Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

[Pastor Larry]

If man does not have free will to respont to truth then there is a big problem.

Man does have free will to respond to the truth. The Bible says that the natural man freely responds by rejecting it.

The Calvinist view will work only if no one is saved or all are saved,

That is simply false. No one in history has every believed that, so far as I can tell. And why? Because it is absurd. No understanding of Calvinism can reach that conclusion.

You didn't think about that very much before you posted it. That is absolutely absurd .. silly. Below the level of even this discussion.

but the non Calvinist view recognizes that to avoid these to universalisms man must have a choice that does not involve his invention, his thinking, his plans etc

So let's see ... Now man has a choice but he can't intervene, think, or plan. And we are supposed to make sense of that?

faith is not a work of man but a capacity of man to recognize the work of God and reject his own work. This view alone honors the desire of God and protects His holiness whereas the other does not.

That is Calvinism. I agree it honors the desire of God and protects his holiness.

 

[webdog]

Man does have free will to respond to the truth. The Bible says that the natural man freely responds by rejecting it.

To reject something (by definition) means the ability to accept is also present.

 

[Martin]

The trouble with Calvinism is that you believe that a man is not allowed to take hold of the rescue rope sent down to him.

That is not an accurate picture of Calvinism. We don't believe that a man "is not allowed to take hold of the rescue rope", we believe that everyman is unable and unwilling to do so on his own. Why? Because he is spiritually dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3) and his will is enslaved in sin (Rom 6:20-21, Jn 8:34-35). Therefore natural man is unable and unwilling to "take hold of the rescue rope" (Jn 6:44, Rom 3:9-12).

The third and fourth main points of doctrine in the Canons of Dort explain it in the following way...

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distored nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

I hope that helps clear up what Calvinists believe about total depravity and the inability of man.

How will he get out? And Romans 10:16 shows that a man can disobey the gospel. So I do not believe in Irresistable Grace.

I agree, as do most Calvinists I have read and know, that natural man can and does resist the grace of God on a daily basis. That is not contrary to the truth of irresistable grace. Irresistable grace refers to the point when God draws His sheep to Himself (Jn 10:26-27). I believe the Lord Jesus was very clear when he spoke the words of John 6:37, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,". In Romans 8:29-30, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that those who were foreknown, predestined to be conformed to Christ's image, are called, justified, and glorified. There is no break in the chain. The elect will come to saving faith. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but they will come when God draws them in a saving fashion (Jn 6:44). This, in fact, is why the Apostle Peter said that God is patient "towards you" (believers) not wanting any of His to perish (2Pet 3:9). God's sovereign purposes in salvation will can, can never, be thwarted.

Jesus tells us to come to him. So is it a sin to come to him? Jesus tells us to ask for the living waters from him (Holy Spirit). So is it a sin to ask Jesus for the Holy Spirit? The scriptures say if we call on Jesus we will be saved. So is it a sin to call on Jesus?

Again, I think your comments reflect a lack of understanding about Calvinistic teaching. We do not teach or believe that it is a sin for someone to call upon the Name of the Lord. We believe that anyone who calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved and shall never be turned away (Jn 6:37, Rom 10:13, Rev 22:17). Why? Because all who come to Christ in a saving manner are given to Him by the Father and He would never reject a gift from His Father (Jn 6:37, 17:1-3).

And Romans 10:14 asks how a man can believe on Jesus if they have never heard of him. So God gets all the honor, glory and credit. Without God's word we would be in the dark and never know to call on Jesus.

I don't believe God elects just the ends, I believe He elects the way the end is achieved. God knows how to perfectly call each of His sheep to Himself.

 

[Martin]

By comparing scripture with scripture its clear to me that John 6:37 has the Father giving believers to the Son not unbelievers. Therefore all those being drawn will believe does not apply to John 6:37.

As I have already pointed out, that just does not work. God does not draw believers to Himself. He draws sinners to Himself, sinners in need of salvation. Those who come to Christ in John 6:37 are coming for salvation. Why are they coming? Because the Father has given them to Jesus. Jesus gives eternal life to all of those the Father gives Him (Jn 17:2).

 

[Me4Him]

That is not an accurate picture of Calvinism. We don't believe that a man "is not allowed to take hold of the rescue rope", we believe that everyman is unable and unwilling to do so on his own. Why? Because he is spiritually dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3) and his will is enslaved in sin (Rom 6:20-21, Jn 8:34-35). Therefore natural man is unable and unwilling to "take hold of the rescue rope" (Jn 6:44, Rom 3:9-12).

I hope that helps clear up what Calvinists believe about total depravity and the inability of man.


I agree, as do most Calvinists I have read and know, that natural man can and does resist the grace of God on a daily basis.

Just what is the "natural man"??

First you say the "Natural man" is "UNWILLING" to take hold of the rescue rope,

then you say the Natural man resist God's grace on a daily basis.

At what point between the Unwilling to grap the rope and resisting Grace daily;

Does the Natural man decide to grap the rope then later turn loose again????

The Natural man will "NEVER" grap the rope, because it's not the Natural man God is calling, but the "SOUL/Conscience" of man.

The Natural man ( flesh) is condemned to die, return to the dust, but no soul is condemned to die until it sins.

Yes, there is a "war" daily between the natural man and Soul, and that war exist because the "flesh" want's to keep sinning while the "Soul" doesn't.

So when it come to "Salvation", you can forget about the natural man having a part in it, or ever answering God's call because he doesn't call the Natural man.

it's the "SOUL/Conscience" of the individual that God appeal to and the soul makes the decision, and only the "Soul" is saved,

Born again is a "Renewing of the Mind", not the flesh.

The natural man returns to the dust, God has already condemned "ALL" natural men.

Your doctrine places the same "Depravity" of the "FLESH" on the "SOUL",

but flesh will never repent of its sins, the soul can/does.

 

[Pastor Larry]

To reject something (by definition) means the ability to accept is also present.

He has the physical ability to accept it. It is a moral inability because of his sinfulness. He doesn't want to accept it.

Of course, we have said that many times before and you didn't accept what we believed then, so why would you accept it now. But I guess I say it again for the sake of those who actually are listening so they will know what we believe from us, rather than hearing you state what we don't believe.

You know, I would think when the Bible says that natural "cannot please God" and is "unable to please God," I would think there would be any doubt about man's inability. But it shows that you are not relying fully on Scripture. Scripture has spoken to this issue. That should end the discussion, shouldn't it?

 

[Winman]

Originally Posted by Winman
The trouble with Calvinism is that you believe that a man is not allowed to take hold of the rescue rope sent down to him.

That is not an accurate picture of Calvinism. We don't believe that a man "is not allowed to take hold of the rescue rope", we believe that everyman is unable and unwilling to do so on his own. Why? Because he is spiritually dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3) and his will is enslaved in sin (Rom 6:20-21, Jn 8:34-35). Therefore natural man is unable and unwilling to "take hold of the rescue rope" (Jn 6:44, Rom 3:9-12).

The third and fourth main points of doctrine in the Canons of Dort explain it in the following way...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distored nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

I hope that helps clear up what Calvinists believe about total depravity and the inability of man.

I agree with some of this, but disagree in several points. I do believe man is born a sinner and tends in that direction. I do not believe that a man is unable to do some good, for Jesus himself showed a man could.

Matt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

You may believe man is completely incapable of doing good, but Jesus shows that an unsaved man (ye, being evil) knows how to give good gifts to their children.

And in Genesis it shows that fallen man has knowledge of both good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So I prefer to believe the scriptures and not the teachings of men on this.

I believe a man can hear the scriptures and be drawn and enlightened by the Holy Spirit to believe on Jesus Christ. Only after believeing does a man receive the Holy Spirit indwelling in him.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

I know of no place in scripture that teaches that a man is regenerated to believe. The scriptures teach that a man believes by hearing the word of God, and then upon believeing receives the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe that God chooses some men to salvation and others to perish. And I have a sincere question for those who believe in Calvinism.

Why does God save a high proportion of men in some countries, and relatively few in others?

The Bible says God is no respecter of persons, so this does not make a lot of sense.

Here is a map showing the percentage of Christians by country. The darker the region, the higher the percentage. Some countries like the United States are over 70% Christian or higher, while Middle Eastern and Asian countries have much lower percentage of Christians, many less than 10%. Why?

Why does God choose to save a high percentage of men in some areas of the world, and chooses to let a high percentage perish in other parts of the world?

I would like to hear a Calvinist explain this very real phenomena.

 

[Amy.G]

He has the physical ability to accept it. It is a moral inability because of his sinfulness. He doesn't want to accept it.

Just how does one "physically" accept the truth?

 

[Winman]

To reject something (by definition) means the ability to accept is also present.

He has the physical ability to accept it. It is a moral inability because of his sinfulness. He doesn't want to accept it.

Of course, we have said that many times before and you didn't accept what we believed then, so why would you accept it now. But I guess I say it again for the sake of those who actually are listening so they will know what we believe from us, rather than hearing you state what we don't believe.

You know, I would think when the Bible says that natural "cannot please God" and is "unable to please God," I would think there would be any doubt about man's inability. But it shows that you are not relying fully on Scripture. Scripture has spoken to this issue. That should end the discussion, shouldn't it?

Amy, why won't you accept what he says? Why do you refuse to listen and believe him? :laugh:

Amazing isn't it? You don't understand Calvinism because you refuse to believe it, you reject it, you will not accept it.

This out of their own mouths. :BangHead:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Just how does one "physically" accept the truth?

Through his brain. He understands the concepts, the ideas. He can cognitively process the information. That's why he rejects it. He is morally unable to accept what he cognitively (with his physical brain) understands.

 

[webdog]

He has the physical ability to accept it. It is a moral inability because of his sinfulness. He doesn't want to accept it.

Of course, we have said that many times before and you didn't accept what we believed then, so why would you accept it now. But I guess I say it again for the sake of those who actually are listening so they will know what we believe from us, rather than hearing you state what we don't believe.

You know, I would think when the Bible says that natural "cannot please God" and is "unable to please God," I would think there would be any doubt about man's inability. But it shows that you are not relying fully on Scripture. Scripture has spoken to this issue. That should end the discussion, shouldn't it?

You can say it as many times as you like...it's still wrong, and I do not accept that which is not true. Saying he has a "physical ability" to accept it and moral inability is plain foolishness and cannot be supported by Scripture. More theological gymnastics to jump around simple words with simple definitions. I'll help you out here...

1re·ject Pronunciation: \ri-ˈjekt\ Function:transitive verb Etymology:Middle English, from Latin rejectus, past participle of reicere, from re- + jacere to throw — more at jetDate:15th century 1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <rejected the suggestion> <reject a manuscript> b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit :

For one to "refuse to accept" something means the opportunity to accept it is there, not "physically" nor a "moral inability" to do so.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I do not believe that a man is unable to do some good, for Jesus himself showed a man could.

Great. You are totally inline with CAlvinism. Calvinism does not believe that man is unable to do good. Total depravity doesn't mean that all men are equally bad or that men are as bad as they could be. It means that their depravity affects every area of their being. They are unable to please God (as Romans says). They can build great buildings, write great music, help little old ladies across the street, perform surgery, and a host of others good things.

So I prefer to believe the scriptures and not the teachings of men on this.

Then do so.

I believe a man can hear the scriptures and be drawn and enlightened by the Holy Spirit to believe on Jesus Christ. Only after believeing does a man receive the Holy Spirit indwelling in him.

Great. So does Calvinism. Why? Because that is what the Scriptures teach.

I know of no place in scripture that teaches that a man is regenerated to believe. The scriptures teach that a man believes by hearing the word of God, and then upon believeing receives the Holy Spirit.

There is quite a sizeable and well developed theological argument for it. Here is a source to begin with. It will take a fair amount of work to get through it, but it will worth your time. You may not agree, but you won't be able to say you haven't seen the scriptural defense for it.

Why does God save a high proportion of men in some countries, and relatively few in others?

Because he is God, and through his infinite knowledge (which is greater than yours), that is how he receives the most glory.

The Bible says God is no respecter of persons, so this does not make a lot of sense.

Is that because your mind is too small? Quantum physics doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's not a problem with computers. It is a problem with me.

In your view, you want God to respect those who make certain choices while rejecting those who do not. That makes God a respecter of persons. In Calvinism, all men stand equally condemned and condemnable before God.

Amy, why won't you accept what he says? Why do you refuse to listen and believe him?

Amazing isn't it? You don't understand Calvinism because you refuse to believe it, you reject it, you will not accept it.

This out of their own mouths.

Interesting isn't it? You guys are living proof of the problem in some ways. Not that you aren't regenerate, but that you read words that are plain as day, well written in proper grammar, and still ignore them. That is the plight of the unbeliever. It is not that he is unable to understand the Bible. It is that he does not grasp it spiritually. He chooses to reject it.

And mocking won't help your point.

The reality is that your line that starts this post is evidence that you don't understand Calvinism. You appeal to something that you "disagree with" when in fact you agree with Calvinism. You simply don't know enough about Calvinism to disagree with it intelligibly.

Think of Amy. I am sure she is a wonderful person (as wonderful as a depraved sinner can be with the work of God's grace in her life). But she has to ask a most basic questions about Calvinism (how does a person physically believe). Why? Because she disagrees vehemently but she doesn't even know what she disagrees with. And we see this over and over again in this forum.

 

[Winman]

Webdog, oh yeah, they are more slippery than a greased pig when you show them scripture that disproves their false doctrine.

So, the unsaved man is utterly incapable of wanting or desiring to be saved?

Acts 16:25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.
26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.
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.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.


Sure sounds like the Phillipian jailer desired to be saved. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Think of Amy. I am sure she is a wonderful person (as wonderful as a depraved sinner can be with the work of God's grace in her life). But she has to ask a most basic questions about Calvinism (how does a person physically believe). Why? Because she disagrees vehemently but she doesn't even know what she disagrees with.

No, she asks these questions to get you to see how elementary the problems with your soteriology are.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You can say it as many times as you like...it's still wrong, and I do not accept that which is not true.

Yes of course. It is impossible that you could be wrong, right?

Saying he has a "physical ability" to accept it and moral inability is plain foolishness and cannot be supported by Scripture.

It is neither foolish nor unsupported.

For one to "refuse to accept" something means the opportunity to accept it is there, not "physically" nor a "moral inability" to do so.

Not sure what part of "they understand it and reject it" you don' understand. (No pun intended.) The problem is not grammar, language, concepts, etc. It is not mental incompetence. The problem is that they are blinded by their sin and they willfully reject the saving grace of Christ.

As long as we have had these conversations, you have stubbornly been unwilling to accept that we believe what we believe. You consistently put it in your framework and then deny it as if that somehow changes it. The reality is that your belief doesn't matter; neither does mine. The Bible does. And the Bible has spoken to this. Time to lay down your sword and trust that God knows more than you do, and he meant what he said.

When he said that that the unbeliever is "unable to please God" and "cannot do so" that should settle it. But you don't accept it. It's not me that's important here. You disagree with Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Webdog, oh yeah, they are more slippery than a greased pig when you show them scripture that disproves their false doctrine.

If you can show one, I am listening. Feel free to step up to the plate.

So, the unsaved man is utterly incapable of wanting or desiring to be saved?

No, I don't know any Calvinists who say that. (There may be some.) Most would say that they are incapable of wanting to be saved God's way. The Philippian jailer is a great example of God working in a person's heart and opening it up so that they want to be saved.

Remember that 2 Cor 4 says that unsaved man is blinded until God opens their eyes. The Philippian jailer proves that.

Sure sounds like the Phillipian jailer desired to be saved.

Why? What changed in that moment?

 

[Winman]

Because he is God, and through his infinite knowledge (which is greater than yours), that is how he receives the most glory.

What a crock. That is a total non-answer. Everytime someone presents a problem to your belief, the only answer you have is God simply does what he wants to do.

So God receives more glory by many hundreds of millions perishing than he would if they were saved. Oh yeah, that makes loads of sense.

And I mock you, because you say those who do not agree with you refuse to accept or believe your doctrine. So you show that you know that man has the freedom to choose what he believes.

I mean, if you can't see how absurdly ironic your argument is, no-one is going to get through to you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, she asks these questions to get you to see how elementary the problems with your soteriology are.

She's doing a bad job of it. There are some difficult questions to answer about Calvinism and soteriology. These simply aren't among them. If you are impressed by that level of questioning, then it shows (what we all know already) that you don't grasp the issues. Trust me when I tell you that that kind of question is not asked by people who know what they are talking about.

There's nothing wrong with asking it. I am glad she did. Because we all need to learn what we don't know. I ask many questions every day and am delighted to be learning, even today. But let's not pretend like we know what we are talking about when we have to ask the most basic questions about it. Let's put aside the arrogance until we understand, and when we understand, arrogance is not necessary.

 

[Darrenss1]

Whoa, Nellie. Are you sure you want to use 2 Cor 5:19? There's a pesky little phrase in there that can cause all sorts of trouble for your position. "Not imputing their trespasses to them." Who is them? The world.

Now I know you don't hold to universalism. So I'll leave it to you to explain how "not imputing their trespasses to them" is not universalism, given your position.

The ones reconciled out of the (Christ died for the - ) "world", they are the ones saved and not imputing their tresspasses to them as the gospel terms clearly outlay. Therefore reconciliation (back to the Father) is towards and directed at all in the world, to those whom would believe can be reconciled. As I said there leaves no room for 2 groups; those Christ died for and those He did not. Those God loves and those He doesn't. Those God shows grace to and those He does not.

Darren

 

[Pastor Larry]

What a crock. That is a total non-answer.

No, actually it was an answer.

Everytime someone presents a problem to your belief, the only answer you have is God simply does what he wants to do.

So you disagree with the Bible? Because the Bible says that God is in the heavens doing whatever he pleases. He does it because he wants to (Psa 115:3, Eph 1:11, etc.)

So God receives more glory by many hundreds of millions perishing than he would if they were saved. Oh yeah, that makes loads of sense.

Again, is that because your mind is too small? You are saying that God does things that don't glorify him? If God received more glory by everyone going to heaven, is that what he would do?

And I mock you, because you say those who do not agree with you refuse to accept or believe your doctrine. So you show that you know that man has the freedom to choose what he believes.

Your mocking shows you don't get it.

I mean, if you can't see how absurdly ironic your argument is, no-one is going to get through to you.

The funny thing is that you are proving the point. I don't think you are an unbeliever, but you like an unbeliever mock things you don't understand. Jude and 2 Peter attribute that to false teachers who "revile what they do not understand." It is a word of warning worth hearing.

Trust me, this is old stuff. Except for the verse that started this whole thing (Rom 11:32), nothing here is new. I have seen it hundreds of times here and mostly from the same people who still don't get it.

Mocking is not a good thing to do when you don't understand. It's not a good thing to do anyway, but especially when you don't understand.