such as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation but we know are true. Calvinism believes and confesses Unconditional election and Whosoever will not by trying to rationalize how this is true (as Arminians and the Non Reformed seek to do) but confess them both as true because this is what Scripture teaches.

Personally, and with all due respect to Kiffin as a fellow-believer, I confess the Bible alone as infallibly true and adhere to it as my conscience dictates. Interpretations are neither of divine inspiration nor infallible and, alongside the claims made by the Watchtower Society concerning their teachings, I lay the claims as made above by Kiffin and any others, including Spurgeon, concerning the Reformed doctrine.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Only a couple of comments.

1. Calvinists do believe whosoever will may come. The difference between you and us is that we have an explanation as for how man who has no desire for God, who hates God, and who is unable to come to God suddenly has a will. God is not rejecting any wish to be saved.

2. Acts 13:48 cannot legitimately be interpreted by your quote. There is a little problem called the text. This has been sounded hashed out in other thread so I will save it for here. I will say only that your intepretation assumes its conclusion and arranges the text to fit it. Your interpretation makes the outcome what is disposed (that those who believe will have life). The text makes the individual what is disposed.

3. Most Calvinists do affirm free will. We define free will consistently. We do not affirm libertarian freedom since not even God has that. No one, including God, can act outside the dictates of nature. Man is perfectly free to do whatever he wants to do.

4. All of your analogies of classes and teachers etc all are based on a faulty assumption regarding the nature of man as taught in Scritpure. Scripture is explicitly clear that man is totally turned against God, his heart is more deceitful that anything else, not even he understands it, he is dead, he does not seek for God, he is unable to come to God. Only God can regenerate the human heart. The teacher has no control over the heart and a choice to go to the zoo is well within the confines of the nature. Now if the teacher promised her 2nd class a million dollars to all who would turn immediately into a dead horse, it would be a legitimate offer but there would be neither the ability nor the will on the part of the students to comply. However, this breaks down because the teacher cannot enable the student to do such. In spiritual death into which all are born, only God can give life and when he gives it, it is actually life, not just a potential of positive response should the person be smart enough to choose to avoid hell by believing in Christ.

 

[Chet]

Hi Brother Larry,

You say

Most Calvinists do affirm free will.... Man is perfectly free to do whatever he wants to do.

But PL, this really is not free will. As you say,

Calvinists do believe whosoever will may come. The difference between you and us is that we have an explanation as for how man who has no desire for God, who hates God, and who is unable to come to God suddenly has a will. God is not rejecting any wish to be saved.

1.) on the part of the elect, they would not have the will to reject Christ because they are going to be irresistibly called. They can’t chose not to be saved.
2.) on the part of the non-elect God is being deceptive by claiming whosoever will, because they do not have the desire, or ability to come to Christ. That will is destroyed. Secondly, God is short changing the non-elect by not even giving them an ability to respond, even though He repeatedly ask them to.

Our explanation is clear. God first loved us. He calls all men to repent. He revealed Himself to us through His son in the flesh, then through His written Word. He has given us all the grace of God that brings salvation. Romans one also states clearly that God has revealed himself through Creation, so that no man has no excuse. The excuse is not that we couldn’t respond to this light.

Nelson I agree with you about Eph. 2:8,9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast.
NIV

Titus 3:5 teaches that it is by His mercy we are saved. The object of our faith is not the grace, or mercy of God but in what Jesus did for us. Because of God’s grace we are saved through faith. The faith must be there before we can obtain salvation. So salvation before believe is impossible. The gift of God is salvation itself, which was accomplished through the Son. This faith is not a work, as our salvation is not of works but of faith. Calvinist attempt to make belief in God a work of man, it is not. Believing is the condition in which we can obtain the salvation of God, because of His wonderful grace and mercy.

 

[KJV1611only]

Larry you said this:

"Scripture is explicitly clear that man is totally turned against God, his heart is more deceitful that anything else, not even he understands it, he is dead, he does not seek for God, he is unable to come to God. Only God can regenerate the human heart.'

I agree that man is altoghether vanity and that man's nature is depraved. I could agree, that there is nothing good in man. But that is the reason that man needs salvation.

You and every other Calvinist use romans 3:11 to assert your postition and fail to read the entire context of the chapter. There is absolutly nothing in scripture that says a man "CAN'T"or is "UNABLE" to seek God Or "CAN'T" accept God. IF you can show me those scriptures that say exactly that I would love to see them. You read 3:11 and put your own words in.

Scripture calls you a liar in Romans 2:7

So does:

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Of course this is in referrance to Israel because Israel are God's elect, and again these are unregenerate people not born again. And notice they have a choice? obviously the ability to seek God is there.

Ch 15:13
That whosoever would not
seek the LORD God of Israel
should be put to death,
whether small or great,
whether man or woman.

Now why would they be put to death if they didn't have the ability to seek after God?? I gave these examples out of the old testament because these were people not Quickend by the Holy spirit, They were not born again and yet these people who were spiritually dead were told to seek the Lord.

Notice the words WOULD NOT? that means they have a choice.
The Calvinist dotrine of total depravity is really not scriptural compared to what GOD said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chet:
You say </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Most Calvinists do affirm free will.... Man is perfectly free to do whatever he wants to do.

But PL, this really is not free will. </font>[/QUOTE]On what basis? This is absolutely free will. He can do anything consistent with his nature ... just like God can.

1.) on the part of the elect, they would not have the will to reject Christ because they are going to be irresistibly called. They can’t chose not to be saved.

Of course not. They have a new nature. They will choose to be saved.

2.) on the part of the non-elect God is being deceptive by claiming whosoever will, because they do not have the desire, or ability to come to Christ. That will is destroyed. Secondly, God is short changing the non-elect by not even giving them an ability to respond, even though He repeatedly ask them to.

God is not deceptive in any way. The non-elect will not respond. They are not seeking God. They do not want to respond. Secondly, the only way that God would be shortchanging the elect is if you think God should do something that God doesn't think he should do. God is under no obligation to do anything at all.

Calvinist attempt to make belief in God a work of man, it is not. Believing is the condition in which we can obtain the salvation of God, because of His wonderful grace and mercy.

I have never seen a Calvinist do this although some primitives will. Belief is absolutely necessary and no one will be saved without it. But remember, once you remove it from God and put it in the realm of man's choice, it is no longer of grace, it is of man's choice.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by KJV1611only:
You and every other Calvinist use romans 3:11 to assert your postition and fail to read the entire context of the chapter. There is absolutly nothing in scripture that says a man "CAN'T"or is "UNABLE" to seek God Or "CAN'T" accept God. IF you can show me those scriptures that say exactly that I would love to see them. You read 3:11 and put your own words in.

Rom 3:11 says that men are not seeking God. Yet you believe that some are. Paul disagrees with you.

As for can't, how about Rom8:7-8: ...the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Now it is obvious from the context that this is talking about the unsaved because of the contrast with those in the Spirit in the following verses. These verses therefore explicitly state what you wish to deny, namely, that unsaved man is unable to subject itself to the law of God or to please God. It is an issue of ability.

I pulled up Rom 2:7 to see what might possibly show me to be lying about and I could not find anything at all. That verse is absolutely true. 2 Chron 7:14 is another verse that is absolutely true. If God's people Israel repent and return, then God will restore them. Why do you think I disagree with that??

obviously the ability to seek God is there.

How is this obvious?? I think you are the one inserting things into the text here.

Now why would they be put to death if they didn't have the ability to seek after God?? I gave these examples out of the old testament because these were people not Quickend by the Holy spirit, They were not born again and yet these people who were spiritually dead were told to seek the Lord.

These people were put to death because they didn't seek God. They willfully rejected him. When people were saved in the OT, it was by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Until that time, they were spiritually dead.

Notice the words WOULD NOT? that means they have a choice. The Calvinist dotrine of total depravity is really not scriptural compared to what GOD said.

"Would not" means simply that. They would not seek him. The scriptural doctrine of total depravity is clear. I did an evangelistic Bible study with some people this week that I have been meeting with for a couple of weeks. We talked about the doctrine of total depravity from a study I am using. While going through it, I thought of this board because I am absolutely flabberghasted that anyone could deny that Scripture teaches total depravity.

 

[Chet]

They have a new nature. They will choose to be saved.

Does the new nature happen before they believe or after? Because I can argue that the Bible clearly teaches an order of believing before regeneration. And you fail to see the obvious logic here PL, you claim that man has free will. But here the elected one has only one choice to be saved. He can not choose not to be saved. That has been taken from him.

God is not deceptive in any way. The non-elect will not respond. They are not seeking God. They do not want to respond. Secondly, the only way that God would be shortchanging the elect is if you think God should do something that God doesn't think he should do. God is under no obligation to do anything at all.

Again you are failing to see the logic. Where is the choice? Choice requires at least two options, you are claiming that not only is there one option but the right option can’t be revealed to them unless the Sovereign God (because of His glory) chose them.
God would be deceptive to teach all throughout Scripture to come, pleading with us to come to Him, and Christ giving us the invitation to all that labor so that He can give us rest then turn around and say, “oh yes but you won’t unless I say so”. God is God, I can understand your not wanting to implicate or impose things upon Him, we should be careful in that. But God himself made it clear that He does not take pleasure in the death of the unrighteous. I trust He desires for all to be saved.

Belief is absolutely necessary and no one will be saved without it. But remember, once you remove it from God and put it in the realm of man's choice, it is no longer of grace, it is of man's choice.

Why? If God said that it is by His grace through faith then how then does faith violate His grace? Grace is an incredible thing. In fact I believe that Calvinist today to more harm to this wonderful word than I have seen. (Example is seen in John MacArthur). Belief then takes no work on man’s part then and we agree is separate from the works salvation. How marvelous then for Jesus in is many exhortations to call us to simply believe. That is it! Believe and be saved period. That speaks volumes to God’s grace. And speaks loudly to the entire point that Helen is bringing up in her starting of this thread.

 

[KJV1611only]

Larry, with all due respect, Romans chapter 2 is not Discussing Isreal. It is discussing MAN. Paul is addressing both Gentiles and Jews and it has nothing to do with restoring Israel.

2:7 says " TO them who by Patient Continuance in well doing SEEK for glory and honor and eternal life." these are not saved people yet. notice they Seek for eternal life. According to Total depravity they shouldn't be able to do this. am I right?

second I read Romans 8:7-8 and again it does not say man has the inability to seek after God. The passage is addressed to Christians as well. Do you not agree that Christians can be carnally minded? If a Christian is in the flesh can they please God? NO. So i don't see how you can use this to uphold total Depravity.

People were NOT regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the Old testament. not in once single case. When a person recieves the Holy spirit and is regenerated they are sealed until the day of redemption and that can only happen by the Blood of Jesus. Noone was regenerated in the Old testament not one person that is why they couldn't go to heaven and had to go to Abrahams bosom. are you going to tell me that the Nation Of Isreal were all regenerated? they were the ones God commanded to seek him.

Nor did I read where Noah, or Abraham were regenerated .

I am amazed when people actually believe that total depravity is taught in the Bible when it is not scriptural by any means.

What do you say about Isaiah 45:19??

"I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not to the seed of Jacob, SEEK ME IN VAIN: I the LORD speak rightousness, I declare things that are right"

So what God changes? he tells Isreal to seek him but noone else can? I thought God never changes?

 

[Kiffin]

Nelson said,

“by grace” (as the foundation upon wherein salvation is procured) “through faith” (as the conditional means on man’s side to procure it).

Anyway you look at it, it does not say, “And by grace you have been saved without faith;” but “by grace you have been saved through faith.”

I notice that Galatians 2:16 states, “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (NAS).

Nelson, no Calvinist believes one is saved without faith. Faith is a gift of God that comes from God. It is God grace that saves us through the gift of faith. Your error is that you state, "by grace” (as the foundation upon wherein salvation is procured) “through faith” (as the conditional means on man’s side to procure it" You I believe unintentially teach a that Salvation is 50% the work of God and 50% the work of man. Thus a form of human merit gets one to Heaven since I had to do something.

 

[Kiffin]

Acts 13:48 is a problem verse for the Non Calvinist that is often explained away. Note how a variety of translation render it,



And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and
as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (KJV)

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord.
And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (NKJV)

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord;
and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (NASB)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all
who were appointed for eternal life believed.(NIV)

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as
many as were ordained to eternal life believed.(RSV)

This message made the Gentiles glad, and they praised what they had heard about the
LORD. Everyone who had been chosen for eternal life then put their faith in the LORD
(CEV)

When those who were not Jewish heard Paul say this, they were happy and gave honor to
the message of the Lord. And the people who were chosen to have life forever believed
the message. (NCV)

The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All
who were destined for eternal life came to believe, (NAB)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the Lord's message; and those
who had been chosen for eternal life became believers (TEV)

Note how Greek lexicons deal with "ordained" or "chosen"

” appoint” (Davidson’s Anaylitical Greek Lexicon p. 398)
“to appoint” (Bullinger’s Greek Lexicon p. 559)
“ to appoint, ordain” (Liddell-Scott Greek English Lexicon).
“1b) to appoint, ordain” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

The ancient Syrian version "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life”

"tasso" is in the perfect tense, passive voice, participle. It is preceded by "to be" in the
imperfect tense. So a literal rendering of the phrase would be "were, having been
appointed."

The most literal word would be Appoint.The best translations that give the most literal
rendering are those translations that render it WERE APPOINTED, HAD BEEN APPOINTED (NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT)

The word "appoint" means:
to name or assign .... to fix; set: ... to designate (a person) to take the benefit of an
estate created by a deed or will.

Designated “to indicate and set apart for a specific purpose”

Webster’s Thesaraus Related Words for Designate, “ choose, elect, opt, pick, select,
single; assign, delegate, depute; dictate...allocate, earmark”

The context then does not require much straining
1. The Jews rejected the message
2. The Gentiles praised the message
3. Those Who had been Chosen for eternal life believed

Those who believed were those who had been chosen, destined, or ordained to. Of course
you cannot separate this scripture from others that add more clarity


(John 6:37-40)
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no
means cast out.For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of
Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me
I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him
who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life;
and I will raise him up at the last day."

“as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:2-3)

Scripture does not tells us Christ made salvation a possibilty for all people (which the Non Calvinist actually believes) but that He
actually purchased people when He died on the cross and that these people will come to
Him. (Mt 20:28)

 

[KJV1611only]

Kiffen, Noone that belives that man has a freewill to chose Jesus, believes that man saves himself. I can't see for the life of me how you could assert that. Only God can give eternal life but that in no way excludes the ability to repent and accept Jesus as Savior. Man asking for forgiveness and asking for the Lord to come into the heart to save him is in no way shape or form man saving himself. And it isn't a work to ask.. I wish calvinist would get that.

eph. 2:8 says by Grace are ye saved..( BY GRACE) THROUGH faith..you get grace THROUGH faith..and not of yourselves: it ( salvation is the "IT" salvation is the topic) is the gift of God.

 

[russell55]

Man asking for forgiveness and asking for the Lord to come into the heart to save him is in no way shape or form man saving himself.

Hmm.....If what God did was provide a way of salvation for everyone, and man's part in the salvation process is asking for forgiveness and asking for the Lord to come into the heart to save him; then everyone's salvation hinges upon their asking for it. The only thing that sets the saved apart from the unsaved is something the saved DO that the unsaved don't do. Everything depends on how each person respond to what God has already done for every man. The lifeline is thrown out to every man, but they must SAVE THEMSELVES by reaching out and grabbing it. I don't think there is any way to get around this under this scheme of things.

eph. 2:8 says by Grace are ye saved..( BY GRACE) THROUGH faith..you get grace THROUGH faith..and not of yourselves: it ( salvation is the "IT" salvation is the topic) is the gift of God.

Yes, the whole salvation process is the "it" that is the gift of God. But you read the verse wrong when you say that you get grace through faith. It is SALVATION that comes through faith, not grace.

[ April 27, 2002, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Kiffin]

KJV1611, you said

Kiffen, Noone that belives that man has a freewill to chose Jesus, believes that man saves himself. I can't see for the life of me how you could assert that. Only God can give eternal life but that in no way excludes the ability to repent and accept Jesus as Savior. Man asking for forgiveness and asking for the Lord to come into the heart to save him is in no way shape or form man saving himself. And it isn't a work to ask.. I wish calvinist would get that.

There is the problem. The Bible tells us it is by the will of God men are saved and not by the will of man (John 1:12-13). You do unintentially teach man has a part in the plan of salvation when you teach freewill.

Before I was a Calvinist, a man in my Sunday School class made a valid point. He said that it looked like there was something we were doing to be saved since if it is our faith that is believing. In other words God does his part and now I got to do my part. The fact of the matter is asking for forgiveness and asking for the Lord to come into the heart to save us is the work of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of His regenerating us. Even the faith we have as Eph. 2:8-10 tells us comes from God and not ourselves.