Predestination

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Now I bet here comes the reply where we have a choice but we don’t have free will. I’m not sure how that works. If you have no free will you have no choice. Calvinism just goes round & round making absolutely no sense at all when you begin to break it all down and address the specifics. I didn’t see his post until this morning but you pretty much covered the same answers I would’ve given except I would’ve also mentioned 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4. If God wants everyone to repent and to be saved and we have no free will then why isn’t everyone saved?

If you really want to know inconsistency, read/listen to Norman Geisler, who has claimed to be a "moderate Calvinist" and yet I have listened to him rail against Calvinism. There are other problems with parts of his works, for instance I have noticed in several entries for the Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, where he could not refrain from his biases, actually misrepresenting in the process.

 

[Loren T.]

I sense one who is hiding in the shadows. I do like Pink, but have not quoted him in this thread. What makes you think a person must agree one hundred and ten percent to quote the person? Goodness I couldn't agree with myself, I mean especially my thoughts and writings before I became a Calvinist. Even afterwords so much learning and growing, and I expect to continue to learn and grow to the end of my days. There are oceans and oceans of learning, and much to be gleaned, even from those with whom I may not completely agree with. But as for Brian and me, I already explained in the post you laughed at. And again, I post helpful charts and you fluff them off. Guess what? I used to be a full fledged convinced Wesleyan minus the complete sanctification in this lifetime doctrine.

I don't hide anywhere, when these topics come up , I dive right in. I think you might want to go back and find where you quoted Pink and be sure you agree with what you quoted. Since, you didn't think you quoted the other guy whose quote you didn't agree with, lol. I would refrain from quoting people to try and prove my point, if I didn't agree with the quote. But that's just me.

 

[Loren T.]

We are not presented with a choice. The gospel is not law. It is good news for whoever believe it. If you must decide to believe, it's because you don't believe.

With all due respect, this is gooblygook.
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.

Oh, dear, Paul is saying someone has to accept the good news to be saved by it. You have better set him straight.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't hide anywhere, when these topics come up , I dive right in. I think you might want to go back and find where you quoted Pink and be sure you agree with what you quoted. Since, you didn't think you quoted the other guy whose quote you didn't agree with, lol. I would refrain from quoting people to try and prove my point, if I didn't agree with the quote. But that's just me.

Sure, you completely ignored all the Scripture in the article by Brian, which was the primary reason for posting it. And you didn't prove anything by the way, but thanks for trying.

 

[Dave L]

With all due respect, this is gooblygook.
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.

Oh, dear, Paul is saying someone has to accept the good news to be saved by it. You have better set him straight.

You are making the things Christians do because of the New Birth, conditions for the self-righteous to meet in the flesh to save themselves. = Acting like Christians to become one = hypocrisy.

 

[Dave L]

So if you don't believe as a baby, you can never believe? How does one come to believe in any thing, but by choice? That would mean some are just born saved and God just hits the activation button? Paul should have told the jailer if God wants you to be saved, he will do it, I can't help you. Jesus was way out of line to say your faith has made you whole, or to say the work of God is to believe on the one who he sent. Why does God keep pleading with people to believe and follow, if he just sprinkles Faith Dust on some and not on another's?

Do you need to decide the chair you are sitting in is real? Of course not, and so it is with believing in Christ, who is real to those who believe in him. If you must decide to believe, it is only because you don't.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Another inconsistency worthy of noting, Jacobus Arminius the father of Arminians was a Calvinist, he died a teacher of Calvinism. He had a bone to pick with William Perkins over Ordo Salutis, and stumbled when trying to debate the doctrine of Predestination. His "arminianism" amounted to private teaching, but publicly taught Calvinism. Truth hurts sometimes.

 

[Dave L]

We are not presented with a choice. The gospel is not law. It is good news for whoever believe it. If you must decide to believe, it's because you don't believe.

Real faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit that one must already have before Christ becomes a faith producing experience.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Oh and I must not forget another inconsistency, the Methodist founders were the Wesley brothers and George Whitfield. So originally there were Wesleyan and Calvinistic Methodists. Compatibilism pales in inconsistency to that situation.

 

[Loren T.]

If you must decide to believe, it is only because you don't

And what man doesn't go from unbelief to belief?

You are making the things Christians do because of the New Birth, conditions for the self-righteous to meet in the flesh to save themselves. = Acting like Christians to become one = hypocrisy.

First, no one would every become a believer without making a choice to believe. That's just nonsense. When the Spirit first convicted you, did you ever resist him? As a Christian, do you ever resist his leading? If so, you make a choice to resist. It might not be a conscious choice, where you set all your options before you and considered each, but it's a choice nonetheless. And to surrender to the Spirit is also a choice to stop resisting. What does acting like a Christian to become one mean? This is some kind of strange twisting of scripture. Belief always proceeds salvation. That is the pattern throughout the Bible.

 

[Loren T.]

Oh and I must not forget another inconsistency, the Methodist founders were the Wesley brothers and George Whitfield. So originally there were Wesleyan and Calvinistic Methodists. Compatibilism pales in inconsistency to that situation.

So? What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So? What does this have to do with anything?

Sorry I cannot think for you, figure it out as you continue with robot and puppet tropes.

 

[Loren T.]

Oh and I must not forget another inconsistency, the Methodist founders were the Wesley brothers and George Whitfield. So originally there were Wesleyan and Calvinistic Methodists. Compatibilism pales in inconsistency to that situation.

And Arminias was persecuted for not buying into supralapsarianism because it made God the author of sin. Which it obviously does. And if you really want to go there, at least Wesley never had anyone burned at the stake... like your esteemed leader.

 

[Dave L]

And what man doesn't go from unbelief to belief?

First, no one would every become a believer without making a choice to believe. That's just nonsense. When the Spirit first convicted you, did you ever resist him? As a Christian, do you ever resist his leading? If so, you make a choice to resist. It might not be a conscious choice, where you set all your options before you and considered each, but it's a choice nonetheless. And to surrender to the Spirit is also a choice to stop resisting. What does acting like a Christian to become one mean? This is some kind of strange twisting of scripture. Belief always proceeds salvation. That is the pattern throughout the Bible.

If you believe, you need not choose to believe. It is redundant.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And Arminias was persecuted for not buying into supralapsarianism because it made God the author of sin. Which it obviously does.

Personally I think the whole infra - supra lapsarianism debate is a false dilemma of either or. Certainly it is not essential to, nor a defining characteristic of what is called Calvinism. Only the hard determinist may go along with notion of God as the author of sin, but I tell you the truth, not many historically would go so far (here again, Confessions are evidence of the fact). I wonder how or why the Wesley brothers would end up founding a denomination, if they thought as you do?

And if you really want to go there, at least Wesley never had anyone burned at the stake... like your esteemed leader.

For starters, neither John, Charles, nor George, lived in France during the Reformation. Also I have to say, I saw that one coming from a mile away. Actually, I hold all of the forerunners (Tyndale, Coverdale, etc.) and Reformation leaders in high esteem, but especially these:

• Huldrych Zwingli
• Martin Bucer
• John Calvin
• Heinrich Bullinger
• Theodore Beza
• William Farel
• John Knox
• Andreas Karlstadt, later a Radical Reformer
• Wolfgang Capito
• Johannes Oecolampadius
• Peter Martyr Vermigli
• Leo Jud

• Thomas Cranmer
• Thomas Cromwell
• Matthew Parker
• William Tyndale

John Calvin accounted for one small town in France, a Reformer to the French.

Now concerning the heretic Servetus, he was an escaped convict already condemned by the Catholics in Vienne. But it's a long story, some time ago I visited it in a thread here on CF. There are many books on the subject, and I recommend the original source documents. I mean if we are to look at it objectively without bringing our biases into it, and want the truth, rather than prejudiced rhetoric.

 

[Loren T.]

If you believe, you need not choose to believe. It is redundant.

Ok so I guess you are not open to questions, about the practical implications. No evangelism needed, the chosen one will believe when he's supposed to?

 

[Loren T.]

wonder how or why the Wesley brothers would end up founding a denomination, if they thought as you do?

I have no idea what this means?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I have no idea what this means?

I cannot imagine they thought George believed God is the author of sin, that people are like robots, or puppets on a string, kind of defeats the whole preaching behind the "great awakening" dontcha think?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Between George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Aurther T. Pierson, and Charles Spurgeon, the whole hard determinist robot and puppet tropes are a cruel joke.

"[American Presbyterian] Pierson was also a pioneer advocate of faith missions who was determined to see the world evangelized in his generation. Prior to 1870, there had been only about 2000 missionaries from the United States in full-time service, roughly ten percent of whom had engaged in work among Native Americans. A great movement of foreign missions began in the 1880s and accelerated into the 20th century, in some measure due to the work of Pierson.[1] He acted as the elder statesman of the student missionary movement and was the leading evangelical advocate of foreign missions in the late 19th century. After retiring, he visited Korea in 1910. His visiting established the Pierson Memorial Union Bible Institute (today Pyeongtaek University) in 1912. Delavan Leonard Pierson was his first son. He was buried in his grave in Green-Wood Cemetery."

The hard determinist has no such motivation for preaching the Gospel.

 

[Dave L]

Ok so I guess you are not open to questions, about the practical implications. No evangelism needed, the chosen one will believe when he's supposed to?

If salvation is a choice, then only the self-righteous, those who aspire towards righteousness, will choose to save themselves.