reformationist said:
In the meantime, maybe you can explain to me why some people are willing to "accept the Cross," whatever that means, and some are not?
What I mean by accept the cross is to ultimately accept Gods ways over your own. Yet as I pointed out earlier with reference to C.S. Lewis, there are some people who will never have it any other way than their own. Do you want to be with God? Then doing so means following Him and doing things His way. If you do not wish to be with God, the alternative is to be left to yourself, cut off from the very source of goodness (God).
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
Yet you and I both know that we are not merely carnal beings. When Paul repeatedly speaks of his fleshly desires, he does not suppose those desires are the only ones he has. There is a part of me that is inclined to sin due to its heavy influence in the world, my own tendencies to look out for myself before others, and my own animalistic desires (i.e. desires of the flesh). Yet there is more to me than merely these things: I am also a soul, branching beyond the mere carnal world. Besides, the NASB (the version I trust the most after having been through Koine Greek) renders the first part the mind set on the flesh, that is, a matter of focus for the individual. Long story short, this verse in no way supports the idea that humans are incapable of doing good of their own accord.
What "good" is this of which you speak, being that whatsoever is not ultimately predicated by faith in Christ and a desire to obey Him in all our ways is sin?
I really dont see any basis from which you can stand in this understanding of sin. If what you say here is true, even a nonbeliever who saves an elderly nun from a bunch of thugs has not committed a good act but a sinful one, because he didnt do it by faith in Christ or out of a desire to obey Him (in the most direct sense). The way morality works is that whenever a person chooses to do good, they are, in a very real sense, choosing God. Though their choices in these matters have little, if anything, to do with theological facts, they have clearly chosen to do good (that is, Gods way).
What we contend is that the corruption has pervaded every aspect of his being and no part of him remains untouched by sin.
This is really quite vague. Is man capable of choosing good over evil of his own accord or not? If he is, then he is capable of good and is thus not totally depraved. If not, then good and evil have no meaning for humans: if a man cannot choose good, he cant even choose to do a morally neutral act over an evil one with the intent of refraining from evil (since that itself would be a good act). The result, then, is that man can only do evil, but if this is so, how can humans be morally condemned? They could have done nothing else. We might as well curse water for forming currents: it has no choice in the matter.
I don't understand this point so I could not comment on it.
Its a matter of what is meant by total depravity. If we use it to mean that people have no sense of what good really is (totally depraved of goodness), then they should have never known they were totally depraved (they would have not known goodness to say they were depraved of it).
Just because someone uses the term Calvinism in the label they apply to themselves doesn't make it "a form of Calvinism." Hyper-Calvinism, if you actually know what that is, is, in fact, a heinous view an completely unlike Calvinism. "4 point Calvinism" is not Calvinism either because Calvinism includes within it all five views of the TULIP, and much more.
Granted, merely calling some ideology doesnt mean it
is that ideology, but this still doesnt resolve the issue of differences among adherents to a particular ideology. From what youre asserting here, it would seem to follow that if there are any differences between your thoughts and Calvins concerning ideology, you would not be a Calvinist. Yet he burned his opposition in a debate at the stake simply because he won (interestingly enough, the debate was held in his home town of Geneva). If Calvin taught this sort of thing through example, and Im presuming you disagree with him in this matter, then you do not agree completely with Calvins ideology. If this is so, by the criteria you listed above, you are not a Calvinist.
If they do not follow all of what Calvin taught then they don't follow what Calvin taught. It's actually a pretty simple concept. Maybe you'll pick up on it this time.
See above. Its a very bigoted, problematic assertion of a particular definition.
He's God. Maybe you forgot that. Who is it that God could not save were He to purpose it? Oh that's right....according to you, it's anyone who simply refuses Him. So much for a sovereign God that accomplishes all that He purposes.
You seem to have this funny idea that God can do anything. He cannot. For example, Hebrews 6:18 blatantly states that it is impossible for God to lie. Im sorry to burst your bubble, but it seems the God of scripture isnt the God youve imagined: a sovereign God in the sense that He is able to do anything. This is really an unnecessary understanding of Sovereignty and Omnipotence. God is not able to do anything, but able to do anything possible.
Further still, you
still did not answer the question: How can God remain completely good and not save as many people as He can? Even more, how can God save
anyone if He has to first force and contort their wills to be with Him (at best, saving only a shadow of who they really are)?
As unbiblical as universalism is, it is far less repulvise than the tripe you spew.
In turn, your tyrannical, Nazi-like God is so repulsive that if any human acted the way he does, the person would be thrown in jail. More repulsive still, Calvinists praise this negligent, forceful God who, ultimately, cannot save a single person through the method he has chosen: forcing the wills of his creations. What he is left with is merely a shadow of who the people really are.
At least universalists believe that God is capable of saving everyone. Your pitiful shadow of a god is regulated by the will of the creation.
And you lust so much to attribute a power to God He cannot possibly have that it has turned you to worshiping an idol, concerned more with power than with goodness. Once again, God is not regulated by the will of the creation any more than a father is regulated by the will of his son while wrestling with him. The father so values the interaction with his son that he refrains from forcing all his strength upon his child. This truth has clearly fallen upon your deaf ears, leaving you able to only set up straw men.
Tell you what, you go ahead and worship that god. I'll continue to acknowledge that the God of Scripture is holy and righteous and omnipotent and He saves all whom He purposes to save and never fails.
Tell you what, you go ahead and worship that god. Ill continue to acknowledge that the God of Scripture is holy and righteous and omnipotent and He saves everyone willing and never fails, leaving no one behind who wants to come to Him and giving
everyone a fair shot at salvation (unlike your arbitrary, tyrannical, less-than-good god).
