David Michael Harris
Active Member
Not necessarily true. It may be a believers concern that the Gospel is not properly being preached.
None of us have it all sussed out.
At this point I always end up at this Scripture.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why I left Calvinism after 10 years...
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Not necessarily true. It may be a believers concern that the Gospel is not properly being preached.
None of us have it all sussed out.
At this point I always end up at this Scripture.
I would simply say that that is untrue. This would take a whole new thread to explain. I am not calling God a liar
, I dont believe the verse/s you are using implies every person on planet earth had their sins paid for. Your right in saying that Jesus died for sinners. But Jesus didnt buy every sinner.Its justice to send a man hell for exactly every sin he committed. It isnt (my opinion of the bibles view) justice to send a man to hell because he rejected the way to avoid his penalty. There is a sense in which man is condemned by rejecting a Savior if he gets the chance, but the real reason one is in hell is because of sin.
I understand what your saying and for the most part I agree with your point. I think Calvinists with their attention on Calvinism rather than God's work doesnt mean they are wrong in doctrine, but in application of true biblical doctrine. We can easily be consumed by free will or God's sovereignty and thus have an uneven balance. The best way to live, in my opinion, is to understand God's grace and your desperate need while living like a free willer. I have family in JW and nobody in my family is saved, so I feel ya on that as do many believers in Scipture. I dont think it is because God hates anyone, but He isnt obligated to give anyone an out (His Son) for their deeds. I still think God has a great love for people and longs for them to turn, which is our aim in preaching. On another deep sense God has a special kind of mercy for the people He has chosen to pull out of wrath.
I was the one who originally requested Skandelon go into depth as to why he left Calvinism. My motive was not to gain an ally against Calvinism, I can present my own arguments and have for months.
No, I wanted to understand what process his understanding went through. It is clear that Calvinists understand scripture much differently from me and some others here. I have trouble understanding how Calvinists think at times, I don't understand how they can read the same scripture as I do, but come up with concepts that completely conflict with the understanding I get from scripture.
I wanted to know how his concepts changed. What scriptures, arguments, or observations caused his concepts and personal understanding of scripture to change over time.
So far, this is what he said:
If I understand correctly, Skandelon's concept of Total Depravity or Inability changed. He no longer believes that unsaved man is utterly unable to respond to the gospel.
I personally agree with this, I believe unsaved man has the ability to hear and believe the gospel without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That said, I in no way believe unsaved man can come to Christ without first being taught by God. This teaching is a work of the Holy Spirit through the apostles, prophets and holy scriptures God gave to man. Man did not invent the gospel, the gospel is 100% from God, and if God did not present the gospel then unsaved man would be hopelessly lost and not able to find God.
But enough of what I believe, I hope Skandelon will describe this process of change, how it came about, how long it took, what influences brought about this change in concept.
No, I wanted to understand what process his understanding went through. It is clear that Calvinists understand scripture much differently from me and some others here. I have trouble understanding how Calvinists think at times, I don't understand how they can read the same scripture as I do, but come up with concepts that completely conflict with the understanding I get from scripture.
I wanted to know how his concepts changed. What scriptures, arguments, or observations caused his concepts and personal understanding of scripture to change over time.
So far, this is what he said:
If I understand correctly, Skandelon's concept of Total Depravity or Inability changed. He no longer believes that unsaved man is utterly unable to respond to the gospel.
I personally agree with this, I believe unsaved man has the ability to hear and believe the gospel without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That said, I in no way believe unsaved man can come to Christ without first being taught by God. This teaching is a work of the Holy Spirit through the apostles, prophets and holy scriptures God gave to man. Man did not invent the gospel, the gospel is 100% from God, and if God did not present the gospel then unsaved man would be hopelessly lost and not able to find God.
But enough of what I believe, I hope Skandelon will describe this process of change, how it came about, how long it took, what influences brought about this change in concept.
I suspect that a die hard calvinist will not think that an arminian can properly preach the Gospel, and that a die hard arminian will not think that a calvinist can properly preach the Gospel.
It is more preferable to have them both preach the Gospel imperfectly than to have no one preach it perfectly.
Where does Scripture say that God removed men's capacity to respond to the call of the gospel - or that Calvinism says that?
My understanding is that the capacity is still there but it is not in our nature to respond. It's like this: Can a lion climb a tree and eat an apple? Do they have the ability to do so? Absolutely. Will they ever choose to do so? Nope. It's not in their nature to do so - they have no desire to go up a tree and eat fruit. Instead, their nature tells them to go attack that water buffalo and eat it instead. In the same way, man absolutely has the capacity to respond to the call of the gospel but because of his nature, he never will.
Much of the antagonism between arminianistic and calvinistic people is a lack of knowledge of either system. We define certain doctrines differently, such as the absolute sovereignty of God and the so-called free will of man, and we argue based on what we believe.
Cheers,
Jim
Cheers,
Jim
Ann, I believe the scriptures show that some unsaved men do respond to God's word and desire to know and do God's will.
Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Psa 145:19 He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
This verse clearly shows men first desired God before they were saved, so they could not have been regenerated to have this desire.
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
Calvinist's say unsaved man has no desire for God, but I believe common experience proves this false. Man is very religious. I think it would be a mistake to conclude that all men who are following false religions are insincere. Men are often taught from an early age error by their families or culture, and this is a very difficult bond to break. There have been many who came out of false religions to accept Christ, who have said they long sought for the truth.
So, I personally do not agree that all unsaved men have no desire for God. Some do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote: Calvinist's say unsaved man has no desire for God..
--------------------------------------
Which calvinists say this? We place mankind under the absolute sovereignty of God in a category labelled the Permissive Will of God. Men can make decisions of their own accord, but it still falls under the absolute sovereignty of God. Thus far and no further.......such as it was with Jonah, a bliever, who chose to disobey God until God said it was enough.
Certainly man can be religious. Men were religious throughout the scriptures, but they were unsaved.
"By grace are you saved through faith and faith is the gift of God, not of ourselves lest we should boast......." Is it ok if I connect thoughts here?
You cannot have absolute sovereignty of God and absolute free will of man!
Cheers,
Jim
--------------------------------------
Which calvinists say this? We place mankind under the absolute sovereignty of God in a category labelled the Permissive Will of God. Men can make decisions of their own accord, but it still falls under the absolute sovereignty of God. Thus far and no further.......such as it was with Jonah, a bliever, who chose to disobey God until God said it was enough.
Certainly man can be religious. Men were religious throughout the scriptures, but they were unsaved.
"By grace are you saved through faith and faith is the gift of God, not of ourselves lest we should boast......." Is it ok if I connect thoughts here?
You cannot have absolute sovereignty of God and absolute free will of man!
Cheers,
Jim
But how does that line up with Scripture? Where are we told that unsaved, unGodly men desire God - without the drawing of the Spirit?
Well, first of all, God did not create any man to not have a Savior.
He created one man, a direct creation, gave him a helpmeet, fellowshipped with him face to face, gave him everything he needed, put him in a garden and gave him charge of it, and this guy blew it by believing and obeying a fellow creature instead of the creator.
You can find his story in Genesis 1 to 3.
Paul further writes of the effect of this guy's blowing it in Romans 5:12.
Now, from this fellow came all men, and God elected many of his race unto salvation in Christ Jesus, bypassing some according to His sovereign good pleasure, and providing a Savior for those whom He elected unto salvation.
Those He bypassed and left to their own sin, of course, do not have a Savior.
In the Book of Revelation a book is described as having been written before the foundation of the world, a term which I take and understand to be a time when Adam and Eve was not yet, the Garden of Eden was not yet, the stars and the heavens and everything in it were not yet, and therefore there was no man in existence who had the "choice" to reject God or accept Him, and who rejected God, and accepted Him.
In Revelation 13:8, it is written that those whose names were written in this book were not deceived by the anti-Christ, neither did they bow down to him, while there are those who did worship the anti-Christ, and were deceived by him, and significantly, we again find the phrase "whose names were not written in the Lamb's Book of Life ......", by which we can reasonably deduct that the reason they bowed down to the anti-Christ and were deceived by him is because their names were not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
In the 20th chapter of the same book of Revelation a judgment in the heavens is being meted out, and on a Great White Throne sat Him before whose face the heavens fled away, and Satan and his angels were judged, and then, books were opened by which the dead were judged, and among other things they were cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and his angels because their names were not found in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Please notice several significant phrases: "before the foundation of the world" and "Lamb's Book of Life", denoting the time when the book came into existence, and the ownership and authorship of the book. We all know who the Lamb is, and I trust you do. If He wrote this book, and the names in it, then it follows that those whose names He did not write, he did not write because He did not want to, not because He was not aware of them.
Is the Lamb the Savior ? If He is, then those whose names He wrote have a Savior, and those whose names He did not write do not have a Savior. Simple as 1, 2, 3.
David Michael Harris
Active Member
I guess we all stand before Him individually one day so we all try to do our best.
Myself, I just want to see people saved. I don't care too much about end results.
That's for another day.
Last edited by a moderator:
David Michael Harris
Active Member
I believe we are in total depravity, it's what makes God choose that interests me. God is Righteous.
Uhhuh you can twist it anyway you want but it changes nothing. Heaven, grace, the cross and salvation was extended to everyone. To say otherwise is complete heresy and pure evil.
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.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God expects a response to his offer:
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
David Michael Harris
Active Member
Calvin quote probably. It makes sense at first glance. But exegesis says otherwise.
Rev, how do you justify spending all this time on this site (and who knows how many other sites) with all these saved folks when you should/could be out amongst the unsaved where there's work to be done. All those of you who believe it is the 'Great Commission of the Church' to populate heaven, how do you justify even one moment of slack or idle time if folks are going to hell while you lolly gag on the web?