Poll on Doctrines of Grace and Free Will

You have brought out a strawman argument that is indeed easy to defeat.

 

First thing to remember GL, I'M NOT SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR POSTS. I've said that already.

Calvinists in general, seem to believe that God had chosen EVERYTHING in ages past. He is on a set pattern. He knows who will sin, when folk will live and die, who He will save and who He will destroy, everything, all the way down to when the condor will go extinct and He is following that pattern exclusively. And if He dares to change the pattern along the way, like He did with Hezekiah, then it was what He intended all along (which sets God up as a liar, because He told Hezekiah he was going to die!).

I don't recall making a statement that would contradict this.

LOL, how did Allah get into this conversation? He(it?) is nothing but a false god and has no bearing on this discussion. Deterministic, huh? I had to look that up just to be sure you were as far off my point as I thought you were. The definition of determinism is this:

"1. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory"

And that is about as opposite of what I am saying as you can get. Determinism is what Calvinism espouses: God has already decided everything.

Not sure where you got this idea from what I wrote.

Lets turn this around to "God works among mankind to accomplish His will" and then you'll have the right idea.

Okay, are you sure you don't have problems with comprehension?? I certainly never said OR implied this statement. If God had no need to direct history, He wouldn't have been doing so all these years!

Why?

You think this because you view your salvation from a Calvinistic viewpoint. I, on the otherhand, didn't come to Christ kicking and screaming. There was no force, just a choice.

 

I'm sure that you will go for it...

 

I don't need to, MK did when she stated above "Not sure where you got this idea from what I wrote. "

 

Point taken... But to whom are you responding?

No, they actually don't. I've laid out a fairly accurate portrayal of what Calvinists actually hold, though as I've said before, I disavow myself of that handle. I don't care for it or Arminian. Neither are accurate or representative of the true biblical issues before us, and I'm only using the terms because they are handy for discussion sake.

In your rebuttal, which BTW, IS a response to my post above, you tell me that I am a liar, but by denying that you are responding to me directly, you simply make the class of people called "Calvinist" liars instead. Shame on you. We do not make God a liar any more than do Arminians because, as I said fairly clearly above, Calvinists DO NOT make God out to be a "deterministic God." That is YOUR argument -- and it is not a valid expression of Calvinism. It is, however, an expression of hyper-Calvinism, which is a position disavowed by Calvinists and Arminians alike.

I brought Allah in because that is who you are describing -- not the God of the Bible, who is not deterministic. If you wish to set up a strawman Calvinistic position then attack that, so be it, but don't pin beliefs on me or on "Calvinists in general" that are not factual. That doesn't help press the debate forward nor does it help us to remain united in fellowship like brothers in the Lord ought.

How is that materially different than what I wrote? It is still God working out His perfect will in a way that will not be altered.

I simply pushed forward the logic of your statement. Of course God has directed history since the beginning. He's God! But, how can God direct history if He has no control over the humans that make that history? See the problem?

Did God pre-date your coming? Then He instigated it. Did God cause your heart to be softened or hardened toward Him? Then He instigated it.

I'm fully aware of the arguments for human free will and the concept that we reflect upon our fallen state then seek out God in repentance and belief, but I'm also fully aware of the fact that the Bible says that we can't do that the way that you and many others say that we do.

This, for example:

Rom 9:13-24 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

This passage alone clearly refutes any claim to a man-first coming to God. Paul SPECIFICALLY takes to task the claim of the Arminian that God cannot direct the affairs of those that He wills to direct and Paul even anticipates your argument: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? and refutes that also.

Then there is John:

Jhn 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Arminians get all excited about verse 12 -- "But as many as received him" but seem to miss verse 13, "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Again, please don't put standard fare, Arminian classroom and tract information concerning Calvinism into my mouth. That information is not factual and there are no Calvinists teaching that program nor living that program that I've ever seen, including some of the most staunch 5-point Calvinists in America like John Piper, Albert Mohler, Bruce Ware, or Tom Schreiner.

 

Very nice post CF1. We can disagree in love, without degrading each other. When I feel attacked for my beliefs I will defend then but I will not degrade you or ridicule you. Once again let us disagree in love.

a servant in hope

Jeff

 

GLF, you keep alluding to this. Who on here has even hinted as such?

 

Then what are we debating?

 

I asked you first. Who has argued for a man centered, man first theology (what you keep bringing into this)?

 

You have argued consistently for an Arminian perspective, which is, at the end of the day, a man-centered theology. Yes, I know that "previnient grace" is the dodge used to explain how persons dead in their sin and trespasses can reach out to God, but I cannot find "previnient grace" in the Scriptures. I find that God draws all men to Himself, and that God is the author and finisher of our salvation, and that we participate with God in that event in a limited fashion in but a couple of the aspects of salvation, faith/repentance, sanctification, and perseverance. We cannot call ourselves, we cannot elect ourselves, we cannot justify ourselves, we cannot seal ourselves, we cannot adopt ourselves, we cannot glorify ourselves, and ultimately, without God's grace, we also cannot even believe, have faith, repent, or be made into the image of Christ (sanctification).

So, at the end of the day, however you argue any man-centered activity, you must have God and God's sovereignty first. Any other position, no matter how finely the arguments are crafted misses the main point, that we cannot reach out to God without God first reaching out to us, which even previnient grace says explicitly.

 

Besides not having a firm grasp on what I have "argued" or even believe for that matter, you erect the very strawmen you accuse us of doing. You are not Arminian by default, even though it is much more convenient from your camp to use that phrase.

The irony in this whole thing is the man-centered sovereignty definition that states "for God to be sovereign, He must XYZ..." and "He cannot be sovereign if He allows XYZ". You have unintentionally handcuffed Him using the very theology you claim grants Him ultimate sovereignty. As I have shown, there is a tension in Scripture on God's involvement with man in the confines of time, and you cannot accept that since it doesn't come pre-wrapped with a nice little bow on top.

I've never said man can reach out to God independent of God's first action in man's life or man can regenerate and save himself. THAT is the strawman you keep putting forward and it is either intentional or it is not. I hope it's the latter.

 

As I've said before, I was and mostly still am responding to the general trend of the conversation and not to any particular person, though I may (or may have) quote someone as a starting off point for my own discussion. Though now I am talking to YOU specifically, because you seem to be both taking my posts personally and reading into them something I'm not saying.

Nope, I didn't. I said that Calvinist who believe that God can't change His mind make God into a liar. Not that they lie themselves.

There's a difference between no control and total control. It doesn't take away from God's sovereignity for Him to decide that He wants us to decide whether or not to follow Him.

Hmmm, God choses who He will save is a basic tenet of a 5 point Calvinist (not hyper either), so how is this NOT deterministic?

Let's back up to where I only quoted a portion of your comment and let me quote the entire comment:

This I dealt with already.

The part in red is the exact opposite of "God works among mankind to accomplish His will". We do not work alongside God, He works alongside US. Him first, us second. His authority first, our response second.

And again, freewiller that I am, I never stated that man came to God first. Not in the least, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me". God reached out to man first, now the decision is: What will man do with God's offer.

This is why I say neither Calvin nor Arminius hold the entire complete view of what God is trying to tell us. The whole Romans passage that you quoted, takes on another meaning altogether when viewed my perspective, rather than trying force it to mean that man has no choice in how he responds to God's call.

You know, here again, it is you who seem to think I can't read plain English. Of course I don't believe that anything I could have done, any of the sacrifices made by the priests, nor anything that other humans may have done, would have given me salvation had God not first sent the Way, the Truth and the Life. He's already made first contact!

This is quite amusing. What I know of Calvin, I first learned about HERE on the BB. Same with Arminius. Then I studied them both out for myself. No tracks, no classroom fare, just the words of the men themselves. (though I don't claim to have read every word each man wrote) Neither was all wrong. Equally, neither is all right. Both were failable humans just like us, who did their best to abide by God's word.

 

I'll admit, right now, that I am reasonably confused as to several of the positions presented in this thread (and others). A few of you seem to have no cohesive theology, but pick and choose what you wish to hold depending on if it fits the argument you would like to make at the moment.

That's fine if that is what you want to do, but don't expect anyone to actually rebut your points because they make about as much sense as calling a square round. In a fashion, you seem to want your cake, and eat it too.

Either God is sovereign or God is not. I've made my choice, and I'll bow to God as my sovereign King. If that makes Him deterministic (which He isn't) so well. Let it be. Better HE than I.

I AM really curious as to how the Romans and John passages I laid out above can be interpreted in another manner, however. They seem REALLY clear to me. But obviously, I can never really comprehend Scripture because I'm the one looking at it through a "disapproved lens." :BangHead:

 

That's rich. You are the one confused...yet it is our theology that is not cohesive. It would do you a world of good to learn opposing views to your own.

I have yet to see you address the story of Hezekiah. Curious as to why.

 

As per the usual when this discussion comes up there is too much talking past each other and not to one another. You're a heretic cause this old theologian says so, no you're the heretic cause this other old theologian said so.

Lots of heat not much light

 

Hello Luke2427. Late answering as extended Thanksgiving traveling.

(KJV) II Thessalonians 2:13, "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I find here a verse you may see as teaching predestination of salvation by God, which to me is of a Robotic nature. I cannot quarrel with that understanding that salvation of who is saved is predestined, and known by God. However what is overlooked is Who is predestined, and who isn't. The above verse says "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation". He then tells us how, as He continues with what was from the beginning, i.e., "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

If we believe God (Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved), then we are predestined, for from the beginning it is ". "Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth", just as Paul tells us.

Of course they can't. Where have I suggested such as this? If a sinner hears the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, and believes that gospel, they will be baptized into the Body of Christ, and sealed in. If they hear (or do not hear) and do not believe that salvation is a gift, made possible by the Grace of God, Through Faith without any works of our own, then they will not be saved.

 

OK, well I am confused about what you believe then. Help me to see your perspective more clearly.

If the unregenerate man cannot choose Christ (which the bible clearly teaches) how does, in your view, the unregenerate man come to Christ?