Which is worse?

[Skandelon]

I continually hear Calvinists accuse us of believing mankind is better than they are, but which of these two people are worse?


PERSON 1: This man was born an enemy of God, a sinner and enslaved to his sin. God, in genuine salvific love, provides EVERYTHING this persons needs to be saved. God sends his son for him, sends the gospel to appeal for his reconciliation, and sends the church to minister to his needs. The man freely chooses to refuse all these sincere attempts to the point his heart grows calloused and he dies in his rebellion.

PERSON 2: This man is born an enemy of God, a sinner, and enslaved not only to sin, but he is born enslaved to his depraved will and thus cannot willingly choose to accept God's appeal for reconciliation. His fate is sealed from birth. God doesn't salvific love him or provide for his salvation, but has chosen to pass him by in his depraved natural condition from before he was born. He is born calloused in rebellion and dies calloused in rebellion all as predetermined by his creator.

I say the first person is MUCH worse than the second because the first person rebells in the face of God's genuine love and gracious provisions. The second is just doing what he was made to do kind of like an insane man who can't help his inborn desire and is declared "not guilty by reason of insanity." The first is WHOLLY guilty because he freely rejected and chose what desires he would follow. He truly has no defense.

 

[jbh28]

Which one does the Bible teach?

 

[Skandelon]

Which one does the Bible teach?

The 1 person. Romans 1

 

[jbh28]

The 1 person. Romans 1

How so...

btw, I didn't have a problem with number 1. Everything was paid for on the cross. The gospel is there.

 

[Skandelon]

How so...

btw, I didn't have a problem with number 1. Everything was paid for on the cross. The gospel is there.

Are you actually saying that God, in genuine salvific love, provides EVERYTHING the NON-ELECT needs to be saved? Really?

Isn't salvific love effectual?

Wouldn't 'everything' include the enabling power and atonement?

I think you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[jbh28]

Are you actually saying that God, in genuine salvific love, provides EVERYTHING the NON-ELECT needs to be saved? Really?

Isn't salvific love effectual?

Wouldn't 'everything' include the enabling power and atonement?

I think you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I can have my cake and eat it too if I have more than one slice.

Salvation is 100% of God. Everything has been done. Christ paid for sin on the cross. It is finished. Man cannot do anything to atone for the sin. God has made a wonderful promise that he will save everyone that comes to him. The problem is that man doesn't want to come. God has a wonderful gospel, but man looks at it as foolishness. He rejects it.

You asked, "isn't salvation love effectual?" Is it. If it was "effectual" wouldn't all be saved then if it really was "effectual"? The problem is not with God, it's with man. Man wants nothing to do with God.

Let's look at I Corinthians 2.

"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:12-16 ESV)

Verse 12
Obviously, who is being discussed here? It's the "brethren" from the beginning of the chapter. So we are discussing believers. Paul is speaking about the Holy Spirit here. It's the Holy Spirit that why they can understand the things of God.

Verse 13
We can speak words, not of man but words that are taught by the Holy Spirit. So we in verse 12-13 have believers obviously since they have received the Holy Spirit.(and the context) The Spirit of God is why they are able to speak spiritual things. It's by the Holy Spirit that we compare spiritual things with spiritual.

Verse 14
"But" The word "but" signifies a contrast of something already mentioned. Paul is comparing to what he just said. Paul just got done talking about people that had the Spirit(vs 12) and are speaking spiritual things (vs 13). Paul say that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. The question is obviously, who is the "natural man"? The natural man is said here that he can't understand the thing of the Spirit of God. A person with the Spirit can understand. There is no way this is talking about a saved person because a saved person can understand.

 

[Skandelon]

I can have my cake and eat it too if I have more than one slice.

Salvation is 100% of God. Everything has been done. Christ paid for sin on the cross. It is finished. Man cannot do anything to atone for the sin. God has made a wonderful promise that he will save everyone that comes to him. The problem is that man doesn't want to come. God has a wonderful gospel, but man looks at it as foolishness. He rejects it.

So man's fallen nature is more powerful than the gospel appeal according to your view? Why?

You asked, "isn't salvation love effectual?" Is it. If it was "effectual" wouldn't all be saved then if it really was "effectual"?

Most Calvinists would affirm that God's salvific love is effectual and thus is reserved for the elect alone. Some Cals affirm a common/general love of God for all creation, but that is why I said 'salvific.'

The problem is not with God, it's with man. Man wants nothing to do with God.

Why not? Is it because they have contra-casually chosen to rebel, or because God really wants to have nothing to do with them?

Let's look at I Corinthians 2.

Verse 14
"But" The word "but" signifies a contrast of something already mentioned. Paul is comparing to what he just said. Paul just got done talking about people that had the Spirit(vs 12) and are speaking spiritual things (vs 13). Paul say that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. The question is obviously, who is the "natural man"? The natural man is said here that he can't understand the thing of the Spirit of God. A person with the Spirit can understand. There is no way this is talking about a saved person because a saved person can understand.

So, why does Paul call these same brethren 'natural/carnal' men who can't receive these spiritual truths in the very next verses?

"1 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ. 2 I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able, 3 because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like ordinary people?"

Listen, prior to the gospel being REVEALED by the Spirit in scripture and through the preaching of the apostles it was a 'mystery.' Right? So, what are the means the Spirit makes these deep truths and mysteries of God known?

Answer: Inspiring the writing of scriptures, like I Corinthians, so as to explain it to them?

or...

Cal Answer: Secret inward irresistibly working of the spirit?

 

[jbh28]

So man's fallen nature is more powerful than the gospel appeal according to your view? Why?

Because man can reject it.

Most Calvinists would affirm that God's salvific love is effectual and thus is reserved for the elect alone. Some Cals affirm a common/general love of God for all creation, but that is why I said 'salvific.'

Well, I'm sometimes a different breed of Calvinism. I would agree with "common/general" statement. Everyone has grace in that they have air to breathe.

Why not? Is it because they have contra-casually chosen to rebel, or because God really wants to have nothing to do with them?

It's because they have chosen to rebel.

So, why does Paul call these same brethren 'natural/carnal' men who can't receive these spiritual truths in the very next verses?

In chapter 3, it's because he is speaking to immature believers. The only verse about unbelievers is verse 14. I cut my stuff off short where I had it the other day. I got hungry and wanted to each lunch.

"1 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ. 2 I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able, 3 because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like ordinary people?"

Listen, prior to the gospel being REVEALED by the Spirit in scripture and through the preaching of the apostles it was a 'mystery.' Right? So, what are the means the Spirit makes these deep truths and mysteries of God known?

Answer: Inspiring the writing of scriptures, like I Corinthians, so as to explain it to them?

or...

Cal Answer: Secret inward irresistibly working of the spirit?

What does I corinthains say? It's the Spirit. Verse 12. "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God"

So... both. We have the Scripture and the Spirit to help us understand that Scripture.

 

[Winman]

The scriptures say God's grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

The teaching by Reformed/Calvinist that there are two types of grace is unscriptural. God does not show a "general" grace that is not effectual to some men, and shows an "effectual" grace to others. This teaching is error and refuted by Titus 2:11.

God shows the same grace that brings salvation to all men, but some men reject it. Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine.

 

[Van]

Certainly the TULI of the Tulip are unbiblical false doctrine. Skandelon is quite correct that the bible teaches the lost are people # 1. Calvinism invented people #2.

The post and post and constantly rephrase, saying what sounds like truth but defining the words used in a way as to support falsehood.

Thus they say everything was paid on the Cross, sounding like Jesus died for all mankind, but meaning everything was paid on the Cross for God's previously chosen elect but not for anyone else.

This kind of disingeneous defense is necessary to hide the fact that Calvinism is plainly false doctrine.

 

[Skandelon]

Because man can reject it.

They can reject it in both of our systems, but that doesn't mean it failed to accomplish its purpose in enabling a response. In your system it accomplishes nothing for most of those who hear it, but in my system it always succeeds in accomplish the purpose for which it was sent...to make an appeal and enable a response.

Well, I'm sometimes a different breed of Calvinism. I would agree with "common/general" statement.

Then you would deny that God salvifically loves all people.

It's because they have chosen to rebel.

No, actually Adam chose to rebel and they were born in rebellion and unable to willingly respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.

In chapter 3, it's because he is speaking to immature believers.

The same carnal believers he was addressing just a few verses before.

The only verse about unbelievers is verse 14.

This is why you misinterpret this passage. You think Paul is drawing a distinction between believers and unbelievers when in reality he is addressing carnal and spiritual believers.

What does I corinthains say? It's the Spirit. Verse 12. "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God"

Right. And what are the means God 'gives it to us?' Some secret inward working, or through inspiring authoritative apostles to record these truth for us in a clear and understandable way?

So... both. We have the Scripture and the Spirit to help us understand that Scripture.

They are not two separate things. The Spirit inspired the scriptures so the scriptures are themselves a 'work of the spirit.' The scriptures are God's means to discern or explain mysteries. There is no excuse for not understanding what the scriptures have clearly revealed. Those who read the scripture and reject its clearly revealed truth do so not because they lack the ability to understand plain english, they do so because they choose to do so. (contra-causally free--they could have chosen otherwise)

There are many who perfectly understand the claims of the gospel but who chose to trade that truth in for lies. It has nothing to do with their inability to understand the claims of scripture.

 

[jbh28]

This is why you misinterpret this passage. You think Paul is drawing a distinction between believers and unbelievers when in reality he is addressing carnal and spiritual believers.

Paul doesn't start talking about carnal till chapter 3. Verse 14 cannot refer to believers. Carnal beleivers have the Spirit so they could understand, but they are carnal. Those in cerse 14 "cannot" because they don't have the spirit. The point of the end of chapter 2 is that it's the Spirit that helps us understand. Without the Spirit, we do not understand.

"But" The word "but" signifies a contrast of something already mentioned. Paul is comparing to what he just said. Paul just got done talking about people that had the Spirit(vs 12) and are speaking spiritual things (vs 13). Paul say that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. The question is obviously, who is the "natural man"? The natural man is said here that he can't understand the thing of the Spirit of God. A person with the Spirit can understand. There is no way this is talking about a saved person because a saved person can understand.

Right. And what are the means God 'gives it to us?' Some secret inward working, or through inspiring authoritative apostles to record these truth for us in a clear and understandable way?

Through the indwelling Spirit

They are not two separate things. The Spirit inspired the scriptures so the scriptures are themselves a 'work of the spirit.' The scriptures are God's means to discern or explain mysteries. There is no excuse for not understanding what the scriptures have clearly revealed. Those who read the scripture and reject its clearly revealed truth do so not because they lack the ability to understand plain english, they do so because they choose to do so. (contra-causally free--they could have chosen otherwise)

There are many who perfectly understand the claims of the gospel but who chose to trade that truth in for lies. It has nothing to do with their inability to understand the claims of scripture.

That's not what the text says. It clearly states that, "Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God." The Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word.

 

[Skandelon]

Paul doesn't start talking about carnal till chapter 3. Verse 14 cannot refer to believers. Carnal beleivers have the Spirit so they could understand, but they are carnal. Those in cerse 14 "cannot" because they don't have the spirit. The point of the end of chapter 2 is that it's the Spirit that helps us understand. Without the Spirit, we do not understand.

According to that logic there are no unbelievers who understand the gospel. Is that your contention? That only believers understand the claims of the gospel? Or are you one of those people who mistakenly equates the word 'understand' with the word 'accept?'

The Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word.

The Word is wrought by the Holy Spirit. Fact that you and I both affirm, right?

So, if that is true you have just argued that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Holy Spirit.

Instead, couldn't we say, The Holy Spirit helps us understand the mysteries of God, the 'deep things of the Spirit of God,' through by the means of divine inspiration? Isn't that why Paul is writing to Corinth after all? Isn't he writing unspiritual believers about moving from the milk to the meat of the word by sending them more divinely inspired instruction? Don't you believe the book of Corinth is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, then how are his words different from the words you are typing to me? If its all about the HOLY SPIRIT just taking someone's random writings and revealing truth supernaturally to the one reading it, then what is the point of Holy Spirit inspiration? See my point?

 

[saturneptune]

I continually hear Calvinists accuse us of believing mankind is better than they are, but which of these two people are worse?


PERSON 1: This man was born an enemy of God, a sinner and enslaved to his sin. God, in genuine salvific love, provides EVERYTHING this persons needs to be saved. God sends his son for him, sends the gospel to appeal for his reconciliation, and sends the church to minister to his needs. The man freely chooses to refuse all these sincere attempts to the point his heart grows calloused and he dies in his rebellion.

PERSON 2: This man is born an enemy of God, a sinner, and enslaved not only to sin, but he is born enslaved to his depraved will and thus cannot willingly choose to accept God's appeal for reconciliation. His fate is sealed from birth. God doesn't salvific love him or provide for his salvation, but has chosen to pass him by in his depraved natural condition from before he was born. He is born calloused in rebellion and dies calloused in rebellion all as predetermined by his creator.

I say the first person is MUCH worse than the second because the first person rebells in the face of God's genuine love and gracious provisions. The second is just doing what he was made to do kind of like an insane man who can't help his inborn desire and is declared "not guilty by reason of insanity." The first is WHOLLY guilty because he freely rejected and chose what desires he would follow. He truly has no defense.

Have you ever discussed any subject in your life except the free will of man? There are several courses available to expand your conversation such as Faith 101, Grace 101, Discipleship 101, Sanctification 101, and Glorification 101. I believe the summer sessions include some of Paul's writings.

 

[Skandelon]

Have you ever discussed any subject in your life except the free will of man?

Sure. I average about 2 posts a day here and I have a very full life outside this forum, very little of which involves theological discourse. Here, on the theology debate forum, much of the debate centers around the doctrines of soteriology (study of salvation), which is more than just free will. It contains everything having to do with the very reason we exist, breath, and live. Not an unworthy topic of discussion in my opinion.

Some people play a lot of golf, do a lot of fishing, watch a lot of TV etc, but interestingly enough I find this hobby enlightening and enjoyable. So sue me. :wavey:

 

[saturneptune]

Sure. I average about 2 posts a day here and I have a very full life outside this forum, very little of which involves theological discourse. Here, on the theology debate forum, much of the debate centers around the doctrines of soteriology (study of salvation), which is more than just free will. It contains everything having to do with the very reason we exist, breath, and live. Not an unworthy topic of discussion in my opinion.

Some people play a lot of golf, do a lot of fishing, watch a lot of TV etc, but interestingly enough I find this hobby enlightening and enjoyable. So sue me. :wavey:

No, I know lawsuits are very popular in Texas, but not here. Have you ever discussed sanctification (becoming more like Jesus everyday), visitation (telling others the Good News), Creation (how God made the universe), eschatology (study of end time events)?

 

[Skandelon]

Have you ever discussed sanctification (becoming more like Jesus everyday), visitation (telling others the Good News), Creation (how God made the universe), eschatology (study of end time events)?

Yes, of course I have, but not much on this debate forum. Most of us, as baptists, are in agreement with all those subjects. Surely you're not suggesting that all my doctrinal interests are reflected in this one forum, are you? Is this really necessary? If you don't want to discuss this subject, don't. :godisgood:

 

[saturneptune]

Yes, of course I have, but not much on this debate forum. Most of us, as baptists, are in agreement with all those subjects. Surely you're not suggesting that all my doctrinal interests are reflected in this one forum, are you? Is this really necessary? If you don't want to discuss this subject, don't. :godisgood:

I do discuss it with others at church and on this board occasionally, (notice that last word). Sometimes I actually find ideas that do not represent either far extreme. I have even come across people who realized that some of the interworkings between free will and God's sovereignty are something only the Lord understands and let Him take care of it.

 

[Amy.G]

I have even come across people who realized that some of the interworkings between free will and God's sovereignty are something only the Lord understands and let Him take care of it.

:thumbs: Thank you.

 

[Skandelon]

I do discuss it with others at church and on this board occasionally, (notice that last word).

I would say an average of a couple posts a day which range in different subject of soteriology and some in politics etc, is pretty occasional, but if you wish to put yourself as my judge go right ahead. You average more posts here than I do so I guess that makes you qualified. :laugh:

Sometimes I actually find ideas that do not represent either far extreme. I have even come across people who realized that some of the interworkings between free will and God's sovereignty are something only the Lord understands and let Him take care of it.

Oh, good then you understand my views. :thumbs: