Calvinism Question

[heymikey80]

The RT claim is that God changes a contrary heart of "stone". So that the person will believe. Which by definition would be against their will. RT can't have it both ways.

You just changed terms. Play by your rules or don't, but expect to be called on it.

If God changes a heart (regeneration) in order for the person to believe, then He is most certainly acting against that person's will. Definitely.

No, the will is freely going in one direction, then it is freely going in another. Change is change. It is not always opposition ("against") that causes change, this case it is conversion.

So basically, this is an admission that God acts against a person's will.

There's a significant difference between opposition and conversion. I'm sure even free will theologians are forced to admit this, else their attempts at conversion are nothing more than force.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You missed the distinction, and then called it doublespeak, which it is not. It is a distinction with a difference.

All distinctions have a difference. That's what creates the distinction. I still believe your post included some doublespeak. You've not shown otherwise.

I could select similar words characterizing your dismissal. I choose to defer those words out of consideration.

The only thing of important consideration on my part is truth. If I'm wrong about something, I ask for an explanation that clearly shows how I'm wrong. In fact, I would appreciate it. So please don't defer "out of consideration". Let's just consider the truth.

Many claim it is wrong for God to fatalistically force someone's actions contrary to his will, and Calvinism agrees that opposing force against conscience is wrong.

The problem continues to be that RT's view leads to God "fatalistically" forcing someone's actions against their will. If He changes a heart apart from their will, it is forced. No way around it. Only doublespeak will wiggle out of that.

Many have called Calvinism fatalism on mispresumption that it is what Calvinism states. Look it up. It is no disingenuous point to make. Calvinism revolts at this characterization. Calvinism is deterministic. It is not fatalistic.

I see 2 perspectives here. It would be deterministic on God's part, or perspective, but fatalistic per man's perspective. As in man can do nothing about it. Which is fatalism. Something done against his will. Something he didn't choose for, nor ask for. That IS fatalism.

The clear difference in Calvinism is that the Spirit of God changes the heart to a new heart of flesh, which turns in belief toward God.

And…? It's still God doing something against that person's will. No way around it.

Without such, some can change their own hearts to believe. And that doesn't square with 1 John 5:1, or John 1:12-13, or John 6:65.

Wrong perspective.

God changes the hearts of those who have believed. So the heart change isn't against their will.

The idea that changing one's heart in order for them to believe clearly violates their will, since before one believes, they wouldn't want a heart change.

 

[FreeGrace2]

God does not honor those who turn from evil, only to turn to another evil.

That wasn't the discussion. The discussion was about Isa 55:7, and those evil ones who turn to the Lord. He does honor them.

It is remarkable you would force Is 59 into a statement about the Jewish people. Are Gentiles better than they? No.

It seems you aren't familiar with the discussion. I forced nothing into Isa 59. In fact, I asked how the other poster saw what was being claimed in Isa 59.

Before you get excited about my saying the above, though, you might want to review Paul saying the same thing. And citing from Is 59.

Rom 3:9-19.

I'm quite familiar with both passages. And it seems maybe a review of what the other poster posted would be helpful in order to "enter" the discussion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You have seen all of them countless times here on this forum!

I will repeat; there are no verses in Scripture that teach that eternal life can be lost. What is quoted doesn't say what is being claimed about them.

There are all kinds of UNBELIEF.
Even BACs have unbelief in some spiritual Truths.

And the point is…?

 

[heymikey80]

Wrong perspective.[bless and do not curse]God changes the hearts of those who have believed. So the heart change isn't against their will.

Ok, happy to see you are now arguing with Jesus Himself, now, and not Calvinism. From the verses, you know Jesus states outright that without the Father's giving them to, they will not believe.

So the Father has that power and exercises it.

Please, go on with your theology, now that I know it doesn't comport with Jesus' own view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You just changed terms. Play by your rules or don't, but expect to be called on it.

I have no idea what you're charging here. Please be specific re: charges.

No, the will is freely going in one direction, then it is freely going in another.

Missing the point again. It's NOT freely going in another direction. God had to change the heart to change the direction. Did the person want to change directions? No. Did the person want a new heart? Again, No.

Change is change. It is not always opposition ("against") that causes change, this case it is conversion.

The RT view, though denied, is that the conversion is against what the unconverted person wanted. iow, God gave them what they didn't want. How is that not clear?

There's a significant difference between opposition and conversion. I'm sure even free will theologians are forced to admit this, else their attempts at conversion are nothing more than force.

I have no idea what your point is here. If God converts an unconverted person, did they want to be converted? yes or no. That's the only issue. Please answer this.

Free will theologians aren't forced to admit anything that is not true. Here is what is true. God converts believers. God regenerates believers. God saves believers.

By the time an unbeliever does believe, they WANT what God gives. And that is natural, not forced.

The problem is that RT sees belief as the last thing in the process or whatever you'd like to call it. But in fact, it comes first.

In God's plan, He promised to save believers. He never promised to make anyone a believer, which is just another way to describe Calvinism.

When a person believes, God saves, justifies, forgives, regenerates, and adopts as sons. There are verses that actually SAY these things. I've got them if you want them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ok, happy to see you are now arguing with Jesus Himself, now, and not Calvinism.

That's just hilarious.

From the verses, you know Jesus states outright that without the Father's giving them to, they will not believe.

Please show me the verse where this is clearly stated. I do not believe your statment.

So the Father has that power and exercises it.

this isn't being argued. The argument is about whether God chooses who wll believe, and whether God has given mankind freedom of choice.

 

[heymikey80]

That wasn't the discussion. The discussion was about Isa 55:7, and those evil ones who turn to the Lord. He does honor them.

Then Is 59 (a chapter distant) spoils the party. Nobody turns.

It seems you aren't familiar with the discussion. I forced nothing into Isa 59. In fact, I asked how the other poster saw what was being claimed in Isa 59.


I'm quite familiar with both passages. And it seems maybe a review of what the other poster posted would be helpful in order to "enter" the discussion.

I brought up Is 59. Your response was to me, and I responded. You have your answer. Is 59 refers to Jews, and also to everyone else, by Rom 3:9-19. Nobody escapes the Divine Inquisition. But some are favored.

 

[heymikey80]

That's just hilarious.

From the verses, you know Jesus states outright that without the Father's giving them to, they will not believe.

Please show me the verse where this is clearly stated. I do not believe your statment.


this isn't being argued. The argument is about whether God chooses who wll believe, and whether God has given mankind freedom of choice.

"It is the Spirit who gives life;the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.But there are some of you who do not believe.” And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is given him by the Father.”

John 6:65 in context.

Hilarious.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then Is 59 (a chapter distant) spoils the party. Nobody turns.

What verse actually says that? Please don't just throw in a whole chapter and make a claim about it without supporting facts.

I brought up Is 59. Your response was to me, and I responded. You have your answer. Is 59 refers to Jews, and also to everyone else, by Rom 3:9-19.

Now you throw in a passage without any explanation or exegesis. How am I supposed to follow what isn't being communicated.

I might as well say my view is supported by Gen 1:1 through Rev 22:19. It's all there. Crystal clear. That approach proves nothing.

Nobody escapes the Divine Inquisition. But some are favored.

I fail to see how this adds to the discussion. Seems irrelevant. Maybe some explanation would be helplful.

 

[FreeGrace2]

From the verses, you know Jesus states outright that without the Father's giving them to, they will not believe.

"It is the Spirit who gives life;the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.But there are some of you who do not believe.” And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is given him by the Father.”

John 6:65 in context.

Hilarious.

Yes, hilarious. Where does the verse specifically SAY that God chooses who will believe? I don't see any words that form that thought.

The Bible tells us who God chooses for salvation. It is believers. Only believers.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

It plainly says that God is pleased to save those who believe. Is His pleasure to save a choice or not? Of course it is. So this verse clearly indicates that God chooses who He will save, and it is believers. No one else is mentioned.

There are no verses that say or even indicate that God chooses who will believe, but that is the logical conclusion from the RT doctrine of election.

And what does Jn 6:65 "in context" mean? That needs to be explained. Otherwise, it's just another vague claim.

What if I said "Gen 1:1 through Rev 22:19 in context" to prove something. Would that prove anything? Of course not.

 

[stan1953]

even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved Ep 2:6
Note the past tenses, stan. Y'keep saying this is some kind of foregone future conclusion. That's parsing a clear statement of past action. Many call it eisegesis.
It's what Paul says, plainly.

It doesn't matter how many questions you ask to try and deflect, the issue is clear. Paul mostly spoke in past or present tense, but that is irrelevant.
What IS relevant is what life and death are, and they ONLY relate to the body, NOT the spirit. If you refuse to answers my queries, I feel no compunction to answer yours.
Seems even though I've explained this to you in two different threads, you refuse to see what is in front of your nose.

 

[heymikey80]

What verse actually says that? Please don't just throw in a whole chapter and make a claim about it without supporting facts.


Now you throw in a passage without any explanation or exegesis. How am I supposed to follow what isn't being communicated.

I might as well say my view is supported by Gen 1:1 through Rev 22:19. It's all there. Crystal clear. That approach proves nothing.


I fail to see how this adds to the discussion. Seems irrelevant. Maybe some explanation would be helplful.

I would readily point out, Isaiah's statement is hardly a fraction of the words on this thread from you.

But let's point out the chain of thought. Paul says the Law judges everyone to blame, Jew and Greek Rom 3:9&19-20. He then quotes a number of passages in support of his claim that the Law condemns all. He cites OT prophets, who have been in the presence of the Just Judge, like Paul was. Among them Paul cites Is 59:7, hardly separated from Is 59:2-15 in context. An Apostle makes the argument who had met Christ while threatening His church. I consider the impact on this argument, and I can't take it all in.

And you're expecting me to represent him? No. I see the facts. I could not represent the real force of what He is saying awaits. But I can indeed see the reasoning.

 

[heymikey80]

By your definition, any new facts are fatalism. I would suggest you get a dictionary and maybe the Stanford encyclopedia, and try to form what you are saying defines fatalism. Because your simply being here on CF qualifies as fatalism by what you are saying so far.

 

[heymikey80]

Yes, hilarious. Where does the verse specifically SAY that God chooses who will believe? I don't see any words that form that thought.

Jesus states the reason why some do not believe. "Some do not believe. This is why I said no one can come unless the Father gives him". So, they don't believe and come to Jesus because the Father doesn't give them. That is specifically what Jesus said. Belief isn't the why. It is the therefore. God is the why. Not the therefore.

I invite you to explain how any other subject qualifies as the therefore of Jesus' statement.

These are real people not believing. Not a hypothetical.

 

[stan1953]

Jesus states the reason why some do not believe. "Some do not believe. This is why I said no one can come unless the Father gives him". So, they don't believe and come to Jesus because the Father doesn't give them. That is specifically what Jesus said. Belief isn't the why. It is the therefore. God is the why. Not the therefore.
I invite you to explain how any other subject qualifies as the therefore of Jesus' statement.
These are real people not believing. Not a hypothetical.

Maybe you can share with us exactly WHAT version you got the red words out of? They're NOT in any version I've been able to find.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I would readily point out, Isaiah's statement is hardly a fraction of the words on this thread from you.

What is the point here?

But let's point out the chain of thought. Paul says the Law judges everyone to blame, Jew and Greek Rom 3:9&19-20. He then quotes a number of passages in support of his claim that the Law condemns all. He cites OT prophets, who have been in the presence of the Just Judge, like Paul was. Among them Paul cites Is 59:7, hardly separated from Is 59:2-15 in context.

I agree with all of this. Still not seeing your point.

An Apostle makes the argument who had met Christ while threatening His church. I consider the impact on this argument, and I can't take it all in.

Ah, maybe this the problem; unable to take it all in. Unless one can "take it all in", there is no way to understand what was written.

And you're expecting me to represent him? No.

No is right. I never suggested such a thing. Again, such a question is really off the wall.

I see the facts. I could not represent the real force of what He is saying awaits. But I can indeed see the reasoning.

Seeing facts but being unable to "take it all in" doesn't match. Which is a problem.

The second sentence doesn't make sense. The word "awaits" seems unnecessary.

So, please explain what the reasoning is, even though it can't all be taken in.

 

[FreeGrace2]

By your definition, any new facts are fatalism.

The attempt to tell me what my definition is fails badly. If your statement is correct, please explain how any new facts are fatalism. I totally do not see that.

I would suggest you get a dictionary and maybe the Stanford encyclopedia, and try to form what you are saying defines fatalism.

This sentence is quite awkward, so I'm not sure what is trying to be communicated.

I do know the definition of fatalism: the belief that all events are determined by fate and are therefore inevitable.

RT simply replaces "fate" with "God" but denies its view is fatalism.

I know that all events are known by God. Did He determine all of them? No. He determined some of them, and permitted others.

Because your simply being here on CF qualifies as fatalism by what you are saying so far.

Another confused sentence. How does my "simply being here on CF" qualify as fatalism? That makes utterly no sense at all.

Please try to explain your views. As it is, your posts are very confused and confusing. As I've shown. Now, please do the same. If you disagree with my posts, explain why, not just that you disagree.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jesus states the reason why some do not believe. "Some do not believe. This is why I said no one can come unless the Father gives him". So, they don't believe and come to Jesus because the Father doesn't give them. That is specifically what Jesus said. Belief isn't the why. It is the therefore. God is the why. Not the therefore.

I invite you to explain how any other subject qualifies as the therefore of Jesus' statement.

These are real people not believing. Not a hypothetical.

My question was ignored again. This response doesn't answer my question.

Here it is again:
Where does the verse specifically SAY that God chooses who will believe? I don't see any words that form that thought.

Seems your response was an attempt to rationalize your view into the text.

The problem is that there are no verses that say clearly that God chooses who will believe, which doesn't seem to bother Calvinists, but should.

There is Scripture that clearly says who God is pleased to save (1 Cor 1:21). It should be clear to anyone that God chooses to do what pleases Him.

iow, God chooses (is well pleased to) save those who believe.

There is nothing in Scripture about God choosing who will believe.

Calvinists need to recalibrate.

 

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by heymikey80
Jesus states the reason why some do not believe. "Some do not believe. This is why I said no one can come unless the Father gives him". So, they don't believe and come to Jesus because the Father doesn't give them. That is specifically what Jesus said. Belief isn't the why. It is the therefore. God is the why. Not the therefore.
I invite you to explain how any other subject qualifies as the therefore of Jesus' statement.
These are real people not believing. Not a hypothetical.

Maybe you can share with us exactly WHAT version you got the red words out of? They're NOT in any version I've been able to find.

It is right there in John 6

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Many times Stan, what you say I find shocking and contrary and argumentative against the scripture. And then that the idea of spiritual death for you does not exist, see what odd strange things you say.

What is your denomination church?