So I'm arguing with a hyperCalvinist/Camping follower

There is disagreement among Calvinists on how much a lost person can understand Scripture. Calvinism is not monolithic on this point. So, False.

Again, Calvinism is not monolithic on this point. Again, False.

No, you did not affirm this in your first post above. You may affirm it now, but only after you've been called out on your initial distortion.

 

AMEN! :thumbsup:

 

I would say that we participate with God in two aspects of our salvation, faith/repentance (two sides of one coin) and sanctification, and even there, as you said, God is the gifter and initiator. The rest is solely on God and our role is to be a faithful witness, just as He said.

 

If God is powerful enough to elect to salvation, He is also powerful enough to set the appointment time for that individual's death at the appropriate time (I recall the Scriptures saying something along this line... :laugh: ).

He can also cause the interaction with the gospel, and give the grace it takes to first believe (not to mention fulfill all the aspects of salvation).

 

Except the issue of a time-table for when God accomplishes His task... That, we still cannot know, but you are assuming that our interaction with the lost is the end-all of the situation. Are you now turning farther to Pelagianism? Even a good Arminian knows that God's grace is the motivating factor in salvation for the lost. In your playing devil's advocate, you speak beyond what the Scriptures proclaim. I'd think that we dare not do that just to win an argument, and you are as wrong in so doing as is the hyper-Calvinist that annsni is dealing with.

 

I have a random question. If someone is not elect, how should they live their life? If the people on Jersey Shore are not elect how can we hold their antics against them?

 

But I didn't make any assumptions, I merely said that "technically" what the person said wasn't incorrect. I affirmed that Calvinists don't talk that way and that they are evangelistic.

Uh? I'm not even expressing what I do or don't believe in this post. I'm only speaking of what Calvinists believe and how it related to what the person in the OP said.

Again, this makes no sense considering that I've only pointed out what Calvinists believe. What have I said that Calvinists do not affirm and why?

 

Actually, I think all that is meant is that the non-elect can't understand the scripture unto salvation, which is true of Calvinism.

So, if all Calvinists are not in perfect agreement on any particular point then its automatically false and must be nit-picked?

Then you don't know me very well. I've consistently affirmed these points regarding Calvinists, if you don't believe me just ask around or do a search. Plus, you have yet to show any "distortion" of Calvinism, but only have attempted to show that not all Calvinists agree with what I asserted. I'd still like to know of any Calvinist who does believe that the non-elect might understand scripture unto salvation.

 

Well, now you've added the phrase "unto salvation" which was not mentioned in the OP and changes the meaning of "understand." But the subject in the OP did not say "unto salvation" - she just said the unsaved can't understand Scripture. Some/Many Calvinists would disagree with the blanket statement that the unsaved have no understanding of Scripture.

So again, you were only talking about some Calvinists - mostly of the hyper brand. But your initial statement branded all Calvinists with that statement.

Not nit-picked - you branded all of Calvinism as agreeing with the woman in the OP, which is not true.

I don't doubt that you believe this, but it was not in your initial post, which taken at face value was a distortion. I guess the lesson is to be more careful in how you word things.

 

Of course not. How will they believe unless they have heard? How can they come unless they are invited?

What many fail to see is that during the time of Christ Israel was being hardened in their rebellion (sent a "spirit of stupor") and the gospel was being hidden from them in parables so that they wouldn't believe it. (Mk 4, John 12:39; Acts 28:24-28; Rm 10-11; Matt 13; etc). So who were the ONLY people who could come to Christ at that time? Those God had selected for him. Those drawn or invited to come. The apostles.

Why? Who was supposed to crucify Jesus? The Jews. Something they would only do if they remained blind and in their rebellion. Who needed to be grafted into the vine? The Gentiles, who will listen because they have not been hardened in their rebellion (Acts 28:28).

After Christ was crucified and the spirit came he draws all people to himself (John 12). This is why we see the same Jews who cried "crucify him" in the gospels account come to faith in him in Acts 2.

 

And people accuse Calvinists of being creative in how they interpret Scriptures? Can't get much more creative than this.

 

Ohooooooo snap, ROFL :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Someone please answer post 29

 

So I'm arguing with a hyperCalvinist/Camping follower

so Ann my dear lady......"Why are you arguing with a NUT?"

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.....LOL

 

I was going to say the same thing... Wow... Love to have our brother try to run that by some of the profs at Southern. It would be really fun to watch. :laugh:

 

What other type of understanding matters? And are you seriously going to nit-pick the semantics when it is clear that I have not in any way distorted Calvinism. In fact, I suspect had a Calvinist said it you would have accepted it and moved on.

Actually, it says, "can't understand the Scripture...and they cannot be saved," which clearly is addressing someones ability to understand scripture unto salvation, especially in the context of Ann attempting to witness and bring them to salvation.

Some might, but the fact that most wouldn't proves its no "distortion." Plus, haven't you heard countless arguements from Calvinists about 1 Cor 2:14 regarding the natural man's inability to understand spiritual matters? I think for most Calvinists that includes more than merely their understanding unto salvation, don't you?

Nope. Even non-hypers wouldn't believe that the non-elect have any real understanding of spiritual matters (1 Cor 2:14), especially in regard to the context of one believing unto salvation.

And not to address you without carefully spelling out every possible nuance of the Calvinistic dogma lest I'm railed upon for distortion.

 

Start another thread - way too off topic. And in my opinion, not that astute of a question to begin with.