No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[A New Dawn]

The false dichotomy is the all-or-nothing presentation that Calvinists subscribe to.

That wasn't in regard to Calvinist doctrine, the "they" was in regard to his rebuttal(and similar methods of argumentation) to Calvinist arguments.

No, surrendering is not an action. It's the opposite of action.

Sure, but Calvinist doctrine requires us to first be regenerated before we can surrender. But there is no Biblical support for regeneration preceding faith, and no reason to suspect surrender to God's initiative requires supernatural enablement.

Do Calvinists not believe that one must be regenerated before they can believe God?

You stated that “The Calvinist position presents a false dilemma, and arguments like this play into it because they (without clarity implies you are talking about Calvinists) try to climb the mountain….”

Surrendering IS an action. Lack of action is the opposite of action. Surrendering is not a lack of action. It is an action.

What is the Ordo Salutis / order of salvation? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Ordo Salutis / order of salvation? Does faith come before regeneration?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Fervent]

What is the Ordo Salutis / order of salvation? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Ordo Salutis / order of salvation? Does faith come before regeneration?

www.gotquestions.org

Posting a Calvinist/"reformed" mouthpiece that affirms what I have said about Calvinist doctrine doesn't really address what I've said.

 

[d taylor]

Why do we have to believe or disbelieve that? It’s nothing more than a claim you made. It’s not pertinent to me in the least. It’s not a salvific issue. However, belief in Christ and eternal life is a salvific issue and there is only one way to know the truth of that, and that is the work of God on our heart of stone.

-

​

I have debated enough of the bad theological beliefs of Calvinism.

 

[A New Dawn]

Posting a Calvinist/"reformed" mouthpiece that affirms what I have said about Calvinist doctrine doesn't really address what I've said.

Got Questions is not a reformed mouthpiece, and that specific article was comparing and contrasting the Calvinist vs. the Arminian position. Had you read it you would have your answer. No matter what your theological bent is, it all happens in a split second and nobody really knows which came first, if any.

And it’s not important enough to waste this much time on. If you think it is so important that you have to expend this amount of energy into proving people wrong then I’d say your heart is in the wrong place.

 

[A New Dawn]

-​

I have debated enough of the bad theological beliefs of Calvinism.

LOL. This was YOUR analogy.

 

[Fervent]

Got Questions is not a reformed mouthpiece, and that specific article was comparing and contrasting the Calvinist vs. the Arminian position. Had you read it you would have your answer. No matter what your theological bent is, it all happens in a split second and nobody really knows which came first, if any.

They claim they're not, but its quite clear from their articles that they are. As the principle issue we were discussing was Calvinist theology, Arminianism is irrelevant.

And it’s not important enough to waste this much time on. If you think it is so important that you have to expend this amount of energy into proving people wrong then I’d say your heart is in the wrong place.

It's not about proving people wrong, it's about maintaining the integrity of God from slanderous philosophical understandings that present Him as capricious in His affairs. It's about presenting the gospel message that God has come to save the lost, and that repentance is possible for all. My issue with Calviinism is because it renders the gospel moot.

 

[Tom8907]

Yup. We are too spiritually dead.

 

[A New Dawn]

They claim they're not, but its quite clear from their articles that they are. As the principle issue we were discussing was Calvinist theology, Arminianism is irrelevant.

It's not about proving people wrong, it's about maintaining the integrity of God from slanderous philosophical understandings that present Him as capricious in His affairs. It's about presenting the gospel message that God has come to save the lost, and that repentance is possible for all. My issue with Calviinism is because it renders the gospel moot.

I’m pretty sure that God is not thrilled that you are speaking in that manner about brothers and sisters in Christ.

And again with the total misrepresentation of what Calvinism believes.

 

[Fervent]

I’m pretty sure that God is not thrilled that you are speaking in that manner about brothers and sisters in Christ.

Criticizing a doctinal stance for how it portrays God is not an indictment of those who have fallen prey to it.

And again with the total misrepresentation of what Calvinism believes.

Yet another empty accusation.

 

[A New Dawn]

Criticizing a doctinal stance for how it portrays God is not an indictment of those who have fallen prey to it.

Yet another empty accusation.

Christ came to save the lost but salvation isn’t offered to all. You are the one preaching another gospel.

Straight is the way and narrow is the gate and few there be who enter it.

He who has ears to hear, let him here.

For God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believers on him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Now when the gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as had been appointed unto eternal life believed.

None of this would have been said if salvation was for everyone.

 

[Fervent]

Christ came to save the lost but salvation isn’t offered to all. You are the one preaching another gospel.

Uh huh. Care to demonstrate this claim Biblically?

Straight is the way and narrow is the gate and few there be who enter it.

That doesn't say God bars entry.

He who has ears to hear, let him here.

Again, that doesn't imply that God is restrictive.

For God so loved the world that He sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believers on him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Whosoever? But I thought you said it's not offered to all.

Now when the gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as had been appointed unto eternal life believed.

Out of context, proof text. Which is the only way that Calvinism is sustainable.

None of this would have been said if salvation was for everyone.

No? Perhaps you should look at your own verse a little closer. Last time I checked, "whosoever" is an open invitation.

 

[A New Dawn]

Uh huh. Care to demonstrate this claim Biblically?

That doesn't say God bars entry.

Again, that doesn't imply that God is restrictive.

Whosoever? But I thought you said it's not offered to all.

Out of context, proof text. Which is the only way that Calvinism is sustainable.

No? Perhaps you should look at your own verse a little closer. Last time I checked, "whosoever" is an open invitation.

The elect ARE the whosoever since nobody seeks God. I’m sorry that you have ripped literal pages out of your Bible. I’d tape John 6 back in first.

 

[Fervent]

The elect ARE the whosoever since nobody seeks God. I’m sorry that you have ripped literal pages out of your Bible. I’d tape John 6 back in first.

There you go with the false dilemma. It doesn't take seeking God to respond to God's seeking the lost. I haven't ripped any pages out of my Bible, I simply understand them in their proper context and not as theological proof texts. You malign God to fit in a theological box that makes Him into a moral monster and making a mockery of the gospel message by turning it into a false promise.

 

[A New Dawn]

There you go with the false dilemma. It doesn't take seeking God to respond to God's seeking the lost. I haven't ripped any pages out of my Bible, I simply understand them in their proper context and not as theological proof texts. You malign God to fit in a theological box that makes Him into a moral monster and making a mockery of the gospel message by turning it into a false promise.

Responding to God drawing you isn’t seeking, though it can resemble seeking to people. The point is you can’t seek if God isn’t drawing. It isn’t a two-way street. God is the author and finisher of our faith. Alpha and Omega. Beginning and End.

Here is the most important verse in the Bible:
We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19

 

[Fervent]

Responding to God drawing you isn’t seeking, though it can resemble seeking to people. The point is you can’t seek if God isn’t drawing. It isn’t a two-way street. God is the author and finisher of our faith. Alpha and Omega. Beginning and End.

I agree, it's not seeking. But Calvinism doesn't even allow for people to offer an authentic response, they have to be coerced. And it paints God as capricious, malicious, and untrustworthy in a variety of different ways. It is built on false philosophical premises, and then bends the Bible to suit those premises through proof texting and renders the entire Bible a sham because the God Calvinism portrays is the author of sin so nothing he produces is trustworthy not even the Bible.

Here is the most important verse in the Bible:
We love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19

That doesn't really say anything about the truth or falsity of Calvinism, as it is all of Christianity that proclaims that God takes the initiative. To say otherwise is Pelagianism, which the ancient church anathematized while maintaining the reality of free will.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

the main point is, when you offered yourself to someone as an obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey. Either Sin or Righteousness. Romans 6

Being slaves to Sin means you'll never do anything right before God, as Sin is your Master. Romans 3:9-18. the end result is Death.

That is YOU saying that, not scripture. A person can change their mind and repent and decide they don't want to be a slave to sin anymore after heading the good news of the gospel along with the bad news of what will happen if they don't accept it.

But being slaves of God means you're not "continues" in Sin as you used to be but you become to live "righteous" which leads to "holiness" and the end result is "Eternal life".

Oh, and that's just all automatic, eh? Where does scripture teach that? Why all the warnings to believers about being careful to keep our faith and watch that we're not deceived and so on if we are guaranteed to live righteous which leads to holiness? There's so much scripture you are overlooking here.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Even the verse they are abusing doesn't mean what they are implying with it....as in both places where it appears it is about showing mercy to someone that the person receiving the message doesn't want God to show mercy to. In the case of Romans, it's addressing the Jewish hostility to embracing the Gentiles since they believed that God owed them vengeance as they saw the Gentiles as their oppressors. It is not a statement of God restricting His mercy, but being more merciful than human beings would like Him to be.

That's a good point. Calvinists do not recognize that what Paul was talking about in Romans 9 was God having the right to bring salvation to the Gentiles as well, which many Jews objected to.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

What Paul was talking about in Romans 9 has nothing to do with God supposedly having the right to choose, for reasons He only knows, to have mercy on and save some while hardening and withholding salvation from the rest. It has to do with God having the right to call Gentiles to salvation and not just Jews. Many Jews questioned God about that, but who are they to question God and who He can offer salvation to? He offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Nonsense. Christ’s sacrifice would be sufficient for all the sins on earth no matter how many they are because that is the nature of His sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice, though, is only for those who believe on Him, though, because that is what God decreed, no matter how much you don’t like it.

Talk about nonsense. You think that His sacrifice was sufficient for all, but that God purposely made it so that not all would have the opportunity of having their sins forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice. You can't get any more nonsensical than that. You make God out to be a cruel "God" who deceptively made it as if all could be saved and have their sins forgiven only to secretly decide to not even give some (most?) people even an opportunity to have Christ's sacrifice atone for their sins.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Having the gift of the Holy Spirit with you means precisely that you are NOT a slave to sin, and you can choose to repent and put that sin off. Unbelievers are slaves to sin because they don’t have the gift of the Holy Spirit with them and they are slaves to their fallen sinful nature. All their choices will proceed from that place.

Jesus calls all sinners to repentance and fully expects that all sinners are capable of answering His call. He said that sinners are sick and in need of the physician.

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

A sick person is fully capable of recognizing and acknowledging that they are sick and cannot heal themselves and instead need the physician to heal them. Since Jesus said sinners are sick, then that means sinners (all people are sinners - Romans 3:23) are fully capable of recognizing and acknowledging that they are spiritually lost and cannot save themselves and instead need Jesus to save them and His blood to cover their sins.

What you are saying comes only from your own imagination and is not taught anywhere in scripture. Which is why you didn't offer any scripture to back up what you said.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Reformed theology teaches that God created man (man and woman created He them) and said it was good. Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden, and even being in perfect communion with God, they still chose to sin, and through them sin entered the world and man became fallen. It is our own fault that we walk in rebellion to God.

It is people like you who have created a god in their own image rather than believing in the God of the Bible yet presume to think you know God yet can’t be bothered to know that God has other attributes besides love.

This does not address what I said at all. It makes me wonder if you even read what I said.

I said..."And Reformed theology also teaches that God hates everyone else so much that He doesn't even give them any opportunity to be saved and ensures that they spend eternity in eternal torment. That is the Reformed understand of the God who is love (1 John 4:8). Unbelievable."

Do you deny any of this? What are your thoughts on what I said here? Obviously, God created man and woman and said it was good and their rebellion was their own fault. No kidding. No one is saying otherwise. How does that address what I said? It doesn't. So, please address what I actually said. Do you deny that God hates all of the unsaved so much that He doesn't even give them any opportunity to be saved and ensures that they spend eternity in eternal torment? If so, explain how you don't believe that.