How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Reformationist]

(Ben hopes he's not intruding...)

What are you talking about???? You love to intrude!

Calvinists assert that "there is free will".

Yes, "free" to a degree.

But also assert that "man's will follows their hearts;

No. We assert that man follows, and in fact, must follow, the stongest desire of his heart.

if regenerated, he WILL desire to follow God (cannot resist), and if NOT regenerated he will desire to sin (can't resist that either).

Also untrue. Regenerate man is reborn and made anew spiritually but still resides in the broken, sinful vessel of his flesh. The truth of children of God, at least in an unglorified state, is that we are progressively (though it often seems slow to happen) conformed. We have our times of obedience, which are often influenced by how much time we have spent nurturing our relationship with God, and, we have our times of sinfulness, because, though we have been released from the dominion of sin, we often fall prey to our old sinful habits.

If regeneration is unchosen, unilaterally-instilled-by-God, and if therefore "will ALWAYS turns towards God subsequently", then man cannot be said to have "free will" --- for his will is dictated by unilateral regeneration, therefore his will is dictated by God.

This is partially true in the sense that it is the man's nature that is changed by God and it is his nature that influences his will.

"Assessment", not "representation"...

Okay. It's an inaccurate assessment then.

 

[Dottie]

God's choice may not be based on the will of the creation but it doesn't disregard it. All of us are born aligned against our Creator. The nature of some He changes. Others He leaves to their depraved spiritual polarity.


No man rebels against God unwillingly. Each of us sin because we desire that which violates God's law more than we desire to obey It.


If Paul was wrong in the pages of infallible revelation then God was wrong. God divinely superintended the composition of biblical epistles and kept them free from error.


No one lives without the law of God for He has written it upon the hearts of all of His creation.


The biblical doctrine of predestination is not fatalism. Mankind is guilty before God for his choices because he makes them free from external coersion.


The only people judged for the actions of God are believers, who receive salvation for His work.


I assume you mean how is this compatible with the belief that God eternally ordains some to condemnation. If so, this passage, like all others, must be qualified by context. Immediate context gives little clue as to the scope of its meaning, though it does include the qualifier "you." To whom is the promise made? Whom is God patient with? An examination of every verse up to, and including 3:9 shows that the "you" is those who have inherited the precious faith through which they are saved. That passage is just as properly rendered, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting any of you to perish, but everyone of you to come to repentance."


Do not confuse the imperative with the indicative. To state the truth that we must repent doesn't mean that unregenerate man has the spiritual capacity to repent. Repentence is the result of a change in our constituent fallen nature. We cannot effect this change ourselves so until God does so not only will we never repent, we will never even want to repent.


No. Not at all. It speaks nothing of choice. It merely says that because of God's love He sent His Son to secure the salvation of all for whom He sent Him. The question here is, does "the world" refer to "all people without exception" or is it a reference to a different group of people?


God never refuses any who come to Him. Mankind is guilty before God because of his own rejection of God. No one has said otherwise, certainly not the Calvinist. The question you should ask is, "who can, and does, love the truth?" Can anyone love the truth? Are we, by nature, able to obey God?


Or you're misinterpreting those passages.

God bless

Hello Reformationist.

I hope you won't mind my commenting on some of the answers that you gave to britelights' questions.

God's choice may not be based on the will of the creation but it doesn't disregard it. All of us are born aligned against our Creator.

When we are born, we are neither for or against God, for we know neither to do good nor evil. James 4: 17. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

If you follow the tried and true Calvinistic trend, I am sure that you will immediately cite Psalm 58:3 as the rebuttal to my previous comment.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

To which I will reply:

I have seen quite a few new born babes in my time, but never once have I seen one that could speak as soon as they were born, let alone, tell a lie. So surely the Psalmist must have been using figurative speech here, much like he did in Psalm 51: 7. " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Or perhaps when God spoke to Cain inquiring of his brother Abel's whereabouts in Gen. 4:10 would be as good of an example of figurative speech: "And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

Or again, Mk. 10: 21. "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."
Psalms 51:5 is another scripture which I have noticed is often presented to advance the notion that we are born sinners.

" Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Since the Psalmist had nothing to do with his own conception and shaping, It seems logical for me to conclude that it was his parents who sinned, and not the Psalmist.

"The nature of some He changes. Others He leaves to their depraved spiritual polarity."

And where do we find in the scriptures that God changes anyone's nature, and leaves others to their depraved spiritual polarity? That is not biblical, for how can God be pleased to "leave some in their depraved spiritual polarity", when the scripture plainly says, " . . . they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8)

"No one lives without the law of God for He has written it upon the hearts of all of His creation."

Since God's law is of the spiritual nature, how can it be that he has written it upon the hearts of all creation?
1Cor. 2: 14. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
How can that which is natural recieve things that are of the spirit? Unless of course, every one of his creation has been born of his Spirit. Could it be? After all, Jesus did say "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

The question was:

"If these said people were pre-destined then why are they judged?"

To which you replied:

"The biblical doctrine of predestination is not fatalism. Mankind is guilty before God for his choices because he makes them free from external coersion."

I don't see this as an answer to the question.

Rom. 8: 7. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

If the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, then it would follow that it would not subject to any judgement or penalty inflicted because of disobedience to said law.



The Question:
"John 3:16 anyone?
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[ 3:16 Or his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
(does this not imply that we have a choice?)

Your answer:

"No. Not at all. It speaks nothing of choice. It merely says that because of God's love He sent His Son to secure the salvation of all for whom He sent Him. The question here is, does "the world" refer to "all people without exception" or is it a reference to a different group of people?"

No, it says that God so loved the world, and it says nothing about him sending his Son to secure the salvation of all for whom he sent him. Plainly and simply it says "that whosoever believes in him would not perish, but have aonios LIFE. However, I do agree with you on the point that the "world" in question here was not the world in general, or the known world, at that time, of the Roman Empire. I believe that the Greek word that is mostly used in the NT for that world is oikoumene , while the word that is used in John 3:16 is kosmos. Since the Jews thought that they were the only people who had "privy" to God, and could not imagine that any Gentile, unless, of course, the had made him a proselyte, could possibly recieve anything from THEIR God, it would be logical to conclude that the world in John 3:16 meant the world of the visable and physical nation of Israel.

May God bless you.
Dottie

 

[Beoga]

When we are born, we are neither for or against God, for we know neither to do good nor evil.

how then do you explain that everyone choose evil. Shouldn't there be like half the world who choose good, since it is 50/50;good/evil. Also, if one choose good from the time that they could, wouldn't they be perfect and holy, and in no need of God?

 

[Van]

Romanbear, I agree with much of what you have posted. But lets back up and focus on "election unto salvation". So election or God's chosing groups or individuals for other purposes or under a different, old covenent, dispensation does not apply. You say no individual election is in the Bible. I agree in part, no individual election of foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world is in the Bible save for the Chosen one, Christ Jesus.

So your solution, which I do not agree with, is to make election to no effect - it is universal - but this solution flys in the face of many scriptures. God puts us into Christ. This action is the "election" of existing believers in Christ, and is sound doctrine. God chose Christ before the foundation of the World, and because God chose Christ as the Redeemer, in God's plan of redemptive salvation, God in effect chose all those God would subsequently place into Christ, not individually back then, but as a target group of the redemption plan to save believers in Christ. Now, during our life time, when God places believers into Christ, this action, this election unto salvation is of specific existing individual believers. So what the Bible actually teaches is a generic target group election before the world began, and a specific election of individual believers in Christ during the lifetime of the believer.

Now lets turn to God is no respecter of persons. What this passage is saying is God does not show parsality to individuals, but gives equal justice to all. But God does make individual choices, Jacob He loved, Esau He hated. God makes conditional covenents in the Bible all the time. If folks do this, God will do that. If folks do not do this, God will do this other thing. Think of all the "repent or God will bring calamity" passages. Bottom line, God chosing individual believers in Christ for salvation does not violate the passages concerning the idea that God is no repecter of persons.

Turning now to 2 Peter 1:10, the NASB reads like this: Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble.

While it is certainly true that this verse can be understood in a number of ways, here is my take on the verse. Peter is admonishing believers in Christ chosen by God to make certain of their being chosen. And how do you do this? By producing fruit in your life. Without the indwelt spirit of Christ we can do nothing, but with the indwelt spirit of Christ we can produce abundant fruit. So this is an exhortation to diligence in our walk with Christ. The absense of fruit producing faith provides no assurance of salvation, but the presence of fruit producing faith provides blessed assurance Jesus is mine! And as long as we love Christ more than anything, as long as our faith prevails over the snares of this world, we can have confidence in our salvation, that we are overcomers that will prevail to the end. If we have been chosen and indwelt our faith is protected (1 Peter 1:9) and we may stumble but we will not fall away. So we are to be diligent to be partakers of the divine nature, studying scripture (the magnificent promises) and striving to bear the abundant fruit of the Spirit which includes moral excellence, knowledge, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and unconditional love.

I agree that not everyone is elected unto salvation, but only believers in Christ. And I especially agree with you that our decision to trust in Christ is to the praise of His glory. Amen.

 

[Dottie]

When we are born, we are neither for or against God, for we know neither to do good nor evil.

how then do you explain that everyone choose evil. Shouldn't there be like half the world who choose good, since it is 50/50;good/evil. Also, if one choose good from the time that they could, wouldn't they be perfect and holy, and in no need of God?

When we are born, we are neither for or against God, for we know neither to do good nor evil.

how then do you explain that everyone choose evil. Shouldn't there be like half the world who choose good, since it is 50/50;good/evil. Also, if one choose good from the time that they could, wouldn't they be perfect and holy, and in no need of God?

Now who said anything about the world being 50/50; good/evil? Not I.

Rom. 8: 20. "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,"

Rom. 9: 20. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

Man will always be in need of God, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28)

 

[Reformationist]

Hello Reformationist.

Hello.

I hope you won't mind my commenting on some of the answers that you gave to britelights' questions.

Of course not.

When we are born, we are neither for or against God, for we know neither to do good nor evil. James 4: 17. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Ummm...that verse says nothing even close to what you're implying. Look at the context:

James 4:13-17
Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Does that sound like James is talking about the innocence of youth?

If you follow the tried and true Calvinistic trend, I am sure that you will immediately cite Psalm 58:3 as the rebuttal to my previous comment.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

To which I will reply:

I have seen quite a few new born babes in my time, but never once have I seen one that could speak as soon as they were born, let alone, tell a lie. So surely the Psalmist must have been using figurative speech here, much like he did in Psalm 51: 7. " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Actually, I would have, and am, citing Psalms 51:5:

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

Which you note here:

Psalms 51:5 is another scripture which I have noticed is often presented to advance the notion that we are born sinners.

" Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Since the Psalmist had nothing to do with his own conception and shaping, It seems logical for me to conclude that it was his parents who sinned, and not the Psalmist.

Um...Dottie, that is not at all what that passage means. I'm not sure how to approach this because it seems that you are so far off already in your understanding of these passages that I fear you will simply be insulted if I were to tell you, which would obviously not be good for any discussion. Suffice to say, this passage is not referring to the process by which he was conceived but, rather, that he was born with a sinful nature.

One more thing. You immediately disregard Psalms 58:3 because you "have seen quite a few new born babes in your time, but never once have you seen one that could speak as soon as they were born, let alone, tell a lie." You acknowledge that this is a "figure of speech" but you apply to it an incorrect understanding. The Psalmist is not saying that they start speaking lies the minute they are born. The meaning of the passage is that they are born in an unregenerate state, estranged from and aligned against God and that they speak lies in their youth.

And where do we find in the scriptures that God changes anyone's nature, and leaves others to their depraved spiritual polarity?

Many places. Here is one for your consideration:

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

They were children of wrath, just as the others, dead in their trespasses and sins, and God made them alive. They are no longer, by nature, children of wrath.

That is not biblical, for how can God be pleased to "leave some in their depraved spiritual polarity", when the scripture plainly says, " . . . they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8)

I didn't say that their depraved spiritual polarity pleased God.

Since God's law is of the spiritual nature, how can it be that he has written it upon the hearts of all creation?

My apologies. By "all of His creation" I meant all of the people He created.

I don't see this as an answer to the question.

Okay. Sorry to hear that.

Rom. 8: 7. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

If the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, then it would follow that it would not subject to any judgement or penalty inflicted because of disobedience to said law.

Oh Dottie... Romans 8:7 doesn't mean that the carnal mind isn't subject to God's rule. It means that it does not place itself in submission to God's law.

No, it says that God so loved the world, and it says nothing about him sending his Son to secure the salvation of all for whom he sent him. Plainly and simply it says "that whosoever believes in him would not perish, but have aonios LIFE.

It doesn't "plainly and simply" say that. It says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, THAT whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." The purpose for which God sent His Son was to ensure that whoever believes in Him would not perish but, instead, have life. Is it simply and plainly that you don't think God can accomplish the purpose for which He sent the Son?

Since the Jews thought that they were the only people who had "privy" to God, and could not imagine that any Gentile, unless, of course, the had made him a proselyte, could possibly recieve anything from THEIR God, it would be logical to conclude that the world in John 3:16 meant the world of the visable and physical nation of Israel.

No. The "world" in that verse is not limited to the nation of Israel, at least not to the "visible and physical nation of Israel." It is limited to the spiritual nation of Israel, i.e., believers. It mattered not what the Pharisees believed because God grafted in, through faith, those He had ordained unto eternal life.

God bless

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Van;

Now lets turn to God is no respecter of persons. What this passage is saying is God does not show parsality to individuals, but gives equal justice to all. But God does make individual choices, Jacob He loved, Esau He hated. God makes conditional covenents in the Bible all the time. If folks do this, God will do that. If folks do not do this, God will do this other thing. Think of all the "repent or God will bring calamity" passages. Bottom line, God chosing individual believers in Christ for salvation does not violate the passages concerning the idea that God is no repecter of persons.

I disagree, Here is why. If God uses any information about a person as to whether or not they are chosen. Then God is a respecter of men because He allowed the actions of men on there own to influence His decisions. This is my best understanding of what respect of men is. Judged by there works. There can be no works for Salvation the Bible says so .

The making of man to pay the consequences of his own decisions is justice, and is not respect of men, it's the Law. We are blessed when we do right only if we are with in His Grace. Grace is favor. Yes we have favor with God when we Trust In Christ. When we trust in Him He favors us and will bless us accordingly. This again is Justice, It's the Law. I believe that the whole process of Salvation is of God. Yet it is not forced on us with unalterable predestination. There are predetermined plans but all of them are on the condition that we trust in Christ. Christ chooses us first and that choosing is universal this doesn't mean that we will be saved. It only means we can be, upon the condition of trusting in Christ. We first trust in Him.

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

. Now I know I just said God is no respecter of men then I said he favors those who believes in Him. Sounds like a contradiction but it isn't when you look at why He doesn't respect men to begin with. He doesn't respect the actions of unsaved men would be a better term. Once you are of God all your actions for the good are of God because when we are saved we surrender our will to His. We allow Him to use us to do His will.

We could say well God respected David when God helped David to kill Goliath. Yes He did, but David Loved God very much even though He wasn't perfect on this earth. There was a reason. Both Esau and Jacob Knew who God was and in the end they came together in peace again. This was also the work of God They both humbled them selves for the sake of both of them. They were brothers to the end. They Loved each other even though they weren't very nice to each other. I don't for a minute think that Esau went to Hell.

Peter is admonishing believers in Christ chosen by God to make certain of their being chosen. And how do you do this? By producing fruit in your life. Without the indwelt spirit of Christ we can do nothing, but with the indwelt spirit of Christ we can produce abundant fruit. So this is an exhortation to diligence in our walk with Christ

I understand what you mean How ever the fruit of your labors and the fruit of the spirit are two different things. I'm all for evangelization But even a sinner can be used by God. Sinners are preaching the word on T.V. everyday. All that needs to happen is for someone to hear it. It's Jesus Christ that plants the seed not men. It's God who draws men to Jesus Jn 6:44 in fact it's God who does the work we just allow Him to use us to do it. Those sinners who are preaching and aren't saved yet are still preaching the word even if they quote one verse. Is powerful enough to bring men to there knees.

God says His "word will not return void" and I believe it. I think I would be humbled if I knew for sure if just one person I have told about Jesus was actually saved. My problem is that I don't really take the credit for it because I can't see there hearts. Maybe that's best I might get a swelled head. No one knows the motives of men but God. The one person in the world whom your pretty sure is saved may not be in reality we just never know.

In Christ;

Romanbear

 

[Van]

Then God is a respecter of men because He allowed the actions of men on there own to influence His decisions.

That is exactly what God does. God does not play favorites, He saves believers in Christ and placing our belief in Christ is not a work according to Paul's use of the terms. We are not saved by performing works of the Law, because we are unable to keep the whole Law and therefore the Law and our failure to keep it leads us as a tudor to Christ. Look at Romans 2:11. The Gentiles will not get out of judgment for there deeds against the law written on their hearts because God does not play favorites.

The Bible says faith is our introduction to grace. See Romans 5:2. Therefore our faith is not what Paul had it mind when he said salvation is not of works, lest anyone should boast.

God not being a "respecter" of men has nothing to do with respecting men such as I respected my Dad. The idea is showing favoritism. Look at Ephesians 6:9.

There are predetermined plans but all of them are on the condition that we trust in Christ.

True

Christ chooses us first and that choosing is universal this doesn't mean that we will be saved.

I disagree, you are making election to no effect, saying it is the same thing as providing the opportunity to the whole world, all of mankind for salvation by grace through faith. Election is not God's choosing to make salvation available in the sense that I am using the term, for this discussion. I am saying lets refer to election only as "election unto salvation." Using this understanding, you are saying there is no election which flys in the face of many scriptures.

Lets look at just one:
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 says, “knowing brethren, beloved of God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.” Paul is clearly referring to God’s individual choice of believers following their decision of repentance and faith (accepting that they were sinners and placing their faith in Jesus for forgiveness of sins). What Paul is saying is that he personally brought the gospel to the Thessalonians and therefore observed their acceptance of the gospel and the demonstration of God's choosing them, probably by them manifesting the Holy Spirit. In the same way, the Thessalonians observed Paul personally and knew what kind of Spirit led man he was, full of power and in the Holy Spirit, speaking with full conviction as to the truth of the gospel.

 

[holyrokker]

Calvin's God: You there.
Sinner: Me?
Calvin's God: Yes. Come here. I'm going to save you.
Sinner: Me? I don't want to be saved. I'm happy the way I am.
Calvin's God: Sorry. You have no choice. Now, come here.
Sinner: But I don't want to.
Calvin's God: Too bad. I've chosen you, you can't resist. I'm saving you whether you like it or not.
Sinner: HELP!!!

 

[Ben johnson]

With respect, holyrokker, it appears to me to be more like: "God slips in unnoticed, and changes their hearts. THEN, the (changed person) suddenly looks around and says, 'Hey, I wanna learn everything about JESUS!' And he pursues God and righteousness."

'Course, I would like to hear an explanation for a conversation, that MUST happen at the end of time (if Calvinism is true) :

God: "Sorry, you're outta here."
Reprobate: "How can I be condemned by sin?"
"Hey, you chose to sin; the wages of sin are death."
"But I couldn't choose anything else, could I?"
"No, of course not; I didn't elect you."
"But how could I believe, if only YOUR ELECTION could allow that, and YOU didn't CHOOSE me?"
"Everybody was condemned, before I elected some."
"But that's my POINT --- if only Your choice COULD save ANYONE, then how am I condemned for YOUR OTHER CHOICE?"
"I didn't choose you to go to Hell."
"Yes You did; by choosing the FEW for salvation, and ignoring me, you choose me for Hell. How is that just?"
"I have mercy on whom I will have mercy."
"It's justice to condemn so many people, who had NO OTHER CHOICE?"
"It's justice if I SAY it's justice."
"No, it's justice if the CONDEMNED, get what they CHOOSE."
"You chose to sin."
"But I could choose nothing else --- only Your ELECTION could have arrested my 'choosing-to-sin'."
"So?"
"But why am I condemned for what I COULD NOT AVOID?"
"I was revealed to you; Paul said so in Romans1:19 and 20. You are without excuse."
"But You weren't REALLY revealed to me, if I needed to be equipped to BELIEVE, and YOU DENIED that EQUIPPING. That's the best excuse in the world!"
"You have no excuse; you are condemned by your sins."
"But if I had NO CHOICE, what could POSSIBLY be a better excuse???"
"I didn't cause you to sin and perish."
"Yes You did! If ONLY Your forceful intervention COULD have rescued me, and You chose NOT to, then You chose me to perish!"

...What is the end of this discussion? How can God be just? How can the reprobate, not have the best excuse ever?

 

[moonbeam]

Reprobate: "How can I be condemned by sin?"


...What is the end of this discussion?

Weeping and gnashing of teeth


Jesus Christ . . . . . . . the Prince of Peace

 

[Beoga]

Calvin's God: You there.
Sinner: Me?
Calvin's God: Yes. Come here. I'm going to save you.
Sinner: Me? I don't want to be saved. I'm happy the way I am.
Calvin's God: Sorry. You have no choice. Now, come here.
Sinner: But I don't want to.
Calvin's God: Too bad. I've chosen you, you can't resist. I'm saving you whether you like it or not.
Sinner: HELP!!!

funny never saw lazeraus screaming and complaining and calling for help when Jesus called him out of the grave.

 

[Reformationist]

Calvin's God: You there.
Sinner: Me?
Calvin's God: Yes. Come here. I'm going to save you.
Sinner: Me? I don't want to be saved. I'm happy the way I am.
Calvin's God: Sorry. You have no choice. Now, come here.
Sinner: But I don't want to.
Calvin's God: Too bad. I've chosen you, you can't resist. I'm saving you whether you like it or not.
Sinner: HELP!!!

What a ridiculous load of garbage. You have no clue what you're talking about. This does not, in any way, represent the teachings of Calvin or the reformed faith. It always amazes me that people think themselves so clever and feel the need to create fictitious, inaccurate scenarios to explain a view of which they clearly have no knowledge.

 

[Reformationist]

With respect, holyrokker, it appears to me to be more like: "God slips in unnoticed, and changes their hearts. THEN, the (changed person) suddenly looks around and says, 'Hey, I wanna learn everything about JESUS!' And he pursues God and righteousness."

'Course, I would like to hear an explanation for a conversation, that MUST happen at the end of time (if Calvinism is true) :

God: "Sorry, you're outta here."
Reprobate: "How can I be condemned by sin?"
"Hey, you chose to sin; the wages of sin are death."
"But I couldn't choose anything else, could I?"
"No, of course not; I didn't elect you."
"But how could I believe, if only YOUR ELECTION could allow that, and YOU didn't CHOOSE me?"
"Everybody was condemned, before I elected some."
"But that's my POINT --- if only Your choice COULD save ANYONE, then how am I condemned for YOUR OTHER CHOICE?"
"I didn't choose you to go to Hell."
"Yes You did; by choosing the FEW for salvation, and ignoring me, you choose me for Hell. How is that just?"
"I have mercy on whom I will have mercy."
"It's justice to condemn so many people, who had NO OTHER CHOICE?"
"It's justice if I SAY it's justice."
"No, it's justice if the CONDEMNED, get what they CHOOSE."
"You chose to sin."
"But I could choose nothing else --- only Your ELECTION could have arrested my 'choosing-to-sin'."
"So?"
"But why am I condemned for what I COULD NOT AVOID?"
"I was revealed to you; Paul said so in Romans1:19 and 20. You are without excuse."
"But You weren't REALLY revealed to me, if I needed to be equipped to BELIEVE, and YOU DENIED that EQUIPPING. That's the best excuse in the world!"
"You have no excuse; you are condemned by your sins."
"But if I had NO CHOICE, what could POSSIBLY be a better excuse???"
"I didn't cause you to sin and perish."
"Yes You did! If ONLY Your forceful intervention COULD have rescued me, and You chose NOT to, then You chose me to perish!"

...What is the end of this discussion? How can God be just? How can the reprobate, not have the best excuse ever?

Ben, it's dismaying to see how little you also understand of a view you've been railing against for as long as I can remember.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Van;

I disagree, you are making election to no effect, saying it is the same thing as providing the opportunity to the whole world, all of mankind for salvation by grace through faith.

That all depends on what you think election does. Obviously you believe it to be individual but you haven't shown one scripture that proves this at all.

Election is not God's choosing to make salvation available in the sense that I am using the term, for this discussion. I am saying lets refer to election only as "election unto salvation." Using this understanding, you are saying there is no election which flys in the face of many scriptures.

If election is what you claim then no one can be sure of there election and everyone is saved because they are elected which is nonsense. Scripture doesn't say that election means you will be saved. If it did there would be no need to be saved you already would be.

1Th 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Paul is clearly referring to God’s individual choice of believers following their decision of repentance and faith

I disagree I guess it's a matter of what version your using.
Paul is talking about our choosing God according to the KJV.
I guess we'll have to argue translations sometime
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[holyrokker]

What a ridiculous load of garbage. You have no clue what you're talking about. This does not, in any way, represent the teachings of Calvin or the reformed faith. It always amazes me that people think themselves so clever and feel the need to create fictitious, inaccurate scenarios to explain a view of which they clearly have no knowledge.

Rather than insult me, why don't you explain your position more fully?

 

[Dottie]

Hello Reformationist. Please excuse the rather unorthodox form in which this is submitted. This is part one. It was too long to submit as one comment.

Dottie's Quote:

When we are born, we are neither for or against God, for we know neither to do good nor evil. James 4: 17. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Reformationist's Quote:

Ummm...that verse says nothing even close to what you're implying. Look at the context:

James 4:13-17
Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit"; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Does that sound like James is talking about the innocence of youth?

Dottie's Quote:

I agree that keeping the scriptures in their proper context is very important to the right understanding of such, but there are some passages that transcend context, inasmuch as they say what they say, and may be applied to the whole of any bible truth. No, James was not talking about the innocence of youth in this particular place, but that does not change the truth as a whole. To paraphrase James 4:17: "If one does the wrong while knowing what is the right, then it is sin to him", and that is the truth no matter what the context. Your statement was that, "we are born aligned against God." My statement was "when we are born we are neither for or against God, inasmuch as we know nothing of what is good or bad." If then we are in such a neutral state as this, how can we be "aligned against God", before we have sinned against him?

If you follow the tried and true Calvinistic trend, I am sure that you will immediately cite Psalm 58:3 as the rebuttal to my previous comment.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

To which I will reply:

I have seen quite a few new born babes in my time, but never once have I seen one that could speak as soon as they were born, let alone, tell a lie. So surely the Psalmist must have been using figurative speech here, much like he did in Psalm 51: 7. " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Reformationist's Quote:

Actually, I would have, and am, citing Psalms 51:5:

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."

Which you note here:

Reformationist here re-enters Scriptures which Dottie quoted:

Psalms 51:5 is another scripture which I have noticed is often presented to advance the notion that we are born sinners.

" Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Since the Psalmist had nothing to do with his own conception and shaping, It seems logical for me to conclude that it was his parents who sinned, and not the Psalmist.

Reformationist Quote:

Um...Dottie, that is not at all what that passage means. I'm not sure how to approach this because it seems that you are so far off already in your understanding of these passages that I fear you will simply be insulted if I were to tell you, which would obviously not be good for any discussion. Suffice to say, this passage is not referring to the process by which he was conceived but, rather, that he was born with a sinful nature.

Dottie's Quote:

I am sure that you would like to have this passage say "that he was born with a sinful nature", but it doesn't. And because you say this, does not make it so. The text literally says, "Listen, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother concieved me." I did not say, and certainly did not mean to imply, that the passage referred to "the process by which he was concieved". The point that I was trying to make was and is, that because the parents are sinners does not automatically make their off spring sinners. The apostle Paul wrote in Romans 5 that it was death , (not sin) which passed upon all men, and that being the result of ALL having sinned. (verse 12)

James 1:14-15. "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust (desire), and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it (the desire) bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
And so we see that it is not the natural desire that is sinful, but it is the fulfilling of that desire in a way which is not pleasing to God that is the sin.
Ps. 139:13-14 " For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

Does that sound like that God made anyone with a sinful nature? NO! A thousand times, NO! His works are marvellous, and he makes nothing impure. We are made in his image. (Gen. 1:26-27)

Ecc. 7:29. " Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

Rom. 2:14. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"

How can an individual; if he has a sinful nature as you say, do by nature, the good things contained in God's law? Wouldn't that sinful nature cause him to do only bad things? Surely it would!

Yes, I certainly will agree that we are born with the propensity toward sin, "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of HIM who hath subjected the same in hope," (Rom. 8:20). But that is quite different than what Calvinism declares when it says that we are born totally depraved and ruined.

Reformationist's Quote:

One more thing. You immediately disregard Psalms 58:3 because you "have seen quite a few new born babes in your time, but never once have you seen one that could speak as soon as they were born, let alone, tell a lie." You acknowledge that this is a "figure of speech" but you apply to it an incorrect understanding. The Psalmist is not saying that they start speaking lies the minute they are born. The meaning of the passage is that they are born in an unregenerate state, estranged from and aligned against God and that they speak lies in their youth.

Dottie's Quote:

If the Psalmist is not saying that infants literally start speaking lies (sinning) the minute they are born, ( and we both know that he isn't) this then would take Psalms 58:3 "out of the running" as to being used to prove that we are born in a totally depraved state, as Calvinism declares. The Psalmist did not say that "they are born in an unregenerate state, estranged from and aligned against God and that they speak lies in their youth." YOU did!

UN - RE - generate. That is really a strange word, if you stop to think about it. I'm not sure I quite grasp the meaning of it. How and when does one become an un re generate anyway?


And where do we find in the scriptures that God changes anyone's nature, and leaves others to their depraved spiritual polarity?

Reformationist's Quote:

Many places. Here is one for your consideration:

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

They were children of wrath, just as the others, dead in their trespasses and sins, and God made them alive. They are no longer, by nature, children of wrath.

Dottie's Quote:

Has it not occured to you that before one can die, they must first be alive? I just don't think your un-re-generate theory is going to work here. Sorry.


That is not biblical, for how can God be pleased to "leave some in their depraved spiritual polarity", when the scripture plainly says, " . . . they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8)

Reformationist's Quote:

I didn't say that their depraved spiritual polarity pleased God.

Dottie's Quote:

If he is pleased to leave them in this state, then surely they are pleasing him by being in that state. It adds up to the same thing.


Since God's law is of the spiritual nature, how can it be that he has written it upon the hearts of all creation?
1Cor. 2: 14. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."


How can that which is natural recieve things that are of the spirit? Unless of course, every one of his creation has been born of his Spirit. Could it be? After all, Jesus did say "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

Reformationist's Quote:

My apologies. By "all of His creation" I meant all of the people He created.

Dottie's Quote:

Not a problem, I'll just rephrase the question for you: Since God's law is of the spiritual nature, how can it be that he has written it upon the hearts of all the people he created?


1Cor. 2: 14. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."


How can that which is natural recieve things that are of the spirit? Unless of course, every one of the people that he created has been born of his Spirit. Could it be? After all, Jesus did say "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

The question was:

"If these said people were pre-destined then why are they judged?"

To which you replied:

"The biblical doctrine of predestination is not fatalism. Mankind is guilty before God for his choices because he makes them free from external coersion."


Dottie's Quote:
I don't see this as an answer to the question.

Rom. 8: 7. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

If the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, then it would follow that it would not subject to any judgement or penalty inflicted because of disobedience to said law.
Reformationist's Quote:

Oh Dottie...Romans 8:7 doesn't mean that the carnal mind isn't subject to God's rule. It means that it does not place itself in submission to God's law.

Dottie's Quote:

Um ... No, not quite. This passage says nothing about whether or not one places itself in submission to God's law. It simply says "that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God.", and the addition of "It means that it does not place itself in submisssion to God's law" is YOUR addition, and not that of the apostle Paul. No one, but no one should take such liberties with the holy writ as you have done here. That ground on which you trod is fearful ground. Can you not feel it trembling beneath your feet?

No, it says that God so loved the world, and it says nothing about him sending his Son to secure the salvation of all for whom he sent him. Plainly and simply it says "that whosoever believes in him would not perish, but have aionios LIFE.

Reformationist's Quote:

It doesn't "plainly and simply" say that. It says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, THAT whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." The purpose for which God sent His Son was to ensure that whoever believes in Him would not perish but, instead, have life. Is it simply and plainly that you don't think God can accomplish the purpose for which He sent the Son?

Dotties Quote:

I don't quite understand your emphasis on the word "THAT" in this comment, but be that as it may, the scripture says that "God so loved the world", and that statement is immutable. Therefore, whether each individual in that world believed in Jesus or not, did not change the fact that he loved them ALL, for ALL of them comprised the world.


End of Part one .

 

[Dottie]

Part Two

can accomplish the purpose for which He sent the Son?

Dotties Quote:

I don't quite understand your emphasis on the word "THAT" in this comment, but be that as it may, the scripture says that "God so loved the world", and that statement is immutable. Therefore, whether each individual in that world believed in Jesus or not, did not change the fact that he loved them ALL, for ALL of them comprised the world.







Since the Jews thought that they were the only people who had "privy" to God, and could not imagine that any Gentile, unless, of course, the had made him a proselyte, could possibly recieve anything from THEIR God, it would be logical to conclude that the world in John 3:16 meant the world of the visable and physical nation of Israel.

Reformationist's Quote:



No. The "world" in that verse is not limited to the nation of Israel, at least not to the "visible and physical nation of Israel." It is limited to the spiritual nation of Israel, i.e., believers. It mattered not what the Pharisees believed because God grafted in, through faith, those He had ordained unto eternal life.

Dottie's Quote:

So do you think that Nicodemus understood the "world" that Jesus spoke of in John 3:16 to be "the spiritual nation of Israel, i.e., believers"? If he did, he surely had more understanding than even Jesus' own disciples, for in Mark 16:14-15, it is written: "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world (kosmos) and preach the gospel to every creature." Evidently Peter and the other disciples understood this world to be the "visable and physical nation of Israel" exclusively; for later on when they began to preach and teach the gospel, Peter had to be shown with via a vision, that the gospel was intended for not only the visable and physical nation of Israel, but for the Gentiles also. You can read about this in the 10th and 11th chapters of Acts.

No, the "world" in question here was the world of the literal Israelites, exclusively.

May God bless you.
Dottie

 

[Ben johnson]

Weeping and gnashing of teeth

Hmmm; Matt13:42, obviously ties to Romans2:8. What is it that separates those who "receive immortality", from "those who receive wrath and indignation, cast into the firey furnace where is weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

"Those who by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality" --- receive eternal life.

"Those who are selfishly ambitious and obey unrighteousness rather than truth" --- receive wrath/indignation (where they gnash their teeth).

Not intending to be sarcastic --- how am I missing words like, "predestined", or "chosen by God", or something?

Ben, it's dismaying to see how little you also understand of a view you've been railing against for as long as I can remember.

I meant no offense, Don. What do you think the conversation between God and the condemned will be like?

 

[Beoga]

ok it is 1240am, i am super tired, just watched the incredibles (which was wicked good by the way, go see it now, this very moment), but is my observation correct: dottie's belief is pretty much pelagianism?