Is There Faith In Calvinist System?

[Mark Quayle]

As I said if one said to 100 people he's going to give 70 of the 100 a large sum of money no one can really have FAITH . All they could have would be hope.

Salvific faith is not the product of the person, but of the Holy Spirit within the person.

 

[John Mullally]

OK. A worker for a company doesn't know that they're rights are and what belongs to them or what the company wants them to have. The union man brings out the contract and shows the individual the collective agreement that work boots are provided in the contract. He doesn't wander away just having hope the company will give him a work boot slip but he was something more substantial. He has FAITH.

Faith for salvation is similar to the faith this union man has in the collective bargain agreement. In the case of the collective bargain agreement, the man claims his work boots because they were promised as he works for the union. In salvation, a man receives salvation because he fulfilled the requirement: in Mark 16:16. He heard the Gospel message, believed it, and was baptized. The preaching of the Gospel releases the power of God unto salvation to those who believe (Acts 1:16). Also the conviction of the Holy Spirit is at work (John 16:8).

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.​

 

[Hammster]

Faith for salvation is similar to the faith this union man has in the collective bargain agreement. In the case of the collective bargain agreement, the man claims his work boots because they were promised as he works for the union. In salvation, a man receives salvation because he fulfilled the requirement: in Mark 16:16. He heard the Gospel message, believed it, and was baptized. The preaching of the Gospel releases the power of God unto salvation to those who believe (Acts 1:16). Also the conviction of the Holy Spirit is at work (John 16:8).

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.​

This makes it look like it’s for those who are smart enough to understand the contract.

 

[Bobber]

This makes it look like it’s for those who are smart enough to understand the contract.

You're suggesting it's some type of difficult thing.

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph 2: 12

 

[Bobber]

According to Moses, with whom God spoke on a regular basis, Abraham believed (which is not performance) and it was credited/imputed to him as (forensic) righteousness of justification (dikaiosis). (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).

Yes it IS a perfomance. It's not a performance of a work of a law but a performance in the walk of faith.

One can see what Abraham did and that took an action.

And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; Rm 4:19

He chose not to be weak in faith. He chose to line up his thinking with God. He began praising God choosing not to walk in doubt and unbelief.

 

[Hammster]

You're suggesting it's some type of difficult thing.

Not at all. But according to your analogy, someone who refuses the benefit must be pretty dumb.

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph 2: 12

Notice who did what.

 

[Bobber]

Not at all. But according to your analogy, someone who refuses the benefit must be pretty dumb.

And for the record I never used a rhetoric using words like pretty dumb. That's how you've chosen to say it.

Notice who did what.

So tell me your point.

 

[Hammster]

And for the record I never used a rhetoric using words like pretty dumb. That's how you've chosen to say it.

You don’t have to. If someone is offered a great gift for free, and they refuse it, how would you classify them?

So tell me your point.

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands⁠— remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
— Ephesians 2:11-13

The Gentiles were included by the blood of Christ. It wasn’t something they did. The passage talks about removing the wall between Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Bobber]

But once again, to answer your questions: God chooses whom he does, for their use and to their end, to display his mercy, power, justice, purity and wisdom.

What do you mean MERCY. These of course are packaged answers given by Calvinist that you say them and expect people should just rally behind the wonderful sounding statement.

So tell me. According to Calvinism. You have 10 sinners. According to you as a Calvinist it takes what you call IRRESITIBLE grace to be imparted to all of them for any of them to be saved. So he's willing to impart that to 3 of them but not the other 7. So if it's these people in the water that need to be rescued so he has the ability to rescue all of them by his imparting in them what you say he must impart but doesn't do it. He lets the majority of them drown when he didn't need to ???


So how can you use such wonderful sounding words that he saves the 3 to display his MERCY. He would NOT be looked upon as merciful and by the law of the sea he'd be brought up on charges. You yourself I highly doubt would be standing behind a statement Look at what a merciful person he was. For the rest of that man's life he'd be seeking to live down the shame he brought upon himself.

 

[Hammster]

What do you mean MERCY. These of course are packaged answers given by Calvinist that you say them and expect people should just rally behind the wonderful sounding statement.

So tell me. According to Calvinism. You have 10 sinners. According to you as a Calvinist it takes what you call IRRESITIBLE grace to be imparted to all of them for any of them to be saved. So he's willing to impart that to 3 of them but not the other 7. So if it's these people in the water that need to be rescued so he has the ability to rescue all of them by his imparting in them what you say he must impart but doesn't do it. He lets the majority of them drown when he didn't need to ???


So how can you use such wonderful sounding words that he saves the 3 to display his MERCY. He would NOT be looked upon as merciful and by the law of the sea he'd be brought up on charges. You yourself I highly doubt would be standing behind a statement Look at what a merciful person he was. For the rest of that man's life he'd be seeking to live down the shame he brought upon himself.

What makes them deserving of rescue?

 

[Bobber]

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands⁠— remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
— Ephesians 2:11-13

The Gentiles were included by the blood of Christ. It wasn’t something they did. The passage talks about removing the wall between Jews and Gentiles.

Sure God's plan was to remove the wall betwen the Jews and Gentiles.

All of them however Jew and Gentile need to come into agreement with what God said by believing in their heart and confessing with their mouth the Lordship of Christ. That is something they had to do .

 

[Bobber]

What makes them deserving of rescue?

So would you buy that argument from the Captain of a rescue boat who refused to rescue the whole lot? If he stood in a court and challenged the judge, "What make you think they deserved being rescued?" I don't believe you'd accept that but you put this in a religious setting where you'd like to defend a paradigm way of thinking all the sudden for whatever reason to you it makes sense.

 

[Hammster]

Sure God's plan was to remove the wall betwen the Jews and Gentiles.

All of them however Jew and Gentile need to come into agreement with what God said by believing in their heart and confessing with their mouth the Lordship of Christ. That is something they had to do .

Right.

 

[Hammster]

So would you buy that argument from the Captain of a rescue boat who refused to rescue the whole lot? If he stood in a court and challenged the judge, "What make you think they deserved being rescued?" I don't believe you'd accept that but you put this in a religious setting where you'd like to defend a paradigm way of thinking all the sudden for whatever reason to you it makes sense.

Maybe I should be clearer. Why are enemies of God, those who hate Him, deserving of rescue?

 

[John Mullally]

Maybe I should be clearer. Why are enemies of God, those who hate Him, deserving of rescue?

In Calvinisim, God creates “yes-men” with an “Irresistible Grace” and they indicate that God cannot get any man to love Him apart from using irresistible-means - which would be embarrassing, shameful, unethical, immoral, hardly glorious and frankly very insulting to God. At best, it would be analogous to brainwashing and at worst, comparable to using a date-rape drug. Thankfully, Irresistible Grace doesn’t appear to be anything on God’s realm of thinking.

In Ezekiel 18:30-32, God promises to change man's nature ((giving him a new heart and a new spirit) if he repents. That is incompatible with Calvinist "Irresistable Grace" and shows that natural man can repent without God first changing their character.

Ezekiel 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”​

 

[Hammster]

In Calvinisim, God creates “yes-men” with an “Irresistible Grace” and they indicate that God cannot get anyone to love Him apart from using irresistible-means - which would be embarrassing, shameful, unethical, immoral, hardly glorious and frankly very insulting to God. At best, it would be analogous to brainwashing and at worst, comparable to using a date-rape drug. Thankfully, Irresistible Grace doesn’t appear to be anything on God’s realm of thinking.

In Ezekiel 18:30-32, God promises to change man's nature ((giving him a new heart and a new spirit) if he repents. That is incompatible with Calvinist "Irresistable Grace" and shows that natural man can repent without God first changing their character.

Ezekiel 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”​

I asked a specific question to Bobber based on something he said. I don’t mind if you respond, but could you be courteous enough to actually answer the question?

 

[John Mullally]

I asked a specific question to Bobber based on something he said. I don’t mind if you respond, but could you be courteous enough to actually answer the question?

You don't have to be deserving or smart to receive God's gift of eternal life. I have never heard any Christian argue for that. Please get to your point.

The Bible presents eternal life as a free gift. Romans 6:23 states: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” So, if we meet God’s condition for eternal life according to John 3:16, by believing in Jesus, and thereby receive God’s free gift, can it be said that we thus earned salvation or in any way contributed to our salvation?

If a gift could be earned, then it is no longer a gift but a payment due. For instance, when the Prodigal Son returned home after squandering his share of the inheritance, humbly asking his father to make him as one of his servants, can it reasonably be said that the Prodigal Son contributed, caused, earned or in any induced his father to shockingly put the ring back on his finger, kill the fatted calf and throw a celebration party? (See Luke 15:11-32.) That type of unexpected welcome was completely the father’s grace and choice. If anything, the Prodigal Son possibly deserved to be stoned to death. So, too, when the penitent sinner comes to Christ, our submission doesn’t merit, cause or contribute to God’s grace.

Calvinists argue that if God’s free gift of eternal life could be refused, then conversely its acceptance necessarily establishes credit for the receiver, who thus can comparatively boast of their good, wise and smart choice to accept it, in comparison to others who reject it. However, in order to correct this type of thinking, ask the Calvinist to take the following challenge, to show their logic in action: Upon receiving a wedding anniversary gift from their spouse, tell their spouse that they are taking credit for their spouse’s gift since it is being freely accepted, and also add that the gift is not truly gracious, since it is a gift that can be refused.

 

[Hammster]

You don't have to be deserving or smart to receive God's gift of eternal life. I have never heard any Christian argue for such.

The Bible presents eternal life as a free gift. Romans 6:23 states: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” So, if we meet God’s condition for eternal life according to John 3:16, by believing in Jesus, and thereby receive God’s free gift, can it be said that we thus earned salvation or in any way contributed to our salvation?

If a gift could be earned, then it is no longer a gift but a payment due. For instance, when the Prodigal Son returned home after squandering his share of the inheritance, humbly asking his father to make him as one of his servants, can it reasonably be said that the Prodigal Son contributed, caused, earned or in any induced his father to shockingly put the ring back on his finger, kill the fatted calf and throw a celebration party? (See Luke 15:11-32.) That type of unexpected welcome was completely the father’s grace and choice. If anything, the Prodigal Son possibly deserved to be stoned to death. So, too, when the penitent sinner comes to Christ, our submission doesn’t merit, cause or contribute to God’s grace.

Calvinists argue that if God’s free gift of eternal life could be refused, then conversely its acceptance necessarily establishes credit for the receiver, who thus can comparatively boast of their good, wise and smart choice to accept it, in comparison to others who reject it. However, in order to correct this type of thinking, ask the Calvinist to take the following challenge, to show their logic in action: Upon receiving a wedding anniversary gift from their spouse, tell their spouse that they are taking credit for their spouse’s gift since it is being freely accepted, and also add that the gift is not truly gracious, since it is a gift that can be refused.

I asked. I supposed I can’t make you answer. Anyway, good day to you.

 

[John Mullally]

Maybe I should be clearer. Why are enemies of God, those who hate Him, deserving of rescue?

You don't have to be deserving or smart to receive God's gift of eternal life. I have never heard any Christian argue for that. Please get to your point.

I asked. I supposed I can’t make you answer. Anyway, good day to you.

God is good, so by definition the enemies of God are not deseving of anything from God as they would have to be evil. Bobber did not say anything to lead anyone to think man's rescue was deserved. That man is not deserving is well understood by all and is not a contentious issue. Therefore, it is a waste of time asking that. Good day. I am not leaving the forum.

 

[Hammster]

God is good, so by definition the enemies of God are not deseving of anything from God as they would have to be evil. This is well understood by all and is not a contentious issue. Therefore, it is a waste of time asking that. Good day. I am not leaving the forum.

So if no one is deserving, is God unjust if He doesn’t try to save everyone?