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!

Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Dec 26, 2009.

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

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, Spurgeon wants it both ways here. He says if a man dies in his sins, it is his own fault. But then he argues that it is impossible for a man to be saved without God's sovereign grace.

    If by God's own decree man was cursed with the inability to excercise saving faith in Jesus, then it is God's fault that man cannot be saved.

    Let's say I built a robot that could walk both forward and backwards. Then one day I reprogrammed it so it could only walk forward. Now, who is responsible for this change?

    Now, in the real world you and everyone else would say I was clearly responsible for this change, but when it comes to salvation, somehow Calvinists have a way of rationalizing away this simple fact.
     
  2. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0

    Not at all. I post it because one poster..(to go unnamed) wishes to show that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist. But he pulls quotes out of context...MISLEADING.

    Why does he feel he miss do this????

    Anyway...He..and maybe you, don't understand Calvinism, if you can't understand what he is saying in that quote. He NOT walking the fence. He is showing that even BAD systems of theology are right in some areas.
     
  3. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wrote on this last month...

    Its long.. 6 parts...

    Calvinism Examiner
    LINK..
     
  4. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh, the old "secret will" explanation. Laughable. This shows the mental gymnastics a Calvinist must go through to explain away their illogical doctrine.

    I just don't get it. I don't know how any man cannot be concerned when he realizes he is having to perform a great deal of rationalizing to make his doctrine work.

    Sorry, I don't buy that God has a "revealed will" that he presents in scripture, and then has another "secret will" only for the elect.

    You make God a person who constantly makes insincere and misleading invitations to man. Oh, let's cut the baloney, you are saying God lies to men, and lies often.

    Calvinists see the invitations to all men, and it gives them a problem. Many Calvinists have written about this problem.

    These are Calvinists by the way, and they are expressing the great difficulty they have with many scriptures that clearly invite all to be saved. I especially like what Dr. Dick said, "the Calvinist who sees no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less"

    And that is true. No sincere, honest, and deep thinking person could lightly brush away the many invitations God and Jesus gave to all men to be saved.

    So, if you want to twist your own logic and rationalize away God's word, I can't stop you, but no way I am going to accept your fantastic explanations.
     
  5. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, no I do not believe number 2. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Of course, you are interested in a conversation, only in blasting those that hold to the doctrines of grace, charges them with holding to false ideas, and then ignoring their repsonses. God did not choose a certain subset of the elect to be blessed with further knowledge. This idea is absurd and illogical. After all, each child of God has a different degree of knowledge concerning the scriptures. I do not hold to some election within election idea, so quit saying I do.

    Secondly, you should ask that question of Moses. After all, we are privy to information he was not. Why did not God give him the information He has given us? Children of God in all ages have had varying degrees of understanding. It isn't based upon who is better, who is smarter, or anything like that. It can be as simple as one is more dilligent in studying the scriptures or as complicated as to not give an answer.
     
  6. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Find me one place where eternal salvation is offered to men universally, one that is without a qualifying statement and without distinction.
     
  7. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    John 3:16 is a good start. Whosoever of the kosmos sounds pretty universal to me.
     
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Whoa, talk about an over reaction. I'm trying to have a civil conversation. I'm not sure what I said that deserved this response???

    You wrote: "that some people, who are no better than any other born again child of God, are blessed to see the truth of scripture while others, who might even be better disciples, are not.

    I took that to mean that God "blesses" some of his children with the truth while not blessing others. How is that not a good representation of what you just stated? What else could you mean by the phrase, "some...are blessed to see the truth while others...are not?"

    Please explain.

    Well, in this response you seem to support my option 1, in that there is something "better" about the Calvinist (i.e. "more diligent in studying"). Right? If not please explain. I'm honestly just trying to understand your answer.

    Either your "correctness" about doctrine is totally from God (i.e. "one is blessed while another is not"), or its something to which you have contributed in some way (i.e. "diligent study). Which one, or some combination of the two? Please explain????
     
  9. Theopolis

    Theopolis New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kudos .................
     
  10. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, I just went back and read the whole thing quickly (don't really have time at the moment). I will read it in more detail when I get a chance.

    First of all, hope you aren't trying to take credit for this, I have seen this sort of argument from other Calvinists.

    Second, I find your reasoning flawed. I don't have time except to say in the examples of Joseph and Moses, God was intervening for good. In Joseph's case it was to prevent his people from perishing. In Moses case, God was delivering the Jews from the harsh oppression of the Egyptians.

    And, even in the case of Jonah, God's intervention resulted in saving Ninevah, not destroying it as God first intended to do.

    So, in these three cases God intervened to save people, not destroy them. The scriptures say God is not willing that any person should perish, so God is not going to intervene in a way that causes a man to perish, even if the man makes that decision himself.

    I will go into more detail when I get time, but so far I think your reasoning fails. Nice try though.
     
    #111 Winman, Feb 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2010
  12. olegig

    olegig New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    For me the issue is not whether some men or groups are called, chosen, or elected.
    The issue is on what ground did God do the calling, choosing, or electing.

    Did God call, chose, or elect simply on the basis of His sovereign decree or did He do it on the basis of His foreknowledge?

    One can then say His foreknowledge is based on His decree, in other words God foreknew something only because He decreed it.
    IMO the above limits God because what power does it take to know something is going to happen only because you decreed it to happen?

    I feel God's foreknowledge is based on His being able to see all time unfold before His eyes in an instant.
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I would just add...what is the point of even speaking about God's foreknowledge of some things if indeed God has decreed all things? It just seems silly to even speak of God's simply foreknowing something that in reality he foreordained, doesn't it?
     
  14. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    :laugh::laugh:

    This is so funny.

    Your reasoning (Winman)....."BUT....God was intervening for good."

    Which he say is bad reasoning when I say it. :)

    Then you close with...

    but so far I think your reasoning fails.


    haha....

    PLEASE NOTE!!!!!!

    Calvinist claim is that God allows man to sin...pass over...or God intervenes for the good and elects.:thumbs:

    welcome to Calvinism
     
  15. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    when did God know what He knows?
     
  16. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Laugh, but you are the one that makes irrational arguments. Here is one from that article you wrote:

    You use the illustration of a lion. This fails primarily because we are not a lion and have the ability to reason. But it also fails because God is the one who designed the lion. If a lion has no desire to eat hay, that is not his fault, that is exactly the way God made the lion. So, it is a silly and illogical argument.

    You also compared men to mice in a maze in your article. I don't know who should be more insulted, men or God? After all, God said he made man in his own image.
     
  17. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    The question in the OP is: Let's suppose Calvinism is true...then why don't all Christians believe it?

    The answer is that even some of those whom GOD has, through HIS sovereign Grace saved, still want to cling to the idea that they had to complete the work of GOD. God only made it possible for man to be saved through HIS incarnation and sacrifice. Sinful man had to put his stamp of approval on the atoning sacrifice of the incarnate GOD, Jesus Christ
     
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, your vote is for #1? You are better than us non-Calvinist is some way because you didn't "want to cling to the idea that you had to complete the work of God," right? What is it that made you not make this "mistake" while the rest of us did?
     
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Asking "when" a infinite (timeless) being did anything is bit of a quandary. I don't presume about such things. I simply believe what scripture reveals about God, not what my finite man made constructs say he "must" do in order to remain consistent with that accepted construct.
     
  20. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    PLEASE NOTE AGAIN
    POSTER CHANGES SUBJECT.. AGAIN

    Winman...please try to stay on track.

    You said...BUT...."God was intervening for good."

    Which is the VERY argument that I made in my column, and the same argument PINK makes, and all Calvinist make.

    YET...You say that this is failed logic. haha

    That is why I laugh.

    then to reply you change subjects...AS YOU ALWAYS DO
    Do you not understand this is no way to answer?
    ******************

    Now to the new point you try to make.

    yes

    You are right when you say we are not lions. But I never said we were. It was to illustrate desires. A lion has desires. A man has desires. The lion in this case cannot over come his desire, even though by over coming it, he could save his life. Now when I speak f man, it is his sinful desire, which is like the lions desire to eat meat. Understand?

    And God made man. Man sinned...is now has a sin nature. Its really not that hard to follow.

    Sounds a lot like..."why does God find fault?"..:)

    please remember romans 5
    You need to understand the HEADSHIP of Christ. Just as CHRIST did not sin, but he took the believers guilt and died for their sin, Adam because he is the HEAD of our race, caused all of us to be guilty of sin.

    Understand? Christ is not guilty, but died in our place, for the Believers that are guilty because Adam sinned.

    :laugh::laugh:

    What do you disagree with? The mice or the maze?
     
    #120 Jarthur001, Feb 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...