Examining Calvinistic "Proof Texts"

TheSeabass said:

* Calvinists have argued with me that "all" does not literally, primarily means "each and every person universally" but God loves just some.

Click to expand...

They take it further than that. They say that Christ did not die for all, but only the elect.

ToBeLoved said:

They take it further than that. They say that Christ did not die for all, but only the elect.

Click to expand...

They are wrong in that I believe.

But none the less - it is obvious that He "effectively" died only for the elect.

Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike must agree to that or believe in universal salvation in the end.

Marvin Knox said:

They are wrong in that I believe.

But none the less - it is obvious that He "effectively" died only for the elect.

Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike must agree to that or believe in universal salvation in the end.

Click to expand...

Well there is the little issue of faith that might pop in there for the Non-Calvinist, because we know that the New Covenant requires faith from the believer.

Unless you are a Calvinist, then I guess it doesn't if God has the zapper out.

More Calvinism error.

ToBeLoved said:

Well there is the little issue of faith that might pop in there for the Non-Calvinist, because we know that the New Covenant requires faith from the believer.

Unless you are a Calvinist, then I guess it doesn't if God has the zapper out.

More Calvinism error.

Click to expand...

That's not how Calvinism works. Calvin taught that justification is by faith. Faith is certainly required. The real question is how we understand the fact that some are saved and some are not. Did God plan it or not? Calvinists believe he did.

I have questions about the traditional Calvinist exegesis of Romans. John is probably a better source, because it really does talk about how people come to believe. It doesn’t have the issues that Romans has, where Paul is probably talking more about God’s plan for Israel than about why individuals do or don’t have faith.

The best passages in John are statements like 6:36-37:

“36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;”

In several passages, John really does see God as having given particular people to Christ. The problem is that it goes on to say

“ 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.”

This is certainly amenable to the reading that God has given Christ those who believe in him. But look at 10:26-27:

“26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.”

My reading is that God has given Christ those who believe in him, but that there’s an underlying concept that there are those who “have ears” (Mark 4:23, etc) and those who do not. In the end there’s a mystery as to why some people hear and some don’t that just saying everyone has free will doesn’t quite to justice to. I think the NT writers would tell you that ultimately it’s part of God’s plan. But I also don’t see it in the NT quite as explicitly as in Calvin, that God started out with lists of people he was and wasn’t going to save
.

Marvin Knox said:

They are wrong in that I believe.

But none the less - it is obvious that He "effectively" died only for the elect.

Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike must agree to that or believe in universal salvation in the end.

Click to expand...

What is "effectively" died for the elect?

I didn't realize that God does "effectively". What does that mean? Scripture please.

hedrick said:

That's not how Calvinism works. Calvin taught that justification is by faith. Faith is certainly required. The real question is how we understand the fact that some are saved and some are not. Did God plan it or not? Calvinists believe he did.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is not the major issue with Calvinism and Non-Calvinism.

The issue stems from faith itself as the Calvinist believes the Holy Spirit regenerates the person and then the person has faith (which is why it is 'irrestistable, because their is no notice of it happening and the Holy Spirit over whelms and overshadows human free will).

Or whether a person must come to Christ in faith and after the person has come to Christ as part of the salvation process they are regenerated and created a new creature.

There is no free will in Calvinism.

ToBeLoved said:

I'm sorry but that is not the major issue with Calvinism and Non-Calvinism.

The issue stems from faith itself as the Calvinist believes the Holy Spirit regenerates the person and then the person has faith (which is why it is 'irrestistable, because their is no notice of it happening and the Holy Spirit over whelms and overshadows human free will).

Or whether a person must come to Christ in faith and after the person has come to Christ as part of the salvation process they are regenerated and created a new creature.

There is no free will in Calvinism.

Click to expand...

Note that “regeneration” is used in two different senses within Calvinism. Very confusing. I really wish the terminology was better.

In the first sense, regeneration means that God brings us to faith. This is regeneration because without his grace we wouldn’t be able to have faith. But once we come to faith, Christ starts working with us, and regeneration in the usual sense happens. Calvinism very definitely acknowledges the regeneration by which someone becomes a new creature.

Calvinists don’t call the will free because without God’s grace it’s unable to respond to him. Once grace enables it, of course it responds to God. Why not? What person could reject God once the blinders are removed? So the choice is inevitable but probably free in the sense people normally use the word. Calvinism does not teach that God compels us, but rather that the choices we make are obvious. Without his grace, it’s obvious that we will reject him. With his grace it’s obvious that we’ll respond.

The controversial part is that God intentionally withholds grace from some people and gives it to others. Or at least knowingly doesn’t give “enough” grace to actually convert them. But Calvinism and Arminianism actually share more than most people accept. Arminianism also says that we can’t respond to God without his grace. So the idea that before anything else, God has to enable us (regenerate us in Calvinist terms) is really shared between the two. Where they differ is that Arminianism believes that God gives everyone sufficient grace, and the difference is in the person, whereas Calvin believes that God only gives some sufficient grace. But the overall process is really very similar.

My position isn’t exactly the same as either, as you’ll note from what I said above. I agree with the Arminians that the difference is in the person. But why some people have ears to hear and some don’t it seems to me is a mystery that in the end is probably best thought as as lying with God. This probably turns out to be essentially the position of the later Luther.

hedrick said:

Note that “regeneration” is used in two different senses within Calvinism. Very confusing. I really wish the terminology was better.

In the first sense, regeneration means that God brings us to faith. This is regeneration because without his grace we wouldn’t be able to have faith. But once we come to faith, Christ starts working with us, and regeneration in the usual sense happens. Calvinism very definitely acknowledges the regeneration by which someone becomes a new creature.

Calvinists don’t call the will free because without God’s grace it’s unable to respond to him. Once grace enables it, of course it responds to God. Why not? What person could reject God once the blinders are removed? So the choice is inevitable but probably free in the sense people normally use the word. Calvinism does not teach that God compels us, but rather that the choices we make are obvious. Without his grace, it’s obvious that we will reject him. With his grace it’s obvious that we’ll respond.

The controversial part is that God intentionally withholds grace from some people and gives it to others. Or at least knowingly doesn’t give “enough” grace to actually convert them. But Calvinism and Arminianism actually share more than most people accept. Arminianism also says that we can’t respond to God without his grace. So the idea that before anything else, God has to enable us (regenerate us in Calvinist terms) is really shared between the two. Where they differ is that Arminianism believes that God gives everyone sufficient grace, and the difference is in the person, whereas Calvin believes that God only gives some sufficient grace. But the overall process is really very similar.

My position isn’t exactly the same as either, as you’ll note from what I said above. I agree with the Arminians that the difference is in the person. But why some people have ears to hear and some don’t it seems to me is a mystery that in the end is probably best thought as as lying with God. This probably turns out to be essentially the position of the later Luther.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying and agree for the most part. I don't believe that Calvinism and Non-Calvinism (because I'm not Armnian I guess either) are much alike because what Calvinism does is put doubt on the entire nature of God. By this I mean, if we have no free will, then Adam and Eve had no free will which means that God knew and foreordained sin. However, everything I read and believe in is that God cannot be sinful or foreordain sin. So on the grounds that without free will it changes every Bible chapter, verse, person and outcome, I think free will is so basic to the blessing that God gives man and angels if you believe the Bible, that I can't imagine my God being a Calvinist or condoning Calvinism. That's how foreign there concept is to me. For them, God has got to control EVERYTHING or God is not in control. I know that God let's us choose and that we have free will, like the fallen angels had the free will to fall and Lucifer to desire to be God.

So, no I disagree that they are in fact anything alike because I see nothing of my Lord in a Calvinistic mindset/

ToBeLoved said:

I hear what you are saying and agree for the most part. I don't believe that Calvinism and Non-Calvinism (because I'm not Armnian I guess either) are much alike because what Calvinism does is put doubt on the entire nature of God. By this I mean, if we have no free will, then Adam and Eve had no free will which means that God knew and foreordained sin. However, everything I read and believe in is that God cannot be sinful or foreordain sin. So on the grounds that without free will it changes every Bible chapter, verse, person and outcome, I think free will is so basic to the blessing that God gives man and angels if you believe the Bible, that I can't imagine my God being a Calvinist or condoning Calvinism. That's how foreign there concept is to me. For them, God has got to control EVERYTHING or God is not in control. I know that God let's us choose and that we have free will, like the fallen angels had the free will to fall and Lucifer to desire to be God.

So, no I disagree that they are in fact anything alike because I see nothing of my Lord in a Calvinistic mindset/

Click to expand...

I think it's hard to avoid the idea that God planned for the fall without abandoning standard concepts of God being almighty. He didn't cause Adam and Eve to sin, obviously. That would cause a problem. Calvinists certainly don't say that. But he created them knowing that they were going to sin. I think the line between that and foreordaining sin is pretty narrow. Maybe non-existent.

Remember, the Calvinist rejection of free will doesn't mean that God forces people to do things, just that what they're going to do is known, because we know enough about the situation.

Parents put kids into situations where they know they're going to fail all the time. Perhaps they don't know exactly what they're going to do, but they know that if they give a certain degree of freedom their kids are going to mess up eventually. Most Christians think God knows the future a bit better, so when he put Adam and Eve in the garden presumably he knew exactly how they were going to fail. But he did it anyway. I assume he had a good reason, just like parents have good reason for letting kids make mistakes.

hedrick said:

Remember, the Calvinist rejection of free will doesn't mean that God forces people to do things, just that what they're going to do is known, because we know enough about the situation.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I have participated in about 30 heated Calvinist threads in the last 6 months and they reject free will totally. There is no free will. They will tell you that in the first post and they all agree with it.

I grabbed this quickly off the internet so you can read the T.U.L.I.P. or the 5 points of Calvinsm. Feel free to do your own search to make sure I am correct. The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP

The Five Points of Calvinism

There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the 1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.

Total Depravity:

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).


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 (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

Tree of Life said:

Jesus is simply saying here that he (as God) often longed for Israel to repent. But since they did not they were going to be destroyed. God desires, in one sense, that all persons would be saved. He calls all - especially all within the church (i.e. Jerusalem) to repent and be saved. Calvinists have no problem saying this.

Click to expand...

You might not have any problem saying it, but it directly contradicts Calvinism.

Why would Jesus long for those predestined for Hell to repent? Is he out of the loop on the guest list?

You claim that since those in Israel did not repent they would be destroyed. This means that if they had repented they would have been saved. How is that predestination?

ToBeLoved said:

Remember, the Calvinist rejection of free will doesn't mean that God forces people to do things, just that what they're going to do is known, because we know enough about the situation.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I have participated in about 30 heated Calvinist threads in the last 6 months and they reject free will totally. There is no free will. They will tell you that in the first post and they all agree with it.

I grabbed this quickly off the internet so you can read the T.U.L.I.P. or the 5 points of Calvinsm. Feel free to do your own search to make sure I am correct. The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP

Click to expand...

There are lots of neo-calvinists around that tend to oversimplify things.

Every classical Calvinist will agree that God doesn't make people do things. Will isn't free, not because God forces us to do things, but because without grace there's no way we can respond to him. So will is free in that it's not forced but unfree in that it without grace it isn't able to do anything good.

The 5 point summary you quoted is actually consistent with this. It's just not sufficiently careful about how it explains things to avoid the most common misunderstandings.

Hank77 said:

According to Calvin's theology of predestination infants and small children, who couldn't even understand what sin is, would be doomed for the lake of fire if they died and that was their predestination.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this is an accurate assessment. Non Calvinist would guarantee that these individuals would be hell bound, given they had no chance to hear the gospel and accept Christ. Calvinist, on the other hand, would leave it at "it's in God's hands", and rightfully so, in regards to the fate of these individuals.

hedrick said:

There are lots of neo-calvinists around that tend to oversimplify things.

Every classical Calvinist will agree that God doesn't make people do things. Will isn't free, not because God forces us to do things, but because without grace there's no way we can respond to him. So will is free in that it's not forced but unfree in that it without grace it isn't able to do anything good.

The 5 point summary you quoted is actually consistent with this. It's just not sufficiently careful about how it explains things to avoid the most common misunderstandings.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion. I don't agree. i've had to many threads with them.

GillDouglas said:

I don't believe this is an accurate assessment. Non Calvinist would guarantee that these individuals would be hell bound, given they had no chance to hear the gospel and accept Christ. Calvinist, on the other hand, would leave it at "it's in God's hands", and rightfully so, in regards to the fate of these individuals.

Click to expand...

Although you would like to speak for non-Calvinists, since you are a Calvinist you do not know what we think.

Don't put words in our mouths. You speak your own beliefs. For some reason, you are so very off in your portrayal of non-Calvinist views and it is really annoying. Like you like to misrepresent us for your own theology to go down easier, like bad medicine. You can not guarantee anything that you do not believe yourself. Control is only on your beliefs, sorry, you can't control ours too. Free will and all that.

TheSeabass said:

Predestination and calvinism

If Calvinism's idea of predestination is right per the above link, then in John 8:41 the Jews said they were of God, that God was their Father. Then according to the Calvinistic proof text of John 10:26, those of God, Christ's sheep, will automatically believe in Christ and be saved, yet these Jews were rejecting Christ. So why were these Jews who said God was their Father rejecting Christ?


======


Mt 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"


1) If these Jews were predestined by God to be saved, then why were they rejecting Christ, killing the prophets of God sent unto them?

2) If these Jews were predestined by God to be lost, then why was Christ wanting them to be saved? Why did Christ love them and not 'hate' them as God 'hated' Esau?

Click to expand...

Calvinists don't believe in salvation by faith. They believe in salvation by unconditional election. Since according to them such election occurs prior to birth, the elect were never in danger of going to hell, even as unbelievers. Thus faith, in Calvinism, has less to do about the means or condition for salvation and more a way to reveal one's elect status. In fact Calvinists don't tend to use the word "save" or "saved" in classifying people nearly as much as they use "elect".

ToBeLoved said:

Well there is the little issue of faith that might pop in there for the Non-Calvinist, because we know that the New Covenant requires faith from the believer.
Unless you are a Calvinist, then I guess it doesn't if God has the zapper out.
More Calvinism error.

Click to expand...

All Calvinist believe that personal faith in the gospel needs to be exercised in order to be justified before God.

The difference between Calvinists and other would be that Calvinists believe that faith is a gift from God and that that gift is not given to everyone but only to those the Father has given to the Son.

You disagree, of course. But, just so Calvinists are not misrepresented here, it is absolutely not true that Calvinists do not believe "that the New Covenant requires faith from the believer".

You seem to insinuate, or at least leave the impression, that "the little issue of faith " only "pops up" for the Non-Calvinist.

ToBeLoved said:

What is "effectively" died for the elect?
I didn't realize that God does "effectively". What does that mean? Scripture please.

Click to expand...

It means simply that Christ's death does not deliver everyone from the lake of fire. Only those the scriptures refer to over and over again as the "elect" or "chosen" are saved.

You agree to that - do you not?

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:37-40

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:11-15

ToBeLoved said:

There is no free will in Calvinism.

Click to expand...

That simply is not true.

In Calvinism there is no free will for the old man since his will is contaminated by his sin nature. You disagree, of course and that's fine.

But do not say that there is no free will in Calvinism. That is to misrepresent Calvinism.

The new man definitely does have true free will where as the old man did not.

ToBeLoved said:

.....if we have no free will, then Adam and Eve had no free will

Click to expand...

Adam and Eve were created with free will. "We", as you say, (which includes Adam and Eve after the fall) do not have free will according to Calvinism.

Think of it as the "old man" and "new man" in reverse in their case.

Having said that - if we assume that Adam and Eve were eventually "saved" - then we believe they became new creations by grace just as is true for us. Those new creations had free will just as you and I do.

Marvin Knox said:

But do not say that there is no free will in Calvinism. That is to misrepresent Calvinism.

The new man definitely does have true free will where as the old man did not.

Adam and Eve were created with free will. "We", as you say, (which includes Adam and Eve after the fall) do not have free will according to Calvinism.

Click to expand...

It is not that I feel that they do not have free-will according to Calvinism, Calvinism's own documents and writings say irresistable grace that mankind who is saved us UNABLE to resist. You show me how anyone in Calvinist theology is able to resist Irresistable Grace. The name says it!

So let's not put out words like 'as you say' because it is their own doctrine that condemns them and states there point very clearly.

I am getting really sick of all of you saying "I say ..." as in me, myself. If they did not have the doctrine, we wouldn't be having the discussion and it is documented and NAMED, T.U.L.I.P.

I surely did not come up with that acronym and I surely did not come up with the words used that make up that acronym. So please stop that!!!!

It is very unGodly to bear false witness. Purposely as you and others have been doing.

Marvin Knox said:

The new man definitely does have true free will where as the old man did not.

Adam and Eve were created with free will. "We", as you say, (which includes Adam and Eve after the fall) do not have free will according to Calvinism.

Think of it as the "old man" and "new man" in reverse in their case.

Having said that - if we assume that Adam and Eve were eventually "saved" - then we believe they became new creations by grace just as is true for us. Those new creations had free will just as you and I do.

Click to expand...

The assumption that you are making if we assume Adam and Eve are saved is that they would receive the Holy Spirit by Irresistable Grace.

However, we both know that the indwelling Holy Spirit was not available until the New Covenant to permanently indwell a believer, so it is not possible that Adam and Eve were ever regenerated using Irresistable Grace.

So I do not accept that as being in any way the case. Not at all. That is false and could never be the case.

Marvin Knox said:

All Calvinist believe that personal faith in the gospel needs to be exercised in order to be justified before God.

The difference between Calvinists and other would be that Calvinists believe that faith is a gift from God and that that gift is not given to everyone but only to those the Father has given to the Son.

You disagree, of course. But, just so Calvinists are not misrepresented here, it is absolutely not true that Calvinists do not believe "that the New Covenant requires faith from the believer".

You seem to insinuate, or at least leave the impression, that "the little issue of faith " only "pops up" for the Non-Calvinist.

It means simply that Christ's death does not deliver everyone from the lake of fire. Only those the scriptures refer to over and over again as the "elect" or "chosen" are saved.

You agree to that - do you not?

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:37-40

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:11-15

That simply is not true.

In Calvinism there is no free will for the old man since his will is contaminated by his sin nature. You disagree, of course and that's fine.

But do not say that there is no free will in Calvinism. That is to misrepresent Calvinism.

The new man definitely does have true free will where as the old man did not.

Adam and Eve were created with free will. "We", as you say, (which includes Adam and Eve after the fall) do not have free will according to Calvinism.

Think of it as the "old man" and "new man" in reverse in their case.

Having said that - if we assume that Adam and Eve were eventually "saved" - then we believe they became new creations by grace just as is true for us. Those new creations had free will just as you and I do.

Click to expand...

we have been through this so, so many times Marvin. I really wish you wouldn't keep rehashing this with me since you are not even a Calvinist.

Why you feel the need to defend their position is beyond me when they cannot even defend their own doctrine themselves. I personally hate debating you on this issue because we go in circles, with the same verses and same things over and over.

Let them defend themselves please or at least bypass my posts and rehash it with others who are non-Calvinists because I am quite tired of debating you frankly and I like you as a person frankly. However, we seem to be making this somewhat like it is personal and it is not. It is a theological difference and I don't want to get crappy.