Calvinists, why are you Calvinist?

[twin1954]

As I said to another poster:

And as far as the nonsense about Arminianism meaning that man saves himself or is a self-savior that is obviously false since salvation is a free and undersevered gift from God. To say that in trusting Christ for salvation we are self saviors is oxy-moronic. Trusting Christ to save us is admitting that we are powerless to save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we wouldn't need to trust in Christ to save us, now would we?

If we receive a free and undeserved gift from the hand of God (even with full power to reject that gift as well) we are in no way earning the gift. Nor did we buy the gift. Nor did we give the gift to ourselves. Nor did we "contribute" to the gift. All such descriptions are plainly absurd. And yet that is what is at the heart of this Calvinist argument: absurdity.

Calvinists want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, then we must have earned it. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we must have bought the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, that means we contributed to the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we gave it to ourselves (which flies in the face of the basic distinction between giver and receiver). They want us to believe that a gift cannot truly be a gift unless it is given in such a way that it cannot possibly be rejected (i.e. given irresistibly). They want us to believe that grace can only be grace if it is given in such a way that it cannot be rejected (i.e. irresistibly). They want us to believe that love can only be love if it is fully affirmed and accepted by the object of that love. What?????

All such things are obviously false and have no parallel to real life. They exist and are persuasive only in the mind of the Calvinist who must constantly redefine basic universal concepts and engage in major equivocation for any such arguments to hold any water at all. Don't fall for it.

Simple logic dictates the opposite. If man is responsible, by his faith, in his own salvation it is obviously a works salvation. Man obviously, according to your theology, co-operates with God in the salvation of his soul. Arminians may deny it in order to comply with the clear Scriptures but it cannot be denied and remain true.

 

[kangaroodort]

Your straw man of what you think Calvinists want you to believe is certainly false.

This in response to someone saying that in Arminianism we save ourselves or are self-saviors. This is a common Calvinist claim and it reduces to absurdity when on remembers that salvation is a gift as described above. There are no straw men here at all. If you think so, then be sure to never accuse Arminians of believing that they save themselves. The real straw man here is that ridiculous claim. Why not call out your Calvinist friends for that? To put it plainly, if we are trusting in Christ to save us that means we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we would not need to trust in Christ to save us. It is really that simple.

 

[kangaroodort]

Simple logic dictates the opposite. If man is responsible, by his faith, in his own salvation it is obviously a works salvation. Man obviously, according to your theology, co-operates with God in the salvation of his soul. Arminians may deny it in order to comply with the clear Scriptures but it cannot be denied and remain true.

No, simple logic says that if we are trusting in Christ to save us, that means we are not saving ourselves. If we could save ourselves, then we would not need to trust in Christ to save us. That is basic logic and it accords perfectly with Scripture. Rom. 4:4-8 tells us that salvation is not of works because it receives an unearned and unmerited gift from God. And this gift is received by faith (by simple trust in Christ to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves- justify us/save us). And the fact that salvation is a free gift received by faith is what establishes it as by grace (Rom. 4:4-8, 16; 5:1-2). It is Calvinism that complicates the simple message of salvation by grace through faith. The Bible never does.

 

[Hammster]

This in response to someone saying that in Arminianism we save ourselves or are self-saviors. This is a common Calvinist claim and it reduces to absurdity when on remembers that salvation is a gift as described above. There are no straw men here at all. If you think so, then be sure to never accuse Arminians of believing that they save themselves. The real straw man here is that ridiculous claim. Why not call out your Calvinist friends for that? To put it plainly, if we are trusting in Christ to save us that means we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we would not need to trust in Christ to save us. It is really that simple.

I don't make that claim. I will claim that synergists believe we can please God in the flesh, which goes against scripture.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

No, simple logic says that if we are trusting in Christ to save us, that means we are not saving ourselves. If we could save ourselves, then we would not need to trust in Christ to save us. That is basic logic and it accords perfectly with Scripture. Rom. 4:4-8 tells us that salvation is not of works because it receives an unearned and unmerited gift from God. And this gift is received by faith (by simple trust in Christ to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves- justify us/save us). And the fact that salvation is a free gift received by faith is what establishes it as by grace (Rom. 4:4-8, 16; 5:1-2). It is Calvinism that complicates the simple message of salvation by grace through faith. The Bible never does.

Okay, so Christ saves, we both agree on that. However, I think the differences are:
a) Can mankind come to Christ even though we are slaves to sin, and dead in our transgressions without being regenerated OR the natural man has to be regenerated to accept Christ
b) Is there an elect based not upon human efforts, but based solely on the Will of God Or whatever position you hold to

 

[kangaroodort]

I don't make that claim. I will claim that synergists believe we can please God in the flesh, which goes against scripture.

But just because you don't make a certain claim doesn't mean that is is a straw man argument. Many Calvinists do make that claim, just as they say that unless faith is irresistibly caused in us, it is a "work". But that is absurd as demonstrated above, not to mention the Bible never makes such a claim.

 

[Hammster]

But just because you don't make a certain claim doesn't mean that is is a straw man argument. Many Calvinists do make that claim, just as they say that unless faith is irresistibly caused in us, it is a "work". But that is absurd as demonstrated above, not to mention the Bible never makes such a claim.

Let's say it was a straw man. That doesn't mean you get to make one in response.

"Calvinists want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, then we must have earned it. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we must have bought the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, that means we contributed to the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we gave it to ourselves (which flies in the face of the basic distinction between giver and receiver). They want us to believe that a gift cannot truly be a gift unless it is given in such a way that it cannot possibly be rejected (i.e. given irresistibly). They want us to believe that grace can only be grace if it is given in such a way that it cannot be rejected (i.e. irresistibly). They want us to believe that love can only be love if it is fully affirmed and accepted by the object of that love. What?????"

^^^straw man.

 

[kangaroodort]

Okay, so Christ saves, we both agree on that. However, I think the differences are:
a) Can mankind come to Christ even though we are slaves to sin, and dead in our transgressions without being regenerated OR the natural man has to be regenerated to accept Christ
b) Is there an elect based not upon human efforts, but based solely on the Will of God Or whatever position you hold to

You are making the same mistakes highlighted above. Receiving a free an undeserved gift is not "human effort." If you receive a gift from someone and do not reject it, will you say it was the result of your "effort" that you received the gift? "Well, I should get some credit here, after all it took a lot of effort on my part to receive that gift." That's silly, of course.

But Arminians agree with Calvinists that man is totally depraved and unable to place saving faith in Christ unless God first graciously enables the depraved sinner to believe. The difference is simply that this enabling does not irresistibly result in faith. It can be resisted (and often is). And this enabling is not regeneration because the Bible is clear that faith precedes regeneration. That is why the Calvinist sees "dead in sin" in such a contrived way and looks to define it in a way that the Bible never does (as reference to the inability of a physical corpse- which is the source of all of these silly Memes that keep popping up here) because that is the only way to logically support the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Look at the passages that have do with being dead in sin and tell me if you see a reference there to the inability of a physical corpse to do anything?

And of course, even the contrived Calvinist definition runs into absurdities as physical corpses cannot reject things, resist things or sin. And yet spiritually dead people do sin and reject the Gospel and resist the Holy Spirit (all spiritual activities, by the way). So it becomes a case of special pleading as well. Being spiritually dead has to do with separation from God- the source of life. Just as in the parable of the lost son, the father (who represents God) said that while his son was away he was "dead". Why? Because he was unable to come to the father until he was regenerated? Of course not. Because that vital relationship had been severed. And that only changed when the son was reunited to the father (not before). Likewise, when we look at the dead in sin passages, we see that life is restored through union with Christ, the source of life, and that union is the result of faith (cf. Eph. 1:13). Calvinist philosophy demands seeing dead in sin in a way the Bible never depicts it. If we follow the Biblical evidence alone, we would never draw such conclusions, which is why A.W.Tozer refers to the Calvinist view as "ridiculous."

 

[kangaroodort]

Let's say it was a straw man. That doesn't mean you get to make one in response.

"Calvinists want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, then we must have earned it. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we must have bought the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, that means we contributed to the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we gave it to ourselves (which flies in the face of the basic distinction between giver and receiver). They want us to believe that a gift cannot truly be a gift unless it is given in such a way that it cannot possibly be rejected (i.e. given irresistibly). They want us to believe that grace can only be grace if it is given in such a way that it cannot be rejected (i.e. irresistibly). They want us to believe that love can only be love if it is fully affirmed and accepted by the object of that love. What?????"

^^^straw man.

Not at all, because those things are plainly implied in the claim that Arminianism makes man a self-savior, which is a common Calvinist argument and not a straw man. Demonstrating the absurdity of an argument is what "straw man" means. The only straw man here is the argument that Arminianism implies that we save ourselves. That is demonstrably false (see above).

 

[kangaroodort]

Not at all, because those things are plainly implied in the claim that Arminianism makes man a self-savior, which is a common Calvinist argument and not a straw man. Demonstrating the absurdity of an argument is not what "straw man" means. The only straw man here is the argument that Arminianism implies that we save ourselves. That is demonstrably false (see above).

 

[Hammster]

But Arminians agree with Calvinists that man is totally depraved and unable to place saving faith in Christ unless God first graciously enables the depraved sinner to believe.

Scripture shows us sheep and goats, lost and found, dead and alive, etc. Wherr does it describe this middle state you are claiming exists?

 

[kangaroodort]

Not at all, because those things are plainly implied in the claim that Arminianism makes man a self-savior, which is a common Calvinist argument and not a straw man. Demonstrating the absurdity of an argument is what "straw man" means. The only straw man here is the argument that Arminianism implies that we save ourselves. That is demonstrably false (see above).

Edited the above to say, "...not what straw man means."

 

[kangaroodort]

Scripture shows us sheep and goats, lost and found, dead and alive, etc. Wherr does it describe this middle state you are claiming exists?

I wouldn't call it a "middle state." That's your term. Rather it is simply an enabling. God makes something possible for us that was formally impossible. That doesn't mean he fundamentally changes us in some way, just that he gifts us with an ability we did not have before.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

You are making the same mistakes highlighted above. Receiving a free an undeserved gift is not "human effort." If you receive a gift from someone and do not reject it, will you say it was the result of your "effort" that you received the gift? "Well, I should get some credit here, after all it took a lot of effort on my part to receive that gift." That's silly, of course.

But Arminians agree with Calvinists that man is totally depraved and unable to place saving faith in Christ unless God first graciously enables the depraved sinner to believe. The difference is simply that this enabling does not irresistibly result in faith. It can be resisted (and often is). And this enabling is not regeneration because the Bible is clear that faith precedes regeneration. That is why the Calvinist sees "dead in sin" in such a contrived way and looks to define it in a way that the Bible never does (as reference to the inability of a physical corpse- which is the source of all of these silly Memes that keep popping up here) because that is the only way to logically support the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Look at the passages that have do with being dead in sin and tell me if you see a reference there to the inability of a physical corpse to do anything?

And of course, even the contrived Calvinist definition runs into absurdities as physical corpses cannot reject things, resist things or sin. And yet spiritually dead people do sin and reject the Gospel and resist the Holy Spirit (all spiritual activities, by the way). So it becomes a case of special pleading as well. Being spiritually dead has to do with separation from God- the source of life. Just as in the parable of the lost son, the father (who represents God) said that while his son was away he was "dead". Why? Because he was unable to come to the father until he was regenerated? Of course not. Because that vital relationship had been severed. And that only changed when the son was reunited to the father (not before). Likewise, when we look at the dead in sin passages, we see that life is restored through union with Christ, the source of life, and that union is the result of faith (cf. Eph. 1:13). Calvinist philosophy demands seeing dead in sin in a way the Bible never depicts it. If we follow the Biblical evidence alone, we would never draw such conclusions, which is why A.W.Tozer refers to the Calvinist view as "ridiculous."

Great points

 

[kangaroodort]

...and what they do is sin.

In your view, 1 John 2.2, propitiated sins are punished. Propitiation means the wrath of God the Father has been satisfied but according to Arminianism sinners are still punished...as if the death of Christ accomplished nothing.

Then in Calvinism the "elect" would be born forgiven and saved since God's wrath was removed from them at the atonement. The only way to escape this conclusion (which is eternal justification and is typically considered a feature of hyper-Calvinism) is to admit to a provisional aspect to the atonement. If there is a provisional aspect to the atonement, then this argument does not work against Arminianism.

 

[Hammster]

I wouldn't call it a "middle state." That's your term. Rather it is simply an enabling. God makes something possible for us that was formally impossible. That doesn't mean he fundamentally changes us in some way, just that he gifts us with an ability we did not have before.

So He doesn't change us, but He changes something in us. Okay. Where do I go to find out out that?

 

[kangaroodort]

So He doesn't change us, but He changes something in us. Okay. Where do I go to find out out that?

If God overcomes our inability to trust in Him so that we are then able to trust in Him, that does not necessarily mean He changes something "in us". It just means He makes it possible to do something that we were unable to do before. Where do you go to find that out? The same places Calvinists go to try to demonstrate irresistible grace. Let's start with Lydia (Acts 16:14). The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. Does that mean God fundamentally changed her in some way? Not at all. Here is a question for you. Did God open her old heart or the new regenerated heart "to respond"?

 

[Hammster]

Then in Calvinism the "elect" would be born forgiven and saved since God's wrath was removed from them at the atonement. The only way to escape this conclusion (which is eternal justification and is typically considered a feature of hyper-Calvinism) is to admit to a provisional aspect to the atonement. If there is a provisional aspect to the atonement, then this argument does not work against Arminianism.

Being free from wrath is only part of

If God overcomes our inability to trust in Him so that we are then able to trust in Him, that does not necessarily mean He changes something "in us". It just means He makes it possible to do something that we were unable to do before. Where do you go to find that out? The same places Calvinists go to try to demonstrate irresistible grace. Let's start with Lydia (Acts 16:14). The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. Does that mean God fundamentally changed her in some way? Not at all. Here is a question for you. Did God open her old heart or the new regenerated heart "to respond"?

That's where I need to look? You get prevenient grace from that passage?

 

[kangaroodort]

Being free from wrath is only part of

That's where I need to look? You get prevenient grace from that passage?

Part of....?? It seems you forgot to finish that thought.

As I said before, Arminians refer to the same passages Calvinists use to support irresistible prevenient grace. Calvinists hold to prevenient grace as well. They just see it as irresistible. The case of Lydia is an oft used Calvinist prooftext for prevenient irresistible grace. But like all of those prooftexts, they do not give the Calvinist what they want and end up supporting the Arminian view much better (and the same is true of texts the Calvinists appeal to to support the priority of regeneration in the ordo salutis)

So again, did the Lord open up Lydia's old heart or a new heart?

 

[Hammster]

Part of....?? It seems you forgot to finish that thought.

As I said before, Arminians refer to the same passages Calvinists use to support irresistible prevenient grace. Calvinists hold to prevenient grace as well. They just see it as irresistible. The case of Lydia is an oft used Calvinist prooftext for prevenient irresistible grace. But like all of those prooftexts, they do not give the Calvinist what they want and end up supporting the Arminian view much better (and the same is true of texts the Calvinists appeal to to support the priority of regeneration in the ordo salutis)

So again, did the Lord open up Lydia's old heart or a new heart?

Sorry about that first part. It was an earlier reply I never finished.

As to your question, scripture doesn't say. That happens a lot in narratives. All I can do is speculate.