IF CALVINISM IS TRUE, WHY AREN'T ALL BELIEVERS CALVINISTIC?

Skandelon said
Look at the passage. It tells us the inability of the Jews and then says "BUT THE GENTILES WILL HEAR." How could that mean anything else but that there is a difference in their ability at this point in time? If it were about the elect and the non-elect of each group then why would he draw the lines between the Jews and Gentiles and not just come out and say the elect and the non-elect? Why not say, "the non-elect can't see, hear, understand, but the elect will listen?"

Because Paul did not mean ALL the Gentiles would hear. He meant certain Gentiles, the elect, would hear. A big surprise to the Jews - imagine, great numbers of Gentiles turning to God, whilst most of the Jews perished in unbelief!

The ability therefore was possessed not by all Gentiles, but to those whom God had chosen. Just as with the Jews, only those whom God had chosen had the ability to repent.

It should be evident why Paul drew the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles - to rebuke the Jews for their unbelief, to humiliate them with the prophecy that many of the Gentiles would sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the sons of Israel would be cast out, Matt.8: 10When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This humiliation was not just to punish the unbelieving Jews, but to provoke them to envy so that they would repent. The hardened would not, but not all the unbelieving Jews are hardened, just the majority. The elect are not hardened - at some stage of their life they will repent.

First, this text NEVER says God appointed them indivdually as if to the neglect of other Gentiles. We have been over this one.

Yes, I know Arminians try to have it be a self-disposal, rather than a God-disposal. Sounds a desperate attempt to me.

Who says "NONE" of them have faith? Job had faith, as did Rahab and many others mentioned in scripture.

Are you saying Job and Rahab were saved by natural light??? NO, God revealed Himself to them. The gospel came to them through either direct revelation or via His servants. God spoke to Abraham. He spoke to Job. Rahab had heard of the God of Israel, and had the spies to inform her in more detail. NONE of these saints had to rely on natural light.

Everyone who had faith in God, either through God's revelation in nature or God's revelation through the law, was credited with righteousness, eventhough they themselves were not righteous by the standards of the law.

That is absurd. That is saying there was no divine revelation before Moses, just natural light. But God spoke to the saints of old, Seth, Enoch, Noah, etc. He did not leave them with only natural light. If God had not revealed Himself to Abraham, he would have perished in his sins just like his countrymen.

Your doctrine of the sufficiency of natural revelation is a real killer to motivation to evangelism. Calvinists have abused their doctrine at times and blunted the edge of evangelism - but if one believes the heathen can be saved without the gospel, then we can stay happily at home. It is one example of consistent Arminianism meeting up with inconsistent Calvinism.

In Him

Ian

 

Skandelon said
Then its not a response from us, it is actually His doing. That is not a response. A response requires two persons and you only have one doing anything in this case.

But I do say man responds - God moves him to respond in a God-pleasing way, and he does so. Just because that moving is irresistible, does not make the response not the believer's. If He fills me with love for Him so I'm bursting, are my actions moved by that an invalid response? Has He made me do something against my will? Would that it was always so!

My point is that "He has given us EVERYTHING that we need for a life of Godliness by the power of Him who calls us to his own glory and goodness." We have the power to overcome. If we don't, its not because He has somehow failed to give us what we needed, because He has given us everything we need it is left to us to respond.

I agree, we have the power. But do we always have the will in the face of great temptations? No, if God left us to work out our own salvation, even with all the power we need, we would miserably fail. He does let us fail on occasion, perhaps to remind us that without Him we can do nothing, but He again and again He intervenes with irresistible grace, Phil.2: 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

So, then you must admit that the ONLY reason I am not a Calvinist is because God hasn't made me as able or as willing as he did you, right?

NO - the reason is that God has left you in your error - YOUR error - and not left me in mine. That makes you responsible, for it is YOUR error, and God is not obliged to advance any of us in our knowledge before His time.

I believe its God's purpose to allow men to choose freely who they will serve and therefore has not been determined by His sovereign will.

But having a people for Himself, the Church, IS just one such essential for His sovereignty. IF He left their salvation up to man, He might have ended up with NO Church. Or are you saying He would have intervened in that case and 'forced' enough to believe to satisfy His desire for a Church?

No, as I have continually stated, we are not saved "of ourselves." They are not able unless God intervenes. This verse is showing His intervention and thus their ability to hear.

Acts 28:28 tells us only that Gentiles will hear (and obviously must be able to do so)- NOT all Gentiles. Just the elect.

The Jews hearts have been disposed to unbelief because of their pasts and now because of God's purposes. The Gentiles don't have that disposition. They are "ripe" for picking because they don't have the false teachings and self-righteous pride getting in the way. Its a matter of disposition, which goes right along with Acts 13:48 which speaks of those being disposed, or their hearts being open, to repentance.

Is that what you see all around you, Skan? The nations just jumping for the opportunity to repent? NO, the Gentiles and the Jews as a body both despise the gospel and the God whose it is, 1 Cor.1: 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. It is only the elect Gentiles who jump at the opportunity to repent, Acts 13: 48Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Is this every Gentile who hears the gospel? Is every Gentile 'disposed' to believe? NO, only the elect.

Paul speaks of these who have stumbled and who are hardened "leaving their unbelief" and "being saved" after being "provoked."

I think you err in equating unbelief with hardening. Some are in unbelief who do not experience this special hardening - the elect, who will subsequently repent. But in the meantime they are cut-off like the hardened, because of their unbelief.

Why? According to you the only one who could cause me to believe Calvinism is God. If I become a Calvinist again it will be because of God and Him alone, right? So, its only reasonable to believe that if I don't become a Calvinist it is because of God and Him alone. You can't blame the fall or imputed sinfulness for this one Ian. As a believer I have been set free. If your system is right only God can be blamed for people not becoming Calvinistic. Which btw is why many Calvinists do believe such choices are left up to men.

Yes, the only One who could CAUSE you to become a Calvinist again.

You cannot of yourself do that.

But if God is pleased to do it, He will do so by working in you SO THAT YOU will 'will and do' what He desires. Our Growth in grace involves us, but is entirely subject to His sovereign power.

You imply by our being 'free' from sin that we are fully able to be perfect if we so wish - is that what you experience in your life? It certainly isn't for me.

I accept there is a mystery about how it all works out in our lives, and your are right to remind us of our part in His purposes. It is just that I see ALL of our thoughts, words and deeds as significant and important to His sovereign will.

In Him

Ian

 

Hi, my first post; but in answer to the "loaded" question: Some believe the entirety of the Word of God and some believe the Calvinbistic theology when taken at it's core value is really anti-christ.

Since this board is infamour for it's arguementative nature, I thought that might "rile" a few of the persistent debators to the point of getting their hackles enraged and their "pistols" unlatched.

It all really disolves to this, is God the LORD as described in Isaiah 59:1 or not? Since He IS! How can the theology of calvininsim delegate to God how strong His arm is and how "unheavy" His ear is to hear even the faintest plea for salvation and thw illingness to alow the work of God to empower his repentence?

YOU CAN'T!

 

You:Is He allowing you to make choices in regard to your obedience as a believer? If so, why do you believe it would be against the sovereignty of God for a lost man to choose to believe? Do you see the contradiction?

Me:We are enabled to make a choice when God grants us that ability (Acts 13:48). I don’t believe I am following you completely. I do not see a contradiction that a man must be appointed to eternal life in order to believe.


You:The contradiction is with those who try to claim that God somehow would be giving up his sovereignity by giving us a real choice in salvation.

Me: See, this is what I mean by “That depends on what you mean”. When you use the word “real choice”, you are probably referring to what is commonly called “Libeterian” free will. The disagreement I would have with you is not whether men have wills, but their ability to choose apart from and against their nature.

You:That is clearly contradicted by the fact that we can choose our different doctrines.

Me:Call me shallow, but I do not see how this follows Biblically. God promises to bring His people to eternal life but not perfection in doctrine. This is what I am saying. Sorry If I am not coming across. Both of these are true and any contradiction is not to be found in the text of scripture.

You:God's sovereignity obviously allows for diversity among believers as they make their own choices (for his purposes, I agree) which would indicate that God could also allow diversity in men before they are saved as they make their own choices. Calvinists are always asking what is the difference between those who don't choose Christ and those who do and if you can tell me the difference in those who choose Calvinism and those who don't then you'll have your answer. The will of man is the difference, not God's determination.

Me:It is true that men “willingly” don’t choose God. It’s part of their nature to be an enemy of God (Rom. 8:7-8), but we (Christians) “willingly” believe in Christ because we were appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48). The ultimate answer to the question of why certain men are not perfect and differ in their theology, and also why some are saved lies ultimately in God.

Keep in mind that I am verrrrry eloquent with words! So If I am not coming across, please just ask me to clarify and I will attempt the impossible!

May God bless you

 

Welcome to the C/A debates Plain Ol Ralph.
Gina

 

Skan,
I am aware of your interpretation of Acts 13:48. I still do not believe that your interpretation does justice to the individual nature of the passage.

Thanks

 

Skan,

I do not see how you conclude that Luke’s statement is out of place given the fact that actual salvation is going on. Luke just happens to let us take a look "behind the picture" as with Lydia in Acts 16 and speaks about the Lord “opening her heart” even though it is a “historical narrative”. Luke comments on who it was that believed. This shows not only God’s acceptance of the Gentiles but also His initiation of their salvation.

Paul in Acts 13 announces that the message is for Gentiles also and their is rejoicing and for some, belief of the truth. Luke then tells us who the ones were who believed, "Those appointed to eternal life." I see no reason to interpret this verse any other way unless a person comes to it with a system already in their hand. I do not know how to do the “bye bye” hand, I thought that was pretty cool (How do you do that?), or I would post it also.


May God bless you

 

Skan,

You said:You presume the word "ones" meaning individuals.

Me said (hey I know it's not good English!):

Let me show you why. Vs. 48a speaks of the Gentiles which I would agree is a “group” like you mentioned. Vs. 48 b speaks of “as many” and said these (the ‘as many’) are the exact same ones that believed. In other words, all the Gentiles did not believe, ‘only’ as many as had been appointed to eternal life. In other words, the ones who believe make of the totality of the “as many”. So Gentiles spoken of generically cannot fit this text.

May God bless you

 

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who understands language at all (Greek or English) should be able to see that "as many as" refers back to "Gentiles", and therefore demands a subset of those Gentiles. This is elementary school stuff.

48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many [of those Gentiles] as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

 

Skandelon writes:
"Of course not. It could also mean that Christ died for all nations (both Jewish and non-Jewish) ones, or at least individuals from each of those nations."

So you're a Calvinarminianismist

 

In the Philippines we have this cult called Iglesia ni Kristo (Church of Christ).

They start off a debate with 'Christ is a man', and Catholics and Protestants immediately jump into the fray and pretty soon find themselves having to admit that there are certain scriptures that say Christ is a man.

Had they simply said 'yes, but....', then the debates would have been less stressful, less vitriolic, and the sometimes inevitable fisticuffs could have been avoided.

Calvinists also often get into bitter disputes with Arminians when the latter start to point to Scriptures that show man has a choice and that God honors that choice/will regardless of what the consequences may be to the man according to God's principles because they fail to point out first to the Arminian that most of those Scriptures pertain to regenerate men, and not mankind in general.

The unregenerate man, the unelect, however, has no free exercise of will. His choices are always bound to his single nature which is fallen and nothing he does can please God because for men outside of Christ, 'all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags before thee'.

 

Duh ?

This is exactly what I was saying. Isaiah 64:6 applies to the state of the natural man, you are quoting something about the regenerate man.