Calvinism, explained.

[Patmos]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[Marvin Knox]

In the book 'hand in Hand', the Author quote R. C Sproul who said. "A calvinist not believing in all 5 points is a euphemism for Arminian." I'll check back and find the page reference when I get a moment.

Well it's good that I don't claim to believe in "Sproulism".

I do believe in the 5 points by the way. Just not as often expounded by Calvinists.

Option (A) to be born in sin. There is no other option

My apologize. I referred only to the link's words and missed your own introductory words.

Your quote above in red was not in the article you provided.

God: “You may choose between (a) or (a), and you're free to choose whichever is most compatible and consistent with your nature, but you're not free to abstain from choosing, and the choice that you make, will ultimately be YOUR choice. So what's your choice?”.....................................God: “You made your choice! YOU chose it out of your own free agency!”...............Person: “I chose (a).”..........................God: “Sure it was.”...............God: “I never said that I didn’t make a choice. I simply said that you ALSO had a choice, and YOU made your choice.”...............

One hardly knows where to begin.

Man doesn't make a choice to become a person.

Man doesn't have a nature with which to choose to become a person.

The use of the term "free agency" negates any possibility that we have been talking about becoming a person rather than already being a person and making choices.

Neither God nor any Calvinist nor any Arminian would say that a person has a choice as to whether they are born into the family of man.

It seems that you are mixing metaphors here.

If you have only been talking about being born with a sin nature - then fine. But the article talked about much more than that.

P.S
If you really have been talking about our birth condition only (the article was not) then your problem seems to be with the doctrine of original sin not anything peculiar to Calvinism.

That unfortunate situation is common to both Calvinist and Arminian alike and so is any debate about it.

No one - not even a Mormon - says that anyone has any choice what so ever about being born into the horrible situation we are born into.

By the way - no one teaches that people go to Hell simply because they were born. They go to Hell because they sin.

 

[Marvin Knox]

That makes no sense.

If God predestined an event, there is only one possible human choice that can be made.

The bible tells us that God wants all men to be saved. Unless you believe that all men are saved, then you must believe that God allows us to make choices that impact our salvation.

It makes perfect sense.

I do believe that God allows us to make choices that impact our salvation.

Neither I nor any Calvinist would say differently.

 

[Thursday]

It makes perfect sense.

I do believe that God allows us to make choices that impact our salvation.

Neither I nor any Calvinist would say differently.

What is unconditional election?

What is irresistible grace?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yes there is, Spurgeon majored on this. He said he "could not reconcile the two."...........Absolute rot. Spurgeon majored on this. He said he "could not reconcile the two." Total opposite to compatiblism.

I'm lost now.

You said before that he "taught both".

That's compatibilism.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What is unconditional election?

What is irresistible grace?

Neither unconditional election nor irresistible grace say anything about men not having an actual choice to make concerning their relationship with God.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It makes perfect sense.

I do believe that God allows us to make choices that impact our salvation.

Neither I nor any Calvinist would say differently.

No, No, No.

That is what irresistable grace is. It is no choice because it is not-ressistable. One is not able to have resistance. So, they just come to God at the right time. Does God even need to be in on this one? He might have automated the process for the chosen ones. Like a spiritual conveyor belt they hop on or something.

 

[Thursday]

Neither unconditional election nor irresistible grace say anything about men not having an actual choice to make concerning their relationship with God.

Are you sure you are a Calvinist?

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

 

[Marvin Knox]

Are you sure you are a Calvinist?

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

I try not to label myself as a Calvinist - even though I have much in common with Calvinists.

But I do know what they believe and teach.

What you just printed in this post in no way comments on whether or not men make choices for which they will be held responsible - including accepting or rejecting Christ.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No, No, No.

That is what irresistable grace is. It is no choice because it is not-ressistable. One is not able to have resistance. So, they just come to God at the right time. Does God even need to be in on this one? He might have automated the process for the chosen ones. Like a spiritual conveyor belt they hop on or something.

Of course irresistible grace isn't a choice of man. It's a choice that God makes.

How could He not be in on something that He authors in us - namely our faith.

He could have done anything He wanted to do in line with His nature. What's the point?

We are talking about what He did not what He could have or should have done- and certainly not whether you or I like it or not.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I try not to label myself as a Calvinist - even though I have much in common with Calvinists.

But I do know what they believe and teach.

What you just printed in this post in no way comments on whether or not men make choices for which they will be held responsible - including accepting or rejecting Christ.

What is there to accept? It is irresistable, they are not choosing.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Of course irresistible grace isn't a choice of man. It's a choice that God makes.

How could He not be in on something that He authors in us - namely our faith.

He could have done anything He wanted to do in line with His nature. What's the point?

We are talking about what He did not what He could have or should have done- and certainly not whether you or I like it or not.

Because then, Jesus is a liar when He said He wants ALL to come to Him.

Then it conflicts with scripture. So what did Jesus mean?

(you can Google what Calvin said)

 

[Thursday]

I try not to label myself as a Calvinist - even though I have much in common with Calvinists.

But I do know what they believe and teach.

What you just printed in this post in no way comments on whether or not men make choices for which they will be held responsible - including accepting or rejecting Christ.

Of course it does.

Do you know what irresistible means?

Why can't Calvinsts, or their sympathizers, ever admit to what Calvinism teaches? It seems you are always denying what you just argued for previously.

 

[EmSw]

No "routine" from here.

I wasn't insulted by it (or you for that matter). I just found it to be a dishonest portrayal of what predestination means.

I'm with Spurgeon on this. There is no conflict between the two.

People need to stop making it an either-or by writing dishones skits about "choice a and choice a" and other such silliness.

He didn't believe that predestination was coercive determinism nor do I.

He believed that sovereignty and free will were totally compatible one with the other.

So do I. I've been saying so here for some time.

It is only those who do not believe in predestination like Spurgeon and I do who claim that predestination means that man has no choice. Hence their silly little skits about choice "a" only and such.

So, do those who are foreordained to hell have the choice to choose heaven? Also, do those who are predestined to heaven have the choice to choose hell?

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
(http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html)

Can a man choose against God's predestination?

Oh yeah Marvin, you have neglected to answer my previous post to you.

Did God predestine you to be a lost sinner?

 

[Marvin Knox]

What is there to accept? It is irresistable, they are not choosing.

Of course they are.

They are listening to the Holy Spirit and responding by choosing to believe on Christ.

That's what the elect do.

Because then, Jesus is a liar when He said He wants ALL to come to Him.

Then it conflicts with scripture. So what did Jesus mean?

You and I both know that Jesus is not a liar.

Jesus does want all to come to Him. He even cried over Jerusalem because it wouldn't.

What conflicts with scripture?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Do you know what irresistible means?

Of course I do.

"All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me."

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

God enables and man responds.

Salvation is a two way street just as God predestined it to be.

 

[Thursday]

Of course I do.

So now you must take back your previous statement:

Neither unconditional election nor irresistible grace say anything about men not having an actual choice to make concerning their relationship with God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So now you must take back your previous statement:

Neither unconditional election nor irresistible grace say anything about men not having an actual choice to make concerning their relationship with God.

You'll have to explain what you're getting at. Your reasoning just makes no sense to me.

Unconditional election means that He did not chose to give special grace to me because of anything in me that was worthy of that gift.

Irresistible grace means that His working in me is irresistible.

Both recipients of His undeserved grace (the elect) and those who are not recipients of His grace have actual choices to make when they hear the gospel.

One will undoubtedly chose right and one will undoubtedly chose wrong. But they are their choices.

God chose me before I chose Him. But I did chose to make Him my Lord.

God did not chose Judas (apparently). Judas did chose to betray Jesus.

You may not like this doctrine. But don't try to make it something that it isn't.

If God had not chosen to bring salvation through the preaching and reception of the gospel message and instead had chosen to just reach down and zap some to Heaven or to make some reject Him and go to Hell or some other scenario --- that would be along the lines of what you are saying.

But no one teaches that - certainly not Calvinists.

 

[EmSw]

Marvin, will you not answer my question to you?

Did God predestine you to be a lost sinner?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Of course they are.

They are listening to the Holy Spirit and responding by choosing to believe on Christ.

That's what the elect do.

You and I both know that Jesus is not a liar.

Jesus does want all to come to Him. He even cried over Jerusalem because it wouldn't.

What conflicts with scripture?

That God only calls some, not all. yet Jesus said He wants all.

I don't get it. I think it's double-talk. God and Jesus can't contridict