Logical Inconsistency?

[doulous]

Jack:

I must accelerate through your post and point out an accusation that seems to be at the heart of your opinion towards Calvinist's, namely that Calvinist's follow Calvin. It is my opinion that you believe it is easier to attack a Calvinist's argument by attacking Calvin himself. Let me provide an example from your last post:

You say that salvation requires a human response. I agree, but John Calvin does not.

First, if you are going to disparage a persons view, provide a verifiable source. You offer opinion but nothing to support it. It is your contention that John Calvin did not believe man must provide a human response in the salvation process. Let me share with you John Calvin's own words from his "Institutes."

"The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy, (see Calvin in Joann. 1: 13.) For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds." - John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion." Chapter 3, "3. REGENERATION BY FAITH. OF REPENTANCE." Section I.

Consider (from the preceeding paragraph) this sentence, For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. John Calvin cleary teaches in the preaching of the gospel in order to convert the sinner. He ten proceeds to put the responsibility on man to make the right choice(s). He writes, "...it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance." Jack, this is what John Calvin wrote. This is factual. The caricature that has been sketched of this man is reprehensible. John Calvin believed that man must provide a response (by faith and repentance). But lest he be accused of advocating free will, John Calvin taught that the reason man could provide that response was due to the fact that God had changed the heart (regeneration) and made it possible for man to exercise faith. Prior to God changing the heart, man was completely dead in his trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1) and incapable of saving faith. You and I may disagree on that last statement, but I hope you now see that John Calvin did teach that man was to provide a response.

I am going to respond to the rest of your post but I wanted this area to be covered separately.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
doulous,
thanks for correcting the spelling. and yes, i have seen your debates and notice you lose most all of them.

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

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by saturneptune:
doulous,
thanks for correcting the spelling. and yes, i have seen your debates and notice you lose most all of them.

That's alright. I think he

wins most of them.

</font>[/QUOTE]Andy, thank you for you kind words, but whether I win or lose the debates God receives all the glory! Amen?

 

[J.D.]

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]

by JackRUS:

Doulous.
One of us is a bit confused; possibly both of us. You wrote:

by doulous (quoted by JackRUS):

First, my only answer is not yes. My answer is no. When man fails it still is within the sovereignty of God. We make choices everyday that are contrary to God. Does that negate God's sovereignty? No. Our failures are part of God's plan.

by JackRUS:

But my answer was directed by this statement of yours that contradicts the above statement:

by doulous (quoted by JackRUS):

A question to ask about God's choice: can God's choice be thwarted by man? Or to put it another way, if God decides to do something can man interfere with God's decision? If God decides to do something can man interfere with God's decision? I believe it is an important question because it implicates God's omnipotence more than it violates the free will of man. If God was proven to not be omnipotent who would have more to lose, man or God? God. Man is already in his sins, but God would be proven to be less than what He is. Perish the thought.

by JackRUS:

I don't see how you can reconcile both statements, but I must say that I agree with your first statement on this post.

Jack, I don't see anything that needs to be reconciled. Let me take you back to the post that resulted in the above comments.

JackRUS said:

Do you believe that God has called at least one regenerated in the last 2,000 years to a certain call to ministry and that person said no to it?

Since you only answer can be yes, then your understand of the sovereignty of God and the will of man falls short of understanding.

My response was:

First, my only answer is not yes. My answer is no. When man fails it still is within the sovereignty of God. We make choices everyday that are contrary to God. Does that negate God's sovereignty? No. Our failures are part of God's plan.

You indicated the only answer I could have to your question was "yes." I disagree. Not only was my only answer not "yes", my answer was (and still is) "no." My point to you was that even if man fails (using your example saying "no" to a call to ministry), that failure was within the sovereignty of God. Our choices work within God's sovereignty. Our choices are in submission to God's sovereignty.

You responded to this by stating that I was contradicting myself. How so? I stated that God uses the choices of men within His sovereignty. I then posed a question: If God decides to do something can man interfere with God's decision? If you look at my statement I never actually answered the question in that paragraph, I just asked it. But my answer would be no. Man cannot thwart the decisions of God. I have already said that the choices of men operate under the sovereignty of God. The are in submission to God's sovereignty. If God's decisions could be usurped by man, then God would not be omniscient.

It is quite obvious that you don't understand what mercy is. Just because man fears God, that doesn't mean that he deserved mercy. I looked up the definition and it states that; to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital. No one would argue that if we cry out for mercy and honor His Son by putting our faith and trust in Him that we would be worthy of salvation.

Jack, look what you said in a previous post:

JackRUS said:

I would argue that He chooses one's that (I don't know why I have keep saying this) He knows are fearing Him and their future outcome and want to repent,

How did I respond to your statement?

doulous said:

If God only picks those who are "fearing him", then God picks people for salvation who deserve it.

So I never said that man receives mercy because he fears God. You said that! You said that, He chooses one's that He knows are fearing Him." Of course we all know what you mean by that. You are espousing the foreknowledge view that teaches, "God chooses those who He knew would choose (or to use your word..."fear") Him." Jack, the problem with the foreknowledge view is that is patently unbiblical. The scriptue does not teach it. Even the implication that Arminian's use to justify the foreknowledge view is contrived. Here is the passage Arminian's to support their view:

Romans 8:29-30 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The word "foreknew" simply means to know beforehand. The word "predestined" means to predetermine an action. All it means is that God knew beforehand those whom He would pretermine for certain actions. What are those actions? First, that Jesus would be glorifed in being the first among many brethren. They were also predestined to be called. This means that God predetermined that they would come to faith in Christ, which is the essence of being called. This is one of the reasons why I believe the salvific process involves man. God calls and those whom He calls respond by faith. See my previous post on why man is able to respond by faith. Nowhere does the text indicate that God chooses those whom He knew would choose (or fear Him). It just isn't there.

And of course you would have to be wrong or exactly no Arminians in 2,000 years would ever be saved. Not one person can ever be saved by a faith + works false salvation. Could you argue that John Wesley was not saved? Or Baptists that held to conditional election such as Adrian Rogers or Charles Stanley?

Why would I have to be wrong? God saves, not based on the theology of men, but based on His sovereignty. I never said (and never will say) that a correct systematic theology is necessary for salvation. That is putting conditions on God, much like the foreknowledge view places conditions on God.

You reject what I wrote out of hand because you use of the text is that of a Calvinist proof-text taken out of context.

I reject it because it is what the scripture teaches! We have already determined that you made an accusation against John Calvin that was unsupported (see my previous post). I quoted from John's Calvin's "Institutes" to show you his own words on the matter which proved you wrong. So now you are accusing me of a Calvinist proof-text, but we've already seen proof that you do not know what Calvin believes. My comments on these two verses stand:

by doulous:

I reject that out of hand! The passage is crystal clear. It says:

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

What are the "things" Paul is writing about? They are the "things of the Spirit of God." The things of the Spirit of God are to the natural man what water is to a ducks back...it just rolls off. It is a stretch to interpret this passage as having to do with the deep things of God. The "things" are anything of the Spirit. Any spiritual truth that the natural man hears does not penetrate. Want further proof?

1 Corinthians 1:18 18 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2 Corinthians 2:15-16 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?

2 Corinthians 4:3 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,

You reject what I wrote out of hand because you use of the text is that of a Calvinist proof-text taken out of context. Observe:

But God hath revealed them (plural) unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (does that sound like only the Gospel?)
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things (again, plural) of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Stop here. Here Paul is talking to Christians about the things that the Holy Spirit teaches us after we have believed the Gospel.

Jack, you really have to stop making my point. Your own words say, "Here Paul is talking to Christians..." Jack, I wasn't referring to Christians. Christians are not dead in their sins. Christians are not described in 1 Cor. 2:14. Christians are alive in Christ. Christians are able to understand the things of the Spirit of God. That was my point. That is the reason that those who are dead spiritually cannot come to God. God first comes to them, regenerates their heart and then they are able to trust, by faith, in Christ.

The rest of your post I have already answered in my previous post.

[ May 01, 2006, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: doulous ]

 

[JackRUS]

Doulous.
You wrote:

First, if you are going to disparage a persons view, provide a verifiable source. You offer opinion but nothing to support it. It is your contention that John Calvin did not believe man must provide a human response in the salvation process. Let me share with you John Calvin's own words from his "Institutes."

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:

John Calvin cleary teaches in the preaching of the gospel in order to convert the sinner. He ten proceeds to put the responsibility on man to make the right choice(s).[/b]

But you left off the last part of what he wrote which was "Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds."

So he is saying still that people are according to his definition dead until they are saved, and only then can they do anything. So my statement and my critique of him stands in my estimation.

Of course you must understand that when I said that salvation requires a human response, I meant before they are saved, and not after. Calvin would not agree. At least not when he was on the Earth. I would bet that he does now though.

 

[doulous]

JackRUS 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

Jack, you didn't quote John Calvin. You quoted some website that was giving its own definition of total depravity. In fact, you don't even know if this is what John Calvin believes. You're taking a webwsites word for it. And to press a point, it would be the correct thing to do to admitt that you attributed to John Calvin what was not true. You said that John Calvin claimed salvation does not require a human response. I proved to you, from his own writings, that he never said that. In fact he said quite the opposite. Will you retract your accusation?

JackRUS said:

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

In the arena of soteriology, John Calvin utters no contradictions. He taught that man cannot come to God unless man is called. He taught that God changes (regenerates) the heart of those whom He has called making it possible for them to believe. He taught that once the heart has been changed (regenerated) man then, of his own will, places his faith in Christ and Christ alone. That has always been the teaching of John Calvin and the whole of Reformed theology.

doulous wrote:

John Calvin cleary teaches in the preaching of the gospel in order to convert the sinner. He ten proceeds to put the responsibility on man to make the right choice(s).

JackRUS wrote:

But you left off the last part of what he wrote which was "Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds."

So he is saying still that people are according to his definition dead until they are saved, and only then can they do anything. So my statement and my critique of him stands in my estimation.

No. Calvin is saying that men are spiritually dead until the are regenerated. Additionally Calvin writes that man cannot repent (turn from sin) until God first does something. Why? Because man is spiritually dead and incapable of making any movement towards God. Remember Eph. 2:1 and 1 Cor. 2:14? They apply here. In support of Calvin's contention I offer another passage. Ephesians 2:4-5 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) Who made us alive while we were dead? Christ! Christ brought life to a dead heart. Jesus walked into the funeral home of hell, took the corpse by the hand and raised it in newness of life! Can you not see the glorious power of God at work here? So John Calvin remains consistent in his theology. Man is dead spiritually. Man can do nothing spiritually because he is dead. God chooses and breaths life into the dead man. The once dead man now is able to choose God by faith.

JackRUS said:

Of course you must understand that when I said that salvation requires a human response, I meant before they are saved, and not after. Calvin would not agree.

No need to exaplain, I understood that. That is why I stated you are advocating the foreknowledge view of salvation. You are denying that man is completely fallen. As I said before in a previous post, your position requires that man has some "divine spark" within him that allows response to God's call. In a previous post you attributed part of this to the "deep things of God", as though they were some mystery that could not and cannot be understood. I would agree that the bible contains some mysteries that are beyond finite human reasoning. But this is not one of them. The bible does not support man's response to God prior to regeneration. I covered this point in a previous post.

 

[JackRUS]

Doulous.
You commented:

You indicated the only answer I could have to your question was "yes." I disagree. Not only was my only answer not "yes", my answer was (and still is) "no." My point to you was that even if man fails (using your example saying "no" to a call to ministry), that failure was within the sovereignty of God. Our choices work within God's sovereignty. Our choices are in submission to God's sovereignty.

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 are espousing the foreknowledge view that teaches, "God chooses those who He knew would choose (or to use your word..."fear") Him." Jack, the problem with the foreknowledge view is that is patently unbiblical. The scriptue does not teach it. Even the implication that Arminian's use to justify the foreknowledge view is contrived. Here is the passage Arminian's to support their view:

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.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
Scott.
You wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />These two sentences are contradictory.

First, Christ work didn't finish anything if it is dependent on the good will of man to be effective. It is ever short of its intent.

Second, whatever "dynamic choosing" happens to be the next statement is directly contradictory to scripture. Agreeing with God's Word based a purely human decision is indeed "good that we have done". You cannot characterize it any other way. You require that we did it... and it is certainly good. Further, you make God's respect for man's good will the deciding factor in salvation rather than His respect for Christ's atoning death.

In the second sentence you assert that we must make a decision "of our own". That directly makes salvation dependent on goodness that is wholly human and independent of God's goodness. Again, you have made salvation dependent on man's goodness and not God's grace.

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.

If a human judge told you that you were guilty of murder and you were guilty. And then he said that one would take your place and you believed his unique offer and took him up on it. That would not make you a do-gooder, nor would it make your will good.

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.

It is merely a gracious gift received.

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.

And according to Galatians no one that is saved accepts any other Gospel. So you are arguing that only Calvinists are saved.

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.

And I argued that man's choice is passive in that only God can make the salvation decision and the regeneration.

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.

You wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not the point of evangelism. Evangelism is the method God has chosen to His own glory to save every one of the elect... and we don't know who they are so in obedience to God we should share the gospel with all.

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.

Exactly how can evangelism increase the number of saved?

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.

And if it doesn't, please go back to question one.

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.

you wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Calvinists don't assert that nor do their behaviors bear it out. Calvinists have been every bit as evangelical as non-calvinists... and probably more so with respect to the actual gospel of scripture.

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.

As I said, all Calvinism naturally leads to hyper-Calvinism in the area of evangelism by their definition of election. It's inescapable.

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

 

[Salamander]

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.

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by Salamander:
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.

Your ad hominim diatribe is only going to convince one person.....you. You offered no exegesis. You didn't even bother to "grab" scriptures out of thin air in order to "make" your case. You are the best apologist a Calvinist could ever want!

 

[doulous]

JackRUS wrote:

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)

God does have a will of desire and a will of decree, but only in a anthropomorhpical sense. Your example about men resisting the call to ministry is within the sovereign decree of God. I already stated that in my previous post. No need to exegete or explain it further.

JackRUS wrote:

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.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.

This is when I wish that every Christian had even an elementary understanding of koine Greek. If Peter meant to imply that these believers where elected based on their predisposition to choose God (which the foreknowledge view teaches), he would have indicated that in the text. He didn't. The text doesn't even hint that they were elected based on God viewing their future choice of Him. It simply means that God knew beforehand that they would be chosen. That is all it means. Nothing else.

JackRUS said:

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.

Again, the foreknowledge view. But you deserve kudos for your honesty.

JackRUS wrote:

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)

First...all those (give scripture) references were not quotes of what I wrote. They were posted by someone else. Secondly, I already answered this question when I refuted your biased attack on John Calvin. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching (the gospel) in order to call His elect. It has always been that way. God chose to use men to carry forth the message of the repentance that leads to life. Man must believe. Calvin never denied that and neither do I. But it seems you need to be reminded of that again, so I will post it once more:

doulous wrote:

"The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy, (see Calvin in Joann. 1: 13.) For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds." - John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion." Chapter 3, "3. REGENERATION BY FAITH. OF REPENTANCE." Section I.

Man MUST exercise faith in the ordo salutis. But he only excercises that faith after God has first changed the heart. Jack, why do you keep missing what I write? It is either because of one or two reasons: 1. You don't read it -or- 2. You choose to ignore it.

 

[Salamander]

Your ad hominim diatribe is only going to convince one person.....you. You offered no exegesis. You didn't even bother to "grab" scriptures out of thin air in order to "make" your case. You are the best apologist a Calvinist could ever want!

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

 

[JackRUS]

Doulous.
You commented:

Jack, you didn't quote John Calvin. You quoted some website that was giving its own definition of total depravity. In fact, you don't even know if this is what John Calvin believes. You're taking a webwsites word for it.

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:

He taught that once the heart has been changed (regenerated) man then, of his own will, places his faith in Christ and Christ alone. That has always been the teaching of John Calvin and the whole of Reformed theology.

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:

Man MUST exercise faith in the ordo salutis. But he only excercises that faith after God has first changed the heart. Jack, why do you keep missing what I write? It is either because of one or two reasons: 1. You don't read it -or- 2. You choose to ignore it.

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 ]

 

[doulous]

 

[doulous]

Jack - you get the final word.

I think we've exhausted this discussion. In the end we are back where we started...in disagreement. At least I don't see any dismembered body parts. That is a first!

Seriously, I'm moving on to other discussions. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[Andy T.]

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.

 

[Andy T.]

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.

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.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by doulous:
Jack - you get the final word.

I think we've exhausted this discussion. In the end we are back where we started...in disagreement. At least I don't see any dismembered body parts. That is a first!

Seriously, I'm moving on to other discussions. Thanks for the exchange.

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