What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

No. Why? They choose not to believe.

Can they choose to believe, if not elect?

I think the answer would be: The choice is available for them, but they can't will that choice. Which means they can't choose it, which in reality means the choice was never available...

Can a robot not programmed to write in English write in English? Sure, if we program it for it. Is it an option for the robot right now to write in English? No! Is then the choice to write in English right now available for the robot? No!

Can a man not given the will to choose to believe believe? Sure, if God gives him the will. Is it an option for the man right now to believe? No! Is then the choice to believe right now available to the man? No!

For it to be a choice, the possibilty must be there to choose it, or else it's not a choice. So this is not true: "They choose not to believe."

This is true: "They seem to choose not to believe."

 

[zoidar]

But you still have to explain how the dead in sin is able to repent.

But yeah, I agree, doctrine is not as important as salvation. The problem comes when you hinge that salvation on man's ability to choose such a huge thing.

I think I have explained it. They are convicted by the Holy Spirit. Man doesn't choose to repent without conviction from the Holy Spirit. He is still dead in sin being convicted, until he repents and gets regenerated/receives the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And you haven't explained why a man that is regenerated isn't instantly saved since he has the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And it came from Augustine who was a Manichaean/Gnostic and also Platonism, He majored in rhetoric in college. He brought those ideas into the church with his denial of free will, evil/sin nature of the flesh( origin of sin/evil) and predestination. The church since the Apostles and until Augustine came on the scene denied those false teachings of his that came from outside of scripture as their origin . It’s typical cult mentality mixing truth with error the way of the devil himself . Augustine was evil and had those who disagreed with him persecuted just like Luther and Calvin did who were his pupils / students . The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree .

Well, I guess it's good you have a focus for your anger. But the truth can handle it. Carry on.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Well, I guess it's good you have a focus for your anger. But the truth can handle it. Carry on.

History and facts are not anger so why are you projecting and equivocation/conflating ?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I think the answer would be: The choice is available for them, but they can't will that choice. Which means they can't choose it, which in reality means the choice was never available...

Can a robot not programmed to write in English write in English? Sure, if we program it for it. Is it an option for the robot right now to write in English? No! Is then the choice to write in English right now available for the robot? No!

Can a man not given the will to choose to believe believe? Sure, if God gives him the will. Is it an option for the man right now to believe? No! Is then the choice to believe right now available to the man? No!

For it to be a choice, the possibilty must be there to choose it, or else it's not a choice. So this is not true: "They choose not to believe."

This is true: "They seem to choose not to believe."

yes the calvinist/augustine cistern is full of holes and holds no water.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think the answer would be: The choice is available for them, but they can't will that choice. Which means they can't choose it, which in reality means the choice was never available...

It is not the same thing, to say they can't will a choice, and a choice is not available. But here we get into something a bit obscure. The "will to believe" is not simply a matter of choosing, as one might choose which sock to put on. As the saying goes, the demons believe —and tremble. The "will to believe" is pretty much the same as saying "the will to have saving faith", which the Bible is clear is not accomplished by the human will. They can will it all they want, but that will is not efficacious. They can even choose it, or so they think they are doing, but they don't have salvific faith, according to scripture, apart from the Spirit of God causing it.

Can a man not given the will to choose to believe believe? Sure, if God gives him the will. Is it an option for the man right now to believe? No! Is then the choice to believe right now available to the man? No!

The term "option" is misleading. But here you use it correctly, but draw a false conclusion from it. From the dictionary, "Option" means "a thing that is or may be chosen". When you say that the choice to believe is not "available" to the man, I know you mean to show that the option is not available. But you jump a logical step or two, to say that the choice is not available.

For it to be a choice, the possibilty must be there to choose it, or else it's not a choice. So this is not true: "They choose not to believe."

With every breath, and every thought, usually without realizing it, they are at enmity with God and will to not believe, rejecting what Romans 1 says leaves them without excuse.

But for something to be a choice, the option must only appear to be there. It does not matter whether the option is truly possible, for them to make a choice between what appear to be options.

This is true: "They seem to choose not to believe."

Not quite. They do choose, between what seem to be options.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can they choose to believe, if not elect?

They can think they do. But belief (i.e. the common notion of 'faith') and salvific faith, are two different things. Common faith is of human derivation, but salvific faith is generated by the Spirit of God, and not of man.

But it is a reach beyond the grasp of man, to hold to the notion that choice is not actual if the options are not actual. In fact, only whatever it is that is chosen, is actual. The others were only apparent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

yes the calvinist/augustine cistern is full of holes and holds no water.

Poetic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

History and facts are not anger so why are you projecting and equivocation/conflating ?

My bad. I probably should have said, "frustration".

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think I have explained it. They are convicted by the Holy Spirit. Man doesn't choose to repent without conviction from the Holy Spirit. He is still dead in sin being convicted, until he repents and gets regenerated/receives the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And you haven't explained why a man that is regenerated isn't instantly saved since he has the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Sounds like you and I are in agreement with both paragraphs, except that you claim that the conviction by the Spirit that enables man to repent is not indwelling, nor even a result of the indwelling. I say it is.

Also, I have not said that upon regeneration, man is not instantly saved. Only that the fact of indwelling happens as it does, logically the cause of salvific faith. In fact, it is humans who demand a point-in-time before which one was not regenerated, and after which one is said to be born-again. But I refuse to say that; what I do say is that there is a logical cause-and-effect progression. And the Grace of God is obvious in it —not so much the will of man.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Poetic.

True poetry, poetry in motion

My bad. I probably should have said, "frustration".

That is better but I'm not frustrated. Debating and dialoging with someone does not equate to frustration although it can and does at times, but I'm not frustrated at all in my conversations with you. When things get "personal" then it can be frustrating but neither you nor I make things personal and try to stick to the argument, not the person.

 

[Clare73]

I don't have any such evidens. I don't understand why this is relevant to what I said that "we must 'read' the meaning, not just read literal words."
Read this literally:
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
— Luke 14:26

You see my point?

Read this literally:

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
— Luke 14:26

You see my point?

"Literally" means according to the definition of the words.

One of the words, "hate," has several meanings, one of which is of relative preference of one thing over another, which is its meaning above, as well as in other places in the NT, as in Romans 3:13.

Context usually tells which meaning of a word is intended.

 

[Clare73]

What I questioned is the wrong doctrine I had been conned into believing. I don't appreciate your spin on my words.

Or your chosen misunderstanding of them. . .

The word you used was "God," not "doctrine."

 

[Clare73]

Sorry, I must be getting dyslexia, it is post#2754
misput said: ↑
Please explain what the scriptures I presented mean to you instead of repeating over and over ad infinitum what you think certain scriptures mean to you. Can't you see how that seems to others?

Again, I see no Scripture presented by you in post #2754.

How's about you just repeat the Scriptures here so we can get on the same page?

 

[Clare73]

Sorry, I must be getting dyslexia, it is post#2754
misput said: ↑
Please explain what the scriptures I presented mean to you instead of repeating over and over ad infinitum what you think certain scriptures mean to you. Can't you see how that seems to others?

Again, I see no Scripture presented by you in post #2754.

How's about you just repeat the Scriptures here so we can get on the same page?

Your post #2753 (if that is of help to someone)

"The Holy Spirit is another term for God and all men have some degree of an inborn sense of God. The root of our disagreement is you have man completely void of any connection to God from conception. This simply is not true. Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Thanks.

"You" being spoken to the Christians in Ephesus, not to all mankind.

Ac 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not" to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,"

It means pretty much what it says, keeping in mind Paul is addressing idolatry in Athens, where he quotes their own poets--"we also are his children"--to demonstrate that God is not a gold, silver or stone image created by man when their own poets say he is the father of man.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

why you asking that?

GeneZ ?

 

[zoidar]

"Literally" means according to the definition of the words.

One of the words, "hate," has several meanings, one of which is of relative preference of one thing over another, which is its meaning above, as well as in other places in the NT, as in Romans 3:13.

Context usually tells which meaning is intended.

I never meant the words don't mean what they say, but to understand what they are refering to we need "tools" that explain what they mean. One of the "tools" is context.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us⁠—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”⁠—
— Galatians 3:13

Literal? Gosh, I must be cursed since I hang
on a tree this morning...

Or am I using the word "literal" wrong?

 

[Clare73]

I think the answer would be: The choice is available for them, but they can't will that choice. Which means they can't choose it, which in reality means the choice was never available...
Can a robot not programmed to write in English write in English? Sure, if we program it for it. Is it an option for the robot right now to write in English? No! Is then the choice to write in English right now available for the robot? No!

Can a man not given the will to choose to believe believe? Sure, if God gives him the will. Is it an option for the man right now to believe? No! Is then the choice to believe right now available to the man? No!
For it to be a choice, the possibilty must be there to choose it, or else it's not a choice.
So this is not true: "They choose not to believe."
This is true: "They seem to choose not to believe."

The choice is there, they just do not prefer it and, therefore, do not choose it.

You don't have a case unless they prefer it and are unable to choose it.

As long as they can voluntarily choose what they prefer, they are a free agent, responsible for their choices.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The choice is there, they just do not prefer it and, therefore, do not choose it.

You don't have a case unless they prefer it and are unable to choose it.

As long as they can voluntarily choose what they prefer, they are a free agent, responsible for their choices.

tulip declares man cannot choose since he it totally depraved

 

[zoidar]

The choice is there, they just do not prefer it and, therefore, do not choose it.

In what way is the choice there for them? You need to explain that.