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!

A Question Calvinists must Answer

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Feb 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 6 of 7
  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    There you go again. You started this post off denying that you present false dilemma because you leave the door open for another option.

    Then you present the EXACT same false dilemma in the exact same post and SLAM the door for that other option at the end of the post.


    Your "first cause" argument is illogical and totally void of Scriptural support. Not only, though, is it lacking in biblical support but it also contradicts a host passages and a superabundance of Scriptural evidence that God alone is the ultimate cause of all things.
    I have presented many of these passages in previous exchanges.

    The problem with your position is that "ultimate cause" and "first cause" are the same thing.

    Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

    Only God can do this.
     
    #101 Luke2427, Feb 25, 2011
  2. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so. QED
     
    #102 quantumfaith, Feb 25, 2011
  3. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed, but perhaps you didn't notice the words I've highlighted in this quote from Luke's post:
    Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".

    Only God can do this.
    ​
     
    #103 David Lamb, Feb 25, 2011
  4. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which is precisely what I was implying David.
     
    #104 quantumfaith, Feb 25, 2011
  5. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that when you wrote: "Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so," you were arguing against Luke where he said: "Man CANNOT be the ultimate cause of ANYTHING. He CANNOT be the Prime Mover of ANYTHING. He cannot create anything or cause anything or author anything "ex nihilo".
     
    #105 David Lamb, Feb 25, 2011
  6. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    No apology necessary. I am most definitely not "on the same side of the coin" as Luke though, ask him, I am sure he would be glad to acknowledge that.

    I do in fact hold that God is the ultimate cause of creation, however, I also hold that His creation was engineered with "soft libertarian" principles. Thus man, in my book, (cause, create, decide, choose) etc. within the parameters that God has established. I DO NOT believe in the determinism that Luke endorses.
     
    #106 quantumfaith, Feb 25, 2011
  7. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2

    I would suggest that Infralapsarian Calvinism would say precisely what you just said above. We have freedom of will as expressed in the Scriptures -- to an extent limited by God -- which does not include our ability to influence God in the case of salvation (He being the ONLY righteous judge) and He being the only one who can "re-create" lost persons/souls into a "new creation" by the all-sufficient atonement of Christ imputed to us by God as a pure gift of grace.
     
    #107 glfredrick, Feb 25, 2011
  8. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are welcome to correct me if my "view" is incorrect, but even in IC, God is viewed as "ordaining" the rebellion and fall of mankind, I, although I most certainly acknowledge God's omniscience, do not believe He ordained (decreed etc.) the necessity of the Fall.
     
    #108 quantumfaith, Feb 25, 2011
  9. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2

    You are not incorrect. IC does see that.

    But, in your view, by necessity, God is not the only power and is not in control. Permissive will explains the fall, hands off does not.

    Who else is strong enough to stand next to God to decree such a thing as the human fall? Is there another who is co-equal to God, or close enough to have overrun God's decrees?
     
    #109 glfredrick, Feb 25, 2011
  10. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,465
    Likes Received:
    1,575
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Guy....it would help for you to explain in greater detail for people not schooled in this:


    according to the infralapsarian view the order of events was as follows: God proposed,

    1. to create;
    2. to permit the fall;
    3. to elect to eternal life and blessedness a great multitude out of this mass of fallen men, and to leave the others, as He left the Devil and the fallen angels, to suffer the just punishment of their sins;
    4. to give His Son, Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the elect; and
    5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption which was purchased by Christ.

    According to the supralapsarian view the order of events was:

    1. to elect some creatable men (that is, men who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to destruction;
    2. to create;
    3. to permit the fall;
    4. to send Christ to redeem the elect; and
    5. to send the Holy Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect The question then is as to whether election precedes or follows the fall.
     
    #110 Earth Wind and Fire, Feb 25, 2011
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok, can we now get back to the questioned posed in the OP?

    Supposing Calvinism is correct, why have some professing believers, like John Wesley or CS Lewis, rejected it while others accepted it?

    1. They were self-deceived and not really believers thus they couldn't accept the truth of Calvinism.

    2. They weren't as smart/good as the Calvinists. Which means the Calvinists can claim something good within themselves which makes them better than another and gives them room to boast.

    3. They weren't given the grace needed to understand, while Calvinists were given as extra measure of grace. God hid this truth from some of his children while revealing it to others.

    Is there a fourth option?
     
    #111 Skandelon, Feb 25, 2011
  12. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Slam the door? What do you mean? Did I create a software that prevents you from answering the question by submitting your own option? What other option is there Luke? Please just submit another option Luke. I welcome a fourth answer...


    waiting...


    No, you have misunderstood if you think this is the case. God is the ultimate cause of us having the ability of first causes. Or as Quantum so eloquently stated: "Man can do, cause and/or create anything in which God grants him the authority and ability to do so."

    How else do you explain the origin of Dahmer's evil intent to rape, torture and murder a child? God have Dahmer the ability of first cause choices (which in that case God would be the "ultimate cause" of all subsequent free choices, but without determining those choices), so Dahmer had the ability to "create" or "originate" a sinful intent and action. Understand?

    If sin must have an author/creator and man cannot author/create anything then you must acknowledge that God is the author/creator of sin, which is clearly unbiblical and even contrary to what Calvinists such as Edwards taught. Again, the same problem you have had all along.
     
    #112 Skandelon, Feb 25, 2011
  13. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 Though not because they rejected Calvinism but because they rejected the one true God. The Good Shepherd said that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.
     
    #113 Ron Wood, Feb 25, 2011
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, you believe that professing believers such as John Wesley and CS Lewis who rejected Calvinism weren't saved?

    And you believe that we who reject Calvinism's dogma are also unsaved because we reject the "one true God?" Is that your position?
     
    #114 Skandelon, Feb 25, 2011
  15. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    Here is something for the DoG Brethern to "chew" on:

    Rev. 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

    21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

    22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

    Now, in the TULIP, Jezebel would fit the exact mold of a "non-elect", correct? The "I's" that I bolded are referring to Jesus, correct? So Jesus even gave Jezebel a "space" to repent, and she repented not. So how can this be reconciled with TULIP??

    i am I AM's!!

    Willis
     
    #115 convicted1, Feb 25, 2011
  16. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    God gives gifts, and gives to each severally as He will. Saying that one was "not chosen to understand Calvinism," is like saying one was not chosen to to have this gift or that gift. It isn't a slight on the part of God, but a lesson in love and humility for those who have the knowledge. Those who have the knowledge didn't give it to themselves, nor were they given it because they were worthy of it, but because God of His own mercy and grace imparted it.

    There is a deep and true humility in the realization of that.

    Contrast that with the necessary conclusion of your theology. If you chose Christ, it's because it's because you were good enough to, and better than the one who rejects Him.

    There is no alternative.

    So if the question were put to you, Why did you choose Arminianism? You would have to choose #2.
     
    #116 Aaron, Feb 25, 2011
  17. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that you are trying to get me in trouble with the powers that be here but the answer to your question is yes. But as I said it isn't because you reject Calvinism's dogma but because you reject the one true God. I could care less if you are a Calvinist or not. As I said before I have known many dead Calvinists.
     
    #117 Ron Wood, Feb 25, 2011
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, you pick #3, but with different wording so as to "soften" the blow, got it.

    Nevertheless, the reason some believers don't accept your theology is because God didn't give the grace to impart that to us, for whatever reason.

    So, you are left with the questions:
    1. Why do you suppose God might not want some believers to believe Calvinistic soteriology? Why keep this truth from some of his elect children?

    2. And why would you attempt to convert us to Calvinism when its up to him to impart that knowledge to us? When asked that question regarding evangelism Calvinists typically say, "Because God say so," but no where in scripture does it tell you to convert people to your soteriological views. Why not spend your time doing evangelism, which you are commanded to do, and less time trying to convert us?

    If being broken and crying out for help is consider "being better" then fine. On what other basis is the system of reward and punishment resting? "Well done my good and faithful servant," must mean something. "Ye of little faith," certainly implies they could have been more faithful. The countless text where men and women are praised/credited for their faithfulness to God must have some meaning. If God is the only actor and decider then you reduce him to a boy playing with GI-JOES and then having an award banquet for the one he made to win.

    Assuming Arminianism is true, yes, I would affirm LFW and I would be responsible for my respond to scripture, just as you will be if you're wrong. I admit. If we are right then we are better than you because you are wrong. We interpret correctly and you incorrectly, which is a basis for calling YOU wrong, rather than God wrong for making you believe what you believe.
     
    #118 Skandelon, Feb 25, 2011
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I asked the moderators for leniency on this thread because I'm asking the question and you have to be honest, so no I'm "not trying to get you in trouble."

    I understand that people aren't saved by believing Calvinism according to your belief, but at least you are consistent to say that the rejection of Calvinism is something only an unbeliever would do. I truly do believe that is the only consistent and logic response for a Calvinistic believer, which is really sobering when you begin to look around at all the loved ones who reject Calvinism. I hope all you young white guys enjoy each other up there, since statistically many more of you are Calvinistic. I guess God just doesn't love women and more sensitive or less intellectual types as much, because again it is quite clear that statically they are much less likely to accept Calvinistic teaching. Just some interesting things to consider.
     
    #119 Skandelon, Feb 25, 2011
  20. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Wow...that makes two on this very thread :tear:

    The irony is you need to believe complete correct doctrine pertaining to calvinism in order to be saved. That is salvation by works.
     
    #120 webdog, Feb 25, 2011
Page 6 of 7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...