1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Major Mistake of Calvinism?

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Dec 31, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would like to bring this part a bit of emphasis.

    Too often the "ability" issue by the non-cal folks resides in the notion that a non-believer is not condemned already.

    But they are. Judgment already has been pronounced, condemnation is assured. (John 3)

    There is no innate "ability" for the unbeliever to escape that estate of their own free will.

    ONLY in the non-cal schemes is this lack of ability resolved by some special and specific grace of God that has no literal Scriptural foundation, but is a human contrivance at best.
     
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Total Spiritual Inability is mistaken doctrine, and is the subject of Skandelon's quote and your rebuttal. Therefore your comment above is off topic, the typical shuck and jive presented to change the subject away from the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism.
     
  3. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist


    Sorry you missed this, Van.
     
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why?

    Why are they already condemned? Multiple choice:

    A. Because they were born hated by their creator before doing anything good or bad (i.e. Esau)?

    B. Because they refuse to believe?


    Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. - Jesus
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    No, it does not, because Romans 8:10-13 is the alternative explanation of how God can be pleased by those who are only "in the Spirit." So, the issue of ability is the subject of Romans 8:7-13 by contrasting alternatives and explanations.

    1. Those "in the flesh" in verse 8 are those who are "not his" rather than just "SOME" who are not his..

    2. Those "in the flesh" in verse 8 are those without the Spirit of God rather than just "SOME" who are without the Spirit.

    3. Those "in the flesh" in verse 8 are without ability to please God due to the condition described in verse 7 whereas, all ability to please God comes only by being "in the Spirit" as Romans 8:9-13 explains.

    Your arguments and reasonings completely rest upon wresting the text and ignoring the context.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Why are we confined to your options which are nothing but absolute perversions?????

    They are condemned already because they sinned in Adam - Aorist tense completed punctillar action - Rom. 5:12 - as one indivisible human nature freely choosing to violate God's law in Genesis 2:17.

    They are condemned already because they are born in unbelief and with a fallen nature that is enmity against God and that is readily manifest by pure selfishness and rebellion.
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, that depends on the english translation, either way it doesn't say what you need it to say to prove irresistible grace. You have to really stretch the verse to pull that meaning out of it and considering this passage is really all you have to go on to support this entire point of your dogma...is quite revealing.

    You know your interpretation brings up a whole new issue for Calvinism. When does one become 'in the Spirit?' Because I think you know quite well that I can quote several passages that speak of the Spirit's indwelling coming AFTER or in CONSEQUENCE of Faith, not the other way around. This forces more textual gymnastics onto the text as not only do you have to claim that we are brought to life twice but also that we are indwelled by the spirit twice. Or some take the approach calling for it all happening simultaneously, in which case the issue of irresistibility would be moot.
     
    #27 Skandelon, Jan 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2014
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Really? The first one is the Calvinistic application of Romans 9 and the second is an exact quote from Jesus. Which one is a perversion and why?

    But Jesus said it was because they didn't believe. I'll stick with Jesus.

    Jesus also said: "I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. 47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak

    What will condemn them on the last day? What will be their judge? "the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."
     
  9. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The non-cal would make some ethereal state in which God places the unbeliever that without the impulse of good or evil make a free will decision to accept or reject salvation.

    That is just not Scriptural.

    That the person is already condemned is the reason they have no innate ability to disregard that estate of rejection and condemnation.

    Did God hate Esau "before he was born?" No! The Scriptures state that before the birth, God states that the older would serve the younger. It was to be throughout not only the life of the twins but for future generations.

    When did God hate Esau? When as a corporate body the Edomites puffed themselves up as authorities above Israel. They assumed what God had not given to be assumed.

    Malachi 1:
    2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Though Edom says, “We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins”; thus says the Lord of hosts, “They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.” 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, “The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!”

    Paul uses the promise and the passage of Malichi to show that not all who claim the fame play the same game or even in the same league.

    The previous verses show the case:
    6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
    How is this applicable to the non-cal?

    Often the non-cal assumes condemnation is not already, and pretend some scheme in which they can express from their own innate free will what only God determine(d,s).

    Just as characterized by Esau's descendents - condemned already.
     
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, I would affirm with scripture that we are born sinful and depraved, but that God's powerful message of redemption, the GOSPEL, His appeal to be reconciled gives us the ability to respond to his grace. Why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't an appeal to be reconciled from the fallen condition sent by God be insufficient to enable a response?

    To suggest that the fallen condition prohibits a fallen person from responding to an appeal to be reconciled from that condition on the basis that he is in that condition is non-sensical.

    It would be like God coming down from heaven with a cure for cancer and saying whosoever takes of this medicine will be cured from their cancer unless of course you have cancer.
     
  11. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Calvinism presents fiction non-stop. "In the Flesh" can mean as a physical presence, i.e. Jesus came "in the flesh" Thus to be in the flesh does not mean to be unable to trust God, have faith in God, or please God. (This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.)

    "In the Flesh" can mean an unregenerate person or regenerate person whose mind is focused not on spiritual things, but on fleshly or worldly things.

    Is the term ever used to refer exclusively to unregenerates as claimed by Calvinism? Nope.

    Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Calvinism rips this verse out of context and claims it is saying unregenerates are unable to please God through faith. When we are born anew. we are not alive in the flesh, because the flesh has died, but we are alive in the Spirit, if we have been born again. Verse 12 summarizes Paul's point, we who are born anew are not obligated to live according to the flesh. So if we are being led by the Spirit, we are not being led by fleshly desires.

    Therefore the whole construct of "in the flesh" meaning unregenerate is a fiction, and therefore Romans 8:8 teaches if you are being led by fleshly desires you cannot please God.
     
  12. Protestant

    Protestant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,300
    Likes Received:
    159
    I have been watching carefully what you do......thus I must respond.

    The Bible is quite clear regarding the level of grace needed to overcome man's natural hostility toward the true God.

    Paul's conversion is one of many examples which prove Biblicist's point.

    The level of grace needed is:

    1. Supernatural revelation.

    2. Supernatural regeneration.

    All of which are Supernaturally supplied by the Spirit.....(plus all other spiritual gifts necessary to meet the conditions of salvation.)

    All of which are irresistibly effected by the same power which created the Heavens and the Earth.

    Paul's epistles are ever emphasizing the doctrines of grace because he was the biblical 'poster-child' of their truth and application.

    He was not willing to allow any professing Christian to pat himself on the back for being -- in any way, shape or form --- the cause or partial cause of his new birth.

    Unlike Skandelon and all Arminians.
     
  13. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is good that you affirm the Scripture that we are born sinful and depraved.

    Your questions are very good, and the only aspect of your questions in which I would draw an inclusive scribble is the aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit.

    1 Corinthians 12:
    Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
    Human rationalization would desire as you appoint and illustrate.

    But look at the illustration in this manner:

    All have cancer. However, the cancer has not manifested and, although fatal, is unknown. The person does not even consider they are sick much less fatally so. Unknown to the person, the cancer has devastated not only the body but all aspects of hope at it ravages even the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    Some, not knowing they already are cancerous, make all manners of life style adjustments in preventive measures. But the cancer is already present, and, like termites, keeps eating away at the fabric of life.

    God, clothed in doctor's robes and having no particular credentials and appearance of authority, comes down from heaven presenting Himself as the only cure for cancer.

    What is the bottom line difference between those who believe and those that don't?

    Not the presence. (He has no form or comeliness and when we see Him there is no beauty that we should desire Him.)

    Not the miracles. (When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?}

    Not the message. (And amazement came upon them all, and they began talking with one another saying, “What is this message? For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits and they come out.”)

    Not even the ultimate sacrifice. (the crucifixion)

    Why do many that are invited to the wedding feast not come? (Tell those who have been invited, But they paid no attention and went their way,...)

    Why are the chosen few show up? (For many are called, but few are chosen.)

    Scan.

    I would like to add this for your thinking.

    In all the talk, one aspect is often overlooked.

    There are often Scriptures offered that show that not a single person in all humankind are not in some manner presented with the Gospel.

    Such Scriptures would include:

    "If I am lifted up..."
    "True light... enlightens every man..."
    "That whoever believes ..."
    "Come unto me all ye ..."

    So, where is the balance with such Scriptures and the Calvinist view?

    Not all would agree with me, but it is important that everyone know God has done all the work. That God can make no other provision than that which has been made.

    So what is the answer to what may be considered "the horns of a dilemma?"

    The key word is "receive."

    "As many as receive..."

    Note: Folks do not render the word as - to grab, or take hold of as one might grasp, or any other such word that has a connotation of violence or any great human effort. Rather, it is a word that basically means to acknowledge as one might acknowledge a package by signing the receipt. Some would assign a harsher expression, but the use of the word is tender, as one receiving their bride at the altar. It is not to be rendered in any other light.

    What then is the difference?

    The key is the response to the light presented. John 1

    Does the person turn away from the light or continue in that light?

    9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
    The difference is when God presents light, the unbeliever will turn away. They shun salvation, they reject and refuse to continue in the light. They purpose as did Adam to reject God.

    The difference is when God presents light, the believer will continue in the light, will not turn from the light, not refuse the light, not reject the light, but continue in the light given - they in effect like a groom "receive" the light.

    Believers do not turn from the light.

    Unbelief turns, shun, avoids, and consider the light nonsense.
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, were you blinded on the road by a bright light then healed three days latter to become the apostle used of God to write a large percentage of the New Testament?

    I'm being purposefully facetious to make a point. Hopefully you are seeing that point, but just in case you didn't I will spell it out. The manner in which God works to ensure his messengers (like Jonah or Paul) deliver their appointed message is CLEARLY very convincing. I mean, who wouldn't be convinced after 3 days in a fish? But those convincing means to call out his prophets and apostles only bring Calvinism into question from my perspective. Here is why:

    1. What purpose do these convincing means serve? Wouldn't simply opening his eyes by regenerating him do the trick?

    2. What is the need to use such huge signs and wonders to convince the will of a man that is supposedly under the sovereign control of God from birth?

    3. Isn't the means used to call out men like Paul what sets them apart as apostles? Thus, wouldn't presuming that all are called by the same 'irresistible' means undermine his authority as an apostle?

    With all due respect, this is just silly. Do you think the Prodigal Son pat himself on the back for returning home after what his father did? To think that our humiliation is boast worthy is just plain silly.

    "Humble yourself and you will be exalted."
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not sure what a passage about how to discern demon possession has to do with our discussion, but I think what you are attempting to say is that no one can confess Jesus is Lord except by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Now, we obviously both agree with that point, except you believe the 'assistance' is more than just 'enabling' but you'd believe it is 'irresistible.' Do you have a text that actually says that?

    I would take issue with this, because while Christ came in the form of a normal man, he didn't leave that way. He left leaving a very impressive display of authority and the resurrection and the life. Then he commission his Bride, the church, to preach the POWERFUL, LIFE-GIVING, GOSPEL TRUTH to all of creation. You presume that is an insufficient work of grace, I don't. I think that those who hear the gospel have no excuse for their trading the truth in for lies. I believe Calvinism gives them the perfect excuse by suggesting they were born unable to willingly accept the truth and be saved, and that they were born rejected by their maker. That is not biblical.

    humiliation

    "Humble yourself and you will be exalted."
     
  16. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree (though I didn't continue the "story" to the point you did).

    What you state about "trading the truth in for lies" is very much in line with what I was giving in the last area of my post.

    We would be in agreement.

    The basic difference is I present the work of Christ as "enlightening every man" and those that turn away (trading truth for lies) are the unbelievers. Those that do not turn away from the light are believers (God gave them...)

    I do wonder if this distinction is not at the "spout of the funnel" in which all schemes become a problem.

    There are those of the Calvinistic thinking who are presenting that God must specifically appoint to salvation - and there is that truth presented in Scripture for I do agree that God does of his own authority make such appointment. However, there is also the presentation in Scriptures of the the "whosoever." I view them as those who do not turn from the light - it is the only way to keep the balance.

    There are those of the non-cal view that hold that there must be some mechanism and awakening for some freedom of choice. Then again, that is not completely consistent with the Scriptures.

    Again, it is the light that must be the focus (God is light) and it is not the ones who turn towards the light, for the light is. The focus should be on those who turn away from the light, shun the light, embrace darkness rather than remaining in the light...

    Too often the BB conflicts over the method of one who "comes to Christ" when in the Scriptures it seems the emphasis is on those who turn away from Christ.




    Humility is not some coat that can be put on. It is not a learned skill. It is one of those words that describe what a person is. However, I am uncertain that is the single factor between believers and unbelievers.

    Rather, it is those that have light and those that don't. As a manifestation of those who have the light, very little pride can be found. For there is no covering that is not exposed in His light.
     
  17. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    The opposite of pride is _________. God hates the proud but gives grace to the ____________.
     
  18. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you are contending that all folks who are humble are then saved, that is just not the case.

    Peter was not humble (though humbled on more than one occasion) most impulsive folks struggle with a certain amount of pride.

    Paul was often humbled and had the thorn (which I consider was to keep him humble).

    John the apostle was possibly the most humble of those in which information is given.

    The opposite of pride is not just humility, it is also meekness.

    And meekness is a fruit of the Spirit. :)
     
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, obviously faith and repentance are prerequisites for salvation. But you seemed to be inquiring about a characteristic or trait that was common among those to whom God shows grace. That is humility IMO.
     
  20. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1


    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
    I would add too, that those who are actually growing and maturing toward "real maturity" have absolutely NO NEED to call attention to that aspect of their life.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...