Logical Inconsistency?

That's alright. I think he wins most of them.

 

I would like to thank doulos and jack for a great debate.

I think hyperism, that is, the kind that shuns witnessing, is logical in as much as it is based on a shallow understanding of the doctrine. A thorough study of Calvinism should quickly dispell that theory.

I tend to agree with the Primitives that regeneration is, or at least can be, a direct operation of God apart from any outward means. But that does not in any way motivate me to withhold the Gospel. It's in my heart, it bursts out of me, as Jeremiah said "It is as a burning fire in my bones, and I could not stay". It brings forth the visible vitality of the new birth already accomplished by God.

Someone that disdains witnessing, IMO, has a serious spiritual problem. I don't think we're supposed to crawl into a shell.

Hay, is that where the term "harshell" came from?

 

Doulous.
You wrote:

Let me show you John Calvin's doctrine of total depravity:

"The doctrine of Total Depravity briefly states that because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the Gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free; it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, will not -- indeed he cannotchoose good over evil in the spiritual realm."

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/total_depravity.html

It not my fault that Calvin contradicts himself in doctrine. Or did he?

You noted:

 

Doulous.
You commented:

Of course our argument was specifically on God's calling, and if could one resist it. My argument being that since it is quite evident that many of the regenerated elect do so in the area of calls to ministry, that it would be quite plausible that the unregenerate would at least be capable of doing so. It not inclined to.

You seem to be vacillating between God's permissive sovereignty, one aspect of which according to me would be that we are free moral agents according to the creation design. I'm sure that you have your own examples as well. And that of God's supreme sovereignty in which he decrees a matter with full certainty and divine power.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it has always been my understanding that the Calvinist view on election would fall into the later category. And actually so would my view. (Don't faint on me now though)

You wrote:

You note Romans 8:29-30 with the term "foreknew". I would say that this these verses are a better Calvinist defense for the eternal security of the saints, of which I agree wholeheartedly. I believe that a Calvinist fellow by the name of Theodore Beza called that The Golden Chain. Going right from foreknew to glorified in heaven as a done deal, with all the Greek verbs in the past tense. Very emphatic.

But the Arminian verse that I would choose to dispel your notion that foreknowledge is unbiblical would be:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." 1 Pet. 1:2

As soon as that verse says 'according to the capricious choosing...' or even just 'according to the fore-choosing...', I will keep my Arminian stance on conditional election thank you.

Now on God's supreme sovereignty in the area of election, I would argue that He does indeed know who will meet His demands based on our ability to choose to believe His Work concerning the simple Gospel (2 Cor. 11:3) and trust in Jesus' finished work on the cross based on the biblical account. That is all He asks.

If this were no so then Rom. 10:14 would not stand. If man does have to make a cognizant decision, when why do we have to explain the following before salvation?:

You are a sinner and the wages of sin is death. (give Scripture)

God does not grade on a curve, all have sinned and will be judged (give Scripture)

You can not save yourself by being good or by keeping the Law, which BTW you are incapable of doing. (give Scripture)

God loved you enough though that He sent His only begotten Son to pay your sin debt on the cross (give Scripture)

God said that if you will believe on His Son's finished work on the cross and put your full faith and trust on Him instead of yourself for salvation, you will be saved (give Scripture)

Isn't that good news? Do you believe what I have told you concerning Christ?

The Calvinist has to explain to me why this is necessary for one to get saved, and how it fits into their theology. I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Rom. 1:16

And of course one must quote Scripture because Scripture says that it is quick and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And yes, even the unregenerate 'totally depraved' individual. And when one either believes or rejects it, then it is God that they are either receiving or rejecting. John 12:48

That's why Isa. 66:2 stands. (Not to mention the fact that He said so)

Of course I am glad that the less than hyper of Calvinists like J.D. here, and I'm sure you included, still present the Gospel as stated above.

 

This all a total misrepresentation of my belief, or indeed the belief of Arminians. It is a classic Calvinist strawman argument.

Believing God that we all all condemned sinners on our way to Hell is not, as you put it "good that we have done." Nor is it our "good will."</font>[/QUOTE] Then it comes from where? Belief is an act based on a process of decision. Are you claiming a good choice came from "bad" free will?

It is no strawman at all. It is the direct and inescapable result of what you all claim. A choice that either leads to punishment for sin or forgiveness for sin is a "conscious moral choice". It is by necessity either good or bad.

You cannot at once claim to have made an evaluative choice and then claim that choice has no value.

Yes it would if there was an attractive reason to reject the offer and obligations of self-sacrifice/self-denial that went with the offer.

If you believed that you'd get off the hook anyway while getting to do whatever you wanted and then made the correct choice to "believe" in spite of what seemed to be the obvious better choice then it would most certainly be a salvation by MERIT.

The problem with that analogy is that it is falsely limited. Man's choice isn't whether to choose that single gift or not. It is a choice between that gift and many other gifts that directly satisfy the sinful lusts of his heart.

Are you arguing that only those that believe like you are saved?

FTR, I am arguing that calvinists give the best explanation for biblical sotierology. The actions of men are placed in their proper context with respect to the sovereignty of God. I believe many non-calvinsts have a good grasp of the actions of men concerning salvation but fail to grasp the reasoning behind it.

The short answer is "no" that is not what I am arguing. Although I would be very concerned the more tightly one held to the sovereignty of man... just as I would one who held a double predestinarian position.

This is contrary to other things you have claimed. Actually it is my position that makes man "passive". I have consistently said that everyone would resist unless God specially moved on them and infused them with the "goodness" needed to make the right decisions.

Why exactly do we have to tell them anything before God saves them if, according to Calvinists, He already chose them, and according to Romans 8:30 it's a done deal?</font>[/QUOTE] Because that is the method God has chosen. I can give you no better answer than that. He told us to sow the seeds. It is up to Him to empower germination.

Because that number isn't complete in our sense of time. The number that will be saved is set- by individual. But not all of those individuals have been redeemed yet in natural time.

Your necessary answer is much worse than mine. You have to claim that the number saved is determined by human efforts and choice... rather than God's sovereign grace.

Then you don't believe your own doctrine on election or total depravity.</font>[/QUOTE] Perhaps the issue is that you do not understand either of those doctrines. Spurgeon would be a very good read for you on this subject. Perhaps Edwards too.

And you have now been wrong twice for saying it and corrected at least once.

 

God-given ability/will, gives all men the opportunity to excercise a desire for what is best.

Anything else places man at such a disadvantage that placing him in an "only" area to receive the goodness of God is non-biblical in essence.

Man is responsible in how he responds to the Gospel call. If it is "only" that God has made "only" the elect capable and predetermined to "only" be able to respond as God has made that way of salvation, the God would not be just in offering every man the chance to be saved, but would instead make God a tyrant full of horrors that only the devil can be attributed with those horrors.

Calvinism is a horrible doctrine to all those who could "never" accept Jesus as their personal Saviour.

I know God, PERSONALLY! I know His longsuffering to the vessels that are being fitted to destruction. BUT! It is that lovingkindnesses and the compassionate longsuffering of God to permit that soul time and opportunity to change his belief to one that will open that door to salvation through the right response to the preaching of the Gospel.

If Calvinism is true, and it's not, especially considering the "doctrine of election", then it would be to God's detriment and His shame to continue to allow sin to have such a prevelence over His creation until a latter time just so He could punish His own creation for something they could never have been responsible for.

 

I offer reasoning with reference to specific scriptures for those who know the Bible.

The Spirit of God coupled with His word and His desire to reason together with me, a sinner, convinces me of the Truth, just as He will all sinners that will respond to His effectual call.

All the Calvinist can do is spout off a handful of scriptures taken out of context and further their own disharmony to all scripture as some sort of proof text to align with a doctrine of a mere man.

I'm glad at least a few of us know more about the Word of God than any of you that hold to a private interpretation.

Allone has to do is offer reason beyond dogmatism to incite the reader to d=search the Scriptures

 

Doulous.
You commented:

You brought up some points, and of course I don't intend to address them all, just as mine are not all addressed. But for clarification it has always been my understanding the the five points of Calvinism are, well, named after Calvin are they not?

I did indeed give you a Calvinist web site's version of Total Depravity that appears to me to be quite in line with Calvinist doctrine on the first point of Calvinism. If you have a web site with a different view, feel free to show me.

And if this view doesn't jive with Calvin's doctrine then kindly explain why it is called one of the five points of Calvinism instead of being named after another reformed theologian?

In Acts 2:14-37 we have Peter addressing the lost Jews that were gathered in Jerusalem, and he gave them a discourse using Scripture and addressing their sins for having rejected and crucified their Messiah. Their reply was this:

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

You must know that these were unregenerated Jews, and in the eyes of Calvinists then, totally depraved. Why then did they understand Peter and being convicted ('pricked in their heart') ask what any Calvinist would deny them the ability to do? They asked what they must do. And Scott take note here; Peter doesn't chide them for trying to merit salvation by believing, he like Paul in Acts 16:31 told them to repent (turn to Jesus in faith), with baptism being a sure proof that they truly believed. No Jew in that day would be publicly baptized in Christianity without truly believing.

You wrote:

And that is of course the sticking point in the discussion, and you will note, not the account given in Acts 2. Actually it is quite hard if not impossible to prove from an observed or even sometimes personal experience which comes first, the regeneration or the belief.

So I challenge you to come up some biblical examples of a person or persons that were regenerated, that is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, and then they believed. And I of course will come up some that believed first and then were regenerated.

Let's define terms here. I believe that regeneration starts when the Holy Spirit enters us and we are made alive. And I also believe that this event only happens once in the life of the believer. We can be filled with the Holy Spirit for service many times as believers, but this regeneration only occurs once. Do you agree? If not, then that's another argument and this exercise is moot.

First I would argue for Abraham. He believed God and it (the belief) was counted to him as righteousness. Righteousness only comes with regeneration upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If you don't agree with that then we are miles apart in our theology and this discussion is most likely a waste of time as I noted above.

Saul was met on the road to Damascus, talked with Jesus and called Him Lord, prayed for three days and then He received the Holy Spirit on a street called Straight. (I would assume that he was contrite over what he had done and asked for mercy. Of course God knew that he would and God's mercy was his to receive. 1 Tim. 1:12-17.

Observe:

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that
appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Acts 9:17-18

Peter told Jesus that he believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God in Mt. 16:16, and then denied Christ which to me was evidence that he was not regenerated then. But later he received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22.

Here's an interesting account from Scripture:

"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:14-17

You close with:

Who says that I disagree with you on that? Our disagreement falls in that God expects us to react to the Gospel with contrition and a will to believe the biblical account of His Son. I have always liked the Scripture from the OT where God says that He will take the Jewish heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. (Ez. 11:19)

Calvinists have no reasonalble explanation though on why God chooses some and rejects others, and rail at what should be obvious, that according to Calvinism, God chooses His elect capriciously, or they have no idea why He chooses the elect. The honest Calvinst chooses the later option. I prefer to choose the evidence from Scripture instead.

If you go back and look again at Acts 2:14-37 you will see that it was the Scriptural account and the clear evidence of the power of the Holy Spirit on Paul and the disciples that had the Jews repenting with a willingness to believe Peter account of Christ using OT Scripture.

Fast forward to Stephen in Acts 7 and they all instead choose to stone him instead. God show mercy to the humble 3,000 and blinded the proud Jewish leaders that stoned Stephen. And act of the will on both accounts, with God using His Scripture to both draw and soften the hearts of the 3,000 converted ones.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

So both you and Scott who wrote "FTR, I am arguing that calvinists give the best explanation for biblical sotierology" are in error. And the OT Scripture of Ez. 33:11; Lev. 1:4; and Num. 15:3 that I gave earlier bare this out as well.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" Gal. 3:2 (faith first, Holy Spirit next)

"He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not (not: "could not") believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

[ May 02, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]

 

Jack, unless you are a Pentecostal or Charismatic, all those accounts in Acts about receiving the Holy Spirit after one believes, and in some cases, a considerable amount of time after one believes, then you need to see Acts as transitional in some sense regarding the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals and Charismatics love to used these accounts as evidence for their "second blessing" doctrine, where one needs to receive the Holy Spirit in a separate act from justification. Is that what you believe? Being a Baptist, I doubt that you do. So I would be careful using those passages to argue that regeneration comes after believing.

When someone is saved, I tell them that the Holy Spirit came into their life at the moment of their salvation. The order salutis is impercetible to us at the moment of our salvation. It all happens at once from our perspective, but not from God's.

 

At the point that they asked Peter what they should do, I would say they were regenerated. They desired salvation at that point. And all who desire to be saved, the Lord will no wise cast out. So this account actually may provide solid evidence that regeneration does precede belief. But I am always hesitant to hang my doctrinal hat on the historical accounts in Scripture; I generally think it is best to intepret the historical accounts in light of the clear, didactic (doctrinal) teachings of Scripture.

 

Thank you Doulous.

And Andy, I'm not a Pentecostal. And as a Baptist I hold to the truth that one receives the Holy Spirit as being indwelt by Him only once at the point of conversion.

And I don't believe that things were any different in the first century.

But if you can come up with a conversion before faith in Scripture I would be glad to look into it.

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt (future tense) be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30-31