Non-Calvinists: Best argument?

[Rippon]

JOLM : The Lord has not 'willed' for all to come to repentance . He is not willing for some to salvation , as a matter of biblical fact . Maybe you can even cite some passages to which I referring .

 

[TCGreek]

Exactly, and calling on the name of the Lord implies free will does it not?

What is free will, my friend?

 

[willowdee]

Cowboymatt said:

I don't like it that by taking Calvinist thinking to its logical end, the origin of sin and evil is God. This is unacceptable because a God who willing causes humans to sin and who willing causes evil in the world is not a God that I want to worship. If this were the only choice in the matter, I would be an atheist.

and

There are times in theology when it is best to through our hands up and say, "I don't know! God and his ways are bigger than my abilities to think and reason!" The interaction between human free will (which is evident in Scripture from beginning to end) and God's sovereignty (also evident in Scripture from beginning to end) is a mystery to us at the end of the day. Human free will alone can't be the answer because then humans would have a reason to boast in choosing Christ; but God's determinism can't be the only answer because it makes people like puppets and doesn't square will all of Scripture. It seems to me that we have to hold these two ideas in tension. Is that easy? No. Is it fun or popular? No. But I still think that we should do it.

As to your first question: if people have no free will and God predetermines everything, then God must be the author of evil because it couldn't have originated in people because they have no free will. And you can't pawn it off on Satan, because God made him and if God predetermines all, then he made Satan evil and made him influence Adam and Even and ultimately all the humans to sin. If you push the notion of TD and God's predeterminism to their logical ends, God is on the hook for sin and evil...something that, if true, makes me not think that he is worthy of worship.

Matt, thank you, thank you. You have no idea how I've struggled with this topic. It has been the source of sheer agony or me, to the point of having a crisis of faith. You articulated perfectly how I feel. It is a relief for me to know that I am not the only one who feels this way.

 

[MB]

MB,

Whether you want to admit it or not, your participation in this Board is a form of teaching - you are providing us with your interpretation of the Bible. So according to your reasoning above, you should not even rely on your own teaching since you yourself are merely a man. I'm sure your retort would be that your teaching is "based on the Bible." Well, I'm guessing that other teachers who differ from you would say the same thing about their own teaching. So we are back to square one, aren't we? Essentially, you have created a circular or absurb argument with your "anti-teacher" rant.

"Admit it or not" You must be assuming I have no choice.
You' re mistaken in assuming I'm my own teacher. John Said ;
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I completely rely on God and His word. If I have wisdom it's because He gave it to me. If I have understand it's because He gave it to me.
I do not interpret scripture as some do, I understand it as I'm taught it.
I realize that you most likely interpret scripture yourself and is why you thought I must do the same. Regardless of whether or not you gave me a choice in the answer to your statements I answered it anyway because your no choice situation is only imaginary.
MB

 

[MB]

We do have to 'rely' on their writings . We have God's Holy Word . However , the Lord in His good providence has raised up a number of godly and scholarly men who sought to expound the Word of God . Their writings aren't canonical or inspired , but they do help us . To dismiss them would be foolish in the extreme .

I don't say let's forget what they had to say but lets not try to build on their foundations. I say man needs to rely on God and His word and not what men of old believed. Other wise we wind up repeating the same mistakes these men made. Our relationship with the Father should be built on what the scriptures say, not what men say.
Men will never teach what the Spirit will teach if men will only depend on Him for it all.
MB

 

[Andy T.]

I completely rely on God and His word.

Me, too. At least I try to. I would never be so arrogant to say that I am perfect in this endeavor, though.

If I have wisdom it's because He gave it to me.

Me, too.

If I have understand it's because He gave it to me.

Me, too.

I do not interpret scripture as some do, I understand it as I'm taught it.

Understanding involves interpretation, so this one applies to me, as well.

Looks like we are in the same boat in our honest attempt to understand Scripture, correct? I just wanted to get that point across.

 

[MB]

Me, too. At least I try to. I would never be so arrogant to say that I am perfect in this endeavor, though.


Me, too.


Me, too.


Understanding involves interpretation, so this one applies to me, as well.

Looks like we are in the same boat in our honest attempt to understand Scripture, correct? I just wanted to get that point across.

Not exactly interpreting scripture is man's way of understanding. My understanding isn't man's way, but God explanation.
MB

 

[JustChristian]

John 3:16 doesn't say anyone can.

Certainly it does. What do you think "whosoever" means?

 

[jcjordan]

Certainly it does. What do you think "whosoever" means?

If I were to say, "whosover runs faster than the bear, will be saved", would you assume that it is possible that it is possible for "anyone" to be saved? Of course not, you would say that only those whom God is gifted with great speed will be saved.

 

[cowboymatt]

If I were to say, "whosover runs faster than the bear, will be saved", would you assume that it is possible that it is possible for "anyone" to be saved? Of course not, you would say that only those whom God is gifted with great speed will be saved.

But your analogy is not foolproof and arguing from an analogy is faulty argumentation (so every analogy eventually breaks down). The Bible says that whoever believes will not perish. Believing and running are very different verbs, wouldn't you say?

 

[jcjordan]

But your analogy is not foolproof and arguing from an analogy is faulty argumentation (so every analogy eventually breaks down). The Bible says that whoever believes will not perish. Believing and running are very different verbs, wouldn't you say?

I'm not trying to say that running and believing mean the same thing. My point is that "whosoever believes", doesn't mean anyone can believe without Holy Spirit intervention just as the statement "whosoever runs" doesn't mean anyone can outrun a bear with God giving the gift of speed. My point is that John 3:16 doesn't disprove calvinism. Calvinism teaches that that whosover belileves will be saved. I fully believe that to anyone I preach, God may open that persons heart and cause them to believe.

 

[Justlittleoldme]

If I were to say, "whosover runs faster than the bear, will be saved", would you assume that it is possible that it is possible for "anyone" to be saved? Of course not, you would say that only those whom God is gifted with great speed will be saved.

But the Bible does not say we have to run faster then a bear. The Bible says that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Are you trying to say that God has to gift us with the ability to call on his name? Now where would that "gift" be listed in scripture? Just about everyone in the world has he ability to "call upon the name of the Lord" in some fashion or another.

 

[cowboymatt]

I'm not trying to say that running and believing mean the same thing. My point is that "whosoever believes", doesn't mean anyone can believe without Holy Spirit intervention just as the statement "whosoever runs" doesn't mean anyone can outrun a bear with God giving the gift of speed. My point is that John 3:16 doesn't disprove calvinism. Calvinism teaches that that whosover belileves will be saved. I fully believe that to anyone I preach, God may open that persons heart and cause them to believe.

John 3.16 doesn't say, whoever believes as empowered by the H.S. Perhaps one could argue that God woos unbelievers with his love for the world, and whoever believes in him will then receive the H.S. as proof of conversion. Reading the H.S. into the pre-salvation stage in John 3.16 is problematic because there is simply no evidence in the verse to do so.

 

[Justlittleoldme]

JOLM : The Lord has not 'willed' for all to come to repentance . He is not willing for some to salvation , as a matter of biblical fact . Maybe you can even cite some passages to which I referring .

He is not willing for some to salvation, as a matter of biblical fact?? Why should I site some of the passages to which you are referring? I am not even sure I understand what you were trying to say.

All I know is that you did not quote what I said.
Go back and look at what I said about God not being willing. You can find it in II Peter 3:9.

If God is not willing that any should perish then how can be willing that some should perish?

 

[gb93433]

You don't know what you are talking about. I'm a Calvinist, but I've read very, very little Calvin. What you've just said is just plain uninformed and ignorant. I really don't care what Calvin has said and I think most of the Calvinists worldwide don't follow Calvin but rather Christ. And to catagorize Calvinists with the cult of Moonies, is just outrageous and unhelpful to the conversation. I hope that other non-calvinists here would concur.

I have read Calvin's Institutes and for you to make a claim that you are a Calvinist is just making a claim out of total ignorance and trusting another ignorant person that what they say is correct. How could you even know what a Calvinist is unless you know what Calvin stood for? When you read Calvin you will quickly find that the so called Calvinist simply puts words in Calvin's mouth with words he never wrote or said. In effect being a liar. I believe that Calvin was a godly man and tried his best to walk with God, but I cannot even imagine him wanting the kind of attention that people give him today. To call oneself a Calvinist is idolatry. How could it be anything less. I see in no place in the Bible when one is to follow anyone else other than Christ. I am a Christian and agree and disagree with some of what Calvin wrote. If however you had read Calvin you would have also known that Calvin realized the pitfalls of his theology which I have yet to find a "Calvinist" who would agree with Calivin in that.

To say one is a Calvinist and folow Christ is to imply that he can follow two teachings. It is impossible to follow two teachings both practically and according to scripture. I am doing my best to follow Christ. I do not need Calvin to teach me his theology but rather I must study scripture. In no place does the Bible command us to study Calvin but it does command us to study the Bible.

So give me one reason why I would want to study a man when I can study the God of the Bible and His son, Christ?

All of scripture is inspired by God. Jean Calvin's writing are not. Why would I want to study anything other than the inspired version?

I think that is the problem with most cults and religious groups that go astray. They do not study scripture but the teachings of a man.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Noncalvinist

As the wise elderly lady said, "God don't make no junk!"

 

[Andy T.]

Not exactly interpreting scripture is man's way of understanding. My understanding isn't man's way, but God explanation.
MB

I could say the same thing about my understanding. But I would rather avoid such arrogance.

 

[Andy T.]

John 3.16 doesn't say, whoever believes as empowered by the H.S. Perhaps one could argue that God woos unbelievers with his love for the world, and whoever believes in him will then receive the H.S. as proof of conversion. Reading the H.S. into the pre-salvation stage in John 3.16 is problematic because there is simply no evidence in the verse to do so.

But you cannot isolate 3:16 from its context. Some understand 3:3-8 (esp. v. 8) as teaching the Holy Spirit's effectual call of the lost sinner. So yes, there is evidence of such. You may not agree with that understanding, but to say that there is "no evidence" is incorrect.

 

[MB]

I could say the same thing about my understanding. But I would rather avoid such arrogance.

Arrogance!!!! Didn't I show you scripture to back up what I said. I'm sure you are mistaken about my being arrogant. You see it takes Arrogance to claim that anything at all is of your own self.
MB

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I could say the same thing about my understanding. But I would rather avoid such arrogance.

LOL
I think you hit a nerve with ol' MB.

Arrogance!!!! Didn't I show you scripture to back up what I said. I'm sure you are mistaken about my being arrogant. You see it takes Arrogance to claim that anything at all is of your own self.