"I see no evidence in the Word that faith and repentance are gifts from God."

[Terene]

Predestination without assessing the will or actions of the person, as Calvinism flatly states (as does Scripture, Romans 9:16) pulls the teeth out of this argument.

God has in fact created everyone with the same humanity.

So that's false.

Identifying this falsehood as Calvinism is simply more falsehood from the poster.

God can indeed pronounce everyone as sinners, and some as saved in spite of their being sinners.

And that's Scriptural. We are sinners, saved by unmerited favor.

It's what Calvinism asserts.

The attempts to tar Calvinism with falsehoods are only that.

But under Calvinism, human's will is ONLY capable of doing evil, so there is no free will to begin with. In fact, under Calvinism, we are born with an evil will, and unless God somehow changes that will, we remain evil for the rest of our lives. In that case, we are never able to choose salvation because our will prevents us, and we would all end up being condemned simply because we are born with a corrupted will. How sad indeed, if humanity is in such a state. We humans are even more miserable than animals, which though are less intelligent than us, yet they are not condemned like we are for not having the willpower to accept God's salvation through Jesus Christ.

No one has tarred Calvinism with any falsehood, I merely exposed what Calvinism's teachings really imply in the logical sense. The more I do so, the more scary Calvinism becomes.

 

[spiritual warrior]

Plus: "Will what is molded say to its molder" -- God's the molder but didn't mold what's molded. Hm. Yeah.

This is getting to the point of implausibility. Paul's clear. This is chopping Scripture to try to fit something else in it. Something that's not there.

Let's look at it again...

Romans 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

First, this is not a statement of fact, as you seem to be asserting. The opening words of the sentence "What if" indicate that he is bringing up the possibility that God might do such a thing, not that He has or that He will. It is a "what if" statement, and that is all. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but what you choose to believe does not change the facts.

Second, "willing to show His wrath"...God doesn't need to show His wrath again, He has done that many times in the past and we are under grace, not law any longer...so there is no purpose. Again, this is a statement of "what if" just as "what if Spiderman battled Superman."

Third, "to make His power known"...again, God has already made His power known, He does not need to do it again.

Fourth, "fitted to destruction" does not mean what you want it to mean. It does not mean that God predestined some to wrath. The word here is "katertismena" a participial verb, case is accusative (meaning that this participial verb is functioning as a noun with action being done to it), meaning to fit, frame, or prepare (Strongs). The only problem is, Zodiates states..."where the perf. must be taken with the mid. sense in that the vessels of wrath, or the unsaved, fitted themselves unto destruction. They were not fitted for destruction by God."

Which is what I have been saying, only not as clearly.

This is born out by God's character, which many on this board seem to disavow. God desires that all men come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved, for He loves all men. God does not do things against His character, therefore He will not predestine anyone for hell, because He does not want any to go there.

Will He get what He wants in this case? No, for many are on their way...but to say that He ordains men to hell is a slap in His face. As I have stated before, there are no scriptures that indicate God has prepared anyone for hell outside of twisting them or taking them out of context...or outside the Covenant or outside of His character.

 

[spiritual warrior]

But under Calvinism, human's will is ONLY capable of doing evil, so there is no free will to begin with. In fact, under Calvinism, we are born with an evil will, and unless God somehow changes that will, we remain evil for the rest of our lives. In that case, we are never able to choose salvation because our will prevents us, and we would all end up being condemned simply because we are born with a corrupted will. How sad indeed, if humanity is in such a state. We humans are even more miserable than animals, which though are less intelligent than us, yet they are not condemned like we are for not having the willpower to accept God's salvation through Jesus Christ.

No one has tarred Calvinism with any falsehood, I merely exposed what Calvinism's teachings really imply in the logical sense. The more I do so, the more scary Calvinism becomes.

Amen!!!

 

[Brother Chris]

Calvinism does indeed say we have no free will, so where did I get the facts wrong? You do know what free wil means, don't you? Calvinism teaches that man has a will, but that will can only allow us to choose evil and never good. But that is clearly against all logic and reasoning, it not only contradicts the Word, but also contradicts reality. Calvinism paints a world where everyone is either a thief, a murderer, an adulterer or some other sinner who cannot stop doing evil. Only those who believe can choose to do good. But clearly, the reality we see is different: even those who disbelieve give alms, and condemns murderers, rapes and frauds. But under Calvinism, the reality that we see of unbelievers doing good and condemning evil should not exist, but yet it does.



Matthew 25 talks nothing about how God predestined people to salvation or destruction. It talks about the Kingdom of God and what happens when the Son of Man (Jesus) comes. In fact, Matthew 25 clearly shows that people are rejected from entering the Kingdom of Heaven because:

1) They did not have enough oil in their lamps
2) They were lazy and did not put the talents that was given to work
3) They did not do good to the poor and help the needy

None of the above even talks about God predestining people to anything. People were rejected from entering the Kingdom and were sent into destruction because of what they themselves failed to do.


Are you kidding me? Calvinism asserts "irresistable grace" and "predestination of God" everywhere. It's all over the place. If people can reject that grace or change their fate, then "irresistable grace" and "predestination of God" does not exist. And if people cannot reject the grace of God or change their fate, that means they are indirectly being FORCED to accept whatever God chooses to bestow onto them. They have no power to choose otherwise from what God has chosen for them, leaving them CHOICELESS.

What you fail to realise is, since human will is corrupted to such a huge extent that it can ONLY choose evil like Calvinism asserts, then there is already no choices to begin with. If there is only one option left under a corrupted will, there is no choosing to begin with. One option = NO CHOOSING. This is basic common sense. Since there is no choosing to begin with, we are but robots following a path that God has already chosen for us. This is the logical reasoning under Calvinism.

If human will is indeed corrupted to such an extent, then again God cannot judge people until that corrupted will is repaired. According to Calvinism, we are born with a hoplessly corrupted will, like an inherited disease we cannot shake off. God, knowing that our corrupted will is INHERITED from Adam and Eve's sin, would not be able to hold us accountable since we are BORN with a corrupted will. Being born with a corrupted will beyond our control makes us guiltless, the same reason why people born with a mental illness will be acquited from a court if their mental illness causes them to do crimes. Under Calvinism, God cannot judge anyone guilty because we are all born with a corrupted will beyond our own control. Again, this is the logical conclusion under Calvinism.


Even until now, you still reject that the Bible does acknowledge that mankind has free will? Well, I cannot help you if you have discarded your reasoning and logic and embraced a theology that goes against the reality and the Word.

It is indeed sad to see how Calvinism deludes people, because everday in this world, we see unbelievers making choices, either for good or for bad. Some unbelievers choose to live an upright life, giving alms and helping the poor through charity organisations. Other unbelievers choose to become murderers and thieves and they are then judged by unbelieving judges who use a law to condemn the guilty. Despite such glaring evidences IN THE REAL WORLD that unbelievers can choose good OR evil, Calvinism states exactly the opposite and creates an illusionised world that we can only contemplate upon. Sad indeed.


No, rather, Calvinism has blinded YOUR reasoning and logic and you cannot even see my reasoning and logic by its blinding effects.


I did not say anything about Peter. I said your interpretation is wrong. Look again at my previous post:

In 1 Peter 2, Peter is merely telling us that those people who DISOBEYED the Word were appointed to stumble, BECAUSE they disobeyed, not because God appointed them to stumble.



If they are already born with a corrupted will so helplessly corrupted, do you think they can EVER choose salvation? Sadly no, and they are condemned simply because they are not born with a will that allows them to choose salvation. Does that sound fair to you? If you were somehow among the "condemned" and you know you were born with a corrupted will beyond your control, how would YOU feel about your fate? Do you think God is being fair to condemn you when you were born with an ill-fated condition that prevents you from choosing salvation? If you think it is unfair, then you ought to think about how Calvinism has made so many people feel unfairly condemned under its assertions.


That is why Calvinism is so scary to me. Yes, under Calvinism, having the power to choose salvation is like having the power to defy people's own will. So now having the power to choose salvation is horrifying because it goes against an evil will? Wow, shocking and scary indeed. Does Calvinism think it is horrifying that people should choose salvation and escape the wrath of God? Fortunately, the real living God wants people to choose salvation and to be blessed by Him, and I thank Him and worship Him for that! Just from what you said here, I will never accept Calvinism, period!



Fallible conclusion here. No one is good does not mean no one can do good.

Sister, you can do all the humanitarian works you want, and it will not save you. Feeding the homeless, visiting the sick, etc.. does not prove the validity of your salvation, because many unbelievers do these things. Read Matthew 25:31-46 again. It says the sheep entered the Kingdom because it was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. God prepared it for them before the world was created. This is inline with the rest of scripture showing that God has chosen and predestined who will be saved and enter the Kingdom. The evidence that they were sheep [or elect] is how they treated other Christians during the tribulation period. Your love for Christians, believers, is the evidence of salvation. Jesus here is talking about helping other Christians, not philanthropy or humanitarian works. Yes, we should help the poor and needy and share the Gospel with them, but that's not what Jesus is referring to.

 

[heymikey80]

Calvinism does indeed say we have no free will, so where did I get the facts wrong?

Wrong again, Institutes 2.2.7 "man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true ...", and so since you have no source, I assume it's you simply baldly slinging around accusations with no source.

This kind of "argument" is ridiculous. You have no source, you're simply slinging slurs around. Quit it. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

You do know what free wil means, don't you? Calvinism teaches that man has a will, but that will can only allow us to choose evil and never good. But that is clearly against all logic and reasoning, it not only contradicts the Word, but also contradicts reality.

"No one is good, except God alone."

Trying to set an action or a desire on a balance and determine whether it "has any good in it" is the problem. Both of us agree that there is some parts good on this measure in everything that exists, because it's from God.

But therein lies the problem: there is corruption also in everything that exists, because it's fallen.

What is it when you do good things for bad reasons, or bad things for good reasons? May I murder people righteously? May I give for dishonest gain and be rewarded for it? May I be a hypocrite? Or is that hypocrisy reserved by Jesus as being the worst possible sin?

No, a just judgement is pervasive. And it leaves us entirely at fault.

This isn't something lost on Scripture, either.

21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Rom 7

In 1 Peter 2, Peter is merely telling us that those people who DISOBEYED the Word were appointed to stumble, BECAUSE they disobeyed, not because God appointed them to stumble.

Blindness to the words of God explicitly stated deprives a theology of being from God. They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 1 Pt 2:7 God says differently from your theology. So does Calvinism. It's there. He said it. I believe it. There's no "merely" that will exclude it.

So now having the power to choose salvation is horrifying because it goes against an evil will[/B]? Wow, shocking and scary indeed. Does Calvinism think it is horrifying that people should choose salvation and escape the wrath of God? Fortunately, the real living God wants people to choose salvation and to be blessed by Him, and I thank Him and worship Him for that! Just from what you said here, I will never accept Calvinism, period!

I was pointing out how it destroyed your viewpoint's sense of "horror!" over your not having the power to choose salvation.

Oh, and just so you know -- what you're espousing was rejected by the Council of Orange in 529 AD. In other words, it's not Christianity.

You've already proved the inconsistency of your own position, showing how good should trump choice. Calvinism also says good should trump choice, not leaving your will to go flitting through the perniciousness of randomly willing good, then evil, and never receiving a rescue.

In doing so, cow-towing to human will leaves the view of a God enslaved to human decision.

Fallible conclusion here. No one is good does not mean no one can do good.

You seem to have missed this point applied in Calvinism. Why is it that this blindness is only toward what you oppose?

 

[heymikey80]

Let's look at it again...

Romans 9:22

In order to "look at it again" you would need to look at it.

Romans 9:20-21.

"the one who molded" is a fact.

 

[Terene]

Sister, you can do all the humanitarian works you want, and it will not save you. Feeding the homeless, visiting the sick, etc.. does not prove the validity of your salvation, because many unbelievers do these things. Read Matthew 25:31-46 again. It says the sheep entered the Kingdom because it was prepared for them from the foundation of the world. God prepared it for them before the world was created. This is inline with the rest of scripture showing that God has chosen and predestined who will be saved and enter the Kingdom. The evidence that they were sheep [or elect] is how they treated other Christians during the tribulation period. Your love for Christians, believers, is the evidence of salvation. Jesus here is talking about helping other Christians, not philanthropy or humanitarian works. Yes, we should help the poor and needy and share the Gospel with them, but that's not what Jesus is referring to.

Brother Chris, I am not advocating any humanitarian works to earn salvation. But even as you have said, unbelievers do know to do good to people, and thus their will is not as corrupted as Calvinism teaches - this is what I am trying to say. There is no doubt that God does choose and predestine people to salvation, but HOW God chooses and predestines people is what I disagree with about Calvinism.

 

[nobdysfool]

Brother Chris, I am not advocating any humanitarian works to earn salvation. But even as you have said, unbelievers do know to do good to people, and thus their will is not as corrupted as Calvinism teaches - this is what I am trying to say. There is no doubt that God does choose and predestine people to salvation, but HOW God chooses and predestines people is what I disagree with about Calvinism.

Disagreement is fine, the problem comes when those with whom one disagrees are told that they are believing doctrines of demons, false doctrines, etc., and the support given for those claims show a clear and obvious lack of correct knowledge about what is being opposed. How can one say with certainty that another's beliefs are doctrines of demons, false doctrines, and the like, when that person does not even have correct knowledge of what they oppose? What we have seen is very cursory, surface readings of select scriptures, taken out of context, and an ignorance of language idioms, leading to misinterpretations of what is said. We have also seen a very militant unwillingness to be corrected, and/or accept any responsibility for insulting, denigrating, and defaming those who have been identified by one person as believers in doctrines of demons, false doctrines, etc. The tone of the debates has been set by one person, and that tone is one of confrontation, intransigence, and hubris way beyond their years as a Christian, and a refusal to simply accept correction and learn from it, instead of the self-justification and attempts to turn around that correction onto the ones attempting to offer correction.

 

[Terene]

Wrong again, Institutes 2.2.7 "man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true ...", and so since you have no source, I assume it's you simply baldly slinging around accusations with no source.

This kind of "argument" is ridiculous. You have no source, you're simply slinging slurs around. Quit it. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

Here is my source:
Monergism :: The Five Points of Calvinism

David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas
The Five Points of Calvinism Total Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.

Calvinism already pointed out man's will is not free, so what you are saying here is not what Calvinism says. My argument stands.

"No one is good, except God alone."
Trying to set an action or a desire on a balance and determine whether it "has any good in it" is the problem. Both of us agree that there is some parts good on this measure in everything that exists, because it's from God.

But therein lies the problem: there is corruption also in everything that exists, because it's fallen.

What God made in this present age of time is corruptible, but the extent of corruption after Adam and Eve's sin none of us know. Calvinism makes a great leap trying to determine how far mankind is corrupted after the Fall, and thereby makes a great mistake and contradicts the design of God in man.

The fact is, the Word itself did not teach any of us (in specific details) how corrupted we have become after the Fall, and thus I believe it is not within our capacity to know. What we do know is that the Fall damaged our relationship with God, and Jesus the Christ came as the Mediator and Savior to restore that relationship through the remission of sins by His Blood. This is almost all we can know about the effects of the Fall, and at least at this point of time, we have not received any in depth revelation of God about how corrupted we have become. Calvinism, in trying to develop a systematic explanation about the extent of corruption, is liable to be in great error. If God did not reveal this knowledge even to His chosen apostles and prophets, I doubt a man like Calvin or even a group of Calvinists would be able to comprehend the extent of corruption.

What is it when you do good things for bad reasons, or bad things for good reasons? May I murder people righteously? May I give for dishonest gain and be rewarded for it? May I be a hypocrite? Or is that hypocrisy reserved by Jesus as being the worst possible sin?

No, a just judgement is pervasive. And it leaves us entirely at fault.

People can do good things for bad reasons, but there are also people who do good things simply because God's law of love is present in their hearts.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Romans 2:14-15)

Clearly, Paul pointed out that even unregenerate Gentiles CAN by nature do what the law requires, and they show that the law is written on their hearts with their conscience being the witness. Cornelius was one great example, who did not know the Gospel, but yet lived a life honorable to God. Now, you are going to start telling me those Gentiles are regenerated already, but that is not true. There is no evidence in the Bible anywhere that Cornelius or any other Gentile who obeys God's law were already regenerated before they heard the Gospel. No evidence at all.

This isn't something lost on Scripture, either.

21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Rom 7

This part in Romans 7 does not depict a corrupted will that cannot choose good, but rather an inclination to sin when one is under the bondage of sin and death. It is a law in the flesh that wages war against the law of the mind (the will is in the mind, remember) that causes the struggle with sin. Paul wanted to do good (his will was to do good), but the sin that dwells in his flesh compels him to do otherwise. It is sin in the flesh that compels people to sin, not a corrupted will as Calvinism asserts.

Blindness to the words of God explicitly stated deprives a theology of being from God. They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 1 Pt 2:7 God says differently from your theology. So does Calvinism. It's there. He said it. I believe it. There's no "merely" that will exclude it.

1 Peter 2 said these people were appointed to STUMBLE at the Stone, do you agree?

I was pointing out how it destroyed your viewpoint's sense of "horror!" over your not having the power to choose salvation.

Oh, and just so you know -- what you're espousing was rejected by the Council of Orange in 529 AD. In other words, it's not Christianity.

You've already proved the inconsistency of your own position, showing how good should trump choice. Calvinism also says good should trump choice, not leaving your will to go flitting through the perniciousness of randomly willing good, then evil, and never receiving a rescue.

In doing so, cow-towing to human will leaves the view of a God enslaved to human decision.

You seem to have missed this point applied in Calvinism. Why is it that this blindness is only toward what you oppose?

I see no logic behind what you are saying. What was rejected by the Council of Orange, and why, if you are willing to confide?

There are no inconsistencies in what I say, but a failure on your part to see where I am coming from. But I can understand, because Calvinism does lead people into much confusion and contradictions and it does confuse me just as much as it does you. I am fortunate though that these confusion has not blinded me from seeing its errors, and I am here just to expose those errors.

God allowing mankind to exercise their free will in no way makes Him enslaved or less sovereign. He can still intervene at any time and prevent our will from being carried out if it so pleases Him. Neither does our free will limit His actions and power in any sense. In fact, if free will does not exist in us, then a relationship of love cannot exist. Love is only possible if both parties willingly dedicate to one another without an external compulsion. If everything is already decreed by God apart from our own willingness, then there is not going to be a real relationship between God and His people.

Calvinism is blinding because it seeks to establish a knowledge system about many doctrinal areas that God has not even revealed in detail to His apostles and prophets, especially the part about Total Depravity. Even the Lord Jesus Himself did not teach us how corrupted we have become, rather He taught about His Kingdom and His Righteousness and how we can receive the forgiveness of sins through His atonement. It is needless to say that such a knowledge system that is not revealed by God is either man-made wisdom, or something much worse.

 

[Terene]

Disagreement is fine, the problem comes when those with whom one disagrees are told that they are believing doctrines of demons, false doctrines, etc., and the support given for those claims show a clear and obvious lack of correct knowledge about what is being opposed. How can one say with certainty that another's beliefs are doctrines of demons, false doctrines, and the like, when that person does not even have correct knowledge of what they oppose? What we have seen is very cursory, surface readings of select scriptures, taken out of context, and an ignorance of language idioms, leading to misinterpretations of what is said. We have also seen a very militant unwillingness to be corrected, and/or accept any responsibility for insulting, denigrating, and defaming those who have been identified by one person as believers in doctrines of demons, false doctrines, etc. The tone of the debates has been set by one person, and that tone is one of confrontation, intransigence, and hubris way beyond their years as a Christian, and a refusal to simply accept correction and learn from it, instead of the self-justification and attempts to turn around that correction onto the ones attempting to offer correction.

Truth is truth, lies are lies, there are no in-betweens. Either a doctrine is of God, or it is from demons/men, again there are no in-betweens. Having been discussing Calvinism for more than a month now, and having tackled with all sorts of arguments that come from those who support Calvinism does give people a pretty clear picture of its reasonings and teachings. I used much reasoning to expose Calvinism's errors, and whatever little knowledge I had I expoused to affirm the errors that I see. I was not afraid of making mistakes, and I did not shy away from criticism of all sorts. Even under false accusations, I advanced and made my points clear to all. Despite all that I tried to bring across, very little is done to address what I said.

On the contrary, much is said about how I am denigrating and scandalising Calvinists, and how I have a militant attitude. Yes, by all means, I do have a militant attitude, but that militant attitude is directed at false doctrines more than anything or anyone else. I am but a woman, if Calvinism is wholly biblical, I would long have been defeated in all my arguments and I would not even be here anymore. If Calvinism is true, I would be on my knees now repenting for all the foolishness I engaged in and the corrupted arguments I put across. I do mean what I say.

But what am I supposed to do, when I see nothing but contradictions in what Calvinism asserts, and when I bring forth those contradictions (with a militant attitude), people shy away from my reasoning? How am I supposed to convince myself that Calvinism is right, when none is willing to use reasoning and logic to confront me with the truth? Coupled with all these are the constant criticism I get about my attitude, and even false accusations about how I am attacking Calvinists. Why do people like to link themselves to theologies, as though any confrontation against their theology is confrontations against themselves? Theologies are altogether separated from people, and whatever attitude I demonstrate is demonstrated against theologies and how they blind people's reasonings, not people. How many times am I supposed to repeat myself?

 

[cygnusx1]

Truth is truth, lies are lies, there are no in-betweens. Either a doctrine is of God, or it is from demons/men, again there are no in-betweens. Having been discussing Calvinism for more than a month now, and having tackled with all sorts of arguments that come from those who support Calvinism does give people a pretty clear picture of its reasonings and teachings. I used much reasoning to expose Calvinism's errors, and whatever little knowledge I had I expoused to affirm the errors that I see. I was not afraid of making mistakes, and I did not shy away from criticism of all sorts. Even under false accusations, I advanced and made my points clear to all. Despite all that I tried to bring across, very little is done to address what I said.

On the contrary, much is said about how I am denigrating and scandalising Calvinists, and how I have a militant attitude. Yes, by all means, I do have a militant attitude, but that militant attitude is directed at false doctrines more than anything or anyone else. I am but a woman, if Calvinism is wholly biblical, I would long have been defeated in all my arguments and I would not even be here anymore. If Calvinism is true, I would be on my knees now repenting for all the foolishness I engaged in and the corrupted arguments I put across. I do mean what I say.

But what am I supposed to do, when I see nothing but contradictions in what Calvinism asserts, and when I bring forth those contradictions (with a militant attitude), people shy away from my reasoning? How am I supposed to convince myself that Calvinism is right, when none is willing to use reasoning and logic to confront me with the truth? Coupled with all these are the constant criticism I get about my attitude, and even false accusations about how I am attacking Calvinists. Why do people like to link themselves to theologies, as though any confrontation against their theology is confrontations against themselves? Theologies are altogether separated from people, and whatever attitude I demonstrate is demonstrated against theologies and how they blind people's reasonings, not people. How many times am I supposed to repeat myself?

My few posts to you have resulted in you not being able to decide what those scriptures I posted mean !

So , uncertainty of what texts mean verses Calvinist certainty .... you get my drift ?

You haven't got any strong arguments for why Calvinism is wrong apart from you feel it is based upon your own logic based upon your own uncertainty of the meaning of relevant texts ...

 

[Brother Chris]

Brother Chris, I am not advocating any humanitarian works to earn salvation. But even as you have said, unbelievers do know to do good to people, and thus their will is not as corrupted as Calvinism teaches - this is what I am trying to say. There is no doubt that God does choose and predestine people to salvation, but HOW God chooses and predestines people is what I disagree with about Calvinism.

Unbelievers are capable of performing acts of human kindness, we see it all the time with all the charity organizations. That's not the issue. But the "good" that they are commanded to do which is to repent and believe in Christ for salvation, that "good" they can not do because they WILL NOT do it. Unless God illuminates their minds and changes their hearts, they WILL NOT come to Christ. Again, this is only by God's grace. He doesn't have to do it, He chooses when and whom He pours His grace upon. So if He doesn't save some, He's done nothing wrong, because He doesn't have to save anyone. By grace we are saved!

 

[heymikey80]

Here is my source:
Monergism :: The Five Points of Calvinism

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.

Calvinism already pointed out man's will is not free, so what you are saying here is not what Calvinism says. My argument stands.

"The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ." Your point falls. Again. The authors here use the term very much differently from your viewpoint, yet you see the words. They're not what you assert. Actually quite the opposite.

Once more, with feeling: There are multiple definitions for "free will". Unless you can really, truly identify what definition is in use, you'll have no end of trouble trying to argue this issue. Because they mean different things.

Look at your selected text. Why would the authors specify the spiritual realm? Why would they refer solely to the will, if all were corrupt? Why? Because it's the will that is corrupted, and spiritually unresponsive to God. In that sense it's indeed free -- of God -- and bound to its own corruption.

Once again, unless you actually start considering what they're saying, and compare it with what Scripture is saying and not your own personal opinion, there won't be any Scriptural conclusion.

Let's take a peek at what Scripture does say.

15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:15-23

Pretty sound viewpoint from Scripture. Willing slaves, that's what it is.

What God made in this present age of time is corruptible, but the extent of corruption after Adam and Eve's sin none of us know. Calvinism makes a great leap trying to determine how far mankind is corrupted after the Fall, and thereby makes a great mistake and contradicts the design of God in man.

The position you're taking was rejected a thousand years before Calvin. It's not even a leap for Calvinism. It's not even a long step. It's reiteration of a position held for centuries.

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
Canons of Orange, 1-7.

 

[heymikey80]

The fact is, the Word itself did not teach any of us (in specific details) how corrupted we have become after the Fall, and thus I believe it is not within our capacity to know.

14And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." 17And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" ( Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." Mark 7

7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Rom 7

1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[a] 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Rom 8

What we do know is that the Fall damaged our relationship with God, and Jesus the Christ came as the Mediator and Savior to restore that relationship through the remission of sins by His Blood. This is almost all we can know about the effects of the Fall, and at least at this point of time, we have not received any in depth revelation of God about how corrupted we have become.

Oh, it keeps going. Isaiah 59 comes to mind. Romans 1-3 -- from which you quote shortly a couple of verses.

Calvinism, in trying to develop a systematic explanation about the extent of corruption, is liable to be in great error. If God did not reveal this knowledge even to His chosen apostles and prophets, I doubt a man like Calvin or even a group of Calvinists would be able to comprehend the extent of corruption.

Actually, any theology that doesn't sufficiently account for these passages -- that indeed asserts they don't exist -- is more liable to error than one that accounts for them.

People can do good things for bad reasons, but there are also people who do good things simply because God's law of love is present in their hearts.

Those who do good for ill reasons aren't doing good, but evil.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Romans 2:14-15)

And quite clearly Paul points out that those without law perish without law. It's only the law come to them "by the Spirit" (2:29) that is actually worth praise.

Clearly, Paul pointed out that even unregenerate Gentiles CAN by nature do what the law requires, and they show that the law is written on their hearts with their conscience being the witness.

No. He didn't. Just read him: "9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written ..." Rom 3:9-10

Paul has said no such thing. Paul has merely pointed out that Gentiles with the law written on their hearts are capable of such judgments -- and who writes it there? God does. "... circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." Rom 2:29

Cornelius was one great example, who did not know the Gospel, but yet lived a life honorable to God. Now, you are going to start telling me those Gentiles are regenerated already, but that is not true. There is no evidence in the Bible anywhere that Cornelius or any other Gentile who obeys God's law were already regenerated before they heard the Gospel. No evidence at all.

First off, trying to predict exactly when Cornelius was regenerated according to a Calvinist is a provocation to flaming. Quit telling me what I believe. You wouldn't appreciate my putting words in your mouth, and frankly, you're once again in error in the one case I can confirm: what I would say. So quit it. You're bearing false witness. That's a sin. Jesus came to take away sin.

But second, we follow the Spirit of God. John 3:8. Read it. You're trying to say Cornelius was not born of the Spirit of God. I've no reason to specify whether Cornelius was born again prior, during, or immediately after hearing the Gospel. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that "no one can say "Jesus is Lord" without the Holy Spirit" 1 Cor 12:3. So you're simply quite wrong in thinking that accepting the Gospel and thus accepting that Jesus is Lord, can be done without being born of the Spirit of God.

This part in Romans 7 does not depict a corrupted will that cannot choose good, but rather an inclination to sin when one is under the bondage of sin and death.

No, Romans 6 has it -- people have willingly presented themselves to obey sin, and on that count they are dedicated, self-willed slaves. There's no chopping up of Paul's letters. Paul is speaking in a context.

It is a law in the flesh that wages war against the law of the mind (the will is in the mind, remember) that causes the struggle with sin. Paul wanted to do good (his will was to do good), but the sin that dwells in his flesh compels him to do otherwise. It is sin in the flesh that compels people to sin, not a corrupted will as Calvinism asserts.

The Spirit of God, as Paul has been saying from Romans 2 onward, awakens us spiritually using the Law, which is spiritual. In this way our thinking becomes aware of spirituality, and can't but conclude that our neglect of spiritual reality and return to sin at its mere mention means that we're dead, spiritually.

1 Peter 2 said these people were appointed to STUMBLE at the Stone, do you agree?

They "were appointed" to "disobey the Word".

There are no inconsistencies in what I say, but a failure on your part to see where I am coming from.

There are profound inconsistencies in what you're saying, and yet when they're confronted there is but denial.

In fact you've lumped some responses of mine together without answering them. You said, "Fallible conclusion here. No one is good does not mean no one can do good." I reiterate the question: You seem to have missed this point applied in Calvinism. Why is it that this blindness is only toward what you oppose? In point of fact, a refusal to apply reasoning to your opposition with the purpose of understanding is a refusal to understand the opposing viewpoint.

In short -- we've been listening. You've been getting accurate evaluations of what's going on. What you do with it is your prerogative.

 

[Terene]

My few posts to you have resulted in you not being able to decide what those scriptures I posted mean !

So , uncertainty of what texts mean verses Calvinist certainty .... you get my drift ?

You haven't got any strong arguments for why Calvinism is wrong apart from you feel it is based upon your own logic based upon your own uncertainty of the meaning of relevant texts ...

On the contrary, I have not heard ANY reasoning on YOUR side to refute what I daringly argued with my reasoning and understanding. I am still waiting, and seeing no reasoning from you only affirms that I have spoken what is plainly true and obvious.

 

[Terene]

Unbelievers are capable of performing acts of human kindness, we see it all the time with all the charity organizations. That's not the issue. But the "good" that they are commanded to do which is to repent and believe in Christ for salvation, that "good" they can not do because they WILL NOT do it. Unless God illuminates their minds and changes their hearts, they WILL NOT come to Christ. Again, this is only by God's grace. He doesn't have to do it, He chooses when and whom He pours His grace upon. So if He doesn't save some, He's done nothing wrong, because He doesn't have to save anyone. By grace we are saved!

Brother Chris, I do agree that no one can come to Christ unless he/she hears the Gospel and God works upon his/her heart to convict him/her. But that's not what Calvinism said, at least that's not what I heard from some posters on here. According to what I heard on these forums, no one can come to Christ unless he/she is regenerated (born again) first. But we all know clearly from the Word that regeneration (through receiving the Holy Spirit) happens only after baptism, and baptism only happens after one decides to have faith in Christ. Calvinism states the exact opposite, and say regeneration (receiving of the Holy Spirit) must happen before faith in Christ, this is found NOWHERE in the Word.

Furthermore, Calvinism also asserts that God sent Jesus to save only a few elect and dooms the rest. This idea of "limited atonement" is totally false, and Paul refutes it as below:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim 4:10)

Since Paul writes that God is the Savior of all people, ESPECIALLY of those who believe, logic will tell us that "all people" refers to every single sinner in this world who ever lived. Thus, God did not send Jesus to be a "limited atonement" as Calvinism teaches, but as an atonement for the whole world.

Clearly, what Calvinism asserts is contrary to what the Word teaches. So which one is right? You decide.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Calvinism does indeed say we have no free will, so where did I get the facts wrong? You do know what free wil means, don't you? Calvinism teaches that man has a will, but that will can only allow us to choose evil and never good. But that is clearly against all logic and reasoning, it not only contradicts the Word, but also contradicts reality. Calvinism paints a world where everyone is either a thief, a murderer, an adulterer or some other sinner who cannot stop doing evil. Only those who believe can choose to do good. But clearly, the reality we see is different: even those who disbelieve give alms, and condemns murderers, rapes and frauds. But under Calvinism, the reality that we see of unbelievers doing good and condemning evil should not exist, but yet it does.

Anyone with Calvinistic beliefs whom deny human responsibility are in error. From such errors have come beliefs denying the need to evangelize to the lost. Such an error makes prayer pointless. Have you read the section in the Westminster Confession of Faith On Free Will?

Of Free Will

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.

Presbyterians (such as I) affirm the WCF, and it states plainly, "by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good" qualifications notwithstanding. Presbyterians are indeed Calvinists, so I do believe you have some facts wrong somewhere in your thinking concerning Calvinism. Please do not impose a philosophical fatalism upon Calvinism which is clearly not there.

In philosophical terms, historical Calvinism's view of the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of human beings in terms of the will, is called compatibilism. I first learned about this middle view between libertarian free will and determinism through Calvinist Matt Slick's site. Here is how Matt states it:

"Within Christian theology, compatibilist free will is the philosophical position which states that a person who is a sinner and an unbeliever is not capable by an act of his or her free will to choose to receive Christ as Savior. Compatibilism states that the biblical revelation restricts a non-saved person from being able to freely choose to receive Christ of his own free will, because his free will is enslaved to sin (Romans 6:14-20) and is incapable of understanding and receiving spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).

Libertarian free will
Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to fallen nature and desires

Compatibilist free will
Free will is affected by human nature but person cannot choose contrary to the fallen nature and desires

Logically, someone could not make a choice contrary to his own nature. Furthermore, a person cannot make a choice if a person is not aware of the options. First of all, a person must be made aware of the concept or idea before a choice can be made. However, the Scriptures do declare that the unbeliever is a slave of sin and cannot receive spiritual things. Therefore, compatibilist free will is the biblical position." - Matt Slick owner of CARM (he also has a messageboard)

Now, there is yet another aspect of Calvinism which has a role in the discussion of "free will" and that is what is in theological terminology is called "common grace". Without going into great detail, because of common grace, (part of which is being made in the image of God) the unregenerate can within their nature will to do good, at least in man's eyes, however there is a catch, nothing they do can please God, because they lack saving faith in Christ. As such their good works are dead because they are spiritually dead. It is also because of common grace, the law of God written on the hearts of men that evil is restrained, and the unregenerate sinner though evil and corrupt, is not utterly corrupt, nor as evil as they could be. On that note, "total depravity" is somewhat of a misleading phrase, but it is properly defined from a compatibilist perspective of the will, the type of compatibilism we find in Scripture.

So, on doing good, we should make a Creator-creation distinction, that is, how "good" is defined by God per Bible, and how "good" is defined by man per self. From the biblical perspective concerning good works, as the Apostle Paul say's "for whatever is not from faith is sin." And as the author of Hebrews say's "But without faith it is impossible to please Him." So, while we might see non-Christians performing "good" works by human standards, they are considered sin to God and they cannot please Him. I recommend reading the section in WCF on good works. I know these truths are difficult to accept, but they are taught from Scripture, and we should accept all of the teachings of Scripture as if we heard them from the mouth of God Himself. As the popular contemporary Christian music artist Rich Mullins sang in the song "Creed", "I did not make it, no it is making me, it is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man." May we humble ourselves before God and be open to learning by the Spirit of truth, His truth preserved for us in Scripture. Oh God please have mercy on us, by your grace, give us understanding, that we may give you all the glory, you so deserve, amen.

 

[Terene]

"The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ." Your point falls. Again. The authors here use the term very much differently from your viewpoint, yet you see the words. They're not what you assert. Actually quite the opposite.

That statement in "" has no biblical support. The Word only says:

And when He comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment

The Lord said the Spirit came to do a work of conviction on the whole world (not only the "elect"), and that conviction is what will bring sinners to Christ. I have never heard anywhere in the Word that the Spirit directly CAUSES people to repent or believe, show me some verses if you can. The Spirit merely convicts people of their guilt, and they must respond out of their own free will to repent and believe in Christ. Regeneration preceding faith is false, read my response to Brother Chris.

Once more, with feeling: There are multiple definitions for "free will". Unless you can really, truly identify what definition is in use, you'll have no end of trouble trying to argue this issue. Because they mean different things.

"Free will" is not as complicated as you try to make it, free will is simply the ability to choose freely (without force or compulsion) between at least two or more options. The conditions of free will are:

1) Existence of at least two options to choose from
2) Exercise of choosing without compulsion

If any one of the above conditions is missing/deficient, then free will does not exist.

Look at your selected text. Why would the authors specify the spiritual realm? Why would they refer solely to the will, if all were corrupt? Why? Because it's the will that is corrupted, and spiritually unresponsive to God. In that sense it's indeed free -- of God -- and bound to its own corruption.

But where is the evidence in the Word that the will is corrupted, where? There is no evidence for what that text asserts. I read on, and then that text starts talking about how we need to be regenerated before we can have faith in Christ. All these are wrong and against what the Word teaches. Regeneration happens AFTER baptism, and baptism happens AFTER faith in Christ. Peter set out the order very clearly in Acts, faith always comes first, then baptism, then finally regeneration (through receiving the Holy Spirit). Go and read Acts again, and see the error that Calvinism teaches.

Once again, unless you actually start considering what they're saying, and compare it with what Scripture is saying and not your own personal opinion, there won't be any Scriptural conclusion.

I did consider what they say, and I know it is wrong and is contrary to what the Word says. I pointed them out with the Word and not just my opinions, but no one responds to my points. So now what?

Let's take a peek at what Scripture does say.

15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:15-23

Pretty sound viewpoint from Scripture. Willing slaves, that's what it is.

Yes, people are either willing slaves to sin or to righteousness, and how can you be a willing slave when you cannot choose between different options? And how can you choose if there is only ONE option in front of you? Paul said clearly that there are always TWO options, either you be a slave to sin, or you be a slave to righteousness. You yield to one of these two options, and you become the slave willingly. If you are born with a will so corrupt that you have no ability to choose to be righteous, then in reality, there is only ONE option available for you. Then in that case, you can NEVER be a willing slave, because you only had one option and you cannot choose. Doesn't that yet again prove Calvinism wrong?

The position you're taking was rejected a thousand years before Calvin. It's not even a leap for Calvinism. It's not even a long step. It's reiteration of a position held for centuries.

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
Canons of Orange, 1-7.

Canon 1: None of the verses quoted in there even proves what it says. I see no evidence that the body and soul is "changed for the worse" from those verses. The only effect from Adam and Eve's sin that we know of from the Word is that they became spiritually dead and separated from God. This state of separation from God and spiritual deadness spread to the world, because ALL men sinned. Romans 5:12 made it clear to us that sin and death spread to all BECAUSE ALL SINNED, and not because we inherited anything from Adam or Eve's offense. That is why we need the Lord to take away our sins and regenerate us through the Holy Spirit. The first Canon is already wrong and proves nothing.

Canon 2: Romans 5:12 made it clear to us that sin and death spread to all BECAUSE ALL SINNED, and not because we inherited anything from Adam or Eve's offense. Canon 2 is wrong yet again.

Canon 3: Romans 10:20 talks about how God would send His Gospel to those who did not seek Him and how these people would accept His Gospel willingly. God is simply telling us through Isaiah that the Gentiles would gladly receive what the Jews rejected, though the Gentiles did not seek it. Yes, God showed grace to the Gentiles, and they found the Christ, but God showed grace to the Jews as well, and yet the Jews rejected their Christ. Clearly, we see that unlike what Calvinism asserts, God's grace is NOT irresistable, but in fact, His grace was rejected by His own people the Jews when they crucified the Lord. But what has all these got to do with praying to God and getting His grace? Canon 3's assertions are totally irrelevant to what Romans 10:20 talks about.

Canon 4: I cannot find that verse Prov 8:35, LXX, but Philipians does not prove what this canon says either. Philipians 2:13 talks about God working in the life of a BELIEVER to will and work His pleasure, not an unbelieving sinner. There is no mention of cleansing the will from sin in this verse at all. Canon 4 is wrong and gives a very strange conclusion.

Canon 5: I fully admit here that I do not know much about faith, its source and impartation. But nevertheless, I do believe that Ephesians 2:8 is talking about salvation by grace itself. In that verse both grace AND faith are mentioned, so if the "gift of God" refers to grace and faith, the verse should read in the plural sense. So why is the verse in the singular, and not the plural if it indeed mean that grace and faith are both gifts of God? Philipians 1:6 is also not relevant at all in proving what the canon says. Yes, even if faith is given us by God as a gift, it also requires us to actively exercise this gift. Every spiritual gift is given by God, but man is also required to exercise that gift upon his own willingness. Faith, given as a gift, if not exercised on the part of man, will not confer anything upon him.

Canon 6: This is a big stretch, and I do not see how the verses quoted prove what this canon asserts. Yes, everything good is given by God, but that does not negate the fact that man also needs to put what God gave him to use. God can give us all good things, but He does not force or compel us to use His gifts. We must use His gifts on our own accord, with our own free will. I do believe that we are given the power/ability to obey, seek, pray and do all things, but unless we exercise them on our own accord, God is going to hold us accountable for not putting His gifts to good use.

Canon 7: We need to hear the truth before we can believe it. That is what God does through His Gospel. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of Truth, and He comes to convict all men of sin, of righteousness and of judgement. I do believe that since God has clearly said that He "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4), He will give all people the ability to respond positively to His Gospel and be saved. So those who indeed are not saved rejected God's Gospel on their own accord, and they resisted God's Holy Spirit to their own destruction (as seen in Acts when Stephen was stoned by those Jews who resisted God's Spirit).

 

[spiritual warrior]

In order to "look at it again" you would need to look at it.

Romans 9:20-21.

"the one who molded" is a fact.

Very true, but since this has nothing to do with God predestining certain people for an eternity in hell, you are off base.

 

[spiritual warrior]

Amen bro !

scripture is crystal clear faith is NOT common to all men ;

You are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that all men have faith, I said that God has delivered the common faith (the system of belief - Christianity) to the availability of all men. In other words, the faith that leads us to God is made known to man...it is available to all men...in that regards, it is common - being available to all men.