What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

That does not answer my question: What is Mark's topic, point in the following?
He mentioned none of the above.

And pardon me for saying so, but for one who complains about lack of presentation of Scripture, I'm not seeing any Scriptural defense of your assertions, including yours above which are

not according to the NT:

.

Well, what I was talking about is very basic, I wasn't trying to defend anything and I don't have anything to prove. If taking a victory lap makes you think you're a winner be my guest.

I dunno why you are asking me about Mark's topic or his point. I already confessed to not understanding what he wrote.

 

[zoidar]

Huh? It's like you are talking a different language.

I'm talking about the first thing to cause anything else. That which logically (via cause-and-effect) caused all other things, and is itself uncaused. The beginning. The source of all newness. Also, logically, singular in number and "with intent". In other words, God.

Ah, I didn't know the definition of first cause. I agree with that God is the first cause and is uncaused. God created soul and free will is an attribute to soul, from my thinking.

Agreed, but they contradict themselves when they then say that they are not under compulsion or necessity. Not to mention all other impinging causes, their own person and preferences compel them; according to Romans 8 they CANNOT choose God, but will always choose according to their enmity to God, apart from God's work in them. In Regeneration God gives us to prefer him. (He changes our personality, haha, referring back to our other recent subject).

I think you need to show that then from Romans 8 that "they CANNOT choose God, but will always choose according to their enmity to God, apart from God's work in them."

What about--man's disposition preferring self, which is what man chooses until God gives him to prefer his will which, because man now prefers God's will, he freely and willingly chooses it--do we not understand?

Scripture everywhere presents the operation of free will to be the power to choose voluntarily, without external control or constraint, what one prefers, likes, and to reject what one does not prefer or like (1 Corinthians 2:14). . .which coincides perfectly with human experience.
What about that do we not understand?

Clare it would help your argumentation a lot if you explain the verses you quote. A verse can say ten different thing depending who is reading it. Of course it only has one meaning, but I think it's where you have to take the discussion if you want to convince anyone.

But you two keep saying that "free willers" believe we can choose God our own. I believe we need to convicted by the Holy Spirit to choose God. It's not something I believe we are able to do on our own. Still I believe free will plays a part in it. We can resist the work of the Spirit and so on.

 

[Clare73]

Ah, I didn't know the definition of first cause. I agree with that God is the first cause and is uncaused. God created soul and free will is an attribute to soul, from my thinking.
I think you need to show that then from Romans 8 that "they CANNOT choose God, but will always choose according to their enmity to God, apart from God's work in them."
Clare it would help your argumentation a lot if you explain the verses you quote.

To me they are self-evident.
I expect anyone who does not think it applies to state such and to ask about it.

A verse can say ten different thing depending who is reading it. Of course it only has one meaning, but
I think it's where you have to take the discussion if you want to convince anyone.

I'll keep that in mind. . .thanks.
Weren't you the one who told me to link my Scriptures instead of abbreviating them, which I have been doing since then?

But you two keep saying that "free willers" believe we can choose God our own.

You must be misunderstanding me, for I point out frequently that God must give us to prefer him before we can choose him, because we choose what we prefer.

I believe we need to convicted by the Holy Spirit to choose God. It's not something I believe we are able to do on our own. Still I believe free will plays a part in it.

Indeed. . .our will chooses what our disposition prefers, which is God because God has given us to prefer him.

We can resist the work of the Spirit and so on.

Yes, all the unregenerate (who have not been given to prefer God) always do.

 

[zoidar]

Deleted... Will be for another time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When portions of the Bible are played out on film, it is always a drama, with God and men having their parts to play. So man's plays a part in his own redemption. God's grace is given freely; but in a different sense receiving it will cost us everything - as in repentance we commit our will to His. He honors our decision to repent by giving salvation and the new birth (Acts 2:38-39). The cost of the decision in the Acts 2 audience was especially apparent - as baptism was expected to result in being ostracized.

Ha! I won't take that bait! (Easy pickin's...)

I'm not saying we don't decide, nor even that it is at no cost. Try to consider the uncommon way to put it, that "we do so because it is so." There are two ways that we do not add to what God does: 1) In regeneration, the very notion of God changing our nature, cannot be us changing our nature. 2) After regeneration, or in any other thing that God does in the elect —let's say, for example, the repeated submission of our will to his— is this not his work in us? Do we not do so because he has determined it from the foundation of the world? Is God at any moment a mere observer, or is he even the very power of existence? We are talking about infinity vs finite. I do not deny we do something, or even that he says, "well done", as if we really accomplished or merited something, but it doesn't measure on the scale of what God has done. When we do what is good, right, or of lasting value, not to be discarded, is it not God doing it? Would we be doing it if we were still living according to our old sin nature?

 

[Clare73]

Well, what I was talking about is very basic, I wasn't trying to defend anything and I don't have anything to prove. If taking a victory lap makes you think you're a winner be my guest.

I dunno why you are asking me about Mark's topic or his point. I already confessed to not understanding what he wrote.

Because you asked me to explain how the Scriptures I presented related to Mark's points, which I did.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see a whole lot here that relates to the scriptures so not much entertainment value in trying to figure out what all this is supposed to mean. I`ll pass on responding because this is just a whole lot of bulk with very little substance.

Getting back to topic,I only have two major problems with Calvinism, maybe limited atonement as a third but I see that as a by-product of the two primary errors. I've been through my issues on this thread multiple times so I`m tired of the repetition and the lack of scripture in some of your posts i.e. this one.

You couldn't deal with the Eph 2 post, why bother proceeding? But my explanations and arguments are scriptural —it would seem odd to me that you now object, when, you also objected when I quoted scripture without explanation. I must have been wrong in assuming you knew Calvinism well enough to know where the thoughts come from in Scripture, specially when even the terminology is so similar. Your protest feels almost like stalling for time, or simply a cheap way to argue.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It was easier to stay interested when I thought you were a Bible college graduate.

There are only three kinds of people in this world, those who believe, those who don't, and those who haven't had a chance to make a decision.

All will be made alive again just as both Paul and Jesus proclaimed.

All will be resurrected, I guess you mean, since you so violently protested when someone called you a universalist.

As for the notion that the third group haven't had a chance (I assume you to mean, opportunity) to make a decision, if they exist in time, they are all possessing of a sin nature, and therefore at enmity with God. In other words, with every tick of the synapse and every beat of their heart and every breath they draw, they are deciding against God, until God changes their nature.

 

[RickReads]

You couldn't deal with the Eph 2 post, why bother proceeding? But my explanations and arguments are scriptural —it would seem odd to me that you now object, when, you also objected when I quoted scripture without explanation. I must have been wrong in assuming you knew Calvinism well enough to know where the thoughts come from in Scripture, specially when even the terminology is so similar. Your protest feels almost like stalling for time, or simply a cheap way to argue.

Your tone has been angry and I was politely trying to exit the dialogue. We discussed Ephesians 2 and I don't agree with your opinion of it because you add to the text to make it appear to conform to Calvinism.

Ephesians 2 does not address Calvinist regeneration or irresistible grace. These 2 man-made doctrines didn't exist until the 16th ceantury.

Join Clare and have yourself a feel-good victory lap. I`ve said all I have to say and I'm not impressed by your arguments or Clares for that matter.

I`m not stalling for anything I have simply lost interest in the discussion. You and Clare are like two little kids Jeering the kid that wisely walked away.

 

[RickReads]

All will be resurrected, I guess you mean, since you so violently protested when someone called you a universalist.

As for the notion that the third group haven't had a chance (I assume you to mean, opportunity) to make a decision, if they exist in time, they are all possessing of a sin nature, and therefore at enmity with God. In other words, with every tick of the synapse and every beat of their heart and every breath they draw, they are deciding against God, until God changes their nature.

All I can say is that if you believe God throws aborted babies into the fire then you don't know Him. If you believe the ignorant have the same accountability as the knowledgeable then you don't know Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not to split hairs but your third group above would technically fall under the unbelievers group . So there are two groups . Even the ones who haven’t heard but will also fall under the two groups for they will either become a believer or remain unbelievers.

I believe my third group will be judged based on what they knew, in other words, a different standard.
I have scripture that supports my opinion as well. An extreme example would be aborted babies.

Those who reject the gospel are finished, not necessarily the case for the ignorant.

Rick, according to you, those who reject the gospel have until death to repent, no? Or do you mean, "those who never do accept the gospel"?

And where do you find the ignorant have an excuse? Not Romans 1, for sure! For that matter, who among us is not ignorant? None of us has the mental capacity to know just exactly what we are getting into, any more than any of us has the integrity to keep what we have committed to.

 

[Der Alte]

All I can say is that if you believe God throws aborted babies into the fire then you don't know Him. If you believe the ignorant have the same accountability as the knowledgeable then you don't know Him.

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

These vss. cover children, infants, the mentally handicapped, peoples living in some remote jungle or desert etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your tone has been angry and I was politely trying to exit the dialogue. We discussed Ephesians 2 and I don't agree with your opinion of it because you add to the text to make it appear to conform to Calvinism.

Ephesians 2 does not address Calvinist regeneration or irresistible grace. These 2 man-made doctrines didn't exist until the 16th ceantury.

Join Clare and have yourself a feel-good victory lap. I`ve said all I have to say and I'm not impressed by your arguments or Clares for that matter.

I`m not stalling for anything I have simply lost interest in the discussion. You and Clare are like two little kids Jeering the kid that wisely walked away.

But I protest —I was so looking forward to you wiping the floor with me! And I had so hoped to impress you!

Since you are wise, you should at least be able to back up, in the face of plain reason, your statement that Ephesians 2 does not address 'calvinist' regeneration or irresistable grace, instead of engaging in a hasty "assert and exit".

Plain reason: Ephesians 2, just like Romans 8, shows that apart from regeneration we are slaves to sin, i.e. unable to submit to or please God. Ephesians 2:5 says that we were dead in transgressions, and that THAT is when God made us alive, and it even punctuates the point that defines GRACE. I don't know how it can get more plain than that! But wait, don't answer yet, because you also get verse 8, which, as you know, nails it down firmly, irretractably, that salvation is by GRACE, which by definition (it says) is not of works. There in a nutshell is the regeneration and irresistable grace Calvinism refers to.

The date when, within history's timeline, Calvinism's terminology showed up, is irrelevant.

Your attempted hit and run missed.

 

[zoidar]

What about--man's disposition preferring self, which is what man chooses until God gives him to prefer his will which, because man now prefers God's will, he freely and willingly chooses it--do we not understand?

Scripture everywhere presents the operation of free will to be the power to choose voluntarily, without external control or constraint, what one prefers, likes, and to reject what one does not prefer or like (1 Corinthians 2:14). . .which coincides perfectly with human experience.
What about that do we not understand?

#1727 (was either missed or ignored for some reason)

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
— 1 Corinthians 2:14

That is true about the common man. He doesn't understand or accept the things of the Spirit until he repents and receive the Spirit. Then he can accept and understand.

You can be unsaved and be a natural man and still believe in Christ death and resurrection. So that can't be what Paul talks about in 1 Cor 2. The natural man has to get the Spirit to know God, and be saved. I think that is Paul's point."​

1 Cor 2 explains the difference between the natural man and the Spiritual man. But it doesn't explain how a natural man becomes a Spiritual man.

Paul says they are Spiritual because they have received the Spirit of God. Does it say how they received the Spirit of God? Does it say they were first regenerated, before repentance? I don't see that in the text.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
— 1 Corinthians 2:12

 

[John Mullally]

Ha! I won't take that bait! (Easy pickin's...)

I'm not saying we don't decide, nor even that it is at no cost. Try to consider the uncommon way to put it, that "we do so because it is so." There are two ways that we do not add to what God does: 1) In regeneration, the very notion of God changing our nature, cannot be us changing our nature.

In Acts 2:38-39, Peter promises remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who repent. If we respond with repentance, which is not a work of the law, then God changes our nature. Just take God at His word.

2) After regeneration, or in any other thing that God does in the elect —let's say, for example, the repeated submission of our will to his— is this not his work in us?

I see God's continuing work in us as being correction, guidance, and mercy. He has already given believers the Holy Spirit and many promises - as you dig into the word. He does not make us do anything. God will not do for us what He has commanded us to do.

Do we not do so because he has determined it from the foundation of the world? Is God at any moment a mere observer, or is he even the very power of existence? We are talking about infinity vs finite. I do not deny we do something, or even that he says, "well done", as if we really accomplished or merited something, but it doesn't measure on the scale of what God has done. When we do what is good, right, or of lasting value, not to be discarded, is it not God doing it? Would we be doing it if we were still living according to our old sin nature?

Not trying to be rude, but I am only responsible to follow NT directives - among which is not being anxious about things I am not called to address. Is this the kind of stuff that many Calvinists spend there time contemplating?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, I didn't know the definition of first cause. I agree with that God is the first cause and is uncaused. God created soul and free will is an attribute to soul, from my thinking.

Even that necessarily (logically) implies causation to any result, such as the choice any soul makes. If God caused (made) the soul, everything that soul does is caused. And thus 'free will' must be defined. Nothing that God caused can be uncaused. (God cannot have even 'caused himself' as some claim. He is self-existent —not self-created.)

Zoidar, you have my respect and admiration. I don't wish to belittle the thinking behind your references to 'soul'. But I don't see where they are derived from Scripture. They sound not only like guesswork, but also unlike Scripture. You may be right, that 'freewill is an attribute to soul', but what really does that mean, then, if you are right? What do you mean by, "I think the First cause is soul." I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I don't understand where that's going or where it is coming from. (lol, sounds almost like John 3!)

I think you need to show that then from Romans 8 that "they CANNOT choose God, but will always choose according to their enmity to God, apart from God's work in them."

Fair enough. Romans 8 says that the 'mind of the flesh' (or variously, the 'natural mind', 'those dominated by the sinful nature', 'those who live according to the flesh', 'they that are after the flesh', 'those being according to the flesh', 'those who walk in the flesh', 'those who are in the flesh', 'carnally minded', 'controlled by their earthly natures', 'sensually affected', 'those who live by the corrupt nature', 'those who are in the realm of the flesh' etc. — (I think there can be little doubt who this is referring to: those who have inherited Adam's sin nature, and are not yet spiritually alive, according to verse 5 and 6)) in verse 5 is said to be set on what the flesh desires, and NOT THE SPIRIT. Verse 6 says "the mind governed by the flesh is death". Verse 7 says, "the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so" (Literal Standard and KJV "at enmity with God"). Verse 8 says, "those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God." It is not a logical leap to say that those who "accept Christ" are pleasing him. Therefore, one must have the natural mind, or mind after the flesh, and dead, made alive, into the mind after the Spirit, in order to be able to submit to God's law, and to please God, and to no longer be at enmity with God.

Both Arminian and Calvinist agree that this transformation is what is called regeneration and that it is impossible apart from God's work. What they don't agree on is how it does happen, or more specifically, WHEN, in the logical sequence of soteriology. But Romans 8 is plain that nothing spiritual can happen until the dead mind of flesh is made alive.

But you two keep saying that "free willers" believe we can choose God our own. I believe we need to convicted by the Holy Spirit to choose God. It's not something I believe we are able to do on our own. Still I believe free will plays a part in it. We can resist the work of the Spirit and so on.

I agree that the conviction (and several other things) are necessary before one will choose God. The question is not whether we choose God after conviction, but whether regeneration is necessary in order for one to choose God. Romans 8 says that the dead will not choose God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All I can say is that if you believe God throws aborted babies into the fire then you don't know Him. If you believe the ignorant have the same accountability as the knowledgeable then you don't know Him.

Did I say that God throws aborted babies into the fire? No. Did I say the ignorant have the same accountability as the knowledgeable? No. One begins to wonder why you objected so violently when you hadn't claimed to believe in Universal Salvation, even though you were mistaken to have claimed it. Fair is fair.

 

[zoidar]

Zoidar, you have my respect and admiration. I don't wish to belittle the thinking behind your references to 'soul'. But I don't see where they are derived from Scripture. They sound not only like guesswork, but also unlike Scripture. You may be right, that 'freewill is an attribute to soul', but what really does that mean, then, if you are right? What do you mean by, "I think the First cause is soul." I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I don't understand where that's going or where it is coming from. (lol, sounds almost like John 3!)

Thanks again Mark! My thinking about soul is not really found in scripture what I know. It's from personal experience and philosophy. The Bible was never meant to explain if there is a free will or not. We make assumptions about it, but the Bible does not say.

When I wrote: "I think the first cause is soul" I meant soul as the first cause of free will, not that our soul is uncaused. My decision doesn't exist until it has been caused by soul. God didn't cause my decision, my soul did. But of course my soul is caused by God. So I think you are right in your statement that God is the First cause.

I will respond to the rest tomorrow.

Christ love!

 

[RickReads]

But I protest —I was so looking forward to you wiping the floor with me! And I had so hoped to impress you!

Since you are wise, you should at least be able to back up, in the face of plain reason, your statement that Ephesians 2 does not address 'calvinist' regeneration or irresistable grace, instead of engaging in a hasty "assert and exit".

Plain reason: Ephesians 2, just like Romans 8, shows that apart from regeneration we are slaves to sin, i.e. unable to submit to or please God. Ephesians 2:5 says that we were dead in transgressions, and that THAT is when God made us alive, and it even punctuates the point that defines GRACE. I don't know how it can get more plain than that! But wait, don't answer yet, because you also get verse 8, which, as you know, nails it down firmly, irretractably, that salvation is by GRACE, which by definition (it says) is not of works. There in a nutshell is the regeneration and irresistable grace Calvinism refers to.

The date when, within history's timeline, Calvinism's terminology showed up, is irrelevant.

Your attempted hit and run missed.

Your ongoing hostility suggests otherwise. To me, you are demonstrating that the floor is clean and you have a noticeable rash on your forehead, figuratively speaking of course.

 

[zoidar]

Your ongoing hostility suggests otherwise. To me, you are demonstrating that the floor is clean and you have a noticeable rash on your forehead, figuratively speaking of course.

Please try to be a little more constructive. Paul says:

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
— Galatians 5:13-16