I've never known a Calvinist...

[J.D.]

Originally posted by Helen:
I don't care, first of all, what Spurgeon said! He is not Gospel.

God will not violate their free choice. He does not take His gifts back. But He will respond to prayers for the person. That may set up others in their lives to work with them, it may set up circumstances to encourage them toward the truth -- all I know is that prayer is efficaceous. It may change my heart toward the person and show me a different way of approach...

Whereas, with Calvinism, all is decided and God has already determined everything and so this is where prayer means what? I can't see that any true Calvinist would pray for anything, for all is already determined by God.

We should always pray TOWARD God's will. Would you ever pray "MY will be done on earth..."? I think not.

Praying is a glorious form of worship whereby we fellowship with God in accordance with His will. Prayers are made efficacious BY HIS WILL. Any thing we pray not of His will, will fall flat.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Helen:
Humanism states that humans are intrinsically good naturally. I do not subscribe to that at all. But humans know how to recognize good and can desire good for others as well as themselves.

If they are not good then their natural evil will affect every part of them... totally depraved.

The Bible tells people to seek God. They all understand what that means, regardless of whether they want to do it or not.

Really? Do you really think they believe that command has validity or that the consequences are true... and choose not to do it?

Jesus said the following:

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, ow much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
Matthew 7:9-11

So I guess you would define Jesus as a humanist, too????

Who said the unregenerate were the sons of God? John 1 expressly tells us that believers are empowered to become the sons of God. Romans 8 declares that we are adopted and that Christ was the firstborn of many brethren.

The scripture you cite is for believers, not unbelievers.

 

[J.D.]

Signing off, see ya later.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Helen:
God will not violate their free choice.

That statement defies scripture- both declarations and examples in the sense that you seem to intend it.

For instance, God violated Paul's free choice. He had freely chosen to go persecute Christians in Damascus... God had a different plan.

God didn't offer Mary a choice... nor Elizabeth, Moses, Job, Abraham, etc, etc, etc.

But in reality, God doesn't violate "free choice". He allows the unregenerate to continue in their "free choice" all the way to destruction. He frees from sin bondage/gives sight to see/changes the spiritual nature of the regenerate... resulting in the very natural expression of their "free choice" to be acceptance of Christ as Savior.

But He will respond to prayers for the person. That may set up others in their lives to work with them, it may set up circumstances to encourage them toward the truth -- all I know is that prayer is efficaceous.

If those things are true then you are basically saying that God is in control of the circumstances that result in someone's salvation... meaning He has very much violated their "free choice" and that of those for whom He doesn't manipulate circumstances favorably.

It may change my heart toward the person and show me a different way of approach...

Are you saying that people reject the gospel because we don't rationalize it properly to them? That we bear responsibility? That their salvation depends on our fallible abilities?

Those seem to be the implications of your statement.

Whereas, with Calvinism, all is decided and God has already determined everything and so this is where prayer means what?

It means we've obeyed. Perhaps God honored these prayers from eternity past since prayer is also a sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within us.

I don't think you are an open theist... at least I hope not. So in one way or another, either passively or actively, God foreknows what will happen, who will be saved, and what our prayers will be.

I believe that God both allows things to come to past and causes things to come to past... because that is what scripture appears to say. Salvation, like creation or the ordaining of a life, is one of the things that scripture seems to indicate God causes and performs in the man. Sin and rejection of the gospel are things He allows.

I can't see that any true Calvinist would pray for anything, for all is already determined by God.

I just explained that... but I don't believe that God predetermines all and am pretty sure that many other calvinists here don't either. For instance, God does not author sin.

God allows things and He causes things.

I believe that spiritual resurrection is every bit as much a miracle as physical resurrection. Only God has power to effect miracles. Regeneration is the changing of one's nature from something it isn't to something wholly new and previously unknown. (Known in the sense of truly, intimately known and not just an accounting of certain details.)

The question does boil down to whether man possesses the goodness in himself and moreover whether the true nature of the power of salvation is natural or supernatural.

 

[Frenchy]

We should always pray TOWARD God's will. Would you ever pray "MY will be done on earth..."? I think not.

I said the same thing J.D. funny we think alike

 

[CompassionateConservative]

Helen, Are you saying that it would be internally inconsistent for a Calvinist to believe he/she was not part of the elect? I disagree. Theoretically, such a Calvinist could exist.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Helen:
Whoa! How can God have faith? "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" -- Hebrews 11:1.

Does God need to HOPE for anything? Is there anything He does not see?

Faith requires an object -- you must have faith in something or someone. And it requires that you not know everything involved. Who does God have faith in and what is it He does not know?

Lady from the Beaver State has a point.

Ed

 

[Timtoolman]

Helen don't let them get to you. You are doing a great job. Both sides have issues don't stoop to their level.

Tim

 

[Brother Bob]

How could you be a Calvinist and not think you were one of the "elect", now that would be an impossibility I think? The Calvinist believe the "elect" are the only ones going to Heaven don't they?

 

[rsr]

It's entirely possible — or at least to worry that you're not really one of the elect. How would you know, after all?

 

[Frenchy]

Helen don't let them get to you. You are doing a great job. Both sides have issues don't stoop to their level.

Tim

and that level would be using God's word to back up personal beliefs

I don't have a problem with Helen as a person. I am sure she is wonderful and a very caring person, that i do see, and so am i. I just am one who would rather stand firm on God's word than personal opinions, thats all.

 

[J.D.]

Many of the Primitive Baptists, although they believe in eternal security of the elect, yet they do not believe in assurance of salvation, for no one can know who is elect or not, they say, and you can't even know that of yourself until the ressurection. I appreciate the primitives in many ways, but not that one.

 

[Scott J]

Agree J.D.

Arminians preach assurance but not security.

Hyper-calvinists preach security but no assurance.

Calvinists preach (biblically) both security and assurance.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Agree J.D.

Arminians preach assurance but not security.

Hyper-calvinists preach security but no assurance.

Calvinists preach (biblically) both security and assurance.

Uh- haven't we left out just one little minor, trivial, insigniicant little detail in all the above groups?

That is provided someone else's "Perseverance" reaches above the undefined, of course, standard of what is acceptable and what is not, which usually turns out to be whatever I happen to agree with, you understand of course!

BTW, the standards are usually expressed along these lines:

"If such and so was really and truly a Christian, they..."
or
"If you ask me, a Christian wouldn't ..."

You know, real Biblical and objective standards!

But give credit where credit is due; the standards are universally applied across the board!

Ed

[ March 23, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: EdSutton ]

 

[Helen]

To Scott:

Originally posted by Helen:
God will not violate their free choice.
You responded:
That statement defies scripture- both declarations and examples in the sense that you seem to intend it.

"Behold, I stand at the door an knock..."
"Come, let us reason together, says the Lord..."
"Choose this day who you will serve..."
"Harden not your hearts..."

I can put all of these deep into context, but I have mentioned them so many times that I am hoping I don't have to do all that typing again. I will if challenged, though..

God gave man free will -- the freedom to want -- and does not repent or turn back on His gifts. He does not violate that free will. It is our choice if we open, or seek, or reason with God, or harden our hearts. The Bible is very plain about this.

For instance, God violated Paul's free choice. He had freely chosen to go persecute Christians in Damascus... God had a different plan.

You are looking a the effects of Paul's choice, not his heart's choice, which was to serve the God of Scripture. He considered Christians a cult which was damaging to Scripture. He wanted the truth of God to stand. That was his heart. God then showed him Who the truth was and is and Paul changed immediately -- in accord with the truth he always wanted. God fulfilled his heart's desire and did not violate his freedom to want that truth. Instead He answered Paul's quest with Himself.

God didn't offer Mary a choice... nor Elizabeth, Moses, Job, Abraham, etc, etc, etc.

Each of these people had choices in their lives regarding how to respond to the world they lived in and the circumstances around them. Job had a choice about how to respond to what happened to him (we don't choose our circumstances, we choose our responses). Moses did not have to kill the Egyptian, did not have to help the women at the well, did not have to obey God. Abraham did not have to leave Ur or Haran in obedience to God. We are not told nearly as much about either Elizabeth or Mary, but they had choices in their lives and Mary and Joseph both certainly had a choice about how to respond to the fact of her pregnancy.

We cannot control what happens to us. Our responsibility is how we choose to respond.

When I mentioned about prayer, you responded:
If those things are true then you are basically saying that God is in control of the circumstances that result in someone's salvation... meaning He has very much violated their "free choice" and that of those for whom He doesn't manipulate circumstances favorably.

Of course God is in control of circumstances, but He doesn't cause or force anyone to respond in a particular way to them. Take a look at the incredible blessings in the lives of the majority of Americans -- they have been set up to win. But they choose to reject God for the most part -- or at least to reject any serious commitment to Him. But if something bad happens, "How could God do that!?!" They know God is in charge! Their response is what is their responsibility.

Are you saying that people reject the gospel because we don't rationalize it properly to them? That we bear responsibility? That their salvation depends on our fallible abilities?

Those seem to be the implications of your statement.

It's not a matter of rationalizing it. It is often a matter of living it as well as listening closely to the Holy Spirit. Sometimes He instructs us to back off and let the person have time to think. Those who sow often don't reap and we need to be careful that we don't drive people away for a time. Those who want the truth will be led to Christ by God. But God knows best how it is to be done and that He is willing to use any of us is incredible and awesome. But I have found I can let myself get in the way of His work and then He needs to 'retire' me from that particular area. It is not a matter of the person not finding the truth in Christ, but of me or someone else delaying the trip and thus causing damage to all involved. If we are Christians sharing the Gospel or discipling someone, we bear a very heavy responsibility to listen to the Holy Spirit's direction. He knows what He is doing. It is ours to obey. But it is also ours to pray for the circumstances in the person's life and his or her ability to see what is going on. And to pray that we who have ears will hear what He is directing. Prayers are connections. And the more the better.

No, I am not a universalist and yes, salvation is supernatural. But neither denies that God has invited man to reason with him, asked man to seek Him with his whole heart, warned him not to harden his heart, and invited him to choose whom he will serve. We have the freedom to respond yes or no to God. Our response is no surprise to Him. He knew from all eternity. But that does not make it any the less our choice. A pastor I had before called it the Divine Paradox.

 

[Frenchy]

J.D.

Many of the Primitive Baptists, although they believe in eternal security of the elect, yet they do not believe in assurance of salvation, for no one can know who is elect or not, they say, and you can't even know that of yourself until the ressurection. I appreciate the primitives in many ways, but not that one.

[ March 23, 2006, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Frenchy ]

 

[Frenchy]

J.D.

Many of the Primitive Baptists, although they believe in eternal security of the elect, yet they do not believe in assurance of salvation, for no one can know who is elect or not, they say, and you can't even know that of yourself until the ressurection. I appreciate the primitives in many ways, but not that one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good point J.D. it does seem that those who hold to the rediculous veiw that they had to DO something in order to get saved, howbeit so small
(the act of believing and responding to the call is from God and so is the faith) also hold to the veiw you can lose that which God gave.

So how can an Arminian believe in assurance of salvation? I mean come on if they had to do something then they can also UNDO it too. seems very contradictory doesn't it?

So which is it?
God did it all even the calling/choosing before the foundartions of the world. therefore he will keep that which he called/chose or we had something to do with our salvation therefore those who hold to the veiw of losing it are right

This is where Helens "Free Will" examples fall apart.
We do have free will before salvation and after, but at the MOMENT of salvation it is the WORK of God. John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who has sent me DRAWS HIM."

God intervines on many occasions in our lives over riding FREE WILL for those saved and unsaved!

 

[Helen]

And who does the Father draw? If you follow the Bible through, you will find it is those who seek Him and want the truth.

 

[J.D.]

Frenchy, I don't think I'm the one that said that arminians have assurance (and I'm thinking of full arminians here), but oddly enough, some of the wesleyan/holiness types, even though they believe one must be perfectly holy to be saved, nevertheless many of them have an "assurance" that they are, and will be, saved. How can they have that? Well, those that believe that they are totally sanctified, and can not sin, simply redifine sin down to their level, so that if they achieve some superficial standard of holiness, they can be assured of their salvation. It's like the old holiness people I know that believe they're saved because they never wear short sleeve shirts and they "speak in tongues"!

 

[J.D.]

BTW the Holiness example I used, they can have "assurance", but never be "certain" of their salvation.