why I am not a Calvinist

[JonC]

You need to remember there was an entire thread started excusing that kind posting and blaming the recipients as feeling guilty as to why they were offended by it. Now in response to your questioning that antagonism they are guilty of the:

"tu quoque"
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

Your logical fallacy is tu quoque

I think you are right. The worst "of them" are probally the worst because they hold a doctrine they cannot defend. The issue is not the doctrine (there are godly people in both camps) but the way indoctrinated people hold views they do not understand (they are sometimes disciples not of Christ but of other men, and will defend their "cult" with unwavering and blind loyalty).

Lacking understanding all they can do is lash out. In return they deserve our prayers that God will open their hearts to the gospel of Christ rather than hostility in return. I run out of patience too quickly. We need the support of other Christians (not an affirmation of doctrine as there are differences in understanding but encouragement to respond in a Christ-like manner) when we deal with these types.

 

[37818]

Unfortunately (tragically) the genuine gospel alludes people who may accept sound doctrine (Mt 7). Many believe they will be saved by their works and what they know about Christ, but will hear those horrible words "I never knew you".

Well, then according to that, to "accept sound doctrine" was not meeting the will of God , Matthew 7:21.

 

[JonC]

Well, then according to that, to "accept sound doctrine" was not meeting the will of God , Matthew 7:21.

Exactly. James defines faith along the same terms.

 

[37818]

Well I'd challenge your statement "would not be true". If they understand what's being offered to them and what's expected of them you can't say in an absolute sense the gospel was hidden from them.

Two things. First, they were trusting in their own works, Matthew 7:22. Secondly, according to the Lord, they did not meet the requirement of the will of God.

Now, if you where to explain the will of God so one could know to be for sure meeting the will of God, what would you explain?

 

[37818]

Exactly. James defines faith along the same terms.

How does James arguing Abraham being also justified by his works before God, Genesis 22:12, (50 years later) " . . . along the same terms," as you are arguing?

 

[Iconoclast]

Again, we do not agree on the meaning of Titus 2:11. So while I find your argument of "irresistable grace" tenable, I am not in agreement with that view for reasons stated.

I do not think that verse addresses this issue

 

[37818]

I do not think that verse addresses this issue

Oh, course you don't.

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh, course you don't.

In what way does it?

 

[JonC]

How does James arguing Abraham being also justified by his works before God, Genesis 22:12, (50 years later) " . . . along the same terms," as you are arguing?

I am arguing that a type of faith that does not work is a type of faith that does not work. Someone can proclaim the gospel with their voices but if they trample the blood of Christ with their actions then their actions speak louder than their words.

Even the demons believe, and this belief produces a result (they tremble). Yet we have professing Christians who share a gospel that judging by their actions is of no effect whatsoever. We have Christians who actively slander other Christians while supposedly proclaiming biblical truth.

 

[37818]

In what way does it?

As I have already explained,

Arguably, comes down to how one defines irresistable grace. I have Titus 2:11 and Acts of the Apostles 7:51, in mind. We also do not agree on how Titus 2:11, should be understood.

 

[Dave G]

Arguably, comes down to how one defines irresistable grace.

I generally define it this way:

Since mankind's hearts are so entrenched in our sins and we are firmly unwilling, in our present state, to seek reconciliation with God, or to even go so far as to lift a finger in repentance ( I can see another "finger" being lifted, however, and it isn't in repentance ), then it takes the miraculous power of the living God to change a man or woman before they will respond in true repentance and remorse for their sin.

Unless the sin problem is dealt with by God, which involves more than just being born again, His grace, because of both man's unwillingness ( making it so bad that it really is "inability" ) and His power to literally do anything with a person without their permission ( see Genesis 20:6, Exodus 4:21, Ezra 7:27, Psalms 105:25, Proverbs 16:1, Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21, Proverbs 20:24, Proverbs 21:1, Jeremiah 10:23, Romans 9:18, and Revelation 17:17 ), can be said to be "irresistible" mainly because of its power to change someone at the heart level.

God's word never states it in that exact fashion, that I know of, but the best example of God saving someone without their express will being a part of the process, is Paul on the road to Damascus.

Christ appeared to him, he fell on his face, and the Lord commanded him with literally no resistance.
"Bam!"...instant regeneration, belief, and repentance.

Stunned?
Yes, I think that's a word that I would use, to say the least.
That is what God's children do when confronted by the Lord in all His glory.

That's what I did when I first heard the word of God preached, first heard the preaching of the cross ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ) at 12 years old in 1978... only I didn't see Him like Paul did, I only "saw Him" through His word and through the power of His Spirit.

Amazing "Irresistible" grace!

 

[Iconoclast]

As I have already explained,

Your failure to answer post 2,5,is why you remain unable to.really answer

 

[Richard Vermeulen]

If this question is not pertinent to your discussion on Calvinism I apologize in advance.
Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. That thief never studied the Bible, never attended synagogue or church and never made amends to those he wronged. He simply said "Jesus remember me" and Jesus promised, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".
My question is, was the thief one of the "elect" in the Calvinist's view?

 

[robycop3]

3/4 of the seeds in the soils wash out in the parable of the sower. Only 1/4 remain planted in "good soil". I've seen way too much to trust any pastor anytime based on their profession.

We're both getting away from the theme of this thread, that is, the individual points of calvinism. I have no reason not to believe the man I mentioned was saved, then, turned his back on Jesus & his own salvation.

 

[robycop3]

If this question is not pertinent to your discussion on Calvinism I apologize in advance.
Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. That thief never studied the Bible, never attended synagogue or church and never made amends to those he wronged. He simply said "Jesus remember me" and Jesus promised, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".
My question is, was the thief one of the "elect" in the Calvinist's view?

Jesus knew that man's HEART, as He knows ALL hearts. He knew that man realized who Jesus is, that he was a sinner in need of Divine forgiveness, and that he'd repented in his heart of his sins. JESUS knew those things, even though it's not mentioned in Scripture.

 

[37818]

I generally define it this way:

Since mankind's hearts are so entrenched in our sins and we are firmly unwilling, in our present state, to seek reconciliation with God, or to even go so far as to lift a finger in repentance ( I can see another "finger" being lifted, however, and it isn't in repentance ), then it takes the miraculous power of the living God to change a man or woman before they will respond in true repentance and remorse for their sin.

Unless the sin problem is dealt with by God, which involves more than just being born again, His grace, because of both man's unwillingness ( making it so bad that it really is "inability" ) and His power to literally do anything with a person without their permission ( see Genesis 20:6, Exodus 4:21, Ezra 7:27, Psalms 105:25, Proverbs 16:1, Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21, Proverbs 20:24, Proverbs 21:1, Jeremiah 10:23, Romans 9:18, and Revelation 17:17 ), can be said to be "irresistible" mainly because of its power to change someone at the heart level.

God's word never states it in that exact fashion, that I know of, but the best example of God saving someone without their express will being a part of the process, is Paul on the road to Damascus.

Christ appeared to him, he fell on his face, and the Lord commanded him with literally no resistance.
"Bam!"...instant regeneration, belief, and repentance.

Stunned?
Yes, I think that's a word that I would use, to say the least.
That is what God's children do when confronted by the Lord in all His glory.

That's what I did when I first heard the word of God preached, first heard the preaching of the cross ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ) at 12 years old in 1978... only I didn't see Him like Paul did, I only "saw Him" through His word and through the power of His Spirit.

Amazing "Irresistible" grace!

Convoluted. Seems to hide the ". . simplicity that is in Christ. . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 11:3. And for me does not change my understanding of Titus 2:11 with Acts of the Apostles 7:51.

 

[37818]

If this question is not pertinent to your discussion on Calvinism I apologize in advance.
Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. That thief never studied the Bible, never attended synagogue or church and never made amends to those he wronged. He simply said "Jesus remember me" and Jesus promised, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".
My question is, was the thief one of the "elect" in the Calvinist's view?

Why would that thief not be one of the elect in any view?

 

[37818]

Your failure to answer post 2,5,is why you remain unable to.really answer

No. I gave answers in post 3 and 15. Your failure to keep replies one point replies and concise. Even referencing posts 2 & 5 are not one point, but many arguments. I am not going to write a book here.

 

[Iconoclast]

No. I gave answers in post 3 and 15. Your failure to keep replies one point replies and concise. Even referencing posts 2 & 5 are not one point, but many arguments. I am not going to write a book here.

I broke the statement into 17 fragments....
Answer one at a time ,that should work.

 

[37818]

Sorry. Discovering truth takes some effort and interaction.This was set up to be helpful and easy to follow. You do not want to so no progress will happen if you cannot identify or explain your position.
This now answers the OP.
If you will not look, you will not find.

In other words, you want me to figure out why I should change my mind to your view.