Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

[Dale-c]

Benefactor, I do not believe there is a universal desire to on the part of God to save every single man. If there was then God would do it.
I wonder, do you believe that God will be eternally frustrated because there will be those that He tried His best to save that simply refused?

Romans 9 is pretty clear on this topic.
THere are other clear passages as well but that is perhaps the clearest of them all.

The context of your last post, the citing of 1 Tim is that all people in a generic term.
It was not limited to the Jews but opened to all, jew and Gentile, Kings, common men.

Also we are to pray for and evangelize all people.

So, in our day many Christians are not big fans of Obama, but you know what? We are commanded to pray for him anyway, for his salvation as well as for his duties as president.

I gotta get to bed now but I will try to post again later.

Oh, and civil discussions are certainly possible.

We are brothers in Christ here. We are to Honor Him so even though we disagree in our understanding of Scripture, we should still strive to Honor God in all we do, including debate.

 

[Benefactor]

Logic? Is that what you call it? Most positions will teach no man can come unless the Father first draws him. So how can anyone get over that hurdle to refute a position without offering an alternative? God desires all to be saved but not all are saved is something every position needs to explain regardless. Desire is not the function or intention so it would not be a contradiction anyway, if the bible said God intended to saved everyone, then there would be a contradiction.

Darren

An opinion is just that an opinion No evidence in the world will convince someone who refused to be convinced. The evidence it there, it has been presented so what you do with it is your choice.

God is different from you in that God has the absolute resources, knowledge, and will to carry out his desires according to his plan. The problem with Calvinism, it limits God and forces a model of God that contradicts Scripture as I have proved of which you do not care to recognize.

That's OK because your view does not change truth as I have explained it of which it is.

 

[Dale-c]

The problem with Calvinism, it limits God ........

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Calvinism gives God complete freedom to save.
IT is arminianism who ties God's hands by only allowing Him to save those which cooperate with His plan.
That is why we use the terms monergism and synergism.
You may say you are just a Baptist but all Baptists are either monergists or synergists.
No way around it.

 

[Darrenss1]

An opinion is just that an opinion No evidence in the world will convince someone who refused to be convinced. The evidence it there, it has been presented so what you do with it is your choice.

I think you are a little trigger happy cowboy, I'm a non-cal.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

God is different from you in that God has the absolute resources, knowledge, and will to carry out his desires according to his plan.

You just said it there, desire via plan. Did God plan to save everyone? Yes or no? Unless you are a universalist you'd have to so no. I think you are far too excited about disproving a particular position that you've not thought the result is closely the same either way; God saves some, all whom believe are drawn, God is the righteous judge of all whom are cast into the lake of fire whose names are not in the book of life. The means may be in dispute but the results are similar.

Darren

 

[Benefactor]

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Calvinism gives God complete freedom to save.
IT is arminianism who ties God's hands by only allowing Him to save those which cooperate with His plan.
That is why we use the terms monergism and synergism.
You may say you are just a Baptist but all Baptists are either monergists or synergists.
No way around it.

(Red emphasis mine - benefactor)

Right "Nothing could be further from the truth than Calvinism"

You see you are stuck in the past and you must use certain tactics to frame your argument because you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't approach the Scripture and accept that God desires all to be saved and that Calvinism violates this teaching. Special election is false as it has always been and all Calvinism’s doing is confusing people with their doctrine. You have everyone pigeon holed to either or because to do otherwise is to admit defeat.

 

[Benefactor]

You just said it there, desire via plan. Did God plan to save everyone? Yes or no? Unless you are a universalist you'd have to so no. I think you are far too excited about disproving a particular position that you've not thought the result is closely the same either way; God saves some, all whom believe are drawn, God is the righteous judge of all whom are cast into the lake of fire whose names are not in the book of life. The means may be in dispute but the results are similar.

Darren

You tactic is normal with Calvinist. You frame the argument by making statements as you have. The opposite is true.

God's plan is his desire they are the same. What is different is the erring doctrine of Calvinism / TULIP forcing different meaning to words. Calvinism disregards the clear teaching of God’s word. I have demonstrated the truth and all you have is self proclaimed incorrect statements. Calvinism is completely apposed to God's Plan.

Universalism is not having a choice. You view reduces God to humanistic thinking and my view honors God and establishes His holiness and is the only view that truly refutes universalism. The argument from the Calvinist side is smoke and mirrors, straw man mentality and false.

And yes God did plan to save everyone, thus free will. Special election is contrary to God's desire which is his plan and that plan recognizes free will. You claim not to be a Calvinist but you talk like one so if you are not what are you?

 

[Jim1999]

I get my strength from the sovereignty of God, and His absolute right to do as He pleases withinthe confines of His person.

I do not believe puny humankind has any authority to tell God what he can and cannot do.

Jonah couldn't tell God what to do and neither can I.

If I wasn't a sovereigntist, I would be ashamed of myself.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Me4Him]

Logic? Is that what you call it? Most positions will teach no man can come unless the Father first draws him. So how can anyone get over that hurdle to refute a position without offering an alternative? God desires all to be saved but not all are saved is something every position needs to explain regardless. Desire is not the function or intention so it would not be a contradiction anyway, if the bible said God intended to saved everyone, then there would be a contradiction.

Darren

How does God "Draw" a person???

In the OT, God sent prophets to speak for him, they didn't have a "Comforter".

Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.

During this "church period", God, through Jesus/Comforter, speaks "DIRECTLY" to each individual.

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,


With the "PRE" trib Rapture the "Comforter" will again leave and Israel/world will return back under the OT law and prophets system of leadership, the Two witnesses "speaking for God".

Here's the problem I see with Calvin's doctrine,

It is based on the presents of the "Comforter/Holy "GHOST OF JESUS" being "IN THE WORLD",

and if the "Comforter" is "Taken out of the way", either in the OT or during the trib,

Calvin's doctrine fails, especially in the area of "Effectual calling",

Calvin's doctrine doesn't take into account the world without the "Comforter" being present,

and that is one of the problems with it.

 

[Benefactor]

I get my strength from the sovereignty of God, and His absolute right to do as He pleases withinthe confines of His person.

I do not believe puny humankind has any authority to tell God what he can and cannot do.

Jonah couldn't tell God what to do and neither can I.

If I wasn't a sovereigntist, I would be ashamed of myself.

Cheers,

Jim

I am glad that you honor God's sovereignty although Calvinism has a flawed view of it they can be commended for their zeal as long as that zeal does not revert back to that of Calvin’s day.

If you are inferring in what you say that all who are not like you are not defenders of God's sovereignty then you are mistaken, but I don't know if you intended to convey that or not so I defer to you to clarify this point.

Benefactor

 

[Me4Him]

Benefactor, I do not believe there is a universal desire to on the part of God to save every single man. If there was then God would do it.

Jer 13:17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD'S flock is carried away captive.

Ps 81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.

12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels.

13 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!

14 I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.

15 The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever.

Ro 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:


Why should Jeremiah/Paul write of weeping/sorrow for people who reject God and perish,

Yet God should not weep or feel sorrow for the same people????

Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Pastor Larry]

With as many post that you have that is a surprise. I would have thought that this passage would have been used.

Why would this passage be used? It has nothing to do with the topic.

Well now it has...

Not really. No congent point was made about this topic from this verse.

Condition is there because eleasa is a subjunctive aorist active and is correctly translated "he may show mercy" As you know the subjunctive conveys mild contingency and of course contingency means condition.

Well, no. This is incorrect. This is a case of hina+subjunctive, Wallace says, “We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker” (GGBB, p. 472). You should have known this already.

In that we know for a fact that a condition is necessary to receive mercy this alone means that special election is impossible.

How do we know this? You have stated it several times. You have not yet made an argument for it.

So 11:32 if given is correct meaning within it context which is a concluding statement of Chapters 8-11 then we must come to the conclusion that special election has not place in the offer of salvation and the saving of men which is therefore on the basis of free will

Again, you have not made an argument. But several points are in order. First, the section of Romans is 9-11, not 8-11. Second, this is not the conclusion of 9-11 but of a smaller portion of 11. (The conclusion of 9-11 is 11:33-36). Third, Romans 9 already plainly the fact of special election, as do other places in Scripture.

The condition is not on mercy but for mercy

I don’t recall anyone saying differently.

We reject completely the forced meaning that foreknowledge mean other than what it means.

Actually, we do. You do not. You force a meaning on it that is foreign to its use.

To desire and then to deny His desire by only picking a few of the all is a contradiction.

A contradiction to who? I think the only contradiction exists in your mind.

So regardless of all that, you still haven’t given a reason why Rom 11:32 denies special election.

As I said, there’s a reason this verse hasn’t been used in this discussion … Because it doesn’t address it. This is just fanciful thinking on your part.

 

[Dale-c]

I recently watched a video of RC Sproul on the topic of hermeneutics.
One of the points that he made was that we should always interpret the obscure passages with the clear.

There are many, many passages that are ambiguous about election and free will.
Taken in isolation they may seem to imply free will, or at least we infer free will from it.
John 3:16 is an excellent example.
It says that whoever believes will not perish.
But that verse does not even address the topic of who will believe and who even CAN believe.

If we go to another portion of John, we will see this issue addressed directly.
John 6 says that the father must draw a man in order for that man to be saved and that all that are drawn will be raised up.

A very important point: The giving of a choice by God does not equate the changing of the heart needed to act properly on that choice

 

[Darrenss1]

And yes God did plan to save everyone, thus free will.

As I mentioned before I am a non calvinist but this statement takes the cake of all absurdities from any camp. God had planned to saved EVERYONE so that is why Jesus dies on the cross? Would it be to the surprise of the omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of the universe that maybe such a plan would not really save EVERYONE? I'm from the whosoever will believe crowd and I have no illusions to the foolish notion of God not having the foreknowledge to estimate that His plan to save EVERYONE will result in saving only some BUT not everyone!! God is like, "oh bummer I was hoping to save everyone, silly Me".

Darren

 

[Dale-c]

You see you are stuck in the past and you must use certain tactics to frame your argument because you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't approach the Scripture and accept that God desires all to be saved and that Calvinism violates this teaching. Special election is false as it has always been and all Calvinism’s doing is confusing people with their doctrine. You have everyone pigeon holed to either or because to do otherwise is to admit defeat.

How is Romans 8-9 for a leg to stand on?

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j] who[k] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."[l] 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[m] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

How is that for a leg to stand on.
I once believed the same as you did. It was not some careful argument by a calvinist who convinced me I was wrong.
It was not wanting to hold to some tradition or being stuck in the past.
MY tradition was synergism.
MY tradition was antagonistic to calvinism.

But this passage alone showed me that I was quite possibly wrong.
I was dumbfounded to see those terms which I had scoffed at were actually in the Bible.
Foreknew, Predestined, Called, etc.

No, sir, it is you that has not a leg upon which to stand.

You most certainly are a synergist.
You believe that God's will and man's will must cooperate in order to save a man.

I am a monergist, God's will and work alone are required and are thus sufficient.

 

[kyredneck]

...........John 3:16 is an excellent example.
It says that whoever believes will not perish........]

The modern day distortion of John 3:16 with the lopsided focus on 'whosoever believeth', is like placing the emPHASis on the wrong syLAHbull and causes confusion with the topic of God's grace. John 3:16 is not an invitation, it is a statement of fact; a wonderful summation of God's love towards us. Here's the real invitation:


“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

I know that I have nothing to do with my eternal destiny, far much less anyone else's. Christ put no such burden on me. I will forever thank God that He put me in Christ Jesus, and glory in the Lord, and rejoice that my name is written in heaven.

 

[OldRegular]

I like to post the following quotation periodically because it demonstrates so clearly the error of the doctrine that God and me saved me. I believe some call it synergistic.

John Dagg [page 322, Manual of Theology] comments on the natural man’s inability regarding salvation, as follows:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

 

[Me4Him]

John 6 says that the father must draw a man in order for that man to be saved and that all that are drawn will be raised up.

A very important point: The giving of a choice by God does not equate the changing of the heart needed to act properly on that choice

In post 29, I addressed this "subject".

Just how does the "drawing" work without the presents of the "Comforter" in the world to "Change hearts"???

 

[kyredneck]

In post 29, I addressed this "subject".

Just how does the "drawing" work without the presents of the "Comforter" in the world to "Change hearts"???

I read your post #29.

Are you equating the comforter of Ecc 4:1 with the Comforter of Jn 14 & 16? If you are, you're way off base. Not even the same.

 

[OldRegular]

Just how does the "drawing" work without the presents of the "Comforter" in the world to "Change hearts"???

So you have seen the light.

The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, does change hearts, or actually wills, through the process of regeneration; that is giving spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead in sin. The Holy Spirit then gives the gift of faith through which the regenerate person can respond to the Gospel Call; which, for them, is now the Effectual Call. [Ephesians 2:1-8]