Calvinism has its own philosophy langguage that makes things complicated and unnecessary

[Mark Quayle]

The Grace Community Church's (John MacArthur) doctrinal statement (Doctrinal Statement | Grace Community Church) says that regeneration requires action
on the individual as it occurs:
when the repentant sinner, as enabled by the Holy Spirit, responds in faith to the divine provision of salvation.

"Requires" (your word, I think --not McArthur's) is a bit vague --do you mean by that, that McArthur believes that regeneration happens because of the action of the individual, or maybe rather that the individual will necessarily as a result --indeed that if he does not, he will not have been regenerated? Notice how the individual is not even able until enabled by the Holy Spirit. According to Reformed doctrine, this enabling is the regeneration, and it WILL bear fruit.

Angels follow God, so if the Angels rejoice over a sinner's repentance, then so does God.

Of course he does, angels or not. You seem to think this has some implication on free will, as though repentance was accomplished independently of the work of God.

If God rejoices over a sinners repentance, it does not make sense that he would rejoice in a sinner's damnation. Jesus came to give life. Love does not take pleasure in evil. The devil (the opposition) comes to kill, steal, and destroy.

Who said he rejoices in the sinner's damnation?

Read it closely MacArthur's doctrinal statement shows that people do participate in their regeneration. Technically Synergism.

No. technically Synergism has to do with people participating in causing their salvation --not at all the same thing, and a denial of the core of the Gospel, that it is a free gift of God, not of works (which Synergism implies). Grace.

--Again, you can do nothing to cause God to choose you, and to bring you to himself --it is the work of God alone. The dead in sin cannot do anything for God. "Without me, you can do nothing." is not hyperbole.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Romans 9 ties in with other parts of Romans to show how God used the failure of Israel as a rationale to expand the Gospel to the Gentiles without having to teach them the law first (i.e. starting from scratch and making them Jews first).

Yes of course Romans 9 does that. I'm not saying otherwise. But it does mention that he makes some for one purpose, and some for another, and nobody has the right to say he is unfair to condemn those he made for the purpose of glorifying himself because of them. The language is pretty plain, hard to ignore, except by ignoring that it is even there.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

I don't understand why you say this. Of course non-Calvinist Christians understand sovereignty differently. They limit it --and they do so illogically and by it, make themselves a small god who must wait for them to allow him to work. It's not just sovereignty, but a whole self-important worldview they have wrong.

you need to dive in a bit deeper, there are moderate calvinist and high calvinist, and non-calvinist hold similar view as moderate calvinist where they affirm it's God's work they are saved, faith is a divine gift from God.. meanwhile high calvinist would say God didn't die for all, chose some to be saved, some to be damned for the glory of God.. tell me which early church father teach like a high mean calvinist?

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Yes of course Romans 9 does that. I'm not saying otherwise. But it does mention that he makes some for one purpose, and some for another, and nobody has the right to say he is unfair to condemn those he made for the purpose of glorifying himself because of them. The language is pretty plain, hard to ignore, except by ignoring that it is even there.

read roman 9-11, how's chapter 11 end? is roman 9 really talking about God damn ppl for his glory?

 

[All Glory To God]

you need to dive in a bit deeper, there are moderate calvinist and high calvinist, and non-calvinist hold similar view as moderate calvinist where they affirm it's God's work they are saved, faith is a divine gift from God.. meanwhile high calvinist would say God didn't die for all, chose some to be saved, some to be damned for the glory of God.. tell me which early church father teach like a high mean calvinist?

I can see you are following your Jesuit handbook correctly, unfortunately the claims you make are inaccurate.

This ''high Calvinism'' or hyper Calvinism you speak of is a very rare group of Reformed people, who believe that preaching the Gospel should be reserved to the elect only. This goes outside what is generally accepted as Reformed doctrines.

Believing Christ only died for the elect and the Grace of God is what saves, not the will of the sinner is standard Reformed doctrines. Your attempt to confuse the two hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

[John Mullally]

"Requires" (your word, I think --not McArthur's) is a bit vague --do you mean by that, that McArthur believes that regeneration happens because of the action of the individual, or maybe rather that the individual will necessarily as a result --indeed that if he does not, he will not have been regenerated?

I am going over a portion of MacArthur's doctrinal statement on Regeneration as it is written. I did not inject anything. I am pointing out actions by the individual listed in the statement that precedes (not a result of) Regeneration. If MacArthur did not find these actions crucial - why did he list them before Regeneration?

Of course he does, angels or not. You seem to think this has some implication on free will, as though repentance was accomplished independently of the work of God.

This is a chain of reasoning. Here I made a simple point (angels follow God) that you happen to agree with to get to my next point. I don't know what your second sentence here is referring to.

Who said he rejoices in the sinner's damnation?

Again I am making a point that you happen to agree with to get to the next point. The next point is that if God does not rejoice over a sinner's damnation, He does not receive Glory from it. John Calvin is mistaken!

No. technically Synergism has to do with people participating in causing their salvation --not at all the same thing, and a denial of the core of the Gospel, that it is a free gift of God, not of works (which Synergism implies). Grace.

Receiving the offered gift of salvation is not works even though the subjects will is involved. I don't know any purported mainline Protestants that say we cause instead of cooperate in our salvation. Again, MacArthur's doctrinal statement I quoted earlier shows that people do participate in their regeneration. Per his doctrinal statement Repentance and Response to the Holy Spirit are preconditions because in the doctrinal statement they precede regeneration. Webster's says Monergism is "the theological doctrine that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit". If MacArthur's doctrinal statement on regeneration is Monergism (even though the individual is involved in meeting some pre-conditions), then I also believe in Monergism because I hold to the Holy Spirit doing the work of regeneration. Neither MacArthur (per his doctrinal statement) nor I believe He will force himself on anyone.

--Again, you can do nothing to cause God to choose you, and to bring you to himself --it is the work of God alone. The dead in sin cannot do anything for God. "Without me, you can do nothing." is not hyperbole.

To start with, I don't accept your premise that God exclusively chooses who to save - read 1 John 2:2. Beyond that, this is a poor argument. Note that Jesus also said He could "do nothing of Himself".

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is a chain of reasoning. Here I made a simple point (angels follow God) that you happen to agree with to get to my next point. I don't know what your second sentence here is referring to.

Actually, no. Your logic is poor, claiming that if angels rejoice, God does. All I agreed with is that God does. Your reasoning had nothing to do with it.

Again I am making a point that you happen to agree with to get to the next point. The next point is that if God does not rejoice over a sinner's damnation, He does not receive Glory from it. John Calvin is mistaken!

In spite of your weird logic, saying I agreed with you, while I do not say that God rejoices over a sinner's damnation (even then I could get smart with you and say there is one sense in which he does, but it would involve an extrapolation that would sound like yours), I don't see where Calvin says it either. Calvin is not mistaken. Romans 9 specifically mentions God being glorified by their damnation: "21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— "

 

[Mark Quayle]

Receiving the offered gift of salvation is not works even though the subjects will is involved.

The last century, and longer, Christendom uses the term 'receive Jesus' and the like, as if THAT was what saved us. They even use the non-Biblical term, 'accept' to punctuate their point. I expect you too mean by the term 'receiving' that the act of the will in receiving produces the salvation. No, we receive, but our act of the will has no effect on our salvation --it is the work of God to place within us the Spirit of God which; we are receptacles. The act of the will necessarily results, not causes.

Again, the dead cannot do anything. The spiritually dead cannot do anything spiritually good --"The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." "Apart from me you can do nothing"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, MacArthur's doctrinal statement I quoted earlier shows that people do participate in their regeneration. Per his doctrinal statement Repentance and Response to the Holy Spirit are preconditions because in the doctrinal statement they precede regeneration. I am not injecting my opinions into his doctrinal statement - it really is that simple. Webster's says Monergism is "the theological doctrine that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit". If MacArthur's doctrinal statement on regeneration is Monergism (even though the individual is involved in meeting some pre-conditions), then I also believe in Monergism because I hold to the Holy Spirit doing the work of regeneration. Neither MacArthur (per his doctrinal statement) nor I believe He will force himself on anyone.

God no more forces himself on anyone than he forced them to exist. You would call the gift of God FORCING??? Why don't you complain that he forced them to be fallen in the first place? Where does your form of logic end?

You might notice the word "when" in his doctrinal statement. He said nothing about preceding regeneration. 'When' can indicate cause, true, but there are better words for cause. 'When' often means simultaneous activity, or resulting activity.

You might want to note the dictionary definition of synergism. In only one place have I found the vague notion that we merely 'cooperate' in our salvation. Most places I looked show meanings such as, 'the two (or more) working together to be greater than either one.' Certainly we cooperate, but not to cause, but because our nature has changed. It is a RESULT of the change.

 

[John Mullally]

Actually, no. Your logic is poor, claiming that if angels rejoice, God does. All I agreed with is that God does. Your reasoning had nothing to do with it.

If my logic is poor then you are saying Angels, who behold the face of God continually, may love that which God does not love - rejoice where God would not rejoice.

I do not say that God rejoices over a sinner's damnation ... I don't see where Calvin says it either.

Its a link in a chain of reasoning, I did not say that you or Calvin says that God rejoices over a sinners damnation.

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"

Concerning God's Will: Who is to say that the objects of his wrath, in spite of God's patience, did not prepare themselves for destruction? Sin will do it.

You would call the gift of God FORCING??? Why don't you complain that he forced them to be fallen in the first place? Where does your form of logic end?

I never linked the gift of God to FORCING. Your form of logic includes a lot of mind reading - you frequently attribute statements to me that I never came close to saying.

Certainly we cooperate, but not to cause, but because our nature has changed. It is a RESULT of the change.

It is unmistakable, MacArthur's Doctrinal statement includes some cooperation of the individual before Regeneration. Order is important.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am going over a portion of MacArthur's doctrinal statement on Regeneration as it is written. I did not inject anything. I am pointing out actions by the individual listed in the statement that precedes (not a result of) Regeneration. If MacArthur did not find these actions crucial - why did he list them before Regeneration?

SHOW me where he said that they precede Regeneration. I do not see it.

To start with, I don't accept your premise that God exclusively chooses who to save - read 1 John 2:2. Beyond that, this is a poor argument. Note that Jesus also said He could "do nothing of Himself".

You were there to help him choose you, before the foundation of the world when he chose you? --even predestined your existence and salvation?

Haha, as Biden says, "C'mon, man!"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Who is to say that the objects of his wrath, in spite of God's patience, did not prepare themselves for destruction?

Oh, I don't doubt they did! But here is says God did this for his own glory? Are you trying to move the goalposts?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Its a link in a chain of reasoning, I did not say that Calvin says that God rejoices over a sinners damnation. Here you are lecturing me on logic.

You most definitely linked them together, saying that Calvin was mistaken saying that God was glorified by their destruction, because God would not rejoice over their damnation. Don't deny it.

 

[John Mullally]

You most definitely linked them together, saying that Calvin was mistaken saying that God was glorified by their destruction, because God would not rejoice over their damnation. Don't deny it.

I never said that John Calvin said that God rejoices over a sinners damnation. You can read the Calvin quote for yourself.

I did postulate that if God does not rejoice in a sinners damnation, God gets no glory from it. If X, then Y does not necessitate If Y, then X.

 

[Mark Quayle]

read roman 9-11, how's chapter 11 end? is roman 9 really talking about God damn ppl for his glory?

Romans 9 merely mentions it, and shows the logic of why it is valid. That is not the force of the chapter, nor of the book. The force of the book does not, however negate, but affirm it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

you need to dive in a bit deeper, there are moderate calvinist and high calvinist, and non-calvinist hold similar view as moderate calvinist where they affirm it's God's work they are saved, faith is a divine gift from God.. meanwhile high calvinist would say God didn't die for all, chose some to be saved, some to be damned for the glory of God.. tell me which early church father teach like a high mean calvinist?

I don't know about your categories; you would probably say that is (or is not) high calvinist to say what I say. I refer to most of the Christians I have known as 'somewhat Calvinistic' and most as 'somewhat Arminian', to avoid saying somewhat Pelagian. Where do you get your categories for Calvinists? If they don't affirm TULIP I don't call them Calvinists, but you seem to think all but the "high Calvinists" reject "Limited Atonement".

"High mean calvinist?" --what is that? Paul teaches that God chose some for his particular purpose, others for common purpose. Paul is a church father in my book.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

You most definitely linked them together, saying that Calvin was mistaken saying that God was glorified by their destruction, because God would not rejoice over their damnation. Don't deny it.

if it's not linked it's not TULIP, that's the problem with reformed ppl

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

I can see you are following your Jesuit handbook correctly, unfortunately the claims you make are inaccurate.

This ''high Calvinism'' or hyper Calvinism you speak of is a very rare group of Reformed people, who believe that preaching the Gospel should be reserved to the elect only. This goes outside what is generally accepted as Reformed doctrines.

Believing Christ only died for the elect and the Grace of God is what saves, not the will of the sinner is standard Reformed doctrines. Your attempt to confuse the two hasn't gone unnoticed.

really? I've few calvinist friend who said Christ did not atonement for the unbeliever and died only for the elect. They can't read John 3:16 at face value..

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

I don't know about your categories; you would probably say that is (or is not) high calvinist to say what I say. I refer to most of the Christians I have known as 'somewhat Calvinistic' and most as 'somewhat Arminian', to avoid saying somewhat Pelagian. Where do you get your categories for Calvinists? If they don't affirm TULIP I don't call them Calvinists, but you seem to think all but the "high Calvinists" reject "Limited Atonement".

"High mean calvinist?" --what is that? Paul teaches that God chose some for his particular purpose, others for common purpose. Paul is a church father in my book.

God choose ppl in view of Christ, God want all to be saved.. you agree?

God didn't actively choose ppl for hell, it's ppl's fault for rejecting Christ

 

[Mark Quayle]

if it's not linked it's not TULIP, that's the problem with reformed ppl

Show your logic. To me, that does not follow.

How are they necessarily linked, if TULIP makes sense? (Or maybe I should say, What does TULIP have to do with the question of them being linked?) You need to show your work more. I'm not a mind reader.