Why? Why?

[Skandelon]

You're like a broken record. For you to repeat this falsehood like a mantra grows wearisome.

Unlike the Calvinistic posters who don't? These types of comments are what make such conversations 'wearisome.'

Predestination applies only to God calling out a people for His own possession.

Not according to many posters on this forum...

The deduction to be made from the passage I cited is plain; if you think it was your choice that placed you in Christ Jesus you are claiming credit that's due only to God.

Even in our system it was God's choice that was the deciding factor as there was nothing that obligated him to give grace to the humble or repentant. That is all of HIS gracious choice.

 

[Winman]

I reiterate:

but God chose....God chose......did God choose.....that no flesh should glory before God. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus.... 1 Cor 1:27-30

Any doctrine that teaches that it's man's choice, man's free will, man's personal decision that puts man in Christ Jesus is stealing glory from God.

Go to work tomorrow and tell your boss you are the boss now and you are in charge because you chose to work there and see how that works out for you. :laugh:

 

[Van]

What do these personal attacks have to do with the thread? Or proving one's conclusions to be true or not?

Oops, Hi Benjamin, I was remiss in not giving thanks for you standing up for proper behavior in discussing God's word.

 

[OldRegular]

Skan claims:

The 2 major mistakes of Calvinism:
(1) Presuming a giver only gets full credit for giving a gift if He does so irresistibly. (Acts 7:51)

(2) Presuming that the biblical teaching of man's inability to attain righteousness by law also proves that men must be equally unable to attain righteousness by faith. (Rm. 9:30-32)

Not being a Calvinist you may be correct but I do have a problem with your claims:

Major mistake #1: Presuming a giver only gets full credit for giving a gift if He does so irresistibly. (Acts 7:51)
Acts 7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

I am having difficulty making the connection between the #1 mistake of Calvinism and Acts 7:51. Skan if you are unable to explain perhaps some generous soul who adheres to Calvinism would enlighten me!

Then there is major mistake #2: Presuming that the biblical teaching of man's inability to attain righteousness by law also proves that men must be equally unable to attain righteousness by faith. (Rm. 9:30-32)

Romans 9:30-32
30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith
31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Now I can't speak for Calvinists but I was under the impression that we were justified by faith. Am I wrong, was Luther wrong, were the Reformers wrong, worse still is Paul wrong? I hope you will be able to help me out Skan. If not I will have to rely on the generosity of some Calvinist and you know how they are!

 

[percho]

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:16,17

Well we know how that turned out.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deut 30:19.20

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Heb 8:8

Well, I guess that is how that turned out.

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. John 3:16

Now all of a sudden man in the image of his father Adam is going to choose the correct thing.

I guess I should have made that a question.

 

[Skandelon]

Major mistake #1: Presuming a giver only gets full credit for giving a gift if He does so irresistibly. (Acts 7:51)
Acts 7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

I am having difficulty making the connection between the #1 mistake of Calvinism and Acts 7:51. Skan if you are unable to explain perhaps some generous soul who adheres to Calvinism would enlighten me!

Calvinists argue that God's gift of salvation is not made in the form of an "appeal" (like Paul does in 2 Cor. 5), but in an irresistible or effectual manner (often referred to as 'regeneration'). Acts 7:51, like the 2 Cor 5 passage show that God's provisions/appeals are often resisted or 'traded in for lies' but God still should be given full credit for giving them. To suggest that a man cannot believe the gospel because it wasn't able to be understood or didn't come with sufficient power to enable a response only serves give the unbelievers an excuse for their unbelief and make God's means appear to be failing or falling short. I believe God's gift, which are able to be traded in for lies and resisted, is more than sufficient to enable a response and God should get full credit for providing that gift for the world, not just a preselected few.

Then there is major mistake #2...Now I can't speak for Calvinists but I was under the impression that we were justified by faith.

I'd say, we are saved by Grace through faith...as faith doesn't merit or earn one's salvation. People who ask for forgiveness don't necessarily deserve it just because they asked for it. It is still an act of Grace to save the humble.

Calvinists argue that men are unable to submit to God's law and that this somehow proves they likewise are unable to believe apart from the irresistible work of regeneration. But proof that men can't earn or merit salvation by works is not equal to them being unable to believe and request Christ's forgiveness.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Which Clark?

Gordon H. Clark:

(Actually, as an author and Philosopher and scholar....I think highly of Adam Clarke too, but not necessarily for any of his Soteriological teaching per se.)

How was Pink any more 'intellectually honest' than other Calvinists? How does a hyper-Cal like him appeal to your free will philosophy?

He doesn't appeal to some loosely defined: "free-will philosophy"; he appeals to my desire for internal logical consistency. He does so because I believe that "Hyper"-Calvinism (however we are defining it) is the only logically consistent form of Calvinism. That's what I like about Pink. He accepted the necessary logical consequences and didn't shy away from them:

A "for-instance" would be in that he doesn't make the claim that God "loves" the reprobate in any meaningful sense, he essentially accepts the fact that in a Calvinist schema, God just really doesn't love a lot of people. He doesn't do what many Calvinists do by re-defining a particular form of "love" for the reprobate and a special sort of one for the "elect".

Also, Clark, for instance proclaims quite openly the unavoidable conclusion that God created sin. Sproul Jr. and Vincent Cheung are similar in admitting this in no uncertain terms.

If I were a Calvinist......I would be of a more "hyper" form as they are (IMO) the only intellectually honest and logically consistent forms of Calvinism, other forms (IMO) avoid the good and necessary consequences of Calvinism by trading on ambiguities and word-games.

 

[Winman]

If I were a Calvinist......I would be of a more "hyper" form as they are (IMO) the only intellectually honest and logically consistent forms of Calvinism, other forms (IMO) avoid the good and necessary consequences of Calvinism by trading on ambiguities and word-games.

Exactly. If I believed Calvinism I would not be some mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, double-talking sissy that most Calvinists here are, I would be a full blown hyper. If I'm going down, I'm going down in flames!

If you're going to do something, do it right or not at all.

I have always said that a hyper Calvinist is a consistent Calvinist, while a moderate Calvinist is a Calvinist who is ashamed of Calvinism. It's true.

 

[kyredneck]

Predestination applies only to God calling out a people for His own possession.

... Not according to many posters on this forum...

The word is used only four times in the bible and is always in reference to God calling out a people for His own possession, NOT to events in this temporal realm.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: Eph 2

Even in our system it was God's choice that was the deciding factor as there was nothing that obligated him to give grace to the humble or repentant. That is all of HIS gracious choice.

Then what's your gripe with the Calvinists? Let's stop all this fussin', all do a group hug, and get along with each other!

 

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
why is it that many on this Forum resist so adamantly the Biblical teaching that God still choses those He will bring to Salvation in Jesus Christ?

In accordance with your belief system..
It is because it is God's desire that they resist that teaching.
They are simply fulfilling God's Sovereign determination for their lives.

Would this be a good example of God's determination that you object to?:

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:
12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them.
13 And he saith unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?
33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;
34 and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things. Mk 4

Does that bother you that Christ spoke in riddles and dark sayings to the multitudes with the intent that they NOT understand, and yet privately He expounded all things to His disciples?

...God's desire that they resist that teaching...

It was God's desire that they NOT COMPREHEND the teaching.

 

[The Biblicist]

Even in our system it was God's choice that was the deciding factor as there was nothing that obligated him to give grace to the humble or repentant. That is all of HIS gracious choice.

That is simply not true! Your system demands that His choice was based upon forseen humility and repentance as the conditional causes for election.

If you argue that these conditional causes are the results of general grace to all men, then you are admitting that the cause is not found in grace at all but in humans who can either respond or not respond and thus the ultimate cause is found in humans instead of in grace as the grace is no more effectual in one person as it is in any other person.

For your argument to be valid you must deny that humility and repentance are conditional causes for election but rather they are the results of distinguishing grace.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Would this be a good example of God's determination that you object to?:

I don't object to any of God's determinations, why would I?

The O.P. itself seems to be something of an objection to what the poster believes to be one of God's determinations.

This is precisely why, in my first response I asked the O.P'er this question:

"Why does that seem to bother those of your Theological conviction so much"?

Does that bother you that Christ spoke in riddles and dark sayings to the multitudes with the intent that they NOT understand, and yet privately He expounded all things to His disciples? It was God's desire that they NOT COMPREHEND the teaching.

Not in the least:

I'm a gentile, I'm rather o.k. with him putting them aside (for a time) so that I might be grafted in. It works out in my favour quite nicely.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

And the lump of clay is nothing more than that, a lump of clay.

Paul was anti Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe him to be the Messiah. He did not believe him to have been raised from the dead, yet he believed in the resurrection, if I understand correctly.

That was the lump of clay which departed for Damascus that morning.

That lump of clay changed nothing. He was knocked to the ground blind, hearing a voice which said I am Jesus.

God remolded the lump of clay that day and the lump of clay had nothing to do with the remolding. It was elected for the purpose of God.

I like this. Very good way to put it.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't object to any of God's determinations, why would I?

The O.P. itself seems to be something of an objection to what the poster believes to be one of God's determinations.

This is precisely why, in my first response I asked the O.P'er this question:


Not in the least:

I'm a gentile, I'm rather o.k. with him putting them aside (for a time) so that I might be grafted in. It works out in my favour quite nicely.

You're OK with God's predetermination to send Jews to hell if that means that you, a Gentile, gets to go to heaven? Skandelon has no problem with God's choosing and you've no problem with God's predetermination. hmmm. I guess I'm a little confused. I got the impression somewhere that you were a fire breathing Calvinist-slayer of the same caliber as Winman.

 

[Winman]

I got the impression somewhere that you were a fire breathing Calvinist-slayer of the same caliber as Winman.

Yeah, nothing I enjoy more than taking our some limp-wristed Calvinist like this;



Now, that's good honest fun! :thumbsup:

 

[Inspector Javert]

You're OK with God's predetermination to send Jews to hell if that means that you, a Gentile, gets to go to heaven?

I don't believe that God was pre-determining to send those same Jews to hell. (Or at least any Jews who were not already beyond the hope of repentance and salvation and had therefore been duly left in their sin).

I believe he was blinding them (for a time) so that they would crucify him, and so he could provoke them to jealousy by grafting in Gentiles.

i.e.: The book of Romans and what-not.

Skandelon has no problem with God's choosing and you've no problem with God's predetermination. hmmm. I guess I'm a little confused. I got the impression somewhere that you were a fire breathing Calvinist-slayer of the same caliber as Winman.

Perhaps then, you don't quite understand everything that non-Calvinists believe on these topics. Maybe, it would be helpful to get their take on what they believe God's determinations are and have been rather than some Calvinist caricature of them.

God has determined many things:
But, I don't believe that pre-determining who would, or would not have the opportunity to turn from sin and repent was one of them.

 

[percho]

Yeah, nothing I enjoy more than taking our some limp-wristed Calvinist like this;



Now, that's good honest fun! :thumbsup:

Got that one, didn't ya?

 

[kyredneck]

I don't believe that God was pre-determining to send those same Jews to hell. (Or at least any Jews who were not already beyond the hope of repentance and salvation and had therefore been duly left in their sin).

I believe he was blinding them (for a time) so that they would crucify him, and so he could provoke them to jealousy by grafting in Gentiles.

i.e.: The book of Romans and what-not.

Perhaps then, you don't quite understand everything that non-Calvinists believe on these topics. Maybe, it would be helpful to get their take on what they believe God's determinations are and have been rather than some Calvinist caricature of them.

God has determined many things:
But, I don't believe that pre-determining who would, or would not have the opportunity to turn from sin and repent was one of them.

He ‘predetermined’ as far back as Isa 6:9 to hide the truth in riddles from them so that they would not understand, and then turn, and then be healed.

9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed. Isa 6

He ‘fixed it’ so that they would not believe, and repent, and confess Christ, and these are all things one must do to go to heaven, and they didn’t do it, so the Jews on the whole have been going to hell for the past two millennia now (not just “for a time” as you say, it’s been two millennia; a whole lot of Jews can go to hell in two thousand years).

And because they did not believe, and repent, and confess Christ He kicked them out of the kingdom of God into the outer darkness. Everybody knows that entering the kingdom of God is the same as going to heaven. By their being kicked out of the kingdom it provided the opportunity for us Gentiles to step in and take their place (oooou, sounds like they were ‘replaced’, doesn't it?). Now it’s our turn to go to heaven while they go to hell. Pretty cool isn't it?

11 And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven:
12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Mt 8

28 There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without.
29 And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. Lu 13

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Mt 21

 

[Winman]

I understand blinding and hardening a little differently from most. I do not believe God ever determined anyone would be damned, including Pharaoh, or Judas. God simply knew they would reject the gospel, therefore it was not unjust to use them to further his plans.

Exo 3:17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.
18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.
20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.

The Calvinist doesn't like the concept of foreknowledge, because it explains a lot. It explains how God can harden Pharaoh without being the cause of sin.

Did God say here he would cause Pharaoh not to let Israel go? No, it simply says God was "sure" that Pharaoh would not let Israel go. This is foreknowledge.

The same was true with Judas, God knew beforehand he would not believe and that he would betray Jesus.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Does this verse say Jesus caused Judas not to believe and to betray Jesus? NO, it says he KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING who would not believe and who would betray him. This is absolutely foreknowledge of faith (or lack of).

The scriptures do say God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but they also say Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

I believe God simply knew that the more he commanded Pharaoh to let the people go, the more and more obstinate and stubborn Pharaoh would become. Many people are like this, I can think of certain speakers for political parties who will go nuts if you say something supporting their opponents, they are completely predictable. You can easily work them up into a tizzy.

Some people are such jerks, you just know what they are going to do in a given situation.

 

[OldRegular]

Calvinists argue that God's gift of salvation is not made in the form of an "appeal" (like Paul does in 2 Cor. 5), but in an irresistible or effectual manner (often referred to as 'regeneration'). Acts 7:51, like the 2 Cor 5 passage show that God's provisions/appeals are often resisted or 'traded in for lies' but God still should be given full credit for giving them. To suggest that a man cannot believe the gospel because it wasn't able to be understood or didn't come with sufficient power to enable a response only serves give the unbelievers an excuse for their unbelief and make God's means appear to be failing or falling short. I believe God's gift, which are able to be traded in for lies and resisted, is more than sufficient to enable a response and God should get full credit for providing that gift for the world, not just a preselected few.

I'd say, we are saved by Grace through faith...as faith doesn't merit or earn one's salvation. People who ask for forgiveness don't necessarily deserve it just because they asked for it. It is still an act of Grace to save the humble.

Calvinists argue that men are unable to submit to God's law and that this somehow proves they likewise are unable to believe apart from the irresistible work of regeneration. But proof that men can't earn or merit salvation by works is not equal to them being unable to believe and request Christ's forgiveness.

Thanks Skan for your response. i can't say that I agree with everything you said but at least I understand where you are coming from and I respect that.

There is one statement you made very similar to one I have heard before that I want to give some more thought and perhaps I can respond.

I believe God's gift .... is more than sufficient to enable a response and God should get full credit for providing that gift ......