Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

[Mark Quayle]

No, the Bible doesn't say it, but Calvinists say he chose without condition. Hence, randomly. 2Timothy 2:20-22 explains that the vessels are not chosen unconditionally at all.

Calvinists say he chose without condition, hence, not according to anything they had done, but according to his own wise council. Hence, not randomly. You seem to have a habit of making people appear to be saying what YOU take their words to imply. That is called "inference", and it is not needed.

Strange you begin your reference in verse 20. Who do you think the "latter" is referring to, in "20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work." There is a paragraph preceding your reference about false teachers and their teachings, lives etc. These are the "latter" he is referring to. Your reference doesn't say he chose according to how well the articles presented themselves. It says if they cleanse themselves from false teaching, they will BE those articles he chooses. It does not say they make themselves into gold and silver. Their nature is shown by what they do, how they behave.

If I am wrong, and "the latter" is indeed referring to the articles of silver and gold cleansing themselves from the wood and clay, not only is that a strained language, but it, too, still does not show them becoming one by eschewing the other.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, the Bible doesn't say it, but Calvinists say he chose without condition. Hence, randomly. 2Timothy 2:20-22 explains that the vessels are not chosen unconditionally at all.

You notice, I hope, that twice now, you have added the word, "randomly" as what you take to be a logical implication from "without condition". That is not what Calvinism teaches. Sovereignty does not depend on randomness nor chance.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I agree with you about the gospel being an announcement, but I also see it as an offer...of a seat in a life boat.
From there on it is up to us to row, bail, seal holes, navigate, signal, live.
We can still jump out any time we believe something else is more important than...eternal life.

So, Jesus is a leaky boat that needs to be rowed, bailed out, and navigated by men? Wow. Just wow.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Frankly, I don't think I can be labeled Armin' or Calv'.

I agree. From what I have read of your posts in this thread, your soteriology is in perfect alignment with Pelagius.

 

[Dave L]

Saved people were already drowned. And Jesus brought them to life. If you can climb in the boat, you don't need for him to save you.

Dave,
You attributed somebody else's comment to me.
Would you please go back and edit this?

Aside from that, without me, I would not be saved.
If I wasn't here to answer the call, there would be no salvation for me.
I heard the message, and responded to it.
I chose to repent of all sin, and to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
God won't save people without...the people.
We all have our part to play.[/QUOTE]
I think I responded to your post. If you think otherwise show me where.

 

[Dave L]

Isn't everybody's?
Some just have their names erased.

God doesn't know who will be saved?

 

[Dave L]

Being dead in sin is a metaphor. It doesn't mean we can't respond to the Spirit.

We hate God by nature and love idols we call by his name, unless born again.

 

[renniks]

Calvinists say he chose without condition, hence, not according to anything they had done, but according to his own wise council. Hence, not randomly.

Still random. It's like saying he chooses for no discernible reason. If it's for no reason we can understand, the verses would say that.

 

[renniks]

Strange you begin your reference in verse 20. Who do you think the "latter" is referring to, in "20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work." There is a paragraph preceding your reference about false teachers and their teachings, lives etc. These are the "latter" he is referring to. Your reference doesn't say he chose according to how well the articles presented themselves. It says if they cleanse themselves from false teaching, they will BE those articles he chooses. It does not say they make themselves into gold and silver. Their nature is shown by

Exactly, if they cleanse themselves they will be the articles chosen. Hence, nothing unconditional about it.

 

[renniks]

You notice, I hope, that twice now, you have added the word, "randomly" as what you take to be a logical implication from "without condition". That is not what Calvinism teaches. Sovereignty does not depend on randomness nor chance.

un·con·di·tion·al·ly
/ˌənkənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)lē/

adverb

1. without conditions or limits.

If I choose you unconditionally, I chose you randomly. For no reason.

 

[BobRyan]

un·con·di·tion·al·ly
/ˌənkənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)lē/

adverb

1. without conditions or limits.

If I choose you unconditionally, I chose you randomly. For no reason.

Unconditional can mean "always accepts" or "always denies". It can also mean "arbitrary" which as you say is "random".

If you put your hand into a bowl of folded slips of paper having names on each slip -- and you pull out 5 slips you are selecting them "unconditionally" in that there is nothing about the paper or name or location that makes you choose one paper over another. It is "arbitrary selection" -- nothing special about the paper or name that influences you to select it .. over another.

So when we say God has unconditional love - we mean "always loves" without any reference to conditions. Calvinists do NOT mean that with their use of "unconditional"

 

[renniks]

So when we say God has unconditional love - we mean "always loves" without any reference to conditions. Calvinists do NOT mean that with their use of "unconditional"

I suspect that the Calvinists will not agree that God loves unconditionally, which is kind of ironic, since they claim his choice is unconditional, but they don't seem to accept the ramifications of that claim.

 

[renniks]

We hate God by nature and love idols we call by his name, unless born again.

We are all made in God's image. We all have the choice of who to follow, God or the enemy.

 

[Dave L]

We are all made in God's image. We all have the choice of who to follow, God or the enemy.

Apart from the new birth you follow Satan.

 

[BobRyan]

Apart from the new birth you follow Satan.

According to scripture .. .God is "powerful enough" to draw the lost unto Him with a drawing that even Calvinists admit is "sufficient" to enable all the choice to accept the Gospel - that depravity disables.

as we all saw in the OP

Notice where the focus of "action" is in Rom 10

Rom 10: "9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Still random. It's like saying he chooses for no discernible reason. If it's for no reason we can understand, the verses would say that.

If your logic is not weak, I can't tell it from your words. First you say it is "like" something --why not say it IS something? Then you say, "no discernible reason", as if our discernment is the standard. Then you say if something is true, then the verses would say that [explicitly].

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Exactly, if they cleanse themselves they will be the articles chosen. Hence, nothing unconditional about it.

You keep equating the one thing with the other. God chooses according to his own good council, not according to anything we do. We can do something that identifies us as those he chose --we can not make him choose us. "Unconditional Election" is only a reference to why God chose his elect.

In terms of the picture of gold and silver vs wood and clay, the articles are what they are because of God's assessment, not because of their innate being. As sinful flesh, in terms used of other verses, without Christ they are dead. But, in this figure having washed themselves, they are, because of God's assessment and God's use for them and God's power, gold and silver, or in other verses, reborn and alive. It is not the washing that causes --it is the washing that demonstrates.

 

[Mark Quayle]

un·con·di·tion·al·ly
/ˌənkənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)lē/

adverb

1. without conditions or limits.

If I choose you unconditionally, I chose you randomly. For no reason.

Faulty logic again. "Without conditions or limits" does not translate to "randomly". Haha, if I was to use your way of writing, I would say, "if the dictionary meant randomly, it would have said "randomly".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Exactly, if they cleanse themselves they will be the articles chosen. Hence, nothing unconditional about it.

Meanwhile your logic is off, the use the Reformers made of the term "unconditional" was not meant in any sense you pretend it means. They were specific; their tautology showing they meant only that God did not choose according to anything intrinsic in a person deserving of his mercy, nor by anything they did or could do. Nor did he choose based on their foreseen repentance or "accepting" of the gospel.

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinists say he chose without condition, hence, not according to anything they had done, .

Indeed Calvinism's claim is that nothing about the person determines the choice.. hence "without condition".

Without condition about what? About the person. Not merely "without discernible condition to me at the time I am looking at it, but still some sort of all-wise condition that God has determined"

No matter how much word-smith and spin I put into it - it does not fit "unconditional" as even Calvinism's teaching would state.