The BEST argument against Calvinism . . .

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinists are taking over the SBC, mainly because the seminaries are cranking out Calvinist graduates.

Why? Maybe Albert Mohler is leading the charge, with success I’m thinking.

 

[Silverhair]

So. I was talking to Owen and he said I should use someone else once in a while. So here's Edwards on the way our will works:
"The dispute about grace's being resistible or irresistible, is perfect nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the will; so that it is nonsense, except it be proper to say, that a man with his will can resist his own will, or except it be possible for him to desire to resist his own will; that is, except it be possible for a man to will a thing and not will it at the same, so far as he does will it." Edwards then explains it all again, using the idea that if you go the route that the enlightenment affects the understanding, so that a man now realizes that a thing is best for him, and thus he wills to obtain that thing, then how can it be said that that man could also have been able to also will the other thing? The idea being, that he was already truly acting according to his will.

Now this is Dave's interpretation of all this. From the above, and from Owen, you can see that they were not doing what some of the modern Calvinists are doing. What they do is they almost deny that any move on the part of the person is occurring at all, or that any "decision" is made, period. This is not what the Puritan Calvinist preachers did and I am including Owen, his contemporaries, even Baxter, and later guys like Ryle, Bonar, Spurgeon, and MLJ. What they did was that even though most of them were very deterministic and very much believed in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men, they believed that the sovereign action was upon the will itself because that is where the problem is with man anyway. Once the will is acted upon, the coming to Christ, or believing, or accepting Christ, or whatever way you want to term it, is going to occur in exactly the same way any non-Calvinist Christian would observe it. The argument would occur in that the Calvinist believes there is much more going on than the taking in of the information contained in the gospel, evaluating it by the natural human mind, and then deciding what to do with it. This explanation they would oppose. What they did not do was what some of the modern Calvinists try to do, and that is to try to belittle or short circuit the whole idea of a person wrestling with these things, and then deciding to come to Christ, sometimes in a dramatic or emotional way. The only thing the Puritan Calvinist would insist on, is that the driver or effector of such a decision would be the Holy Spirit acting in a sovereign and individual way. They would deny the idea of the Spirit not being involved directly, and they would deny the Spirit being given in a general way, the same for everyone.

So by your comment "The only thing the Puritan Calvinist would insist on, is that the driver or effector of such a decision would be the Holy Spirit acting in a sovereign and individual way." we see their deterministic view of salvation. Only those the Holy Spirit causes to believe will in fact believe. If the Holy Spirit does not do so then the person can not turn in faith to God. But how do they square that with God's stated desire that all come to faith in Him? Would their view not make God to be disingenuous, wants all to come but only enables a small group to do so.

Would you call that an inconsistency or would you just call it a mystery?

 

[DaveXR650]

Would you call that an inconsistency or would you just call it a mystery?

I would call it a mystery because I think this is an area the Calvinists have it more or less, right. In a compatibilist view of free will you have man exercising his free will and God being sovereign. Why? Because both are taught in scripture. I think that is about the best we can do theologically if we want to properly take into account all the scriptures.

And Edwards made the point in great detail what I have been trying to say on here. That it makes no difference if the Holy Spirit "helps" us come to Christ a lot or a little bit only. If the help is decisive in coming then it must be by God's sovereign, individual action. If it is not decisive, then it isn't needed anyway and it is all up to the individual. So in other words, even if you are Wesleyan or an Arminian, and you believe the Holy Spirit's action is direct and essential, but yet can be resisted; a Calvinist would say no, if it is resisted then it was not "effectual", at least in that person, and if it was effectual then it was irresistible in the same person.

The only other choice which would be pure and logical would be that God has given us a truly autonomous free will. In that case, since you want to bring up inconsistencies you are left with no real ability to predict who will be saved, the coming kingdom, no real reason to pray for people's salvation since it is already the the known will of God that it be left up to them. You can't even really claim those verses that God wills everyone to be saved since he clearly has left it up to the person themselves, although I guess he can sit back and hope. And worst of all, you are left with a situation where God, after sending his son to go through what he did, and knowing how our natural will operates, has chosen to just sit back and see what happens, with the possibility that no one will be saved. Your philosophy requires a detached view of God's love towards us where the requirements for actually being saved don't match my understanding of what Christ did for us. So no, I am not ready to give up on Calvinism in a moderate form.

 

[kyredneck]

1) Does 1 Cor. 2:14 say the lost are unable to understand any spiritual thing? Nope.

Correct. It does not say 'the lost', it says the natural man.

2) Does Ephesians 1:4 say we (born anew believers) were chosen as individuals before creation? Nope. The contextual message is when God chose His Redeemer, we were chosen corporately as those the Redeemer would redeem, thus we were chosen in Him, or as a consequence of Christ being chosen.

Correct. But a corporation is made up of individuals.

3) Does Ephesians 2:8 say faith is a gift instilled by irresistible grace? Nope, the gift in view is salvation.

Everything we have is a gift. None of it is "of ourselves" which includes our deliverance AND our faith. I prefer KJV on this topic. "Not of yourselves".

5) Does 2 Corinthians 4:6 say we were given our faith when God shined in our hearts? Nope. The idea is God provided His revelation that shined into our awareness and understanding, such as encountering witnesses presenting the gospel.

No, the idea is the same as with Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul" [Acts 16:14]

6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4

 

[Van]

Correct. It does not say 'the lost', it says the natural man.
Correct. But a corporation is made up of individuals.
Everything we have is a gift. None of it is "of ourselves" which includes our deliverance AND our faith. I prefer KJV on this topic. "Not of yourselves".
No, the idea is the same as with Lydia, "whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul" [Acts 16:14]
6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4

More obvious nonsense having nothing to do with the topic. For example every lost person is a natural person.
God's revelation of His gospel is our gift, and if our faith in that revelation is credited by God as righteousness, then our salvation is a gift. The claim we are instilled with faith via irresistible grace is unbiblical nonsense.

Why can you not see all your posts simply claim an vague or ambiguous word or phrase means what your man-made doctrine claims, ignoring the grammar and the historical meaning.

 

[David Lamb]

More obvious nonsense having nothing to do with the topic. For example every lost person is a natural person.
God's revelation of His gospel is our gift, and if our faith in that revelation is credited by God as righteousness, then our salvation is a gift. The claim we are instilled with faith via irresistible grace is unbiblical nonsense.

I wonder if kyredneck had in mind a verse like this:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co 2:14 NKJV)

Not receiving the things of the Spirit of God is surely a sign that someone is lost.

 

[Van]

I wonder if kyredneck had in mind a verse like this:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co 2:14 NKJV)

Not receiving the things of the Spirit of God is surely a sign that someone is lost.

Certainly, but even babes in Christ cannot receive some of the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:1-3.
There is no distinction between a "natural man" as used in 1 Corinthians 2:14 and a lost person.

God's revelation of His gospel is His gift, and if our faith in that revelation is credited by God as righteousness, then our salvation is His gift, as well! The claim we are instilled with faith via irresistible grace is unbiblical nonsense.

 

[kyredneck]

@David Lamb @Van

Vanology rewrite:

14 Now babes in Christ receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto them; and they cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2

 

[kyredneck]

every lost person is a natural person.

Not receiving the things of the Spirit of God is surely a sign that someone is lost.

I can find several mentions of 'lost sheep' in the scriptures, but none of 'lost goats'.

 

[Van]

@David Lamb @Van

Vanology rewrite:

14 Now babes in Christ receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto them; and they cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2

This is not what I said or representative of my view. it is a deliberate falsehood.

 

[Van]

I can find several mentions of 'lost sheep' in the scriptures, but none of 'lost goats'.

Yet another non-sequitur post. Is anyone a "lost goat" before they physically die and face judgement? Nope

The idea that lost goats are roaming the earth is a complete fiction hoisted by the Calvinist speculators, to support their other false doctrines.

When we are physically conceived, be are in our natural state, spiritually dead (not in Christ but in Adam) not having undergone the washing of regeneration (being made alive together with Christ) and not indwelt and sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. Thus every "natural" person is a "lost" person. Full Stop

 

[Silverhair]

I would call it a mystery because I think this is an area the Calvinists have it more or less, right. In a compatibilist view of free will you have man exercising his free will and God being sovereign. Why? Because both are taught in scripture. I think that is about the best we can do theologically if we want to properly take into account all the scriptures.

And Edwards made the point in great detail what I have been trying to say on here. That it makes no difference if the Holy Spirit "helps" us come to Christ a lot or a little bit only. If the help is decisive in coming then it must be by God's sovereign, individual action. If it is not decisive, then it isn't needed anyway and it is all up to the individual. So in other words, even if you are Wesleyan or an Arminian, and you believe the Holy Spirit's action is direct and essential, but yet can be resisted; a Calvinist would say no, if it is resisted then it was not "effectual", at least in that person, and if it was effectual then it was irresistible in the same person.

The only other choice which would be pure and logical would be that God has given us a truly autonomous free will. In that case, since you want to bring up inconsistencies you are left with no real ability to predict who will be saved, the coming kingdom, no real reason to pray for people's salvation since it is already the the known will of God that it be left up to them. You can't even really claim those verses that God wills everyone to be saved since he clearly has left it up to the person themselves, although I guess he can sit back and hope. And worst of all, you are left with a situation where God, after sending his son to go through what he did, and knowing how our natural will operates, has chosen to just sit back and see what happens, with the possibility that no one will be saved. Your philosophy requires a detached view of God's love towards us where the requirements for actually being saved don't match my understanding of what Christ did for us. So no, I am not ready to give up on Calvinism in a moderate form.

The bible is clear that God is sovereign and man has a God given free will. That we can both agree on.

Compatibilism is no less deterministic than hard determinism. Only those the Holy Spirit causes to believe will in fact believe. If the Holy Spirit does not do so then the person can not turn in faith to God. So whether you hold to to soft {compatibilism} or hard determinism God still has to cause the person to believe, "if it was effectual then it was irresistible in the same person."

The alleged freedom to which the compatibilist attempts to concede is disingenuous at best given that even the alleged freedom to choose what God has decreed the person to choose was also decreed by God for them. Compatibilism, then, is a theory involving mere words but no reality.

You say that without calvinism's determinism of who would be saved

You have made a series of illogical statements regarding the lack of ability of God to know a number of thinks. Are you forgetting that God is omniscient, He knows all that will or could happen. He knows what the ultimate free will choices of man will be, but in knowing He is not causing as calvinism requires.

Under calvinism what was the necessity of Christ going to the cross? Calvinism has divided humanity into the "elect" and "non-elect". If you were chosen before the foundation of the world then all was good if not then not so good for you. But back to the question, why the cross? The absolutely elect must have been saved without him;
and the non-elect cannot be saved by him. But what does the bible say about the love of God. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Notice it say whoever believes not the ones I have chosen to believe. Calvinism has tried to change the truths of God to fit their philosophy.

I do believe that we should just trust what the bible says, God is sovereign and man has a free will.

 

[Van]

God is sovereign meaning God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Any other definition is unbiblical nonsense.

 

[kyredneck]

This is not what I said or representative of my view. it is a deliberate falsehood.

Incredible. It's definitely what you're trying to do. All one has to do is go HERE and scroll. You've been conflating 'the natural man' with 'babes in Christ' on other threads also.

 

[Van]

Incredible. It's definitely what you're trying to do. All one has to do is go HERE and scroll. You've been conflating 'the natural man' with 'babes in Christ' on other threads also.

Endless falsehoods by this fount of falsehood.

Pay no attention to demonic influences.

 

[DaveXR650]

The alleged freedom to which the compatibilist attempts to concede is disingenuous at best given that even the alleged freedom to choose what God has decreed the person to choose was also decreed by God for them. Compatibilism, then, is a theory involving mere words but no reality.

If you have really looked into it and that is your conclusion then I respect that. As for myself, I see both in actual operation in life, and I see both in scripture. I also notice that most teachers of autonomous freedom also teach that upon your independent decision for Christ you will be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and then cannot quit or leave the faith, even by your own free will. In that respect free will Baptists and Wesleyans are more consistent.

I have read Edwards on free will, and if you really want a good treatment of it from the other side, read Arminius himself, in his answer to a pamphlet put out by the Calvinist Perkins. You will find I think that you can come to the end of theology from both sides, to the point where discussion becomes ludicrous. As for myself, having tried to look into the reasons why they got so nasty with each other when discussing these things, I am finding that they had political problems to deal with involving the opposition and the role of the church and the state at that time which mean nothing to us nowadays. I haven't really found much difference in how a person comes to faith in Christ between someone who thinks it was all of God and someone who thinks it was all their own decision. In fact, if the Calvinists I like are correct, it has to be that way because the sovereign effects occur at the level of our own wills - which means it is still perceived as our own decision. Still, like I said before, I don't understand the dislike for the idea of sovereign decisive help in getting us to believe, yet the belief that once you are in, (by your own decision of course) you are kept in to the point where you can't leave even if you wanted to. And so, you can argue yourself with free will all the way back to Pelagianism if you want.

 

[kyredneck]

the reasons why they got so nasty with each other when discussing these things, I am finding that they had political problems to deal with involving the opposition and the role of the church and the state at that time which mean nothing to us nowadays.

'Nowadays', in the final analysis, the objections against God's sovereign grace are basically the same as in Paul's day:

...Is there unrighteousness with God?...

...Why doth he still find fault?...

 

[Silverhair]

If you have really looked into it and that is your conclusion then I respect that. As for myself, I see both in actual operation in life, and I see both in scripture. I also notice that most teachers of autonomous freedom also teach that upon your independent decision for Christ you will be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and then cannot quit or leave the faith, even by your own free will. In that respect free will Baptists and Wesleyans are more consistent.

I have read Edwards on free will, and if you really want a good treatment of it from the other side, read Arminius himself, in his answer to a pamphlet put out by the Calvinist Perkins. You will find I think that you can come to the end of theology from both sides, to the point where discussion becomes ludicrous. As for myself, having tried to look into the reasons why they got so nasty with each other when discussing these things, I am finding that they had political problems to deal with involving the opposition and the role of the church and the state at that time which mean nothing to us nowadays. I haven't really found much difference in how a person comes to faith in Christ between someone who thinks it was all of God and someone who thinks it was all their own decision. In fact, if the Calvinists I like are correct, it has to be that way because the sovereign effects occur at the level of our own wills - which means it is still perceived as our own decision. Still, like I said before, I don't understand the dislike for the idea of sovereign decisive help in getting us to believe, yet the belief that once you are in, (by your own decision of course) you are kept in to the point where you can't leave even if you wanted to. And so, you can argue yourself with free will all the way back to Pelagianism if you want.

Where I see calvinism tripping over themselves is when they insist that God determines all things, well except for sin then it is man's free will. Calvinists have to make up their minds.

Then of course we have the problem of your TULIP/DoG. This makes God responsible for all those that are lost that is unless you think man can overrule God. According to their view God chooses who will be saved then forces them to be saved and only those can be saved.

One does not have to argue back to Pelagianism, all they have to do is trust what the Holy Spirit inspired. God is sovereign and He has given man a free will with which to choose to trust in or reject Him. Because man has said free will he will be held responsible for the choices he makes.

So simple a child can understand it. Hear the gospel message, which is the power of God for salvation, trust in the risen Christ and you will be saved by the grace of God and be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

No need for the TULIP/DoG. God has provided all that we need whether creation, conviction of our sins, the gospel message. God has not left us without a witness of Himself.

 

[David Lamb]

Certainly, but even babes in Christ cannot receive some of the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:1-3.
There is no distinction between a "natural man" as used in 1 Corinthians 2:14 and a lost person.

God's revelation of His gospel is His gift, and if our faith in that revelation is credited by God as righteousness, then our salvation is His gift, as well! The claim we are instilled with faith via irresistible grace is unbiblical nonsense.

If by being "instilled with faith via irresistible grace" you mean the idea that sinners are just to sit back and wait for God to save them if He will, then I agree, it's unbiblical nonsense. On the other hand, if you were referring to the belief that salvation is completely by God's grace, then there are plenty of Christians who believe that. I do.

 

[atpollard]

But it is Calvinism 101 whether a calvinist agrees with it or not. I find it strange how many calvinist do not want to hold to calvinism.

Free will is “Arminianism” … do YOU want other people claiming to define what YOU believe by “Arminianism 101” when you believe in Free Will?

WE ARE BAPTISTS! Let us remember and embrace the Baptist Distinctives. Sola Scriptura and Individual Soul Liberty mean THIS Particular Baptist is no more bound by “Calvinism 101” that anyone has the right to YOKE any General Baptist with “Arminianism 101”.

I can read the Bible and come to believe 4 of the Doctrines of Grace without having ever even heard of Calvin or Calvinism …

"No one can come to Me [Total Inability] unless the Father who sent Me [Unconditional Election] draws him [Irresistible Grace]; and I will raise him up on the last day [Preservation of the Saints].” - John 6:44

Or as I would have worded the four truths I discovered reading the Bible after my conversion from atheism to try and get a handle on this God that had laid claim to me …

• People are no darn good [T].
• God does as He pleases and He doesn’t stop to ask permission from anybody
  
  [*]I have no idea why God chose me, but it for SURE was not because I deserved it more or because of anything that I did … it was all about Him!
  
  [*]God finishes what God starts. [P]
  

(I never gave any thought to who else Jesus had died for. The question never entered my mind. I was just grateful that He had died for me … so the questions about ATONEMENT did not come until after I learned that what I believed already had a name … “Calvinism”.