The Major Mistake of Calvinism?

[Skandelon]

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Is that how you describe Romans 10??

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [/FONT]

 

[agedman]

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

"Enable a response" is OK on the surface, that is - it sounds good; however, enabling a response must be considered in the following light.

If "enable a response" is creating a way to acquire salvation and not as a result of salvation, then such enabling is not accurate in light of the Scriptures.

If "enable a response" is a result (a proclaim salvation has taken place) then such enabling is correct.

The typical non-cal "enabling response" requires the need of prevenient (preceding) grace. The views express that God must exalt humankind as the final arbiter and therefore placing God as submissive to some human effort (work) in order to acquire salvation.

This such thinking is in conflict with John 6:37.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

You are assuming to be true the very issue we are debating. However, all you have is the assertion of an assumption. In contrast, I presented evidence that the fallen nature "IS" a condition or state of mind that is not merely "against God" but "IS" enmity. Faith is impossible until that state of mind is not merely addressed but changed and the gospel does not change that state of mind to everyone it comes to.

We both agree that the gospel is the power of God to salvation but your assumption, and it is an assumption, that the gospel always comes in power and in the Holy Spirit to all men equally. However, my position is based upon clear scriptures that demand it does not always come that way but only comes that way when accompanied by creative power (2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; Eph. 2:8-10; etc.).

 

[BobRyan]

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [/FONT]


"God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

Those who are lost cannot make the Calvinist claim about them - that they were never drawn to God through Christ, convicted of sin, enabled to choose to respond to "the light that coming into the world enlightens every man" John 1

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

You are assuming to be true the very issue we are debating.

The first step in a debate is to establish the arguments, and see that they are understood for what they really are by both sides. Once understood those views can be disputed. You have been arguing against my view as if God wasn't even capable of creating an appeal powerful enough to enable the lost to respond. Is that your position? That even if God WANTED and PURPOSED to send an appeal that enabled a response that He wouldn't be capable? Yes or no?

However, all you have is the assertion of an assumption. In contrast, I presented evidence that the fallen nature "IS"

It doesn't matter how hard the heart of man is, God can make stones worship Him. The question is whether God has chosen to enable a response or NOT. It matters not how fallen a man is, but how far God is willing to go to enable that fallen man to be response-able. That is the point you refuse to address, for to do so requires you deny omnipotence.

We both agree that the gospel is the power of God to salvation

Your gospel must be accompanies with 'pre-regeneration,' otherwise its powerless. In my view the gospel actually carries power. Truth has power. It sets men free. Light is powerful. Just because men are responsible and can trade it in for lies, doesn't make that less true.

but your assumption, and it is an assumption, that the gospel always comes in power

Because the Word of God is powerful. To ASSUME, as you do, that when people reject the Word of God its because it didn't come in power but that somehow the Word is too weak for them, you do injustice to the text. You take the blame off of the individual who is trading the truth in for lies and you put the blame onto the Word for not 'coming in power.' Don't give rebellious men that excuse! They don't reject because the word is too weak!!! They reject because they are RESPONSIBLE! They CHOSE to rebel and their punishment is well deserved. They are not victims, without hope of escape. They are being pursued by a loving, gracious God who has given them ample opportunity to come and escape condemnation. The ONLY reason they remain condemned is because they CHOOSE to remain in unbelief. Not because God's Word is too weak for their measly little fallen condition.

And all the proof texts you mention talk about man's response to the word, never the word being too weak for them in their fallen condition to respond to it.

 

[Skandelon]

"Enable a response" is OK on the surface, that is - it sounds good; however, enabling a response must be considered in the following light.

If "enable a response" is creating a way to acquire salvation and not as a result of salvation, then such enabling is not accurate in light of the Scriptures.

If "enable a response" is a result (a proclaim salvation has taken place) then such enabling is correct.

That doesn't make since to me. You seem to be arguing that someone has to be reconciled in order to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.

The typical non-cal "enabling response" requires the need of prevenient (preceding) grace.

I avoid the use of those systematized words. We are responsible. God sends us an invitation, an appeal, "Be reconciled to God." Truth sets you free. Words are 'spirit' and 'life.' Words, and the tongue, carry power. Its an external means but can pierce into the soul and create inward change. It is that simple.

The views express that God must exalt humankind

MUST? No.

He gracious chooses to exalt man. "Humble yourselves and you will be exalted."

as the final arbiter and therefore placing God as submissive to some human effort (work) in order to acquire salvation.

That is incorrect.

When the Prodigal was on his path back to the house. Was it his decision or the Fathers to forgive and restore him back as an heir? Who in that situation is the final 'arbiter.' Your error is in assuming that one who asks for forgiveness deserves or merits forgiveness just by asking for it. Untrue. A humble man deserves hell too. Someone begging for God's mercy still deserves HELL. The decision to save is all of Grace.

Apply this same logic to YOUR system. Do you believe men are justified and saved because of their good deeds following regeneration? Do you believe their faith, even if effectually caused by regeneration, merits being saved? Do you believe they earn forgiveness by asking for it, even if they only ask because God's spirit made them desire to ask? See your error?

 

[Protestant]

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.

Your mishandling of this parable is legendary.

The simple, yet profound truth Jesus teaches is that no sin is too despicable to keep a sorry sinner from coming to God for forgiveness of sin.

The Lord WELCOMES repentant sinners.

The only ones deserving to be stoned are those unrepentant sinners who will not come.

P.S. I see that in your latest posts you are now referring to the dictionary.
Defining terms can be of great help to all concerned.

 

[BobRyan]

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" .

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.

In fact Calvinists would argue that God overwhelms the lost person with such "purpose" that they have not choice but to respond and accept the Gospel.

God places "enmity between" the see of the woman and the see of the serpent - mankind is in some sense at war against the kingdom of darkness as early as Genesis 3.

"Enable a response" is OK on the surface, that is - it sounds good; however, enabling a response must be considered in the following light.

If "enable a response" is creating a way to acquire salvation and not as a result of salvation, then such enabling is not accurate in light of the Scriptures.

That is a highly imaginative speculation on your part. Is it your purpose to prove it - or are you offering your speculation itself "as if it were proof" ?

If "enable a response" is a result (a proclaim salvation has taken place) then such enabling is correct.

That is the speculative idea proposed by Calvinism - is it your purpose to show that it has merit from the stand point of scripture?

The typical non-cal "enabling response" requires the need of prevenient (preceding) grace.

Sort of like "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"

And like "I STAND at the door and KNOCK - if ANYONE hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in" Rev 3.

And like "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" 2Cor 5:10

And of course "I will draw ALL MANKIND to Me" John 12:32

So "yeah" --- prevenient grace.

The views express that God must exalt humankind as the final arbiter and therefore placing God as submissive to some human effort (work) in order to acquire salvation.

That is an unduly negative view of the mechanism that disconnects God from responsibility for man's choice in rejecting the Gospel. Thus the very Bible mechanism that proves that God is not the cause of his own lament - is disparaged in Calvinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [/FONT]


"God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

Those who are lost cannot make the Calvinist claim about them - that they were never drawn to God through Christ, convicted of sin, enabled to choose to respond to "the light that coming into the world enlightens every man" John 1

On another thread Winman said

You assume Calvinism is correct, when that is the question up for debate.

It's really pretty simple;

Acts 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house..

Making the same case as we find in Romans 10.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

The Lord WELCOMES repentant sinners.

Because they deserve it? Does their repentance EARN or MERIT the welcome?

Or is that Welcome all of Grace?

 

[The Biblicist]

You have been arguing against my view as if God wasn't even capable of creating an appeal powerful enough to enable the lost to respond.

First, we disagree about the nature of the gospel. It is a COMMAND and it is found in the imperative mode. Thus it is not an "appeal." The instruments who preach the gospel may "appeal" to sinners to OBEY THE COMMAND but the Gospel is not an appeal.

Second, We both believe that the gospel is empowered by the HOly Spirit. The Scriptures claim that it comes "in power and in the HOly Spirit and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). You believe this is how it comes to all who hear it with the physical ear and you deny it comes this way as a COMMAND of God (2 Cor. 4:6) but only as an "appeal" from God which somehow neutralizes "the law of sin" operating within those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8) so that their current heart condition may not only desire but seek to repent and believe in the gospel. Hence, you are denying the need for any "new" heart or "new" spirit or any creative work of God within man to produce this NEW condition of heart and mind towards God. My question to you is, if the power of this "appeal" can free those "in the flesh" from the power of "the law of sin" as explained in Romans 7:15-20, then why would God need to provide a "new" heart or spirit (Ezek. 36:26) when the same power to obtain the same responses continues to exist within the same unregenerated persons BY FAITH IN THE GOSPEL which continues as the committment of that same heart and mind as it is that same heart that gives expression of this faith from their mouth is it not? If the "old" heart and spirit are sufficient to obtain salvation than why are they not sufficient to sustain that same faith in the gospel wherein you believe the power resides to obtain such change????

Why is a NEW heart and spirit necessary if the Old heart and spirit are completely sufficient to obtain faith in the gospel if the power for such heart desire is in the very gospel received by that same heart and spirit?????

 

[Skandelon]

First, we disagree about the nature of the gospel. It is a COMMAND and it is found in the imperative mode. Thus it is not an "appeal." The instruments who preach the gospel may "appeal" to sinners to OBEY THE COMMAND but the Gospel is not an appeal.

I and notable Calvinists, such as John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, teach that this perspective is tending to hyperism and is not orthodox Reformed theology. They say no teaching should remove the 'offer' (or appeal) aspect of the gospel call to faith and repentance.

I don't point that out because it somehow proves you are incorrect, after all men like MacArthur could be mistaken. But I point it out because it shows that this teaching is not conclusive enough for even those who agree with your overall Reformed premise to adopt it as their own. That is very telling.

Second, We both believe that the gospel is empowered by the HOly Spirit.

But only for the Elect in your system.

as a COMMAND of God (2 Cor. 4:6) but only as an "appeal" from God which somehow neutralizes "the law of sin" operating within those "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8)

And that is the 'law of sin' you believe God has no sovereign control over, right? The one condition God just doesn't have the ability to enable a response from, right?

so that their current heart condition may not only desire but seek to repent and believe in the gospel. Hence, you are denying the need for any "new" heart or "new" spirit or any creative work of God within man to produce this NEW condition of heart and mind towards God.

Ok, I think I understand this argument, but let me make sure I get what you are saying. Are you suggesting that making man responsible (meaning able to respond), that makes them equal to being 'regenerated' thus making the need for them to be 'regenerated' unnecessary?

Does a man with Alcoholism, as just an example, who finally hits rock bottom and attends a meeting even need to go after the first time? After all, his heart was 'good enough' to seek help, do you think that will suffice for his healing? See my point? Just because someone admits their need for help doesn't mean they don't need help anymore. They are crying out for help in humility because they NEED IT.

My question to you is, if the power of this "appeal" can free those "in the flesh" from the power of "the law of sin" as explained in Romans 7:15-20, then why would God need to provide a "new" heart or spirit (Ezek. 36:26)

Because asking for help doesn't mean your have already have it...it just means you've stop trying to do it without help and you have come to the end of yourself. Humiliation.

But remember, those who ask for help don't deserve it. Those who humble themselves still deserve Hell. The decision of God to forgive someone who asks is still ALL OF GRACE.

 

[The Biblicist]

I and notable Calvinists, such as John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, teach that this perspective is tending to hyperism and is not orthodox Reformed theology. They say no teaching should remove the 'offer' (or appeal) aspect of the gospel call to faith and repentance.

You need to read more carefully. You are perverting what I said and charging me wrongly. I did not "remove" any "appeal" but carefully defined that the appeal is not found in the gospel but in those who preach the gospel. The gospel is a command and the imperative mode not only proves that, but Paul claims they had "OBEYED the gospel from the heart."

That is very telling.

The only thing that is "very telling" is your failure to read what I say carefully.

But only for the Elect in your system.

That is the very wording of Scripture "came not in word only BUT in power" there is a contrast being made in regard to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4). This is the very emphasis of 1 Cor. 1:26-31 where election (chosen) is selective so that "not many wise" are called. However, with your system there can be such selection as it comes EQUALLY to all - right?

And that is the 'law of sin' you believe God has no sovereign control over, right? The one condition God just doesn't have the ability to enable a response from, right?

Not even regenerated men have any power IN AND OF THEMSELVES to overcome this law of sin as Romans 7:18 explicitly and clearly states BUT you have those "in the flesh" in an unregnerated state with more ability through the gospel than people who are regenerated to overcome the law of sin. Your position is oxymoronic as the lost man is given more power in your system than a man with a new heart.

Ok, I think I understand this argument, but let me make sure I get what you are saying. Are you suggesting that making man responsible (meaning able to respond), that makes them equal to being 'regenerated' thus making the need for them to be 'regenerated' unnecessary?

If the old heart can be enabled to please God (and repenting of sin and coming to him by faith is the minimum to please God according to Hebrews 11:6) thus receiving the gospel favorably then why is there any need for another heart or another spirit, since the objective is secured already as the old heart and spirit have met the minimum requirement??? If that heart continues to embrace that gospel then why isn't that empowering continued and so why is there any need for regeneration at all???

Does a man with Alcoholism, as just an example, who finally hits rock bottom and attends a meeting even need to go after the first time?

There are alcoholics who have attended all the meetings and yet remain alcoholics and never lick the problem. That is why they say one must embrace a HIGHER POWER because MERE WILLINGNESS can't deliver them - It is not him that runneth or him that willeth but of God that sheweth mercy"

Because asking for help doesn't mean your have already have it...it just means you've stop trying to do it without help and you have come to the end of yourself. Humiliation.

Jesus told unbelievers that they believed not "because ye are not OF MY SHEEP" rather than because they never asked for help! I am sure the good lost Jew called upon God every day for help. The Rich Young Ruler went to Christ for help and asked him "what can I do" - that is a plea for help - however, "it is not he that runneth or he that willeth but OF GOD that sheweth mercy."

 

[Skandelon]

I did not "remove" any "appeal" but carefully defined that the appeal is not found in the gospel but in those who preach the gospel.

Phil Johnson, doesn't make this distinction in his warning against Hyperism.

He writes, "A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal)....In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever." LINK>>>>>

Phil goes on to quote from 2 Cor. 5, just as I did with you in an earlier discussion, but we all know how you interpret that in comparison to Phil Johnson and MarArthur.

So, I don't believe I'm accusing you falsely according to this very specific explanation, though I'm sure you might want to take issue with that label. Again, your issue is with them, not me.

That is the very wording of Scripture "came not in word only BUT in power"

And it would be an argument from silence to presume that God's word could come any other way.

there is a contrast being made in regard to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4). This is the very emphasis of 1 Cor. 1:26-31 where election (chosen) is selective so that "not many wise" are called. However, with your system there can be such selection as it comes EQUALLY to all - right?

They who reject it certainly don't do so because it was weak, that would be an excuse. They reject it because they chose to trade the truth in for lies. Don't give them an excuse by suggesting that the Word they heard wasn't sufficiently powerful enough for them to respond to it. That is why they are responsible and without excuse.

There are alcoholics who have attended all the meetings and yet remain alcoholics and never lick the problem.

Now, you are moving beyond the point of the analogy to discuss yet another point. The POINT was that asking for assistance doesn't mean you no longer need assistance, which is what you seemed to be implying by suggesting that those who ask for forgiveness must already have a new heart, when in reality they may have a broken heart, a needy heart, a heart that need healing and is finally humiliated enough to reach out to another for help.

Jesus told unbelievers that they believed not "because ye are not OF MY SHEEP"

Jesus' sheep, while he was on earth, were a select remnant of Israel, who would latter be commissioned to go and bring in 'another fold' (Gentiles) with the gospel of grace. Christ wasn't entrusting himself to anyone else at that time except the remnant who were chosen to ensure the purpose in electing Israel would be fulfilled.