Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

[kyredneck]

No cotton where I live. To cool for cotton, but I do pick peas, beans, corn, okra, tomatoes, peppers, blueberries and other assorted fruits and veggies. :tongue3: The freezer is full! ...

Well, bless yore peabeancornokratomatoepepperblueberry pikin' heart!

My daddy-in-law was from Tennessee and used to talk about having to pick cotton when he was a kid. Bless his heart, he's gone now, I miss him, and never realized I would till he was gone.

 

[Skandelon]

==Speaking of "diversion techniques", why is it that you are not answer my reply (or the replies of others) in this thread? I have gone through the entire thread and have noticed that you have only replied, in a very brief way, to one or two people. Was your post a direct attack against one or two individuals and that is why you are not offering any meaningful interaction? Or are you just one of those posters that sets a fire and then runs and hides to watch the action? Just curious.

I unconditionally elect who I respond to and who I pass over by the good pleasure of my will. :smilewinkgrin:

Actually, this was somewhat of a carry over from another thread, so I'm sorry if I left someone out. I'll go back and look for your response and reply to it soon. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

==That some professing Christians reject any doctrine does not make it true or false. Truth is determined by God's Word, not by how many Christians accept or reject it. It is up to us, as Christians, to search the Scriptures and learn from our searching. As humans we will fall short in so many ways, thus sometimes we either overlook, ignore, or push away some teachings for different reasons.

agreed

==Truth is not determined by how many people, great or small, believe it. I could rattle off plenty of great men of God who were Calvinists. In fact, I could turn your logic back on yourself and ask why, if Calvinism is false, do so many great men of God believe(ed) it and why were so many great moments in Church History centered around those who were openly Calvinist. Truth is determined by the Word of God, not by votes.

agreed

==While effectual calling is certainly Scriptural (Jn 6:37), the idea of God granting perfect knowledge to Christians is not. God does not "irresistibly bring an individual to" understand truth. He has commanded us to search the Scripture and be students of His Word.

I disagree. John 6:37 does not prove "effectual calling." You must read this passage within its context. Who is the audience? What is going on? What is unique about this historical situation of this time?

a. Jesus is speaking to the Jews who are being hardened in their rebellion.
b. Jesus is only revealing himself fully to the remnant of Israel while on earth, the rest are being hardened.
c. Jesus is speaking in parables so they don't believe, sending them a spirit of stupor so they remain in darkness. He is not drawing all men to himself at this time in history. Once is he lifted up he draws all men to himself through his appointed means...the church and the preaching of the gospel.

So, according to your response I would say that you would really have to choose number 1 in the multiple choice I provided in the OP. Since God is not the one who effectually causes you to come to correct doctrine, what is it about you that made you right and other wrong (assuming you are right of course)?

==This is not true and it is contrary to Calvinistic teaching.

So, what is the correct answer if its not number 1? You said God doesn't effectually/irresistibly make all believers come to correct doctrine so what does? Don't you, if you are right, get some "credit" for that, or is that "all God" too? Understand my question?

 

[Aaron]

Bless your pea-pikin heart Amy I would never question your salvation.

Who questioned her salvation?

 

[Johnv]

Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

The opposite question is true. If Arminianism is true, when why don't all Christians believe it?

The fact that some choose to believe or not believe in a position does not in and of itself dictate that such a position is true, not does it dictate that such a position is false.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

The opposite question is true. If Arminianism is true, when why don't all Christians believe it?

The fact that some choose to believe or not believe in a position does not in and of itself dictate that such a position is true, not does it dictate that such a position is false.

Couldn't agree more. The presupposition of the OP is that universal belief equals truth. This is just not the case.

 

[Skandelon]

Couldn't agree more. The presupposition of the OP is that universal belief equals truth. This is just not the case.

Speaking as the author of the OP, I can assure you that there was no such presupposition. My goal in this thread was not to validate or invalidate Calvinism based upon the number of people who believe it, but instead to show the apparent inconsistency with holding to a dogma where God effectually draws people to believe the tenets of the gospel while not also effectually drawing them to the tenets of how they were saved.

Some Calvinists believe God does draw all true believers to a Calvinistic understanding of faith and some for this very reason dismiss non-Calvinists as unbelieving heretics.

Other Calvinists believe God draws men to salvation and then leaves them free to choose and discern all other matters of faith. (I have questions for those in this camp and thus am searching for them)

So, instead of presuming upon the OP, why not just answer the darn question?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Speaking as the author of the OP, I can assure you that there was no such presupposition. My goal in this thread was not to validate or invalidate Calvinism based upon the number of people who believe it, but instead to show the apparent inconsistency with holding to a dogma where God effectually draws people to believe the tenets of the gospel while not also effectually drawing them to the tenets of how they were saved.

Some Calvinists believe God does draw all true believers to a Calvinistic understanding of faith and some for this very reason dismiss non-Calvinists as unbelieving heretics.

Other Calvinists believe God draws men to salvation and then leaves them free to choose and discern all other matters of faith. (I have questions for those in this camp and thus am searching for them)

So, instead of presuming upon the OP, why not just answer the darn question?

Frankly, the OP question is stupid. But since you have defined your presupposition, which forces me to accept that as your meaning (I have no problem doing so) I will address that. A question is only as good as its presupposition.

It does not follow that a person who is truly saved that God is somehow obligated to reveal all knowledge to them. It may please the Lord to leave some persons ignorant of certain truths while enlightening others.

I doubt your own self when you were but a babe in Christ understood the doctrine of the Trinity which we both affirm, or the intricasies of the hypostatic union as we have come to call it today. Yet God was well-pleased to save both you and me and leave us for a time not fully comprehending those doctrines.

And which of us is ascribing glory to themselves and not to God alone and His grace for their salvation?

God is not necessarily interested in making engineers out of all His children. Many of us are quite happy with enjoying the light without understanding how it works.

When discussing the doctrines of election and predestination we must tread very, very lightly, reverently, cautiously, and Scripturally. Because to do so is to gaze into the secret counsel of the Almighty.

When the Scripture tells me He chose me before the world began...I believe Him. And I think you do too. When Jesus prays, not for the world, but for those who will believe, I believe He is doing exactly that...interceding for believers.

As for the "some calvinists" you mention, I have no idea who these people are or what they believe. My advice in your studies is to stick with historic Calvinism. Look to the Calvinist creeds, and the writings of those in the past and today who are well-respected and have earned a good testimony among many...espeically of those who have fallen asleep in Christ and we see they have finished well...men like Spurgeon, Whitfield, Gill, and others.

 

[Skandelon]

It does not follow that a person who is truly saved that God is somehow obligated to reveal all knowledge to them. It may please the Lord to leave some persons ignorant of certain truths while enlightening others.

Why do you suppose God would "enlighten" you and not me, for example? In other words, why wouldn't God bring all his Children to a common understanding of these truths?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why do you suppose God would "enlighten" you and not me, for example? In other words, why wouldn't God bring all his Children to a common understanding of these truths?

Because He is God. I honestly would have no idea...since we are speaking of hypotheicals here. Why did He choose the 12, and leave some of the other Jews blind? Jesus prayed,

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Luke 10:21-22

I can apply this Scripture to your question because it speaks to why God chooses to hide things from some, and reveal it others..."for so it seemed good in thy sight."

While that may not satisfy some, it is enough for me to know that I know and understand what I do because it seemed good to God...and other things I do not know and understand because it seems good to Him.

 

[Skandelon]

Because He is God. I honestly would have no idea...since we are speaking of hypotheicals here. Why did He choose the 12, and leave some of the other Jews blind?

Because in their blind rebellion they accomplished a greater purpose...to crucify the messiah. But they who were hardened might still come to salvation once provoked...read Romans 11:14

Jesus prayed,

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Luke 10:21-22

I can apply this Scripture to your question because it speaks to why God chooses to hide things from some, and reveal it others..."for so it seemed good in thy sight."

While that may not satisfy some, it is enough for me to know that I know and understand what I do because it seemed good to God...and other things I do not know and understand because it seems good to Him.

Again, this is being written during a time when God is blinding an entire nation, his elect nation, and engrafting the Gentiles. Sure God is hiding this from some and revealing it to others. Arminians have always acknowledged this. The difference is that we don't assume that their blindness was (1) from birth and (2) leaving them without hope of salvation. Scripture is clear that they BECOME HARD and that those who are hardened (Jews primarily) might still believe.

 

[Johnv]

.... some for this very reason dismiss non-Calvinists as unbelieving heretics...

The opposite tends to be true. Reading through the numerous posts on the bb, one can perceive that Arminians tend to be more vocal about Calvinists being heretics than the other way around.

Regardless, anyone making such a judgement upon the brethren is wrong. Canvinism and Arminianism are nor core scriptural doctrines, they are nonessential doctrines. Nonessential doctrines do not qualify or disqualify a person for heresy. Whether one is a calvinist or arminian, that person is not a heretic just because of their position on the topic.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Because in their blind rebellion they accomplished a greater purpose...to crucify the messiah. But they who were hardened might still come to salvation once provoked...read Romans 11:14



Again, this is being written during a time when God is blinding an entire nation, his elect nation, and engrafting the Gentiles. Sure God is hiding this from some and revealing it to others. Arminians have always acknowledged this. The difference is that we don't assume that their blindness was (1) from birth and (2) leaving them without hope of salvation. Scripture is clear that they BECOME HARD and that those who are hardened (Jews primarily) might still believe.

Then you agree with me. It is the nature and act of God to withhold revelation from some and give it others...because it seems good to Him to do so. I will not venture to judge God's intentions, purposes, or good pleasure. Whatever seems good to Him is good, right, and holy.

Re-read the text. God reveals Himself to whomever He wills. Men are in a state of not knowing God the Father or the Son. Those who do come to know Him, know Him because God willed to reveal Himself. That is what the Scripture says.

 

[Skandelon]

Then you agree with me. It is the nature and act of God to withhold revelation from some and give it others...because it seems good to Him to do so.

Correct. But why is it good for him to do so at that time in history? In the Jews rebellion they crucified the Messiah. It's not as you presume that God chose to save some of them and pass over the rest. That is not the point being made.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Correct. But why is it good for him to do so at that time in history? In the Jews rebellion they crucified the Messiah. It's not as you presume that God chose to save some of them and pass over the rest. That is not the point being made.

I am not presuming anything. And unless the Scripture tells me why God does this or that, I have no idea. All the Scripture does tell me is that He acts according to His counsel and the good pleasure of His will, because He desires to do so.

The Scripture does not tells why it was or is good for Him to do this or that.

 

[Skandelon]

I am not presuming anything. And unless the Scripture tells me why God does this or that, I have no idea. All the Scripture does tell me is that He acts according to His counsel and the good pleasure of His will, because He desires to do so.

The Scripture does not tells why it was or is good for Him to do this or that.

The bible doesn't tell us why the Jews of that day aren't believing? I think it does.

Jn 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

So, its not because they were born totally depraved and un-elected...it was because God was blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts. Clearly from other scripture (Rm 11) this is a temporary condition and not unto certain condemnation.

 

[webdog]

Why do you suppose God would "enlighten" you and not me, for example? In other words, why wouldn't God bring all his Children to a common understanding of these truths?

Free will

 

[Skandelon]

Free will

And there it is! The point of the OP. God does desire, at least in some since, men to have free will in matters of faith...even in the Calvinistic system.

 

[Johnv]

And there it is! The point of the OP. God does desire, at least in some since, men to have free will in matters of faith...even in the Calvinistic system.

And there it is! A clear example of Skandelon refusing to understand the fact that the concept of election does not conflict with a person having free will to accept or reject salvation.

 

[webdog]

And there it is! A clear example of Skandelon refusing to understand the fact that the concept of election does not conflict with a person having free will to accept or reject salvation.

Not so. Has God ever "elected" someone who rejected salvation?