The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

[bcbsr]

False. God's eternal and unconditional election is based on his foreknowledge. Or, it is more proper to say that his election is where his foreknowledge is based. Either way you argue, we don't deny foreknowledge and election hand with hand.

Edit: there is no point in arguing with someone like him.

Well let's do a simply wikipedia on "Calvinism"

This choice by God to save some is held to be unconditional and not based on any characteristic or action on the part of the person chosen. This view is opposed to the Arminian view that God's choice of whom to save is conditional or based on his foreknowledge of who would respond positively to God.

So you're an "Arminian"?

 

[bcbsr]

We hold that a sinner is justified before God by receiving the lord Jesus thru faith!

Yet prior to the elect coming to faith, were they in any danger of going to hell (according to Calvinism)?

 

[YeshuaFan]

bcbsr,

Have you ever thought that foreknowledge may mean something different than foresight? I briefly mentioned this in another forum where a topic like this is properly discussed. I argued thus:

In Calvinism, foreknowledge is understood to be the same as personally known or loved beforehand, rather than foreseeing some event in the future. Whenever foreknowledge is used in Scripture, it is always in relation to a person, rather than what the person does. God foreknew his elect, and saved them in that love he had for them before they were born. We are commanded in Scripture to grow in the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and this is not talking about mere information (2 Peter 3:18, etc).

"We love because he first loved us." - 1 John 4:19

What are your thoughts on this?

We hold that God decided freely Himself to place the elect into a Covenant relationship with himself, so by His own will He causes us to be enabled and willing to accept Jesus to save us!

 

[HosannaHM]

That doesn't follow. I've taken the Calvinist premise and shown where it logically leads. They have provided no evidence that I have misrepresented the premise. Because I know Calvinism. While they are disturbed as to where I show where that premise logically leads, they have provided no evidence that the logic, the reasoning, itself is wrong.

All they've done so far is make vain propositions that I have presented a straw man argument, or simply propose that I am wrong, but have provided no evidence, neither of misrepresenting the premise nor any evidence that my conclusion doesn't logically follow.

And that fact, so far, speaks for itself, as to how Calvinists defend Calvinism.

Even though you will believe I am making your point, I’ll say it anyway:

Friend, that’s nonsense.

 

[YeshuaFan]

That doesn't follow. I've taken the Calvinist premise and shown where it logically leads. They have provided no evidence that I have misrepresented the premise. Because I know Calvinism. While they are disturbed as to where I show where that premise logically leads, they have provided no evidence that the logic, the reasoning, itself is wrong.

All they've done so far is make vain propositions that I have presented a straw man argument, or simply propose that I am wrong, but have provided no evidence, neither of misrepresenting the premise nor any evidence that my conclusion doesn't logically follow.

And that fact, so far, speaks for itself, as to how Calvinists defend Calvinism.

We do not hold to fatalism, as all who are saved/lost are making that decision to reject/receive Jesus Christ! God is forcing none to go to hell, as all going there are "freely deciding"

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yet prior to the elect coming to faith, were they in any danger of going to hell (according to Calvinism)?

All of us are born in a guilty position as being spiritually dead in our sins due to the fall!

 

[bcbsr]

We do not hold to fatalism, as all who are saved/lost are making that decision to reject/receive Jesus Christ! God is forcing none to go to hell, as all going there are "freely deciding"

I was talking about Calvinism, where a person's fate is not left in the hands of human decision as you propose, but God imposes their fate even prior to their birth, and no based on his foreknowledge of future events.

 

[Jonaitis]

We hold that God decided freely Himself to place the elect into a Covenant relationship with himself, so by Hos own will he causes us to be enabled and willing to accept Jesus to save us!

Yes, the Pactum Salutis (covenant of redemption) establishes the redemption of the elect through Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension as that which is the driving purpose of history. God’s decree is that from fallen humanity, the Son, empowered by the Spirit, should redeem a specific number of his own people to be granted to him as a reward for the completion of his work on their behalf. The Spirit brings every one of them to faith under the faithful preaching of the gospel.

This was done by his free and sovereign will, apart from anything God would ever find in us, from us, or about us. He loves us, not based on what we would do, but in his own free love and will toward us in Christ before the world was laid.

 

[bcbsr]

All of us are born in a guilty position as being spiritually dead in our sins due to the fall!

That's another issue I have with Calvinism, the proposition of God reckoning people guilty of crimes they didn't actually commit. Best to start a new thread on that subject.

 

[Tree of Life]

The Hypocrisy of Calvinists

Under Calvinism salvation is not by faith in Christ, but rather by a pre-birth election whereby God arbitrarily decides ones eternal fate, and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of some future faith. Thus people are born ether saved and eternally secure or unsaved and eternally damned, there being nothing they can do to change that fate in either instance.

Yet when asked the question, as the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?", the typical Calvinist will answer as the apostle, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved?" ("Believe" being in the imperative in the text and not subjunctive as if saying "if you were to believe", and thus, being imperative, indicating to the man that there is something he could do to be saved, and furthermore that he was not saved until doing so).

But if Calvinists actually believed in Calvinism they would respond something like, "There is nothing you can do to be saved, for your fate was determined prior to you being born and there is nothing you can do to change that fate." That's an example of the hypocrisy of Calvinists.

There is a huge difference between fatalism and Calvinism. This OP simply demonstrates that you don't understand Calvinism.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I was talking about Calvinism, where a person's fate is not left in the hands of human decision as you propose, but God imposes their fate even prior to their birth, and no based on his foreknowledge of future events.

The sinner being saved still must receive Jesus as their Lord for salvation itself to occur, as none are just born saved!

 

[Hammster]

Yet prior to the elect coming to faith, were they in any danger of going to hell (according to Calvinism)?

Do those (in your theology) who God knows will believe ever in any danger of going to hell?

The answer is the same.

 

[bcbsr]

Even though you will believe I am making your point, I’ll say it anyway:

Friend, that’s nonsense.

Yet another example of Calvinist manner of proving ones point. You provide no evidence of what I said being "nonsense". You simply state it as a fact as if that settles the matter.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yes, the Pactum Salutis (covenant of redemption) establishes the redemption of the elect through Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension as that which is the driving purpose of history. God’s decree is that from fallen humanity, the Son, empowered by the Spirit, should redeem a specific number of his own people to be granted to him as a reward for the completion of his work on their behalf. The Spirit brings every one of them to faith under the faithful preaching of the gospel.

This was done by his free and sovereign will, apart from anything God would ever find in us, from us, or about us. He loves us, not based on what we would do, but in his own free love and will toward us in Christ before the world was laid.

Those against Calvinism many times fail to understand that we are lost sinners, bound by our affected wills by the fall, and as such, we simply cannot accept Jesus to save us , as we are those who naturally prefer darkness to light, and are spiritually dead... Never saw a dead person able to will themselves to come out of the grave!

 

[bcbsr]

Do those (in your theology) who God knows will believe ever in any danger of going to hell?

The answer is the same.

You still have failed to show how I have misrepresented the premise of Calvinism nor show where my logic as how it leads to my conclusion is wrong.

 

[HosannaHM]

That's another issue I have with Calvinism, the proposition of God reckoning people guilty of crimes they didn't actually commit. Best to start a new thread on that subject.

Are you a Pelagian?

 

[YeshuaFan]

That's another issue I have with Calvinism, the proposition of God reckoning people guilty of crimes they didn't actually commit. Best to start a new thread on that subject.

Per the Apostle Paul, there were 2 Adams, and we are either spiritual dead in first Adam, or now spiritual alive in the Second One, Jesus!

 

[bcbsr]

Those against Calvinism many times fail to understand that we are lost sinners, bound by our affected wills by the fall, and as such, we simply cannot accept Jesus to save us , as we are those who naturally prefer darkness to light, and are spiritually dead... Never saw a dead person able to will themselves to come out of the grave!

That's not the issue. The issue I pointed out is that the logical conclusion where Calvinisms leads is that a person salvation is not contingent upon their faith but upon their election, which occurs prior to faith.

Do you agree (read the OP), and if not, why not? Provide evidence.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well let's do a simply wikipedia on "Calvinism"

This choice by God to save some is held to be unconditional and not based on any characteristic or action on the part of the person chosen. This view is opposed to the Arminian view that God's choice of whom to save is conditional or based on his foreknowledge of who would respond positively to God.

So you're an "Arminian"?

The first part of Wikipedia is correct, that it is unconditional on our part in God's election.

The second part is faulty on whoever wrote it, and is assuming that foreknowledge is some sort of foreseeing certain events into the distant future. I addressed our view on "foreknowledge," and you refused it. You're not worth talking to, you have your fingers stuffed in your ears.

 

[bcbsr]

Are you a Pelagian?

Why? What does that question have to do with the OP? Do you agree with the OP? If not provide evidence to disprove it.