You be the judge!

[Ben johnson]

HI, Ben johnson. I actually prefer the name Bulldog.

Oops! :o This keyboard is sticky, and fingers big; I did NOT see that before I hit "ok". (Note to self: place ad for proofreader...)

Who did Christ die for?

John 10:15 says:

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep

The premise being that Calvinists' understanding is that GOD decides WHO are the sheep. Our difference is that I read Matt10:9 as "if tis-anyone enters, he BECOMES sheep."

What did you think of my assessment of Calvinism in 1st paragraph, and my analogy in 2nd paragraph?

 

[Bulldog]

Oops! :o This keyboard is sticky, and fingers big; I did NOT see that before I hit "ok". (Note to self: place ad for proofreader...)
The premise being that Calvinists' understanding is that GOD decides WHO are the sheep. Our difference is that I read Matt10:9 as "if tis-anyone enters, he BECOMES sheep."

This is not something I dispute. Where we differ is in who will come to Christ.

 

[frumanchu]

#2: By the way - the person inside the cage is totally irrelevant. The man and his offer of salvation is the focus of the question.

#17: My scenario was intended to do one thing only: to parallel what I see Calvinism presenting as the actions of God. In that respect (and in that respect only) I stand by it as accurate and yet-to-be-refuted by anyone on this board.

Actually, the person inside the cage is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

What you have put forth is a situation in which God is clearly making an insincere "offer" for salvation to someone who a) is fully aware of their present dire situation, b) recognizes their need for salvation, and c) is fully willing to comply with the necessary conditions needed to acquire that salvation.

To make this scenario even close to what the Reformed position actually is, you would have to add the fact that there were two people and that they broke into God's warehouse seeking to steal a crate of His glory and were caught in two cages. God holds in one hand the key to the cages (the keys of grace and mercy) and in the other the torch (the righteous wrath of God). The men in the cages demand the keys, insisting that they do not deserve such punishment and shaking their fists at God. God tells them that they can have the keys to the cage if they will admit that they were wrong for trying to steal from God, repent of it, and trust in Him to save them from the torch and the gasoline. The men remain stubbornly defiant, refusing to even look at God or acknowledge His power over their fate. Then, God walks over to one of the cages and taps the man on the shoulder. The man turns to look at God, and God repeats the conditions, offering to save him from the situation he has put himself in if he will apologize and take the key which is now extended before him. The man, now having seen the face of God and hearing His voice, without hesitation apologizes and accepts the key offered to him. God returns, along with the freed man, to His original position, and once again repeats the terms to the man in the second cage. The free man also echoes the offer and encourages his former partner to accept. But the man in the second cage continues to act in defiance, cursing God and trying to pick the lock of the cage.

Even with these additions, the analogy is not perfect. But at least it more closely represents what the Reformed position actually is.

Ben Johnson is right in that the true issue is the nature of the men inside the cage. The circumstances, characteristics and nature of the subjects to which the offer is being made are what determine its validity and sincerity.

#17: DOES GOD LIE?

No. God is, by His very nature, incapable of lying.

#19: If God does not lie, can His Word contain lies?

Assuming the obvious unstated premise that Scripture is in fact the inspired and infallible Word of God (which I should think all here most certainly uphold), no His Word cannot contain lies.

#24: Are all who hear the Gospel responsible to believe it, according to God's Word? In other words, does the Bible anywhere indicate that God might say something to the effect of, "Those folks over there [whoever "they" are] aren't required to trust Christ." Does the Bible teach this anywhere?

Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

#27: In eternity past, did God look forward in time to see who would and wouldn't believe the Gospel, and use those human choices as the basis for His decision on who would/would not be saved?

No. Election is not according to foreseen faith.

Does the N.T. present the Gospel offer as being held out to ALL mankind, and does it present God as expecting ALL who hear the Gospel to believe it?

Yes, and no.

Yes, the Gospel is to be preached to all nations and peoples. No, God is not presented as expecting ALL who hear the Gospel to believe it. Quite the contrary, He is fully aware that many will reject it, and both indicates and demonstrates complete sovereignty over that decision (Matt 11, Luke 10;Matt 13).

So, unless I misunderstood what you meant by God "expecting ALL who hear...to believe it" I believe we have already reached a point of disagreement.

 

[orthotomeo]

Ben,

Orth --- the Calvinists' view is that the man is not merely IN the cage, CAPABLE of receiving the key --- they see him as only a CORPSE who cannot even twitch a WHISKER (let alone reach for any key)...

I know that. However - and despite persistent whining to the contrary - the person in the cage (what he can/can't do, what he wants/doesn't want) is COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the issue of whether the man making the offer is sincere and if his offer is genuine. That's the whole point of the analogy.

And in that analogy, the offer of salvation is FAKE despite the keybearer's many pleadings! Ditto the God of Calvinism's offer of the Gospel, as far as reprobates are concerned. He begs THE WORLD to accept it (2 Cor 5:19-20) and promises WHOSOEVER WILL BELIEVE that they'll be saved by it (Jn 3:16), but warns of the Lake of Fire for all who choose to refuse (2 Thess 2:10). ALL THREE of these passages (there are many others) clearly state an obvious, eternity-affecting CHOICE on the part of the lost, without any distinction between elect/reprobate.

But according to Calvinism, God chose long before the cross to make salvation IMPOSSIBLE for most of those from whom He demands a choice!

That makes him a liar, a hypocrite, dishonest, unreliable, and an unjust judge (I mean the god of Calvin, not the God of the Bible).

you see, the INMATE is there by his OWN CHOICE

Wrong.

Calvinists are fond of saying a spiritual corpse can't believe. Accepting that as true for argument's sake, then we also must allow that a spiritual corpse can't disbelieve, either. A spiritual corpse, then, cannot be held accountable for anything it does/doesn't do.

Sidenote: Calvinists are fond of animating corpses when it suits them, making them able and responsible for all kinds of things...the rest of the time, that same corpse is as dead as a flattened cat in the middle of the highway. So which is it? This is only one of many points where Reformed logic is anything but logical, and consistency takes a vacation.

The corpse (a reprobate) cannot be held accountable for what it does/doesn't do because (according to Calvinism) EVERYTHING that corpse does/doesn't do is the preprogrammed, eternally decreed will of God for that individual.

Putting this into more Calvinistic terms, the guy in the cage [a reprobate] was, for all practical purposes, placed there BY THE DECREE OF GOD IN ETERNITY PAST. Did this happen BEFORE the reprobate ever existed, BEFORE the reprobate ever sinned? Yes.

So the guy in the cage is IN NO WAY to blame for finding himself in this predicament, NOR (if he's a preprogrammed "corpse") can he bear the blame for not accepting an offer to get OUT of the cage.

He's a powerless, hopeless PAWN, no matter how you look at him.

Whatever sins this 'corpse' will commit in the course of his life are likewise predestined by the guy with the key. Calvin himself taught this, and he is backed up by Pink, Sproul and others. Now I disagree 100% with that, but it is logically consistent Calvinism (something that's pretty much unknown on this board).

Do you see the difference? When (or if) the man burns, it will not be the KEYBEARER that DECIDES or DOES IT; it will be what the INMATE has CHOSEN!

Again, that is not the teaching of Calvin and others. Your argument is with them, not me. Write to Sproul.

The REAL question between Calvinists and us, is whether or not the MAN in the CAGE, is a CORPSE or LIVING.

This is one point to be considered, but it is not the main point. It is subsidiary to the MAIN point - around which my questions are built - which is the nature of God according to the Bible.

IOW, is salvation truly offered to ALL?

That's precisely the point of my questions.

The only reason Calvin's fan club herebouts keep trying trying to put the focus back on the guy in the cage is because some of them already recognize the actions of their Calvin-god do not line up with the perfectly just, honest, fair and loving God of the Bible. The God presented by Calvinism is NONE of these things. And they simply can't handle it. I suspect two reasons why:

a) they're simply too proud to admit such obvious, not to mention blasphemous error (it's no secret that Reformed folks are especially notorious for intellectual pride...hi, Spock!)

b) they're theology has a built-in self-destruct. If you question, and possibly doubt, Reformed faith (which Spurgeon equated with the Gospel), you may find yourself falling away from it and becoming *gasp* one of them devilish Arminians. Which means you'll fail to Perservere in the (Reformed) faith...and we all know what that means.

So instead of girding up their loins, they shut it out, shout it down, argue in circles, and avoid talking about the God Who Is. That's what I suspect, anyway, as one who used to think along those lines.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

What does the Bible say God will do with all who knowingly reject His Gospel?

 

[Reformationist]

What does the Bible say God will do with all who knowingly reject His Gospel?

Before you "move right along" can you share with me where the offer of salvation is in Scripture? I'm not sure I've ever seen those verses.

Thanks,
God bless

 

[orthotomeo]

Already did. See verses cited in post to Ben.

 

[Reformationist]

Already did. See verses cited in post to Ben.

No, not one of those verses indicate an offer of salvation from God. God doesn't offer us salvation if we repent. He commands that we repent. No one, to my knowledge, has denied that man must make a choice between submitting to what God has commanded and obstinate refusal to submit, for a season, to God's command. However, just because man makes a choice doesn't mean that salvation is an offer.

Got any more verses you think speak of an offer of salvation?

God bless

 

[Laserman]

Hi All,

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

Barry

 

[Bulldog]

Hi All,

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

Barry

Youre not goiong to find anyone Calvinist that disagrees wotht that verse.

 

[Received]

No, not one of those verses indicate an offer of salvation from God. God doesn't offer us salvation if we repent. He commands that we repent.

I will take a shot at this. Salvation is not redemption from Hell, but from sin (Matthew 1:21); thus, there is no possible seperation between salvation and repentance -- they are one and the same. Repentance is salvation; without salvation there can be no repentance. You cannot repent from sin and find less sin and be done with it: this is not what God demands; salvation is the acceptance of righteousness through faith offered freely by God's mercy -- herein lies repentance. In the same sense, God does not demand that we repent for the sake of some intolerable desire He has for justice -- this at least is incomprehensible given the clear example through scripture that salvation comes only through the preached word of Christ (Romans 10), of which is not in the power of man blinded by sin to control, nor desire without precisely the very existence of Christ before Him. His love demands only the best for His creatures. This is the nature of perfect love.

A man drowning in a lake cannot repent from his inability to live under water; he can only escape with an offer of salvation. It seems impossble for God to demand of us that we save ourselves, and seperate the state of being saved from the water as precisely His salvation.

I tried, Reformationist; you must understand: I'm extremely intellectually numbed now for some reason. Take care.

Youre not goiong to find anyone Calvinist that disagrees wotht that verse.

Sure you are. We must keep in mind the power of semantics as it relates to a scriptural interpretation that allows different views. The Calvinist will argue over the word "world", just as he would with the word "all" in such passages as 1 Timothy 2:4 that threatens his understanding of salvation. Of course, what he fails to see is that there is no reason why anyone should interpret the words as the Calvinists do.

 

[Bulldog]

Sure you are. We must keep in mind the power of semantics as it relates to a scriptural interpretation that allows different views. The Calvinist will argue over the word "world", just as he would with the word "all" in such passages as 1 Timothy 2:4 that threatens his understanding of salvation.

We Calvinists believe in verses like this, just view the meaning differently.

 

[Received]

We Calvinists believe in verses like this, just view the meaning differently.

Make no mistake: this is perfectly fine.

I just think the difficulty we have in our debating theology has to do with fundamentals that cannot be resolved through argument, of which we are clearly not on the same page, such as the abovementioned interpretation of this verse.

 

[Reformationist]

I will take a shot at this. Salvation is not redemption from Hell, but from sin (Matthew 1:21); thus, there is no possible seperation between salvation and repentance -- they are one and the same. Repentance issalvation; without salvation there can be no repentance. You cannot repent from sin and find less sin and be done with it: this is not what God demands; salvation is the acceptance of righteousness through faith offered freely by God's mercy -- herein lies repentance. In the same sense, God does not demand that we repent for the sake of some intolerable desire He has for justice -- this at least is incomprehensible given the clear example through scripture that salvation comes only through the preached word of Christ (Romans 10), of which is not in the power of man blinded by sin to control, nor desire without precisely the very existence of Christ before Him. His love demands only the best for His creatures. This is the nature of perfect love.

Unless you spoke over my head, which is entirely possible for one as smart as you, I think I agree with what you said.

A man drowning in a lake cannot repent from his inability to live under water; he can only escape with an offer of salvation.

I would say that I agree with this as well. I don't think it accurately reflects the nature of fallen man though so I don't think it's a good parallel if you're wishing to make a biblical point. I don't view fallen man as spiritually drowning. I view him as spiritually drowned. The Gospel doesn't say we are dying in our trespasses and sins. It says we are dead in them.

I tried, Reformationist; you must understand: I'm extremely intellectually numbed now for some reason. Take care.

This is how you type when you're intellectually numbed? Great. I felt smarter just for reading your post and now you imply that it's the product of numbness. Great.

/me walks away feeling very humbled

Sure you are. We must keep in mind the power of semantics as it relates to a scriptural interpretation that allows different views. The Calvinist will argue over the word "world", just as he would with the word "all" in such passages as 1 Timothy 2:4 that threatens his understanding of salvation. Of course, what he fails to see is that there is no reason why anyone should interpret the words as the Calvinists do.

LOL! No reason except for a desire to put God at the center of the message of the Gospel. If there is no reason then I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to a lack of insight and knowledge of the Scriptures. Oh, wait, that won't work. Some of the most respected, learned, theological giants of the Protestant community are reformed Christians.

 

[Laserman]

Bulldog,

What does Whosoever mean to You? If the offer of salvation is not to all, than the offer is not a true offer. You can't have it both ways.

Barry

 

[Ben johnson]

But according to Calvinism, God chose long before the cross to make salvation IMPOSSIBLE for most of those from whom He demands a choice!

That makes him a liar, a hypocrite, dishonest, unreliable, and an unjust judge (I mean the god of Calvin, not the God of the Bible).

This is also a complaint of mine. The question remaining, "Does God offer salvation to ALL, or only to a FEW?" Calvinists answer "either it is offered ONLY to a few, or it is offered to all but only the FEW are EQUIPPED to RECEIVE it."

you see, the INMATE is there by his OWN CHOICE

Wrong.

Calvinists are fond of saying a spiritual corpse can't believe. Accepting that as true for argument's sake, then we also must allow that a spiritual corpse can't disbelieve, either. A spiritual corpse, then, cannot be held accountable for anything it does/doesn't do.

I agree. But Calvinists are prone to saying, "He's there by FREE WILL, but that FREE WILL must always follow his DEPRAVED NATURE. Only by UNILATERAL REGENERATION can his FREE WILL change that he CAN receive Jesus (and once that God-installed-unilateral-regeneration HAPPENS, his free will ALWAYS 100% follows God. Invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably"...

FREE will??? (Calvinists very often get angry at words like "compell" and "force" with regards to God's-unilateral-salvation; somehow the UNASKED-HEART-CHANGE consequently changes the WILL, which makes it UNFORCED.)

Sidenote: Calvinists are fond of animating corpses when it suits them, making them able and responsible for all kinds of things...the rest of the time, that same corpse is as dead as a flattened cat in the middle of the highway. So which is it? This is only one of many points where Reformed logic is anything but logical, and consistency takes a vacation.

If the REPROBATE can only BE reprobate, and the REGENERATED can only BE regenerate, how can there be ANY responsibility? I submit that if only God's regeneration can possibly CHANGE the reprobate, then God's UNELECTION (for the reprobate) is inseparable from His actively CHOOSING them FOR condemnation.

Reprobation by God's unelection is identical to HIS choosing them TO reprobation. Hell is GOD'S FAULT...

As to the OFFER of salvation, I like the succinctness of Rom5:18,17,12. Verse 18 says "SO THEN condemnation CAME to all men, EVEN SO justification CAME to all men". There is an EQUALITY between the magnitude of CAME CONDEMNATION, and the magnitude of CAME JUSTIFICATION. Condemnation is qualified by verse 12 (ALL SINNED, ALL CONDEMNED), and justification is qualified by verse 17 (those who RECEIVE). The CALVINIST must say that "PAS ANTHROPOS" means ALL (every one) in verse 18b, but "PAS ANTHROPOS" means only SOME (of all types) in verse 18a...

Just as "I am the door; if TIS-ANYONE enters through Me, he shall be saved" (Rm10:9) gets redefined to mean "if only the FEW ELECT enter but the ELECT will ALL enter Me and the UNELECT will NEVER enter"; so also do the "world" verses get redefined to "only SOME of all TYPES in the WORLD".

I think the best approach is rather to focus on the FALL-FROM-SALVATION-VERSES. Calvinism founds on the idea that the TRULY saved cannot become UNSAVED. How then do we deal with 2Pet1:9, he who WAS purified but now is "immoral/ungodly/uncontrolled/unloving"? How do we deal with James5:19-20, "if any of YOU wander from the truth ...and led back ...save psuche-soul from THANATOS-DEATH-N-HELL"?

How do we deal with the Galatians, who were "begun-Spirit, obeying-truth, RUNNING-WELL", but now are "subject again to yoke of slavery, seeking to (again) be justified by law, you are SEVERED from Christ, you are FALLEN FROM GRACE!!" (3:1-3, 5:1-7)

Per Calvinism, only the ELECT can be TRULY SAVED. Per Calvinism, the REAL-SAVED can never become UNSAVED. Yet there is verse after verse that speaks of the SAVED, who become UNSAVED.
How does Calvinism deal with all these verses?

 

[Received]

Unless you spoke over my head, which is entirely possible for one as smart as you, I think I agree with what you said.

Well, anyone can use big words...look at politics *giggle*

I would say that I agree with this as well. I don't think it accurately reflects the nature of fallen man though so I don't think it's a good parallel if you're wishing to make a biblical point. I don't view fallen man as spiritually drowning. I view him as spiritually drowned. The Gospel doesn't say we are dying in our trespasses and sins. It says we are dead in them.

Hmmmm...I suppose we could both agree that man is spiritually -- that is, psychologically -- dead to God, yet still 'alive' in a sense worthy of being capable of accountability, as scriptures are ripe with warnings and implications of what we should do, even as this applies to a non-soteriological stance. For instance, Paul uses the word regarding those who are not saved as perishing, three times in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:3). Given this verb form, this seems to imply precisely what I was attempting to drive home with my little story. Sure, we are dead in our trespasses in sins; but we are also perishing in proportion to our unbelief. Dead cannot mean the annihilation of any spiritual activity, lest the scriptures be contradicted. It must refer to the souls relation to God, while in itself it is, without God, "perishing".

LOL! No reason except for a desire to put God at the center of the message of the Gospel. If there is no reason then I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to a lack of insight and knowledge of the Scriptures. Oh, wait, that won't work. Some of the most respected, learned, theological giants of the Protestant community are reformed Christians.

This seems a strawman, whether intended or not. I'm not out to take your money, Reformationist; please don't think I'm mocking you with my critique of your theology. Moreover, as this relates to the point, I find no lack of God's glory in His loving the entire creation rather than a limited number; on the contrary, the old adage of more being better seems to apply precisely here.

Have a great day.

 

[orthotomeo]

Reffie,

No, not one of those verses indicate an offer of salvation from God. God doesn't offer us salvation if we repent. He commands that we repent.

I don't see the word "command" in the verses I used.

No one, to my knowledge, has denied that man must make a choice between submitting to what God has commanded and obstinate refusal to submit, for a season, to God's command.

No one I know of denies it, either, as it is clearly what the Word teaches. So it's hardly at issue. Don't know why you even bring it up.

The basic issue is what it's always been, and always will be: the Calvin-god is a liar for expecting faith of those He willingly inabled to have faith. Can you not see that?

However, just because man makes a choice doesn't mean that salvation is an offer.

My buddy Spock tried a similar argument on me last Sunday, and it was just as weak as yours is now.

Spock said my use of the term "Gospel offer" is wrong because the Gospel isn't offered....instead, God commands all (elect and reprobate alike) to believe it. Therefore, it's not an offer. That had to be one of the worst replies I've seen.

A command - by nature - implies a choice. It can be obeyed or disobeyed. Disobey God's command and be punished. Obey it and be blessed. I have no problem with that.

So trying to draw a distinction between "command" and "offer" doesn't help your case. It smells quite desperate, to be honest. And the same old 800-pound gorilla is still camped out on Calvinism's collective back (read carefully, now):

God extends the Gospel to those whom He never intended to save.

Then He punishes them for not receiving it.

That makes Him a liar and a thug.

Over a half-dozen Calvinists on this board and I'm still waiting for someone to even try to disprove that.

o.

 

[orthotomeo]

According to Calvinism, can the non-elect [reprobates] be saved?

 

[Ecclesia Reformata]

According to Calvinism, can the non-elect [reprobates] be saved?

No, hence the names: "non-elect" and "reprobate."