Questions for Calvinists

[npetreley]

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.

This is where the error of salvation by free-will choice always rears its ugly head. You can't get away from the fact that man must have some of the glory.

 

[2BHizown]

So true there npet, Jeremiah said: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it! 17:9

There is none good, none that seeketh after God, no, not one!!

If it wasnt for the sweet grace and mercy of God all of us would burn forever in eternal fire that is never quenched! Forever is a long, long time to burn!!
No man cometh to the Father but by me, said our Lord Jesus Christ!
If you love the Father, you also love the Son, and only by God's sweet grace are you able to do this at all!!
None of the credit, none of the glory is yours! All, all, all of the credit and glory is God's!
Soli deo gloria!

 

[webdog]

This is where the error of salvation by free-will choice always rears its ugly head. You can't get away from the fact that man must have some of the glory.

...and this is as false of a misrepresentation by a calvinist as you will get. I have yet to meet one non calvinist on this board...or in my life (except a catholic) who either wanted or thought they deserved any glory. Please learn what the other side believes before making such outlandish statements.

 

[2BHizown]

...and this is as false of a misrepresentation by a calvinist as you will get. I have yet to meet one non calvinist on this board...or in my life (except a catholic) who either wanted or thought they deserved any glory. Please learn what the other side believes before making such outlandish statements.

As long as you even think you were partly involved in the coming to Christ you are seeking glory and credit for that decision. You only sought God because He first regenerated your heart; if you belong to Him there is only one way to do so, if He first sought you!

 

[Andy T.]

...and this is as false of a misrepresentation by a calvinist as you will get. I have yet to meet one non calvinist on this board...or in my life (except a catholic) who either wanted or thought they deserved any glory. Please learn what the other side believes before making such outlandish statements.

I agree - I've never met any non-C believer who wanted to share in the glory. But their theology belies them. Maybe it's not a question of sharing glory, but there is still that unanswered, lingering question of why some believe and others do not?

 

[webdog]

As long as you even think you were partly involved in the coming to Christ you are seeking glory and credit for that decision. You only sought God because He first regenerated your heart; if you belong to Him there is only one way to do so, if He first sought you!

Accepting a gift does NOT mean you are involved in the act of giving it! Please, start using the common sense the good Lord gave you.

 

[npetreley]

...and this is as false of a misrepresentation by a calvinist as you will get. I have yet to meet one non calvinist on this board...or in my life (except a catholic) who either wanted or thought they deserved any glory. Please learn what the other side believes before making such outlandish statements.

I know what free willers believe. And I know that (except for one or two who did actually give themselves some credit, and said so right on this board), most believe that God gets all the glory. But the fact is inescapable that if people choose salvation of their own free will, they must have some of the glory, because they, themselves, made the difference between the fact that they are saved and others are not.

 

[webdog]

But the fact is inescapable that if people choose salvation of their own free will, they must have some of the glory, because they, themselves, made the difference between the fact that they are saved and others are not.

The only non calvinist who I would see this applying to is someone who believes they are saved by their good works. Any non calvinist who believes we are saved by grace through faith would not apply. The key to your statement is "choose salvation". Man cannot "choose salvation", but we can choose to accept or reject God's Gift.

 

[J.D.]

I agree - I've never met any non-C believer who wanted to share in the glory. But their theology belies them. Maybe it's not a question of sharing glory, but there is still that unanswered, lingering question of why some believe and others do not?

Right, it's just like the Catholics these days that I witness to, who SAY they are saved by grace because they've been taught the WORDS to say when a "born-againer" comes to their door. An examination of thier theology reveals that they have a completely different definition of grace than we do (their grace is dispensed through the sacraments of the church).

So it is with synergists. They know better than to SAY that they deserve credit for their salvation, but their theology contradicts their words.

On another forum a while back, I debated with a person that, after learning of the doctrines of Pelagius, openly declared himself to be a Pelagian. He said that as he studied Pelagius, he realized that this was the doctrine he had been taught and believed all along. Now that was an honest man. Doctrinally confused, but honest.

 

[Jarthur001]

Right, it's just like the Catholics these days that I witness to, who SAY they are saved by grace because they've been taught the WORDS to say when a "born-againer" comes to their door. An examination of thier theology reveals that they have a completely different definition of grace than we do (their grace is dispensed through the sacraments of the church).

So it is with synergists. They know better than to SAY that they deserve credit for their salvation, but their theology contradicts their words.

On another forum a while back, I debated with a person that, after learning of the doctrines of Pelagius, openly declared himself to be a Pelagian. He said that as he studied Pelagius, he realized that this was the doctrine he had been taught and believed all along. Now that was an honest man. Doctrinally confused, but honest.

There are many that would never say they are Pelagian, but the views they share would place them as a follower of him. This troubles me more then anything about some freewillers. Now to be fair, all do not go this far. But their are some that have and see nothing wrong with it. Pelagius said man was not dead after the fall but still had his will inplace. He said ..."...mans will is intact fully, making him free to choose Gods ways when right is placed before him. All men have a little good placed in them by God, making them able to seek God.”

I have seen some say on here, after the fall, man could have using his own will to come to God. I have no idea how they can say this. This view is very close to even Buddhist and Hindu Newage, other then it is one God and not many.

Does not the Bible teach us that man is dead? Does not the Bible teach us that man’s will is bound to sin? If we take the Bible as it is written, it does this very thing. I see no need to change it to fit ones doctrine based on feelings of God in places we just do not understand.

 

[Jarthur001]

Right, it's just like the Catholics these days that I witness to, who SAY they are saved by grace because they've been taught the WORDS to say when a "born-againer" comes to their door. An examination of thier theology reveals that they have a completely different definition of grace than we do (their grace is dispensed through the sacraments of the church).

Also...this statement is very true. It seems that all will agree that salvation is by grace and not works, but when they tell of salvations plan, they always add things to grace.

 

[webdog]

I have seen some say on here, after the fall, man could have using his own will to come to God. I have no idea how they can say this. This view is very close to even Buddhist and Hindu Newage, other then it is one God and not many.

Not buddhist or hindu...biblical. Without a will, you cannot reason.

Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

 

[webdog]

Also...this statement is very true. It seems that all will agree that salvation is by grace and not works, but when they tell of salvations plan, they always add things to grace.

Who are the "they" that add to grace?

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by FERRON BRIMSTONE
I have bad news.... your dead. If you aint sinnin', you aint breathin'.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
nept;

Well said.

So, if we are all dead before we have our heart changed so we have faith then I guess we all perfect and without sin?

 

[2BHizown]

Accepting a gift does NOT mean you are involved in the act of giving it! Please, start using the common sense the good Lord gave you.

Your view belies this scripture and objects to God's very words as He states here:

...of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again the last day. John 6: 39
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44

 

[thjplgvp]

REreterition

Brandon stated, “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”.


I would agree that it certainly sounds like word games to me since damnation is still the end of both reprobation and preterition. However in suggesting that God passes over a sinner leaving them to their own ends and not electing them to hell prompts me to ask a question or two.

If God does not use his foreknowledge in his election process and the non-elect are simply passed over or ignored would it not make salvation luck of the draw? It would stand to reason that since one is elect and the other is not and there was no criteria established for determining the elect then God’s sovereignty is simply a matter of luck.

If God does not use his foreknowledge in election how are those who are elect to grace distinguished from those who are left to them selves? At what point does God acknowledge his election or at what point does God chose to pass over the one who is not going to get saved? How is that difference noted and recorded in the book of life or the books of judgment?

If God elects to pass over some and they are then left to pay for their sin would this not make God a respecter of persons since he paid the debt for some but not all?

BTW depending on your understanding of propitiation God paid the penalty of sin and not for sin which then allows God to offer mercy instead of justice.

I know that you or someone else can simply say I don’t understand Calvinism in regards to my questions but please take the time to explain why these questions are not legitimate questions.

thjplgvp

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

th...did you bother reading the link I provided above? I was just curious. Now regarding your questions they seem fine and I find no reason to dismiss them. I tend to tire of the quality of some posts on the board, but like I said before I've found you to be a fair person.

Alright, let's take them in order.

1. It seems that you are starting to understand unconditional election. If there are no conditions then the reason is God's prerogative or "good pleasure" to borrow an old phrase used in explaining this. I would not say that God's sovereignty is a matter of luck, but I think I know what you mean: to be one of the elect is a matter of "luck." Well I don't want to sound glib, but since grace is unmerited favor from God I suppose it's very similar to such a thing as "luck," excpet it comes from God. By definition grace is unearned.

2. This is an easy question to answer. God gave the elect ones a big "E" on their forehead so Calvinists know to whom they should preach the gospel :laugh:. Just kidding, there is no distinction down here until someone believes (the moment of faith/repentance and regeneration). We preach the gospel to every creature saying whosoever will. I believe the book of life only contains people who believe. Of course, I also believe that those who believe are the same ones who are elected. Now as to wondering when God decided to do this, well sometime before the foundation of the world. No one but God knows the end from the beginning so we encourage all men to be reconciled to God while it is still "today." However, remember God ordains the means as well as the ends. Thus, people who are merely elect but not yet saved are not God's children and are not yet in the book of life (unless you believe in eternal justification, which I do not)--but they will be sometime before they die once they accept the good news of Jesus Christ.

3. For those who believe in limited atonement they could probably answer better than me. I think they would say that Jesus came to save and keep saved his people and the passages that speak of God being no respecter of persons applies to other things. He chose Israel for instance or individuals to play important roles throughout world history; so the respecter of persons has to be qualified in some ways. Hopefully, someone else here could give you a better answer from their perspective. I'm a dualist, so I believe that Jesus both paid sin's penalty due for every man and also died to save and keep saved His people.

Okay, back to studying German
BJ

 

[thjplgvp]

th...did you bother reading the link I provided above?

No but I will, we have had a death of a close friend and I am in and out literally and figuratively. :laugh:

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

th...I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I hope you, other friends, and the family will all somehow benefit from this tough time.

BJ

 

[Jarthur001]

Not buddhist or hindu...biblical. Without a will, you cannot reason.

That is a interesting theory. However, if one would take the time to check the Bible we would find another teaching, and this happens as clear as day, so that we do not have to guess and have theories.

John 8...



1st.. Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day and asked a rhetorically question.

1)"why do you not understand what I say?

He then answered...

2) "because you cannot bear to hear my word"

His point was not that they were physically deaf, but that they were spiritually dead. They could hear...but could not understand.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] <------1 from above

because ye cannot hear my word. <--------2 from above

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.<---they cannot believe, because they do not understand, just as Christ told them above

Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?<---they cannot believe, because they do not understand, just as Christ told them above

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

As it turns out Mans will cannot understand on its own. Maybe the Bible is right after all, when it says Man is dead spiritually after the fall. Maybe Pelagian was wrong when he said there is a little good in every man, when the Bible says none is good. Maybe Romans 3 is right when it says, "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

OR

Maybe Paul was tricky us what he said..

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If they do not understand, how can they have faith? Something happens to them so that they can understand and then believe. This passage is not about hearing...its about understanding. Even if they did hear, they did not understand for they were blind and were not spiritually discerning . What changes in the unsaved man, to bring him from the point of not understanding and are spiritually discerning...to understanding..so that he can believe?...

or are you saying Paul was wrong?


In Christ...James