Questions for Calvinists

th...the answer to your first question is yes, that is true.

Now for your second post. Point 1 has another non sequiter. Yes, before the foundation of the world (or eternity past if you like) God elected some to salvation. However it does not follow that he actively elected some to hell. Such a belief is known as "double predestination" and is rejected by the vast majority of Calvinists. Instead, the classic doctrine is known as preterition, where God passes over those who do not get saved and they pay for their own sins. Critics calls such a thing word games and what not, but I believe the active/passive (predestination/preterition) distinction to be well founded Scripturally. Hopefully this clarification should clear up the problems in your points 2 and 3.

One other note on Point 1 is the issue of the order of the divine decrees. When people discuss this you will see terms like supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism. All of these points regard what order in God's decrees (not historical events) did He decide to create, permit the fall, decide to provide atonement, and then choose those who would be saved. That's quite a debate, and I prefer to forget about all that because it's silly to figure out what God decided to do before other things he decided to do. If you're interested John Feinberg's "No One Like Him" presents this position in a nutshell.

Now on to point 4 there's another terrible theological word involved called "regeneration," which is the belief that God brings new life to a person before (or at least simultaneously with) she has faith and thus engenders that faith.

Points 5 and 6 seem fine with one caveat, those who reject perseverance would reject point 6, but it does define classic Calvinism.

Regarding point 5 I will quote a passage that Augustine often quoted in the Pelagian controversy: 1 Cor 4:7, which says that "What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?" I know the context of the passage may not directly cover salvation, but it's still a salient point methinks.

BJ

 

th...it doesn't seem that we differ too much on sanctification, but how does God spur one on to love and good works after being saved? Does he step on one's will or not?

 

I did choose to come to Christ but He chose me first.

 

Th....another thread has been discussing Calvinism and someone posted a great link to J.I. Packer's intro. to John Owen's "Death of Death." I think you will find his introduction to be helpful in clearly identifying what Calvinism both is and is not. Have a dictionary handy, and of course I would add the disclaimer that I don't believe all of Packer's words here (I'm a dualist and not a straight limited atonement person), but he has done a great job in presenting Calvinism in this work. Hopefully, his insights and expertise can explain things to you in a better manner than I could.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html

BJ

 

No, He ABANDON them to hell. He did not really love the whole world (John 3:16) and He does not really desire that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and the Bible is wrong when it says those things. It should have been stated by God more plainly, right?

That is simply the Calvinistic refusal to follow their doctrine through to its logical conclusions.

Really, God should have consulted Calvinists before He inspired the Bible! Obviously Jesus did not taste death for ALL (Hebrews 2:9) and did not atone for sin once for all (Hebrews 7:27) and certainly does not want all saved (1 Timothy 2:3) ...at least if Calvinism is right. Man cannot reason with God (Isaiah 1:18) and so find salvation in Him, and definitely cannot seek God (Jeremiah 29:13). When Jesus invited all those who are heavy-laden to come to Him (Matthew 11:28), He clearly considered that only those who were already elect were so burdened, for His call, according to Calvinists, is irresistable.

Yup, God should have consulted Calvinists first. He got it all wrong in so many parts of the Bible! -- at least according to the way they see it.

"perseverance of the saints..." I reject that in favor of the perseverance of God in my life. I do not have what it takes to persevere or maintain my own salvation at all. Philippians 1:6 states plainly that God Himself will finish the good work He has begun and I depend on that. It is HIS perseverance which is biblical, not that of any saint.

 

Helen, I doubt my response to you will extend beyond this one post based on what i've seen from you on other threads, but when you mention Calvinism's logical conclusion I smiled because I've heard that it is Calvinism that is based on logic and not Scripture. Perhaps that charge is wrong after all, eh?

BJ

PS--If you bothered to read the thread from the beginning you would see that many here, including me agree with you to prefer preservation over perseverance. Furthermore, perseverance in classic Calvinism focuses on God's work and not man's (just scroll up for review).

 

Helen, I'm sure you've been asked before, but here goes anyway. I know you love your children, and I know you love all children, but do you love ALL children with the SAME love that you have for YOUR children?

No.

And God's love for all mankind is not the same as His love for HIS children (the elect).

 

Does that mean she hates the children that aren't hers?

 

JD, you are asking the wrong person that question. First of all, five of my six are adopted special case kids. Second, now they are grown, three do not even talk to me (one is out of jail last spring on check forging counts, one is up in Spokane where my brother 'rescued' her after she got kicked out of Bible school for lying, cheating, and stealing and knew she was going to face some flak -- to put it mildly -- if and when she came home, and one is simply being independent, in his early twenties). Gina L. here on BB, lives next door to us, and she is like a daughter to us. I love her dearly. Her three girls are so deep in our hearts that I can't imagine how lonely life would be without them.

Do I love other kids more than my own? Yes, in some cases, I do.

In the meantime, God so loved the WORLD, and did not want ONE, to perish, and tasted death for ALL men. Etc. etc. Calvinism/Reformed doctrine makes mash of the character of God revealed to us in the Bible and in our own lives. I personally consider it heresy.

 

Interesting, veerrryyyy interesting.

 

Lest you misunderstand me, please....

I care for the wellbeing of them all. I have worked for the wellbeing of them all without regard for my own health (or wealth!). I have done everything I know how to do for each of my children. How each of them has responded is up to them. Inasmuch as love is commitment aside from emotion, the one(s) I have loved the most have been the ones who were in the most need at the moment. They have needed the most from me and they have gotten the most from me at their own particular times.

However now they are all adults, with the exception of Chris who, although he is almost 22, is profoundly retarded due to encephalitis when he was three and will be our 'baby' forever -- or at least until the Lord comes. As adults, each has made decisions on his or her own, and two of them have entirely rejected our family. We still pray for them, but I do not have the opportunity to care for them or help them in any way. Since love is an active verb and not an emotion, it is impossible for me to love them as I love, say, Gina's kids, who are right here and responsive to the caring and laughter and relationships we have now.

Maybe you do not understand what love is? It is not an emotion. It is an active commitment. When someone removes themselves from that possibility, you CANNOT love them as you can love those near to you.

Do I mourn their loss? No, not really. They are in God's hands and I trust God and God has kept me extraordinarily busy with other things. Would I welcome them back into the family? Absolutely, in a second. But I'm afraid I would not welcome them back as the thief and liar my second daughter became nor as the thief and liar my second son became. At 22 and 30 they are old enough to know better and take responsibility for their actions. But I would love to see them if they ever turned over their lives to the Lord and we would all welcome them into the family circle again with open arms.

I hope that clears up the impression which gave rise to your sarcasm.

 

All I can tell you Helen is that I would do anything short of giving my own life to protect my neighbor's kids. But I would give my own life and even more if it were possible, even wish myself accursed, for my own kids. I love children. I would hug and kiss every one of them if it were not inappropriate in this day for a man to do so. But the love I have for mine is much greater - not in degree, but in kind - it's a different kind of love. Now you can define that any way you want to with words, but I know what that special relational love is by experience. The love God has for His children is a relational love - it's a different KIND of love altogether.

 

thjplgvp said:

How do you know you are elect?

That's just another way of asking, "How do I know I belong to Christ?" 1 John answers that question: do I believe the truth? do I love the brethren? do I obey the commandments? If so, then "you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13, emphasis mine).

I can examine my life and beliefs, and answer "yes" to all those questions. Therefore, I may know that I am one of the elect.

That is the answer to all your questions, which are merely variations on the same theme.

 

Quoted by Brandon C. Jones:"Perhaps your post is getting to the heart of the C/A debate. What is it that separates those who believe and those who do not? Is it something from man or God (synergism or monergism)? Either way people aren't saved kicking and screaming. Either their wills are changed first by God (monergism) or it's a co-operative process where God neutralizes one's sin nature to let the "unfettered will" (if you will) make its choice either for or against the gospel (prevenient grace)." End quote

God Neutralizes ones sin nature in order to make a choice for or against?? UNBIBLICAL!! I was deep in sin and heard the gospel well before my sin nature was neutralized. The gospel and our faith in Christs finished work is what neutralizes our sin nature. Calvanists think they have the market cornered on salvation. Being one of the elite or something.

Salvation is for ALL men! Christ is the second Adam. We have the same choice as Adam had because we will be restored to that state. Adam had a choice and so do we!!

You are just like the rest of us. You made a choice by faith after you heard the gospel. Yes. We are depraved. We can also hear God's message. Our wickedness will make most men reject the truth. They will understand what they have rejected though. That is why God will hold all men without excuse. My God wouldn't do that if I had no choice. Remember God said: Whosoever will!

 

Before I was saved I was not a Calvinist. I knew I was lost and was knew I would go to Hell, but rather than coming to God I ran from Him and tried to hide from Him, just as Adam did in the Garden when he realized he had sinned against God. God placed me under conviction many times and many times I would run, until I could not run any more. God could have left me at any time and I would have justifiably went to Hell, because I had rejected God, not once but many times.

I am Elect because God sought me I did not seek Him, I ran but God would not take 'no' for an answer. How could I do anything else other than give Him full credit for my salvation. I am Elect because there is no room for freewill, my will wanted to keep running, I just couldn't run anymore.

 

soulman...your post was, was...I don't know. But it seems that you misunderstand both calvinism and arminianism since you call one unbiblical and mock the other. However, one question I would have for you is how strong of a sin nature does one have before being saved if in your opinion she is still able to choose righteousness (namely, have faith in Christ's finished work) without any "help" from God so to speak. Is this the "man is sick" model that has been advocated in the past by some? You say the gospel and faith in Christ's finished work neutralizes our sin nature. Great, how so?

I would refer you to the link above on Packer's intro. to "the death of death" to help you out some since he makes a good presentation.

BJ

 

And what about those who accept the truth? Are they somehow...less "wicked"? It's comforting to know that I accepted Christ because I wasn't as wicked as Joe Blow who is going to hell. Good for me.

 

sin nature neutralized?????

I have bad news.... your dead. If you aint sinnin', you aint breathin'.



Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,



Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;


Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Rom 7:10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
Rom 7:11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Rom 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.



Luk 18:9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt:
Luk 18:10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'
Luk 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'
Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."


(ESV)

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Well said.

 

This board is so hit or miss. now there's people thinking that I conflated man's totally depraved sin nature before salvation with the state of the unglorified Christian. I think I'll take a break from this thread now. Th...you can PM me if you wish to talk more.

BJ