The Major Mistake of Calvinism?

[Van]

Ben Franklin said it was just as well he made little progress in the area of humility, because if he had, he was sure he would be proud of it.

 

[Skandelon]

[/COLOR]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
I would add too, that those who are actually growing and maturing toward "real maturity" have absolutely NO NEED to call attention to that aspect of their life.

True, humility is like holiness. If you think you have it you probably don't... :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Really? The first one is the Calvinistic application of Romans 9

Roman 9:11 refers to God's purpose of grace according to election but neither Jacob or Esau's works played any role in that purpose. Hence, in regard to their own person they were equally lost, unbelieving, ungodly men and Jacob was equally a child of "wrath even as others" and "the wrath of God abideth" upon Jacob as long as he was in unbelief.

, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. 47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak

This passages does not deal with the CAUSE of unbelief and that is the real issue. Romans 8:7-8 provides the CAUSE and so this option really does not address any underlying issues.

What will condemn them on the last day? What will be their judge? "the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."

They are "condemned already" (Jn. 3:18) and the wrath of God is abiding on them already (Jn. 3:36) and all the while in unbelief they are "children of wrath" already (Eph. 2:3) and the day of judgement is in regard THEIR WORKS not in regard to THEIR UNREGENERATE STATE/CONDITION which is condemned already.

 

[Skandelon]

Roman 9:11 refers to God's purpose of grace according to election but neither Jacob or Esau's works played any role in that purpose. Hence, in regard to their own person they were equally lost, unbelieving, ungodly men and Jacob was equally a child of "wrath even as others" and "the wrath of God abideth" upon Jacob as long as he was in unbelief.

But God chose to hate the one and love the other BEFORE they did evil. How does that not support double predestination (predestination for reprobation) when applied in the Calvinistic system?

This passages does not deal with the CAUSE of unbelief and that is the real issue. Romans 8:7-8 provides the CAUSE and so this option really does not address any underlying issues.

Boy its a good thing Paul didn't leave out those two verses or your whole system would come crashing down. :smilewinkgrin:

I'm joking, but you do put a lot of stock in two verses which seem to say much less than you like to read into them. I know, I know, you disagree. Don't repost the whole argument again, I've read it a dozen times. I just disagree with your assessment for reasons already discussed.

Does your constant quoting of Romans 8:7 kind of remind you of when "Arminians" quote John 3:16 over and over and attempt to make it say more than it does? It just seem to me that a doctrine describing man's total and complete loss of ability to willingly respond to the powerful gospel calling apart from an irresistible supernatural awakening would contain more that one or two sentences. And it does seem like it should at least mention something about the gospel, at least. Maybe I'm asking too much?

They are "condemned already" (Jn. 3:18)

You don't have to keep saying that. I agreed with that. But WHY are they condemned already and WHAT if anything would make them no longer be under this condemnation?

They are condemned because of their unbelief.
They will no longer be under condemnation if they do believe.
Thus they remain condemned for unbelief.

How is that not clear?

Sinners (law breakers) will be in both heaven and hell. Only believers will only be in heaven and unbelievers in hell. What does that tell us?

PEOPLE ARE CONDEMNED FOR UNBELIEF.

 

[The Biblicist]

But God chose to hate the one and love the other BEFORE they did evil. How does that not support double predestination (predestination for reprobation) when applied in the Calvinistic system?

In my system of logical decrees the decree of the fall precedes the decree of election. Hence, following this logical order all are equally condemned and under the wrath of God equally. Without the fall there is no cause for salvation as salvation demands an already fallen lost condition. Hence, election is "to salvation" not to condemnation as all are already equally condemned already. Thus election is particular whereas the fall is universal.

Boy its a good thing Paul didn't leave out those two verses or your whole system would come crashing down. :smilewinkgrin:

I'm joking, but you do put a lot of stock in two verses which seem to say much less than you like to read into them. I know, I know, you disagree. Don't repost the whole argument again, I've read it a dozen times. I just disagree with your assessment for reasons already discussed.

There are certain scriptures that are so clear that it makes much more difficult for naysayers to overturn. Romans 8:7 and John 6:39-65 are among those clear texts. If I went to other texts that teach the same thing but are not as clear, then we would be bogged down in rabbit trails.

You don't have to keep saying that. I agreed with that. But WHY are they condemned already and WHAT if anything would make them no longer be under this condemnation?

They are condemned because of their unbelief.
They will no longer be under condemnation if they do believe.
Thus they remain condemned for unbelief.

How is that not clear?

You are asking the right question but attempting to answer it by pointing to SECONDARY causes (unbelief). What you really need to be asking is WHY "unbelief"? The primary cause and answer is spelled out in Romans 8:7-8. Unbelief is merely a SYMPTOM of the primary inward cause.

 

[The Biblicist]

either way it doesn't say what you need it to say to prove irresistible grace..

Romans 8:7-8 does prove total depravity and total inability. The only way you can escape this is to claim that "in the flesh" in verses 8-9 refers only to SOME or a special category of lost people that are "none of his" and thus the contrast between "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit' is not really parallel as the phrase "in the Spirit" must include all the saved as all who are not "in the Spirit" are explicitly said to be "none of his" whereas you argue that those "in the flesh" only includes a special category of the lost. However, this argument will not stand up when scrutizined by the context if the student of scripture is objective with the contextual evidences.

Total depravity is proven by this text as Paul is describing a STATE OF BEING when he says "the carnal mind IS emnity against God" rather than merely potential for that. Total inability is clearly stated in undeniable terms "is not subject NEITHER INDEED CAN BE. So they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

 

[Skandelon]

Romans 8:7-8 does prove total depravity and total inability. The only way you can escape this is to claim that "in the flesh" in verses 8-9 refers only to SOME or a special category of lost people that are "none of his" and thus the contrast between "in the flesh" versus "in the Spirit' is not really parallel as the phrase "in the Spirit" must include all the saved as all who are not "in the Spirit" are explicitly said to be "none of his" whereas you argue that those "in the flesh" only includes a special category of the lost. However, this argument will not stand up when scrutizined by the context if the student of scripture is objective with the contextual evidences.

Total depravity is proven by this text as Paul is describing a STATE OF BEING when he says "the carnal mind IS emnity against God" rather than merely potential for that. Total inability is clearly stated in undeniable terms "is not subject NEITHER INDEED CAN BE. So they that are in the flesh CANNOT please God."

Too bad the gospel isn't mentioned in that text otherwise you might have a case for you presumption that the Gospel is too weak to overcome that fallen condition...

 

[Skandelon]

You are asking the right question but attempting to answer it by pointing to SECONDARY causes (unbelief). What you really need to be asking is WHY "unbelief"? The primary cause and answer is spelled out in Romans 8:7-8. Unbelief is merely a SYMPTOM of the primary inward cause.

No, I've been more than willing to examine why some, like the audience in John 6, weren't enabled to believe and others are:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - John 12:39​

"Israel was hardened, otherwise they might have seen, heard, understood and turned. But the Gentiles, they will listen." - Paul

You just don't like those verses as much as you do Romans 8:7, but they are JUST AS INSPIRED as your proof texts.

 

[The Biblicist]

Too bad the gospel isn't mentioned in that text otherwise you might have a case for you presumption that the Gospel is too weak to overcome that fallen condition...

I don't understand? How is the gospel essential for a text to prove total depravity and total inability when it is reaction to God? - "against God"??? Is not the gospel you preach the gospel "of God" just as much as the Law is the Law "of God"?

Here is where your major error exists. You fail to see that inability is the consequence of a STATE OF MIND which "IS" enmity against God and therefore whatever comes forth from God or represents God whether it is the Word OF GOD or the Law OF GOD or the Gospel OF GOD makes no difference.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, I've been more than willing to examine why some, like the audience in John 6, weren't enabled to believe and others are:

"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - John 12:39​

But John 6 does not contain this passage? You are forcing this passage into John 6 and I have proven that John 6 is UNIVERSAL in application and not restricted merely to one set group of human beings. You cannot restrict "all" in John 6:37-40 to merely the apostles or present believers in the audiance or even then alive. You cannot restrict John 6:44 and the words "NO MAN can come" to merely a set group of human beings. You cannot restrict John 6:64-65 to merely the present unbelievers or to some set group of humans because those in John 6:64 had heard the gospel MANY TIMES and made profession of it and were baptized and so John 6:65 which is John 6:44 cannot be restricted to merely Jews or a set group of Jews. Your position simply is false and misleading.

 

[Skandelon]

But John 6 does not contain this passage?

There is a little something called 'historical context,' which addresses EVERYTHING that is happening at that time in history. (i.e. Israel not being enabled to come while Gentiles were...cut off/grafted in)

What is true of the audience in John 12 is true of the audience in John 6, why wouldn't it be?

Plus, its better than the proof you got, which are documents taught by men hundreds and thousands of years later...i.e. Augustianism/Calvinism

You are forcing this passage into John 6

That the way you see it, but at least I'm allowing scripture to interpret scripture whereas you are forcing a system into John 6.

I have proven that John 6 is UNIVERSAL in application and not restricted merely to one set group of human beings.

Why do you think what I've said isn't applicable to all individual just because I pointed out the FACTS surrounding the historical context of that day? We still need to be enable to come to Christ. The problem is that you believe we are disabled for a different reason than what the text actually states.

You cannot restrict "all" in John 6:37-40 to merely the apostles or present believers in the audiance or even then alive.

I'm not.

You cannot restrict John 6:44 and the words "NO MAN can come" to merely a set group of human beings.

I'm not. If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times I also believe that no one EVER can come unless they are enabled. I agree with Paul who said, "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?" Which, strongly suggests that if they DO HEAR, and aren't being judicially hardened by God, they may believe.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't understand? How is the gospel essential for a text to prove total depravity and total inability when it is reaction to God? - "against God"??? Is not the gospel you preach the gospel "of God" just as much as the Law is the Law "of God"?

PURPOSE.

What was God's purpose in sending the Law.
What was God's purpose in sending the Gospel.

God's purposes do not fail! But you erroneously conclude that...well you know, its my signature line.

Here is where your major error exists. You fail to see that inability is the consequence of a STATE OF MIND which "IS" enmity against God

And here is where your major error exists. You fail to see that inability to submit to God's law, sent for the purpose of revealing the need, isn't equal to inability to respond to God's gracious appeal, sent for the purpose to meet that need.

 

[The Biblicist]

PURPOSE.

Purpose has NOTHING to do with "enmity against God" as it does matter what comes forth from God or what purpose is behind what comes forth from God because the enmity is "against God" and thus whatever comes from God for whatever purpose it comes from God.

 

[Skandelon]

Purpose has NOTHING to do with "enmity against God" as it does matter what comes forth from God or what purpose is behind what comes forth from God because the enmity is "against God" and thus whatever comes from God for whatever purpose it comes from God.

Can you even hear yourself? Are you suggesting that if God purposed to send a message to His enemies which granted them the ability to respond to His own appeal for reconciliation that He might fail in doing so?

God's purposes NEVER FAIL!!!!

 

[Skandelon]

You seem to think man's condition is stronger than God, as if God couldn't, if he so purposed, send a message sufficient to enable a response.

 

[agedman]

You seem to think man's condition is stronger than God, as if God couldn't, if he so purposed, send a message sufficient to enable a response.

Skan.

Are you in agreement with "irresistible grace" (effectual call) thinking?

 

[Skandelon]

Skan.

Are you in agreement with "irresistible grace" (effectual call) thinking?

I said 'enable a response,' not make a response.

 

[agedman]

I said 'enable a response,' not make a response.

So you would agree with some ethereal "preceding" state of grace in which human kind must act for salvation to be complete?

Seems that thinking is in direct contradiction of John 6:37.

 

[Protestant]

Oh, were you blinded on the road by a bright light then healed three days latter to become the apostle used of God to write a large percentage of the New Testament?

The consistent and overwhelming testimony of Scripture is the miracle-working omnipotent power of God:

--- to create sight in those who are spiritually blind,

--- to cause those who loved darkness to now love the light,

--- to cause those who once walked in darkness to now walk in the light,

--- and to cause those whose very minds were darkness to now have the mind of Christ.

Paul is an outstanding example of the radical result of the miracle-working power by which the Lord reveals Himself while regenerating sinners, raising them from spiritual death to spiritual life.

To arrogantly dismiss Paul’s conversion as a one-of-a-kind conversion necessary for the conversion of his hostile, sinful mindset, as well as a special encouragement because of his difficult mission on Earth is to dismiss the equally hostile, sinful mindset of all sinners, who have been given missions on Earth which are no less important to their purpose in the Body of Christ.

Please review 1 Cor. 12:

"But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked."

Do you think the Prodigal Son pat himself on the back for returning home after what his father did? To think that our humiliation is boast worthy is just plain silly.

Are you now claiming to be the Prodigal Son?

Forgive my naiveté, but I fail to see the humility in preaching that the good use of your free will was the deciding factor in God’s decision to elect you to salvation.

God enabled and you made excellent use of that enablement, you preach.

Sadly, the Broad Road is filled with those who were not as prudent and wise as you.

Do you not wish all sinners had your foresight, wisdom and discernment that they, too, would believe the Gospel?

 

[Skandelon]

The consistent and overwhelming testimony of Scripture is the miracle-working omnipotent power of God:

--- to create sight in those who are spiritually blind,

--- to cause those who loved darkness to now love the light,

--- to cause those who once walked in darkness to now walk in the light,

--- and to cause those whose very minds were darkness to now have the mind of Christ.

Yet, for some reason He didn't choose to cause me to believe like you? Hmmmm

Paul is an outstanding example of the radical result of the miracle-working power by which the Lord reveals Himself while regenerating sinners, raising them from spiritual death to spiritual life.

Indeed and I addressed this in the last post in the parts you didn't address.

To arrogantly dismiss Paul’s conversion

Arrogantly? Can you read arrogance? I have an opinion, so do you...why get personal?

as a one-of-a-kind conversion necessary for the conversion of his hostile, sinful mindset, as well as a special encouragement because of his difficult mission on Earth is to dismiss the equally hostile, sinful mindset of all sinners, who have been given missions on Earth which are no less important to their purpose in the Body of Christ.

So you don't affirm the concept of apostolic authority? Or the uniqueness of their call as messengers?

Listen, God uses outward 'normative' means (lights, storms, fish) to convince the wills of men like Paul and Jonah. He didn't use inward regenerative supernatural means to dictate what they would will, as your dogma supposes.

Proof that God has use convincing normative outward means to convince and thus ensure the delivery of his redemptive message is NO PROOF that God uses irresistible supernatural inward means to make certain people believe that message. Its unsupported.

Are you now claiming to be the Prodigal Son?

The point was that it wouldn't make any sense of the Prodigal son to boast, just as it wouldn't for anyone returning to their creator in humiliation of their sin.

Forgive my naiveté, but I fail to see the humility in preaching that the good use of your free will was the deciding factor in God’s decision to elect you to salvation.

You are right, that is a very naive view. We are not the 'deciding factor.' God is. Go back to the analogy of the Prodigal. Did the father have to receive the son back because he CHOSE to return home? Of course not. Did the son earn forgiveness by asking for it? OF course not. The son deserved to be stoned upon his return. What he got was grace. The father's choice to receive him in his humiliation was the "deciding factor" and it was ALL OF GRACE.

Likewise, my 'choice' to beg God for forgiveness is not the deciding factor, because even after I repent and believe I STILL DESERVE HELL. HE decides to give grace to the humble, not because humility earns grace, but because HE IS GRACIOUS. HE IS THE DECIDING FACTOR.

Do you not wish all sinners had your foresight, wisdom and discernment that they, too, would believe the Gospel?

And maybe God will one day grant me your level of intelligence so I will adopt your doctrines, but until then I feel pretty good about the doctrine that I currently believe, after all I'm either right or God has determined for me to be wrong for His glory, so its ok either way.