Is There Faith In Calvinist System?

[John Mullally]

A slave to sin is bound to sin. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to those who believe - so if you are a slave to sin and you respond by believing the Gospel message, then you will be saved. And that salvation includes setting you free from sin.

You’ve made being a slave to sin a moot point. You have a slave to sin doing the same thing as a slave to righteousness. And that’s besides having someone in the flesh pleasing God.

The NT says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe. The righteous already have salvation. And per Ezekiel
Calvinists don’t believe in the power of the gospel—they believe in the power of pre-faith REGENERATION, so that only when accompanied by the power of Irresistible Grace does the gospel have any spark of life. So, in Calvinism, the real power of the gospel rests in an irresistible calling for those who disbelieve, that is, those who are born total haters of God, so that they can and must believe, as members of Calvinism’s secret elect.

When all you have is a straw man, I win

Your first captured quote above, indicates that the power of the Gospel is not effective on the slave to sin. In other words somethng must be done to or for the sinner (i.e. slave to sin) by God in order for the sinner to respond to the Gospel.

I agree that Calvinists assert something needs to be done by God to the sinner for him to respond to the Gospel. My second captured quote explains that Calvinists assert that the sinner needs pre-faith regeneration from God in order respond to the Gospel - do you deny that? If so, please give details. I also explain that Calvinist assert that sinners receiving pre-faith regeneration not only can, but shall respond to the Gospel. If such is the case, the real power lies in pre-faith regeneration. In the Bible, regeneration (or being born-again) is not described as occurring before man has faith.

Your second captured quote says that I produced a straw man. Please explain yourself in detail before crying foul. I am not a good mind reader.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
No. I don't say he has a part. He is default fact; he is the only "brute fact".

I know Calvinists will jump back and say this but then they'll go right ahead and say the next day God ordained everything that occurs to happen even before creation. You said yourself,
Mark Quayle said:
"I believe that from the foundation of the world, God ordained that absolutely every detail, every motion of every particle...........,every pain and suffering, come to pass precisely as it does...."

And I will happily repeat it as often as it seems useful!

But then you say he doesn't have a part! You can't see your position is so very disingenuous? I mean you can't be meaning by saying he doesn't have a part, similar to what Non Calvinists believe that God merely allows things.....NO you believe he ordained it to be. So Mark the truth is you're all over the map. You REALLY don't want to believe God had a part. That's good! Then give up your Calvinistic thinking. You can't have ordaining without God having a part.

(I hope you don't mind that I changed the color, there. I use a black background, for my eyes' sake, and the dark color you had, made it impossible for me to read.)

No, I don't say that he doesn't have a part. Read carefully! I don't say, "God has a part." Nor do I say, "God doesn't have a part." I don't play to your narrative, as though God doesn't have the whole matter as his work —in fact, ALL that happens is by his decree and, logically, as a result of his creation, even apart from his 'interventions' into the natural order of things, as we think of it. You can stop protesting to the strawman of my inconsistency there.

But don't give up hope that I will abandon Scripture and logic, to convert to the Arminian mindset in which I grew up!


"Mark Quayle said:
Also, there is what we refer to as common grace, such as the fact that he makes it to rain upon the just and unjust alike. He gives them life, and helps them live productively. There is much more than that, besides, but they are not grateful"

Sorry but your position is just so hyper on so many things. How do you know and how can you say people generally speaking aren't grateful to God? I've seen many offer up a thanksgiving to God when good things happen to them.

My bad. I thought we had mentioned Romans 1 at some point in this discussion; verse 21: "...having known God, they glorified Him not as God, or were thankful;" (Berean Literal Translation). Is thanks for when things go well what Paul is talking about in Romans 1?

 

[John Mullally]

Well as I said before Hamsters Jesus didn't answer questions ALWAYS put to him. Does that mean he failed in your book?

I know you think that’s clever. Jesus was never wrong, though. AlI see is someone who can make statements about theology, but is unequipped to actually defend them. The heart of debate is the cross-examination. You are avoiding having your ideas examined.

This website says that Jesus only directly answered 8 of 307 questions posed to Him in the Gospels. 6 Questions Jesus Asked (and the powerful truth you need to know) I will answer questions concerning what I post as you should do also.

 

[Hammster]

Your first captured quote above, indicates that the power of the Gospel is not effective on the slave to sin. In other words somethng must be done to or for the sinner (i.e. slave to sin) by God in order for the sinner to respond to the Gospel.

No, I didn’t indicate that. Another straw man.

 

[Hammster]

This website says that Jesus only directly answered 8 of 307 questions posed to Him in the Gospels. 6 Questions Jesus Asked (and the powerful truth you need to know) I will answer questions concerning what I post as you should do also.

Glad to see you’ll finally start.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Without God providing the gospel the good news he'd not be accepting or rejecting He'd be in a state of limbo.

Sorry but your whole paradigm way of thinking of what enmity towards God has to mean is biased in your Calvinist position.

Yes mankind sinning is spiritual. What actually do you think man is just a physical functioning entity?

According to Paul, mankind sinning is fleshly, natural. You see no contrast? Or are you just playing with words?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Without God providing the gospel the good news he'd not be accepting or rejecting He'd be in a state of limbo.

Sorry but your whole paradigm way of thinking of what enmity towards God has to mean is biased in your Calvinist position.

Yes mankind sinning is spiritual. What actually do you think man is just a physical functioning entity?

So you are saying that in spite of Scripture to the contrary, man is spiritually alive?

You didn't know that I came to Reformed Theology/ Calvinism by way of this very subject? I didn't even know what I had come to realize was called Calvinism/Reformed. All I knew about them was the caricature I was taught, that they don't believe in choice.

You also, apparently, don't know that God uses whatever means he chooses, to accomplish that 'regeneration' —to wit, establishing the residency of the Spirit of God within the elect. I think we will be astonished at the depth of the play on words, that Christ is called the Word of God, and the Gospel is also the Word of God, and the Father, Son and Spirit are one and the same God, interplayed with so many other passages and themes.

 

[John Mullally]

A slave to sin is bound to sin. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to those who believe - so if you are a slave to sin and you respond by believing the Gospel message, then you will be saved. And that salvation includes setting you free from sin.

You’ve made being a slave to sin a moot point. You have a slave to sin doing the same thing as a slave to righteousness. And that’s besides having someone in the flesh pleasing God.

Your first captured quote above, indicates that the power of the Gospel is not effective on the slave to sin. In other words somethng must be done to or for the sinner (i.e. slave to sin) by God in order for the sinner to respond to the Gospel.

No, I didn’t indicate that. Another straw man.

Here is the history of an interaction to which you just accused me of strawmaning. What did you mean in the second quote from the top (Post 179)? Please explain yourself.

From my point of view your Post 179 is an incomplete thought and I filled in with my statement you were responding to (top quote).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your words Mark, Post 177 "No. I don't say he has a part."

Indeed I don't say he has a part, and I don't say he has no part!

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or is it a problem grasping the logic of the grammar. A. Not X, and, B. Not Y, neither one, assumes Yes X or Yes Y. I'd offer to set it up on a Karnaugh map or a ladder diagram, or to draw the 'not', 'and', 'or' and 'nor' gates for you, but it should be plain by now what I was saying.

Again, your narrative of "God's part" is bogus. He owns the whole thing!

I should think that if you hadn't taken your quote of what I said out of context, you'd have seen this by now.

 

[Bobber]

This website says that Jesus only directly answered 8 of 307 questions posed to Him in the Gospels. 6 Questions Jesus Asked (and the powerful truth you need to know) I will answer questions concerning what I post as you should do also.

Very good article in the link. All should have a read of it.

 

[Bobber]

So you are saying that in spite of Scripture to the contrary, man is spiritually alive?

Scriptures don't say however what you're trying to say it does.

Man even the unregenerate have consciousness and they are self aware. You don't understand what being spiritually alive even means. It means having one's spirit in fellowship with Eternal Life. To be spiritually dead does not mean to be without the faculties of intellect, affection or will. Our minds, emotions, and wills still function, but they are cut off from the life of God. The spirit of the man still has consciousness.

Even the rich man in hell who was spiritually dead was alive in the sense he had consciousness. He had a conversation with Abraham from hell.

Spiritual Life, eternal life is having the life of God imparted within one's spirit.

 

[Bobber]

Indeed I don't say he has a part, and I don't say he has no part!

Then sorry but you're not saying anything. A court of law would laugh you out of a legal proceedings if you tried to say something like that.
You'd be told he either does or he doesn't according to your theology. Make up your mind.

If you're taking the position that he doesn't have a part then you're certainly not one adhering to Calvinism. I think you've just made your up your own version of things where you're not committed to any one thought.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scriptures don't say however what you're trying to say it does.

Man even the unregenerate have consciousness and they are self aware. You don't understand what being spiritually alive even means. It means having one's spirit in fellowship with Eternal Life. To be spiritually dead does not mean to be without the faculties of intellect, affection or will. Our minds, emotions, and wills still function, but they are cut off from the life of God. The spirit of the man still has consciousness.

Even the rich man in hell who was spiritually dead was alive in the sense he had consciousness. He had a conversation with Abraham from hell.

Spiritual Life, eternal life is having the life of God imparted within one's spirit.

Your constructions deny Romans 8 and Ephesians 2, just for a couple obvious starters.

Also, your red herring doesn't answer how the spiritually dead can do a spiritually alive thing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scriptures don't say however what you're trying to say it does.

Man even the unregenerate have consciousness and they are self aware. You don't understand what being spiritually alive even means. It means having one's spirit in fellowship with Eternal Life. To be spiritually dead does not mean to be without the faculties of intellect, affection or will. Our minds, emotions, and wills still function, but they are cut off from the life of God. The spirit of the man still has consciousness.

Even the rich man in hell who was spiritually dead was alive in the sense he had consciousness. He had a conversation with Abraham from hell.

Spiritual Life, eternal life is having the life of God imparted within one's spirit.

And the rich man in hell, since you want to use that picture, was unable to do anything to please God. Nor was he able, in spite of his agony, to repent.

Nobody is saying they don't have consciousness. But your narrative that it is only talking about fellowship is only a construction. The Bible doesn't teach that as the meaning of Death for the mind of flesh, the natural man, the slave to sin, etc. in Romans nor in Ephesians, nor in John nor in several other places.

I can expect to hear a similar construction if I pose to you this question: If regeneration comes as a result and subsequent effect of salvation, why is it necessary, in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven? (John 3)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then sorry but you're not saying anything. A court of law would laugh you out of a legal proceedings if you tried to say something like that.
You'd be told he either does or he doesn't according to your theology. Make up your mind.

If you're taking the position that he doesn't have a part then you're certainly not one adhering to Calvinism. I think you've just made your up your own version of things where you're not committed to any one thought.

No. If the lawyer insisted I take one or the other I would ask to speak to the judge. To answer according to the narrative of the lawyer implies something that is not true, and I swore to tell the truth.

A bogus construction —that God only has a part— must be assumed to ask me the question. I don't agree with either one— God does NOT only have a part. I just finished telling you I don't say he doesn't have a part, and you continue right on down into your weeds as if it was a highway. I'm not going with you.

I do find it curious that you refuse to admit that God, both scripturally and logically, "owns the whole business" —not just part.

I think we're just about done here.

 

[Bobber]

Your constructions deny Romans 8 and Ephesians 2, just for a couple obvious starters.

Also, your red herring doesn't answer how the spiritually dead can do a spiritually alive thing.

Simple. A spiritually dead individual can see, hear or detect the voice of a spiritual alive being.

OK let's look at some text,

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Lk 16:19

So what do you think the rich man was once separated from his physicals body. His spirit. His spirit was conscious and self aware. So God can speak to a spiritually dead person and he can hear. Spiritually dead does not mean dead, dead, dead in the way you look upon physical death. It simply means not being in fellowship with this higher type of life God's spirit. So how can a spiritual dead person do a spiritually alive thing.

They can't. But they can agree to let God recreate their spirits and be born again. When they do that eternal life, that is the type of life that God is, is imparted within their spirit. And if you're going to insist that a spiritual dead person can't hear the living God and choose to come into agreement with him about anything well sorry you're just wrong. You don't understand what spiritual death even is.

 

[Bobber]

No. If the lawyer insisted I take one or the other I would ask to speak to the judge. To answer according to the narrative of the lawyer implies something that is not true, and I swore to tell the truth.

No the judge himself would tell you to knock it off. You can't bring into my court contradictory statements and try to ram them through here. He'd tell you spit it out and BE CLEAR. Do you believe he has a part or don't you!

To say, I don't say he has a part and I don't say he has no part you're basically saying YOU DON'T KNOW.

Thus my point. Calvinists claim TO KNOW. They say God ordained all things.

A bogus construction —that God only has a part— must be assumed to ask me the question. I don't agree with either one— God does NOT only have a part. I just finished telling you I don't say he doesn't have a part, and you continue right on down into your weeds as if it was a highway. I'm not going with you.

One of those things that I care but I don't care. I'll let lurkers or readers decide who is speaking foolishness and who is the one speaking clearly.

 

[Bobber]

I do find it curious that you refuse to admit that God, both scripturally and logically, "owns the whole business" —not just part.

That sounds like a wonderful sound statement for it seems to honor God. The way you say this God owns the whole business that's got to be rightly defined. God actually made man and gave HIM dominion Gen 1:26 over the physicals creation. (see Ps 89:11, Ps 8:6)

Because of Adam and Eves rebellion Satan became the god of this world but there was a promise from God that he would ultimately defeat Satan by the seed of the woman. If God owned the whole business in the way that you say he would never have had to become a man to being deliverance. If he owned the whole business then he'd just own it so your statements on the surface seem honorable but they're just not according to scripture.

Even the devils said to Jesus have you come to torment us before the time? If he was owning the whole business there would be no time lapse. The devil would be judged right now.

I think we're just about done here.

Yeah sure. Whatever.

 

[Bobber]

(I hope you don't mind that I changed the color, there. I use a black background, for my eyes' sake, and the dark color you had, made it impossible for me to read.)

Sure Mark. The instruction I'm giving in any color I'm thinking many might say they are just as good.

As long as you don't change my words color is not important.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Simple. A spiritually dead individual can see, hear or detect the voice of a spiritual alive being.

OK let's look at some text,

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Lk 16:19

So what do you think the rich man was once separated from his physicals body. His spirit. His spirit was conscious and self aware. So God can speak to a spiritually dead person and he can hear. Spiritually dead does not mean dead, dead, dead in the way you look upon physical death. It simply means not being in fellowship with this higher type of life God's spirit. So how can a spiritual dead person do a spiritually alive thing.

They can't. But they can agree to let God recreate their spirits and be born again. When they do that eternal life, that is the type of life that God is, is imparted within their spirit. And if you're going to insist that a spiritual dead person can't hear the living God and choose to come into agreement with him about anything well sorry you're just wrong. You don't understand what spiritual death even is.

Your use of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus does nothing for your claim that natural man can have salvific faith. I don't hold that the story gives actual facts, except for the conclusion —the moral of the story, and implications of the moral of the story. It is a story.

But that is immaterial to the point. I can do better than you did by the use of the story to make your point, in referencing the fact that after the resurrection of all mankind, the still spiritually dead will even attempt at conversation with God, and will hear God's verbal condemnation. And there are many more equally valid examples, in the Scriptures, of God talking to (with?) the reprobate.

But that isn't what I'm talking about, by "How is a spiritually dead man able to do a spiritual thing?" You haven't shown that the natural man is able to choose God or to please God. If you want to get into what theoretically "could" happen, (which is a useless excursion), fine, but it won't happen because the natural man always chooses at enmity with God. "Spiritually dead" is just my rendition for the sake of debate, of what Paul means by Dead in Sin, and other such references to inability. Sorry to make you waste a whole post of effort on my misrepresentation of what I mean.

This makes me think back on my younger days, when my mindset was like that of an Arminian, and I would get into conversations with unbelievers, about the freedom from sin. "I no longer am bound to sin; I can obey!" "But if you are truly free, you will always obey! You still disobey at times." "Yes, but theoretically I could always obey!" "But you won't." —It wasn't until maybe 30 years ago that I realized I hadn't been arguing Bible, but only theory. The difference between the lost and the saved is Regeneration. The results of regeneration follow.