Calvinism Refuted

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

It's probably worth mentioning as well that when Spurgeon says that Calvinism is the Gospel he is not equating Calvinism with the earnest call to repent and believe that most modern Christians associate with the Gospel.

Rather, what he is doing is saying that Calvinism is true and that it is the doctrine of Scripture with regard to all things but especially with regard to the salvation of sinners since it is imminently evangelical in nature and form.

In short, he is not saying that the doctrine of election, or TULIP or any other particular element of Calvinism is to be equated with the content of our evangelical efforts. He is saying that Calvinism is the true biblical doctrine.

 

[JDS]

The doctrines of Grace make no effort to determine who or how many are elect whether most, less, more or 144,000.

We do preach it to the lost because we preach it to everyone some of whom must necessarily be lost.

And no, you are exactly wrong, our doctrine says precisely that those who are lost are lost because they will not be saved.

Why are you introducing a new brand of calvinism here? Total depravity states that one has an inability to believe the gospel because he is dead and a dead man has no will. Forget for a moment that Calvinists do not know the biblical definition of death and concentrate on how it is defined by them.
You need to go to another discussion where Calvinism is defined like your brand because most of these posters here have labored to present man as totally unable to believe.

I fear the judgment of God. I fear God. I fear the wrath of God. To exactly the same degree that I do not know who will believe the call, I am also making my own calling and election sure.

This makes NO sense!

And none of us deny that all those who call upon His name will be saved. What we deny is that there are those who would call upon that name if they were only able. They don't because they don't want to.

This statement is a little confusing.

You are saying you deny that men are unable to be saved but you affirm that they do not call upon the name of the Lord for salvation because they unwilling.

You agree with me then!

 

[Hammster]

can someone show me where in scripture it is stated that all men are called and all men are chosen?

Second Opinions 2:1

 

[JDS]

Second Opinions 2:1

Do you agree with MamaZ that someone has advanced that argument?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Why are you introducing a new brand of calvinism here? Total depravity states that one has an inability to believe the gospel because he is dead and a dead man has no will. Forget for a moment that Calvinists do not know the biblical definition of death and concentrate on how it is defined by them.

You are mistaken. You have probably heard Total Depravity recast as Total Inability and stopped listening there.

The inability does not refer to belief but to merit. We are totally incapable of meriting the grace of God.

I guess the point I would make is that if you are going to insist upon incapability, would refer you to the cause of this incapability and it lies in unwillingness. If they cannot be saved it is because they will not believe and they will not believe because they are at enmity with God and their hearts are darkened.

You need to go to another discussion where Calvinism is defined like your brand because most of these posters here have labored to present man as totally unable to believe.

Well, let me ask the others here:

Am I totally recasting Calvinism and being inaccurate in my presentation? Am I changing things?

This makes NO sense!

Actually it does, unfortunately I don;t know how to make it clearer for you.

This statement is a little confusing.

You are saying you deny that men are unable to be saved but you affirm that they do not call upon the name of the Lord for salvation because they unwilling.

Why insist on the inability to be saved when the really central point is that they will not believe. They will not believe because they are dead in trespasses and sins, their foolish hearts are darkened and they are at enmity with God. They do not want what God wants, they do not want God, they do not want to believe, they do not want to be saved.

This is the heart of the issue. You're missing the forest for the trees.

 

[JDS]

It's probably worth mentioning as well that when Spurgeon says that Calvinism is the Gospel he is not equating Calvinism with the earnest call to repent and believe that most modern Christians associate with the Gospel.

Rather, what he is doing is saying that Calvinism is true and that it is the doctrine of Scripture with regard to all things but especially with regard to the salvation of sinners since it is imminently evangelical in nature and form.

In short, he is not saying that the doctrine of election, or TULIP or any other particular element of Calvinism is to be equated with the content of our evangelical efforts. He is saying that Calvinism is the true biblical doctrine.

Are you speaking for Spurgeon?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Are you speaking for Spurgeon?

I wish I were equal to the task.

I am familiar with the sermon where he says that the system of doctrine known as Calvinism is nothing less than the Gospel and I am enough of a student of history to know that words have different connotative meanings during different time periods.

So, in this case, yes, I believe I understand him well enough to stand by my remarks and reiterate my questions about your understanding of him on this point.

 

[Hammster]

It really doesn't matter what Spurgeon said. Here is the question.

Do you believe that God can save sinners without our help, or does He need our help?

 

[nobdysfool]

Well, let me ask the others here:

Am I totally recasting Calvinism and being inaccurate in my presentation? Am I changing things?

Not at all! You are declaring the whole counsel of God, clearly and accurately on these points. JDS has a fundamental inability (or should I say unwillingness) to be corrected on his clearly flawed and inaccurate understanding of Calvinism. He is not aware of just how far off his so-called "understanding" is. His continual questioning proves it.

 

[JDS]

You are mistaken. You have probably heard Total Depravity recast as Total Inability and stopped listening there.

The inability does not refer to belief but to merit. We are totally incapable of meriting the grace of God.

I guess the point I would make is that if you are going to insist upon incapability, would refer you to the cause of this incapability and it lies in unwillingness. If they cannot be saved it is because they will not believe and they will not believe because they are at enmity with God and their hearts are darkened.

It is neither, friend. Total depravity states that men a re D-E-A-D. Haven't you read the memo? It has nothing to do with being incapable of merit. How does a dead man merit anything? They do not have a will that is free to make the choice to not believe. They have been elected to be quickened.

This is the argument. Your argument is new and it is bogus. You will not last long here.


.[/quote]

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

It really doesn't matter what Spurgeon said. Here is the question.

Do you believe that God can save sinners without our help, or does He need our help?

Well, JDS keeps bringing it up, I thought it worthwhile to give the point a little more focus but if I am derailing I beg everyones' pardon.

 

[archierieus]

But my answer is No. I certainly am no suggesting, implying, hinting, etc. that anyone who is a non-Calvinist believer is not saved.

Good, glad to hear that. It is a credible answer. Any believer in Jesus should be able to understand the Bible. And any careful student of Scripture should be able to identify the grammatical and textual issues. They are there quite plainly.

Therefore, if the Scriptural positions relied on by Calvinists are valid, then neutral or non-Calvinist students should be able to look at the same Scriptures and, using recognized, credible methods of textual study, using recognized principles of grammar, reach simiilar conclusions. In fact, one important test of credibility is if any student, anywhere in the world, can review the proposed findings, apply such recognized, credible study methods, and validate such findings.

That minimizes the role of personal opinion or 'secret knowledge,' both of which are quite unreliable.

So then, how about going through the key Scripture passages relied on by Calvinists, one at a time, and see if the position is validated?

Dave

 

[JDS]

Not at all! You are declaring the whole counsel of God, clearly and accurately on these points. JDS has a fundamental inability (or should I say unwillingness) to be corrected on his clearly flawed and inaccurate understanding of Calvinism. He is not aware of just how far off his so-called "understanding" is. His continual questioning proves it.

Are you actually saying now that the unelect are unelect because of A DECISION TO NOT BELIEVE? Does this mean that "T" is not total depravity and total inability and atonement is limited because of what men are willing or not willing to do?

I am keeping the quotes from this man and in the future I will be reposting them again and calling on you to be consistent.

 

[&Abel]

When one is born again the the scriptures lead those whom are His into all truth. There is milk of the word and there is meat of the word.. It is a growing process in the Spiritual Kingdom just as it is in the human kingdom.. So when one is born again and starts to grow in the Knowldge of God the Father ones comes to understand Him through His word and the Teacher that resides in His Children.

wrong

I started to uncover God before I knew he was the God of christianity(I had a fairly universal view)

I started to understand evil and the tools it uses(I would say "ignorance and fear are the tools of evil")

and this was without picking up a bible

I also got into a pretty heated debate with someone about Satan and how he lies....that everything he says is a lie

this friend told me Satan had appeared to him and his friend and he said "hes got a pretty good plan" and this person is actually a really kind soul and so I got upset and I told him that he was being lied too

these are all things I realized without even flipping open a bible or being "born again" it was not until months later that I started to really embrace christianity...I was still living in sin and yet I was becoming aware of these things

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

It is neither, friend. Total depravity states that men a re D-E-A-D. Haven't you read the memo? It has nothing to do with being incapable of merit. How does a dead man merit anything? They do not have a will that is free to make the choice to not believe. They have been elected to be quickened.

This is the argument. Your argument is new and it is bogus. You will not last long here.

Why the hard feelings, brother?

I am quite familiar with the doctrines of Grace.

I too have often made use of the corpse analogy and it is a good and useful one. It is straight out of Scripture in fact but I have come to the conclusion that many Calvinists misuse it when they imply by it that the unregenerate have no will.

Fortunately this is a very rare construction usually employed only by the very immature.

In the Bible the unregenerate are spoken of as having been dead in contradistinction to the new life they have in Christ. There is no mention of election "quickening" them nor can there be since election does not take place at the moment they believe but long before.

Total Depravity or Total Inability do not mean that the unregenerate are incapable of volition and I really have never heard anyone say that they do. Could you cite an example?

What they mean is that man, in the unregenerate state is sinful and unclean, at enmity with God and not capable of meriting the favor of God without which no one can be happy or have eternal life. By correspondence it means that the faculty of willing in them is perverted and darkened, but it certainly does not mean that they are incapable of it.

If someone in this thread has said that the unregenerate cannot will anything I hope you will not assume that all Calvinists agree.

What we say instead is that the will of contingent agents is always constrained and limited by the nature of the willing agent. Where that nature is depraved and unregenerate the will still wills but what it wills is wrong.

 

[&Abel]

huh?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

huh?

What are you having trouble understanding?

 

[&Abel]

your lost touch with reality

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

your lost touch with reality

What do you mean?

 

[&Abel]

I mean what your saying is completely out of sync with reality all around us

there is both good and evil in everyone

let me ask you this:

If a Christian's car breaks down and he knocks on the nearest door for help and the person who opens the door invites him in, informs him that he is able to fix his car free of charge and even provides a meal

and yet is not a christian

did that person not do something good? did they not give Christ something to eat and drink?

do you not think that finds favor with god?