I have a sincere question about Calvinism - (please no fighting)...

And the answer would be that God chose one to be a child of faith, and the other not, long before either could harden himself according to Skandelon's false teachings.

Just nevermind. Skandelon hit the nail on the head when he identified the primary objection to Calvinism, and it isn't one's view of God, it's one's view of man. Boil down all of Skandelon's arguments, and it comes out to this, God saves those on the basis of an inherent quality. One chooses God because he was good enough to choose God, and one doesn't because he wasn't.

 

OK, in what part of the country?

 

Did God send a prophet to Sodom and Gomorrah? Tyre? Sidon? Christ said plainly that they would have repented if the works done in Judea had been done in them.

 

Don,

Honest question, does God do that? Actually prevent someone from being "saved"?

 

just do the best you can to snatch them from those flesh eating Calvinists. God will reward you.

 

The scripture never says this. It only indicates that one (and his posterity) is chosen for "noble purposes" while the other (and his posterity) is chosen for "common use." Nothing is mentioned about one being saved and the other condemned to hell.

Thank you. :wavey:

Actually, that is not an accurate description of what we believe, but I think that is probably apparent to any objective reader.

 

Good enough

If we was good enough and better than everyone else, there will be no need to come to Jesus for salvation. When we come to Jesus we come to Him just as we are not worthy, but still calls us to come to Him to have life.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Then answer this question:

All other things being equal, why does one choose Christ, and another doesn't?

 

Which seems to contradict the idea of Total Depravity because it indicates that an outward sign would have brought them to faith, something that would be impossible if they were born totally unable to willingly believe due to their depraved nature.

 

Re: God hated Esau

FWIW, the same word is used of Jacob's attitude toward Leah in contrast to Rachel.

 

If one says that God hardened Pharoah's heart, and uses it as an example in a discusson about salvation, then one has to be saying that God prevented Pharoah from being saved.

Do I believe God does that? No. Do I see any scripture that says that? No. But it's a conclusion that's easily reached by the extreme hyper-Calvinist.

 

And so, Christ's disciples were better men than the Pharisees. Not quite as depraved.

 

That's right. Jacob didn't love Leah, and he didn't choose her.

 

That's an arbitrary stipulation. God prevented Pharoah from doing good. The ulitmate result was his destruction.

 

Because one chose to believe and other chose to reject. What you need to realize is that the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explaination is required. The choice between available options is what free will is all about and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects.

Now, lest you rebuke me for appealing to mystery just jump on over to the other thread where several Calvinists appeal to mystery with regard to the origin of sinful intent. We all appeal to mystery at some point in the debate, whether in regard to divine culpability, divine freedom, or human will.

 

How are you correlating this to the hardening of Pharoah's heart?

 

Abritrary stipulation or not, the result is the same: in a discussion about salvation, Pharoah wasn't allowed to be saved.

Is that your viewpoint?

 

Look at what you're saying. One is saved because he did a good work. He chose to believe.

 

That's exactly right.