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

[Winman]

But now, brothers and sisters, this is very emphatically true as to our spiritual gifts, and I invite you to consider this truth—"What hast thou that didst not receive?" >>>>There has long been a great doctrinal discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians upon many important points. I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both. <<<<<<If I was asked, "Why is a man damned?" I should answer as an Arminian answers, "He destroys himself." I should not dare to lay man's ruin at the door of divine sovereignty. On the other hand, if I were asked, "Why is a man saved?" I could only give the Calvinistic answer, "He is saved through the sovereign grace of God, and not at all of himself." ....I should not dream of ascribing the man's salvation in any measure to himself.

Well, Spurgeon wants it both ways here. He says if a man dies in his sins, it is his own fault. But then he argues that it is impossible for a man to be saved without God's sovereign grace.

If by God's own decree man was cursed with the inability to excercise saving faith in Jesus, then it is God's fault that man cannot be saved.

Let's say I built a robot that could walk both forward and backwards. Then one day I reprogrammed it so it could only walk forward. Now, who is responsible for this change?

Now, in the real world you and everyone else would say I was clearly responsible for this change, but when it comes to salvation, somehow Calvinists have a way of rationalizing away this simple fact.

 

[Jarthur001]

Well, Spurgeon wants it both ways here. He says if a man dies in his sins, it is his own fault. But then he argues that it is impossible for a man to be saved without God's sovereign grace.

Not at all. I post it because one poster..(to go unnamed) wishes to show that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist. But he pulls quotes out of context...MISLEADING.

Why does he feel he miss do this????

Anyway...He..and maybe you, don't understand Calvinism, if you can't understand what he is saying in that quote. He NOT walking the fence. He is showing that even BAD systems of theology are right in some areas.

 

[Jarthur001]

Let's say I built a robot that could walk both forward and backwards. Then one day I reprogrammed it so it could only walk forward. Now, who is responsible for this change?

I wrote on this last month...

Its long.. 6 parts...

Calvinism Examiner
LINK..

 

[Winman]

Oh, the old "secret will" explanation. Laughable. This shows the mental gymnastics a Calvinist must go through to explain away their illogical doctrine.

I just don't get it. I don't know how any man cannot be concerned when he realizes he is having to perform a great deal of rationalizing to make his doctrine work.

Sorry, I don't buy that God has a "revealed will" that he presents in scripture, and then has another "secret will" only for the elect.

You make God a person who constantly makes insincere and misleading invitations to man. Oh, let's cut the baloney, you are saying God lies to men, and lies often.

Calvinists see the invitations to all men, and it gives them a problem. Many Calvinists have written about this problem.

All modern Calvinists agree in declaring the universality of the gospel invitations. God can, but does not save all whom He invites. Consequently arises the difficulty concerning which Dr. Chalmers says "there must be a sad misunderstanding somewhere," while Dr. Dick declares that the Calvinist, who is determined to see "no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less." "The many declarations in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, appear to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child, 'Come,' while he knows that he can not come!" Of those to whom God does not give efficacious grace, Calvin says, "He directs his voice to them, but it is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that they may be made blind; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed."

These are Calvinists by the way, and they are expressing the great difficulty they have with many scriptures that clearly invite all to be saved. I especially like what Dr. Dick said, "the Calvinist who sees no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less"

And that is true. No sincere, honest, and deep thinking person could lightly brush away the many invitations God and Jesus gave to all men to be saved.

So, if you want to twist your own logic and rationalize away God's word, I can't stop you, but no way I am going to accept your fantastic explanations.

 

[RAdam]

So, you believe number 2, but you would remove the word "lessor?"

Why do you suppose God would "bless" some of his children with this knowledge while not blessing others?

First of all, no I do not believe number 2. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Of course, you are interested in a conversation, only in blasting those that hold to the doctrines of grace, charges them with holding to false ideas, and then ignoring their repsonses. God did not choose a certain subset of the elect to be blessed with further knowledge. This idea is absurd and illogical. After all, each child of God has a different degree of knowledge concerning the scriptures. I do not hold to some election within election idea, so quit saying I do.

Secondly, you should ask that question of Moses. After all, we are privy to information he was not. Why did not God give him the information He has given us? Children of God in all ages have had varying degrees of understanding. It isn't based upon who is better, who is smarter, or anything like that. It can be as simple as one is more dilligent in studying the scriptures or as complicated as to not give an answer.

 

[RAdam]

Find me one place where eternal salvation is offered to men universally, one that is without a qualifying statement and without distinction.

 

[webdog]

Find me one place where eternal salvation is offered to men universally, one that is without a qualifying statement and without distinction.

John 3:16 is a good start. Whosoever of the kosmos sounds pretty universal to me.

 

[Skandelon]

First of all, no I do not believe number 2. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Of course, you are interested in a conversation, only in blasting those that hold to the doctrines of grace, charges them with holding to false ideas, and then ignoring their repsonses. God did not choose a certain subset of the elect to be blessed with further knowledge. This idea is absurd and illogical. After all, each child of God has a different degree of knowledge concerning the scriptures. I do not hold to some election within election idea, so quit saying I do.

Whoa, talk about an over reaction. I'm trying to have a civil conversation. I'm not sure what I said that deserved this response???

You wrote: "that some people, who are no better than any other born again child of God, are blessed to see the truth of scripture while others, who might even be better disciples, are not.

I took that to mean that God "blesses" some of his children with the truth while not blessing others. How is that not a good representation of what you just stated? What else could you mean by the phrase, "some...are blessed to see the truth while others...are not?"

Please explain.

It isn't based upon who is better, who is smarter, or anything like that. It can be as simple as one is more dilligent in studying the scriptures or as complicated as to not give an answer.

Well, in this response you seem to support my option 1, in that there is something "better" about the Calvinist (i.e. "more diligent in studying"). Right? If not please explain. I'm honestly just trying to understand your answer.

Either your "correctness" about doctrine is totally from God (i.e. "one is blessed while another is not"), or its something to which you have contributed in some way (i.e. "diligent study). Which one, or some combination of the two? Please explain????

 

[Theopolis]

When is the last time you heard a man who was drowning who was saved by a lifeguard's rope ascribe his being saved to himself?

When is the last time you heard someone who a drug addict who hit rock bottom and who had friends intervene and put him in rehab ascribe his being saved from drugs to himself?

When is the last time you heard a hardened criminal who is rehabilitated and pardoned from death row ascribe his being saved to himself?

To fall on ones face in the filth of your utter shame and guilt while crying out for mercy is not anything any person is going to boast about. This false scenario that Calvinists like to paint of themselves being these humble people who never claim they had anything to do with being saved, while us prideful, arrogant Arminians give ourselves the credit for our salvation. It's just ridiculous.

Think about it for a second. If Calvinism IS true the Arminian believers were saved the SAME way you were, by first being regenerated, right? So where is the PRIDE and ARROGANCE coming from? Most Calvinists weren't Calvinistic when they were saved and thus must have been THINKING they were making a "free choice." Were they arrogant and prideful and "ascribing salvation to themselves too?"

If Calvinism is true then we are all being saved the same way, through the effectual regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. The burden in on you to explain why that sovereign work wouldn't produce the same amount of "humility" to accept that the work of salvation is "all of God" in all believers equally.

Kudos .................

 

[Jarthur001]

Oh, the old "secret will" explanation. Laughable. This shows the mental gymnastics a Calvinist must go through to explain away their illogical doctrine.

Nope...I see you didn't read the column. Now that is...:laugh:

I just don't get it.

How could you? You didn't read it.

don't know how any man cannot be concerned when he realizes he is having to perform a great deal of rationalizing to make his doctrine work.

Sorry, I don't buy that God has a "revealed will" that he presents in scripture, and then has another "secret will" only for the elect.

:laugh:

 

[Winman]

Nope...I see you didn't read the column. Now that is...:laugh:

How could you? You didn't read it.
:laugh:

Well, I just went back and read the whole thing quickly (don't really have time at the moment). I will read it in more detail when I get a chance.

First of all, hope you aren't trying to take credit for this, I have seen this sort of argument from other Calvinists.

Second, I find your reasoning flawed. I don't have time except to say in the examples of Joseph and Moses, God was intervening for good. In Joseph's case it was to prevent his people from perishing. In Moses case, God was delivering the Jews from the harsh oppression of the Egyptians.

And, even in the case of Jonah, God's intervention resulted in saving Ninevah, not destroying it as God first intended to do.

So, in these three cases God intervened to save people, not destroy them. The scriptures say God is not willing that any person should perish, so God is not going to intervene in a way that causes a man to perish, even if the man makes that decision himself.

I will go into more detail when I get time, but so far I think your reasoning fails. Nice try though.

 

[olegig]

For me the issue is not whether some men or groups are called, chosen, or elected.
The issue is on what ground did God do the calling, choosing, or electing.

Did God call, chose, or elect simply on the basis of His sovereign decree or did He do it on the basis of His foreknowledge?

One can then say His foreknowledge is based on His decree, in other words God foreknew something only because He decreed it.
IMO the above limits God because what power does it take to know something is going to happen only because you decreed it to happen?

I feel God's foreknowledge is based on His being able to see all time unfold before His eyes in an instant.

 

[Skandelon]

For me the issue is not whether some men or groups are called, chosen, or elected.
The issue is on what ground did God do the calling, choosing, or electing.

Did God call, chose, or elect simply on the basis of His sovereign decree or did He do it on the basis of His foreknowledge?

One can then say His foreknowledge is based on His decree, in other words God foreknew something only because He decreed it.
IMO the above limits God because what power does it take to know something is going to happen only because you decreed it to happen?

I feel God's foreknowledge is based on His being able to see all time unfold before His eyes in an instant.

I would just add...what is the point of even speaking about God's foreknowledge of some things if indeed God has decreed all things? It just seems silly to even speak of God's simply foreknowing something that in reality he foreordained, doesn't it?

 

[Jarthur001]

Second, I find your reasoning flawed. I don't have time except to say in the examples of Joseph and Moses, God was intervening for good. In Joseph's case it was to prevent his people from perishing. In Moses case, God was delivering the Jews from the harsh oppression of the Egyptians.


I will go into more detail when I get time, but so far I think your reasoning fails. Nice try though.

:laugh::laugh:

This is so funny.

Your reasoning (Winman)....."BUT....God was intervening for good."

Which he say is bad reasoning when I say it.

Then you close with...

but so far I think your reasoning fails.


haha....

PLEASE NOTE!!!!!!

Calvinist claim is that God allows man to sin...pass over...or God intervenes for the good and elects.:thumbs:

welcome to Calvinism

 

[Jarthur001]

I would just add...what is the point of even speaking about God's foreknowledge of some things if indeed God has decreed all things? It just seems silly to even speak of God's simply foreknowing something that in reality he foreordained, doesn't it?

when did God know what He knows?

 

[Winman]

:laugh::laugh:
This is so funny.
Your reasoning (Winman)....."BUT....God was intervening for good."
Which he say is bad reasoning when I say it.
Then you close with...
but so far I think your reasoning fails.
haha....
PLEASE NOTE!!!!!!
Calvinist claim is that God allows man to sin...pass over...or God intervenes for the good and elects.:thumbs:
welcome to Calvinism

Laugh, but you are the one that makes irrational arguments. Here is one from that article you wrote:

Who is to blame?

Answer: Man.

Man is following the path he wants to follow and God lets him do it. This we see again shows man's will as a bad thing, and not good as some wish to believe.

Please do not misunderstand here. The reprobate has choices to come to God throughout his life. The reprobate is still held responsible for his choices. You may claim, but God never opens his eyes to the choice of God. Not so. The choice of God is always there before him, but the sin nature will not allow that choice.

I have used this illustration before to get the point across. Man’s sin nature is like the nature of a hungry lion setting in a hay pile. The lion is able to eat the hay, and the hay will keep the lion alive, but the lion will never eat the hay and die laying in the food that would keep him alive. Why? Lion’s don’t eat hay. They are meat eaters. It’s not in a lion’s nature to eat hay. The same is true for man not born from above. Man will never choose God for it’s not in his nature to do so.

So the choice is there all along, but unless his nature is changed he will never come to God. God is the one that must change him into a new man. A man that loves God and wants to follow him.

You use the illustration of a lion. This fails primarily because we are not a lion and have the ability to reason. But it also fails because God is the one who designed the lion. If a lion has no desire to eat hay, that is not his fault, that is exactly the way God made the lion. So, it is a silly and illogical argument.

You also compared men to mice in a maze in your article. I don't know who should be more insulted, men or God? After all, God said he made man in his own image.

 

[OldRegular]

The question in the OP is: Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

The answer is that even some of those whom GOD has, through HIS sovereign Grace saved, still want to cling to the idea that they had to complete the work of GOD. God only made it possible for man to be saved through HIS incarnation and sacrifice. Sinful man had to put his stamp of approval on the atoning sacrifice of the incarnate GOD, Jesus Christ

 

[Skandelon]

The question in the OP is: Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

The answer is that even some of those whom GOD has, through HIS sovereign Grace saved, still want to cling to the idea that they had to complete the work of GOD. God only made it possible for man to be saved through HIS incarnation and sacrifice. Sinful man had to put his stamp of approval on the atoning sacrifice of the incarnate GOD, Jesus Christ

So, your vote is for #1? You are better than us non-Calvinist is some way because you didn't "want to cling to the idea that you had to complete the work of God," right? What is it that made you not make this "mistake" while the rest of us did?

 

[Skandelon]

when did God know what He knows?

Asking "when" a infinite (timeless) being did anything is bit of a quandary. I don't presume about such things. I simply believe what scripture reveals about God, not what my finite man made constructs say he "must" do in order to remain consistent with that accepted construct.

 

[Jarthur001]

Laugh, but you are the one that makes irrational arguments. Here is one from that article you wrote:

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN
POSTER CHANGES SUBJECT.. AGAIN

Winman...please try to stay on track.

You said...BUT...."God was intervening for good."

Which is the VERY argument that I made in my column, and the same argument PINK makes, and all Calvinist make.

YET...You say that this is failed logic. haha

That is why I laugh.

then to reply you change subjects...AS YOU ALWAYS DO
Do you not understand this is no way to answer?
******************

Now to the new point you try to make.

You use the illustration of a lion.

yes

This fails primarily because we are not a lion and have the ability to reason.

You are right when you say we are not lions. But I never said we were. It was to illustrate desires. A lion has desires. A man has desires. The lion in this case cannot over come his desire, even though by over coming it, he could save his life. Now when I speak f man, it is his sinful desire, which is like the lions desire to eat meat. Understand?

But it also fails because God is the one who designed the lion.

And God made man. Man sinned...is now has a sin nature. Its really not that hard to follow.

If a lion has no desire to eat hay, that is not his fault, that is exactly the way God made the lion.

Sounds a lot like..."why does God find fault?"..

please remember romans 5

9Therefore, since we are now justified (acquitted, made righteous, and brought into right relationship with God) by Christ's blood, how much more [certain is it that] we shall be saved by Him from the indignation and wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it is much more [certain], now that we are reconciled, that we shall be saved (daily delivered from sin's dominion) through His [resurrection] life.
11Not only so, but we also rejoice and exultingly glory in God [in His love and perfection] through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received and enjoy [our] reconciliation.
12Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.
13[To be sure] sin was in the world before ever the Law was given, but sin is not charged to men's account where there is no law [to transgress].
14Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. Adam was a type (prefigure) of the One Who was to come [in reverse, i]" class="footnote">[i]the former destructive, the Latter saving].

You need to understand the HEADSHIP of Christ. Just as CHRIST did not sin, but he took the believers guilt and died for their sin, Adam because he is the HEAD of our race, caused all of us to be guilty of sin.

Understand? Christ is not guilty, but died in our place, for the Believers that are guilty because Adam sinned.

So, it is a silly and illogical argument.

:laugh::laugh:

You also compared men to mice in a maze in your article. I don't know who should be more insulted, men or God? After all, God said he made man in his own image.

What do you disagree with? The mice or the maze?