TULIP: Unconditional Election

[Dr. Walter]

These are facts, and pointing out these facts doesn't mean one is happy about it or "desires" it (let alone, that one would herald this as a "right" that man is somehow entitled to).

I think you miss the real point of Romans 8:7 that there is real "enmity" in the hearts and minds of lost people against God that is expressed through the will. The term "enmity" expresses a state of warefare. The Greek term translated "mind" in Romans 8:7 is not the ordinary "nous" but rather "phromenia" and it has the idea of the mind in action, its purposes and intents put into action. When you place the terms "enmity" and "Carnal" and "mind" together it spells out an inward attitude of warefare that is being expressed in willful action either negatively or positively.

The primary act of sin is not some EXTERNAL violation of the Ten commandments but the refusal to "glorify" Him as God and refusal to given him thanks (Rom. 1:21). Lost man is inherently SELF-CENTERED and that is the epitome of what sin is.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Indeed - God can "force" whatever he wills if He so chooses --

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

But God does not "force" that outcome even though it is His will that all be saved.

....................

GE:

This is another instance of Scripture that Bob Ryan has referred to 1000 times, but not once true to context.

2Pt3:9b refers to “the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (7).

“This”, men like Bob Ryan and all Arminians, “WILLINGLY are ignorant of” (5) or PRETEND to be ignorant of. For it is written,

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as SOME (UNREDEEMED) men count slackness; but is longsuffering to US-ward (God’s REDEEMED)— He being not willing that ANY (OF “US”) should perish, but that ALL (OF “US”) should come to repentance.”

Then, where Bob Ryan and fellows say, “But God does not "force" that outcome even though it is His will…”, this Scripture says, “But the day of the Lord” and the “judgment and perdition of ungodly men … _WILL_ come”, that all and every one of “UNGODLY MEN … and the works” of theirs “also” on “the earth … SHALL BE BURNED UP.”

But Bob Ryan & co. say no, "His will" will be frustrated "though it is His will"! And, say they --- AGAINST God's declaration here IN THIS TEXT --- God's will it was that “UNGODLY MEN” shall not be burned up, but SHALL BE SAVED!.

SO FAR is 2Pt3:9b REMOVED from God’s “will” according to Bob Ryan and his Arminian conspirators against God’s will.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Of course, man did reject God at the FALL, and man does in a real sense reject God when he sins. These are facts, and pointing out these facts doesn't mean one is happy about it or "desires" it (let alone, that one would herald this as a "right" that man is somehow entitled to). On the other hand God will have the final say--to those who rejected Him, He will say "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire".

GE:

Yes; and what Arminians never understand and too many Calvinists also too often do not understand, is that the cursed into everlasting fire from everlasting are the cursed into everlasting fire. It's no novelty for or with God; no afterthought or emergency measure.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I think you miss the real point of Romans 8:7 that there is real "enmity" in the hearts and minds of lost people against God that is expressed through the will. The term "enmity" expresses a state of warefare. The Greek term translated "mind" in Romans 8:7 is not the ordinary "nous" but rather "phromenia" and it has the idea of the mind in action, its purposes and intents put into action. When you place the terms "enmity" and "Carnal" and "mind" together it spells out an inward attitude of warefare that is being expressed in willful action either negatively or positively.

The primary act of sin is not some EXTERNAL violation of the Ten commandments but the refusal to "glorify" Him as God and refusal to given him thanks (Rom. 1:21). Lost man is inherently SELF-CENTERED and that is the epitome of what sin is.

I am not sure what point you are trying to demonstrate that I missed with your post here. Are you sure you are responding to the correct post?

 

[eightball]

GE:

Yes; and what Arminians never understand and too many Calvinists also too often do not understand, is that the cursed into everlasting fire from everlasting are the cursed into everlasting fire. It's no novelty for or with God; no afterthought or emergency measure.

Man, that's cold....

 

[glfredrick]

Man, that's cold....

No, that is the utter truth of the gospel! We have no hope apart from Jesus Christ, and there is no work that we can do to earn God's grace.

Praise God, that HE comes to us and makes us alive with Him, "by grace are you saved, and that not of works, lest any man should boast..."

We don't have the right to have God sit under us in judgment. We don't have the right to demand from God some reality that we can enjoy (though in Him, we have ALL joy!). Rather, we face truth -- that we are doomed without His power and without His coming to us.

PRAY! Pray that He would... Perhaps He will.

 

[BobRyan]

I think you miss the real point of Romans 8:7 that there is real "enmity" in the hearts and minds of lost people against God that is expressed through the will. The term "enmity" expresses a state of warefare. The Greek term translated "mind" in Romans 8:7 is not the ordinary "nous" but rather "phromenia" and it has the idea of the mind in action, its purposes and intents put into action. When you place the terms "enmity" and "Carnal" and "mind" together it spells out an inward attitude of warefare that is being expressed in willful action either negatively or positively.

While it is true that the wicked of Rom 8 are determined in their efforts to refuse the Gospel - and so they are contrasted to the saints in Rom 8 who by the spirit are putting to death the deeds of the flesh - and are pleasing to God, and are obeying the law of God and hostile toward God vs 7.

And Arminians will agree that there are lost people determined to refuse the Gospel and so by their own free will choice are not opening the door of Rev 3 even though Christ is standing at the door and knocking.

But there are others - who are listed in Rom 8 who do choose to open that door and so we have "once again" the contrast in a SINGLE chapter between the lost and the saved saints just as we have in Rom 1, and Rom 2 and Rom 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You don't believe the possibility is there for YOUR doctrine could to be the workings of satan? Satan's desire is to remove any kind of accountability, what your doctrine does if you will follow the logical conclusion. Satan used that on Eve in the Garden of Eden. If it's "all God", there is no "but" associated with it...it is literally "all God", each sin committed, each rejection, etc.

I guess it boils down to a matter of perspective.

Indeed making God the one to blame for our choices is not a good thing.

The idea that God arbitrarily zaps some of the wicked will not caring about the rest - makes God the author of sin.

Many people complain about the RCC saying that IF it were true that they had the power to free someone from purgatory then why are they not freeing them all since even by RCC doctrine everyone in purgatory will eventually go to heaven. Luther made this complaint about the pope for example.

The same could be said of Calvinists only "more so" because Calvinism's idea is that God is arbitrarily NOT providing heaven as He chooses to zap (or pyth the mind) of some lost people but not others -- having nothing at ALL to do with the choice of said lost person. In the RCC case they are not depriving anyone of heaven - just of less time in purgatory. But in the case of Calvinism it is a claim to arbitrary selection that actually does result in not going to heaven for those that are not arbitrarily selected.

Calvinism does not work as a Bible doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[glfredrick]

You don't believe the possibility is there for YOUR doctrine could to be the workings of satan? Satan's desire is to remove any kind of accountability, what your doctrine does if you will follow the logical conclusion. Satan used that on Eve in the Garden of Eden. If it's "all God", there is no "but" associated with it...it is literally "all God", each sin committed, each rejection, etc.

I guess it boils down to a matter of perspective.

Indeed making God the one to blame for our choices is not a good thing.

The idea that God arbitrarily zaps some of the wicked will not caring about the rest - makes God the author of sin.

Many people complain about the RCC saying that IF it were true that they had the power to free someone from purgatory then why are they not freeing them all since even by RCC doctrine everyone in purgatory will eventually go to heaven. Luther made this complaint about the pope for example.

The same could be said of Calvinists only "more so" because Calvinism's idea is that God is arbitrarily NOT providing heaven as He chooses to zap (or pyth the mind) of some lost people but not others -- having nothing at ALL to do with the choice of said lost person. In the RCC case they are not depriving anyone of heaven - just of less time in purgatory. But in the case of Calvinism it is a claim to arbitrary selection that actually does result in not going to heaven for those that are not arbitrarily selected.

Calvinism does not work as a Bible doctrine.

Neither of you have actually described Calvinism, however, so your explanations are not accurate. Actually, Calvinism has worked perfectly fine as a Bible doctrine and has, in large part, been as or more successful overall than other doctrines, it having pressed forward the entire Protestant Reformation, to which we are all grateful -- none of us would be here arguing this today without Calvin's doctrines! Arminian doctrines came after Calvin's ground-breaking work and are based in his work, so efforts to suggest that Calvinism is a perversion of what came before sort of fall flat at the end of the day.

The alternative to Calvinist doctrines before Calvin was the perverted Roman Catholic theology. Arminians have no recourse before Calvin than Catholicism.

The key phrase is "what your doctrine does if you will follow the logical conclusion..." Calvinism does not follow human logic to the conclusion, and neither does Arminianism (or whatever you guys hold that you fail to identify). We follow the REVELATION of God and stop where God stops. We are "people of the book."

One other key area of difficulty is that you seem to misunderstand the fact that we are all -- to use your term -- "zapped" at birth. We're all already doomed! God is in the business of saving, not zapping! Why is that so difficult to figure out? Holding a Calvinistic view does not mean that okay people are somehow sent to hell by our doctrine. Shame on you guys. After all this debate, surely you know better.

Because you have both argued against non-existent theologies, it is difficult to respond. I cannot respond well to a straw man argument, and that is exactly what is brought above. It would be good for each of you to actually investigate what it is that Calvinism teaches, then argue that on its merits (or lack thereof) instead of arguing "bumper sticker slogans."

 

[webdog]

Neither of you have actually described Calvinism, however, so your explanations are not accurate. Actually, Calvinism has worked perfectly fine as a Bible doctrine and has, in large part, been as or more successful overall than other doctrines, it having pressed forward the entire Protestant Reformation, to which we are all grateful -- none of us would be here arguing this today without Calvin's doctrines! Arminian doctrines came after Calvin's ground-breaking work and are based in his work, so efforts to suggest that Calvinism is a perversion of what came before sort of fall flat at the end of the day.

The alternative to Calvinist doctrines before Calvin was the perverted Roman Catholic theology. Arminians have no recourse before Calvin than Catholicism.

The key phrase is "what your doctrine does if you will follow the logical conclusion..." Calvinism does not follow human logic to the conclusion, and neither does Arminianism (or whatever you guys hold that you fail to identify). We follow the REVELATION of God and stop where God stops. We are "people of the book."

One other key area of difficulty is that you seem to misunderstand the fact that we are all -- to use your term -- "zapped" at birth. We're all already doomed! God is in the business of saving, not zapping! Why is that so difficult to figure out? Holding a Calvinistic view does not mean that okay people are somehow sent to hell by our doctrine. Shame on you guys. After all this debate, surely you know better.

Because you have both argued against non-existent theologies, it is difficult to respond. I cannot respond well to a straw man argument, and that is exactly what is brought above. It would be good for each of you to actually investigate what it is that Calvinism teaches, then argue that on its merits (or lack thereof) instead of arguing "bumper sticker slogans."

Ah, the "you don't know calvinism" argument....the triple dog dare your camp uses when trying to divert attention away from the accountability issue. Been there, done that...:wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

Ah, the "you don't know calvinism" argument....the triple dog dare your camp uses when trying to divert attention away from the accountability issue. Been there, done that...:wavey:

That is because you demonstrate EVERY time you type a word about Calvinism that you DO NOT know Calvinism.

 

[webdog]

That is because you demonstrate EVERY time you type a word about Calvinism that you DO NOT know Calvinism.

Opinions are like nostrils. Let the twisting continue...

 

[glfredrick]

Opinions are like nostrils. Let the twisting continue...

Back on my ignore list. :BangHead:

 

[BobRyan]

Is the above your position?

Also, what of my simple question above? Are you afraid to answer?

What is your "question above"??

I'll second TCassidy's point. There is no arbitrariness with God.

In fact, in thinking through this continuing debate tonight (and every night lately) I started wondering just who would LOVE for men to reject God -- as that seems to be the point that every Arminian argues for! They want a man to be able to reject God! They don't want God to have the final say... Who would want that, of all created beings? Satan... That's who.

Now, I'm not calling Arminians the devil -- no way! But I am saying that when we look at the arguments -- the GREAT desire for men to have freedom of will to REJECT God -- the ONLY one who would really want that (apart from those who's theology is not well informed) is Satan. That, in and of itself would make me re-think my position if I were one of the ones arguing for the right of a man to reject God!

Now, back to the thread... Are you going to answer my question above or keep dancing? I even have a couple of Scriptural examples I can spring on you... :laugh:

The Arminian position is that God sovereignly chose a free will intelligent universe of Angels and men (and...?? whatever the Myriads in Dan 7:9-10).

The Arminian position is that ALL have the freedom to choose - and as we see in Matt 23 "Oh how I WANTED to gather your children... but YOU would not".

As for Satan choosing regellion in heaven - Calvinism falls down there.

From the Arminian POV Lucifer was created sinless and then CHOSE rebellion - so not God's fault.

But in Calvinism there is no free will. A perfect being would simply remain perfect unless someon zapped it to choose evil. A being created flawed or depraved would remain flawed and depraved (in true robot style).

Which solution is Calvinism selecting for Lucifer? Is it a claim that God created Lucifer defective (so that God can be sovereign when Lucifer chooses evil) or did God create Lucifer perfect and then zap his brain to choose evil?

You brought the point up - but I don't see how it serves to promote your argument. It appears to be more like a revealing "flaw" in the argument for Calvinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That is because you demonstrate EVERY time you type a word about Calvinism that you DO NOT know Calvinism.

hint - Calvinism is not a single thing in that case - it is a shell game consisting of 3 Point Calvinism, 4 Point Calvinism and 5 Point Calvinism. The various Calvinist groups will select one or the other of those shells and then pretend that anyone addressing a shell that is not the one they are hiding under - does not know what Calvinism is.

Come on - that game is very old!

 

[webdog]

Back on my ignore list. :BangHead:

Usually what happens when confronted with someone that points out the holes in your swiss cheese.

 

[webdog]

hint - Calvinism is not a single thing in that case - it is a shell game consisting of 3 Point Calvinism, 4 Point Calvinism and 5 Point Calvinism. The various Calvinist groups will select one or the other of those shells and then pretend that anyone addressing a shell that is not the one they are hiding under - does not know what Calvinism is.

Come on - that game is very old!

You shouldn't have said that...they don't like to hear that truth...now you will be on ignore too :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Well I have had worse done to me.
But I choose to ignore such things of my own free will.

 

[webdog]

Well I have had worse done to me.
But I choose to ignore such things of my own free will.

...or maybe you were predestined to do so?

 

[Dr. Walter]

hint - Calvinism is not a single thing in that case - it is a shell game consisting of 3 Point Calvinism, 4 Point Calvinism and 5 Point Calvinism. The various Calvinist groups will select one or the other of those shells and then pretend that anyone addressing a shell that is not the one they are hiding under - does not know what Calvinism is.

Come on - that game is very old!

Addressing the Biblical doctrine of Grace under the designation of "Calvinism" is no different than addressing your view of salvation under "Seventh Day Adventism." Referring to "Calvin" and "Calvinism" is no different than refering to Ellen G. White as the inventor of your soteriology.

3, 4, 5, 6 point Calvinists (and there are those in history who called themselves 6 pointers) are inconsistences among those who embrace some aspects while rejecting other aspects of Calvins position.

I don't identify my soteriology with Calvin because Calvin's soteriology includes a lot more things than five points which I detest.

However, total depravity, unconditional election, limited or definite atonement, irresistable or effectual grace and preservation of the saints are all sound biblical doctrine when represented correctly. The problem is that you and others do represent them correctly. You build a straw man and then burn it rather than deal with these truths as presented in scripture.