Why must I be a Calvinist

Yes but they were not rejecting his effectual call. With a "doctorate," you should know the difference.

Defining koine Greek by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is extremely poor technique. Furthermore, it doesn't help your point. Beucase you have totally twisted Scripture. Read your next phrase:

The passive refers to those who were disposed/appointed/whatever to eternal life. It has nothing to do with the Lord. In fact, the Lord is not even addressed in this verse.

The truth is that it is the people were passive with regards to eternal life. They were not actively seeking it. Instead, something was done to them. That is the meaning of the passive. You have totally twisted Scripture and attempted to affect the beliefs of people with it.

His "appropriated" salvation? Appropriated salvation has never failed to bring someone to glory. I assume you chose the wrong word here but in your mistake you certainly stumbled upon a truth. People do not rebel against appropriated salvation.

 

Pastor Larry,

Thanks for your discussion.

I do know the difference between people who reject the Gospel as the Jews did and that of the Effectual Call. The Effectual Call is an erroneous, hybrid in theological thinking. Accordingly, it is the call that brings about a positive response of the sinner into becoming one of His saints, the elect. Some people have included, as truth, that the Lord has a much less sincere general call to the non-elect. He holds the Gospel out to them but because of their rebellion they will never come. They are without the preferred call, the Effectual Call. Through this belief you have subverted the justice/fairness and undiminished goodness of God. Check great theological books and you will find The Justice and Goodness of God are still Divine attributes. According to this view, He is irresolute in both of these attributes.

You said something to the effect that ‘the Lord is not addressed in this verse.' Acts 13:48 says, And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the Word of the Lord; and as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed. Check your Greek Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and you will see that the Greek drops the word ‘ordained' and includes the correct rendering of the word which is ‘disposed,' suggesting to be inclined, agreeable, or accommodating. The correct concept is this. ‘ . . . and as many as we accommodating to eternal life, believed.

Your confusion and disagreement and is not with me but with great linguists who understand the intricacies of the language of God's choice, the Greek language. When I was in Bible College I went to Alford's Greek Commentary and have in my library the Word Pictures of the N.T. by the noted Baptist, A.T. Robertson.

I noticed that you apparently ignored the truths as to the parable of the Sower of the Seed. This does not amalgamate at all with Reformed theology. You might want to preach on the varied human responses to the hearing of His sacred Gospel.

I have prayed that our Lord will especially with you, today, while you are ministering the Word of truth.

My regards,

Dr. Berrian

 

It is not erroneous in the least. The effectual call does not make the general call insincere. The general is extremely sincere. It simply does not have the power to bring belief.

How long will you persist in repeating answered accusations?? This has been answered so many time. The justice of God is easily answered. The wicked are punished for their sins. They are not punished without wickedness. You have distorted the justice and fairness of God.

I was referring to the last part which was what we were discussing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do not need the Interlinear. I have the Greek NT in several different forms and I know exactly what it says. For every scholar you can give that you think supports you, I can give one that refutes you. I have not seen what these men you quote say so I cannot ascertain whether or not you have quoted them correctly. I have in my office TDNT, NIDNTT, EDNT, TLNT, BAGD all of which I could look in if I wanted. However, You are appealing to a point that does not help you. No matter what it means, the word is passive and refers to something from without that "disposes" or "makes accomodating" to the gospel. They do not dispose themselves to it.

The Greek did not drop the word "ordained." Ordained is an English word that was never a part of the Greek to be dropped. The word is "tetagmenoi" and you are haggling over a definition that doesn't help you. Even if you do not accept "appointed" but rather choose "disposed," it is still passive and refers to something done to them from without to which they responded in belief. You have not escaped your dilemma. It came from without, not within, and all who had it, whatever it was, responded in belief. Therefore, you are making my argument easier by refuting your own position.

Nope haven't ignored it. There is no issue here with reformed soteriology. Whatever condition the soil was in, it was in not do to things of itself. The soil cannot affect its own "growability." It is affected by things outside it such as rain, traffic, thorns, plows, etc. Your point once again prove me right: The soil is passive. It is other things that cause growth.
______________________________

I think we have both made our points sufficiently and it is probably time to wind this down. Later today, I will close this thread.

 

I agree that the ultimate glory of God is most profound of all things. Even His turning the lost away from Himself will portray His glory.

If God selected only some for eternal salvation He would prove Himself to be a God who was unjust. [Acts 17:30] So the offer was man to all of humankind. [I Tim. 2:4 & 6] To believe is to receive everlasting life; [John 3:16] to ignore or wilfully reject Christ is to determine your own eternal destiny. [John 3:18b & c]

Dr. Berrian

 

In the parable of the Sower of the Seed God is telling us that there are different kinds of soil, depicting the lives of various human beings. Some are more inclined to hear and believe. Worldliness, the cares of life, the love for money, rebellion against God and many other circumstances determine whether or not a person will respond to the call of the Gospel. God is constant and always ready to welcome all sinners home to His Presence. He is indiscriminate in this matter of who comes to Him to find life. [John 5:40]

Dr. Berrian

 

Not at all. God would be unjust in doing this if all men deserved salvation or deserved a chance. If I take Chris out to dinner and do not take you out to dinner, I have not been unjust. Now, if both of you do some work for me and I pay Chris for his work and do not pay you for your work, then I would be unjust. You have a flawed view of fairness.

On the parable of the sower, I realize there are three kinds of soil with varying receptivity to the gospel. The point is that the soil did not affect its own receptivity. It was made hard, thorny, or good by things totally outside of the soil, just as the heart of man is made receptive by things totally outside of the heart of man. However, I doubt whether that parable was intended to be pushed to this level to discuss receptivity; it was intended to discuss fruitfulness and what fruitfulness says about the state of the heart.

 

Calvin did act wrongly, but that whole thing with Servetus has been distorted by enemies of the truth. To speak as if people you agree with getting fired is the same as a burning at the stake is just whining.

What I find most interesting, though, is how you keep talking about putting Calvin's writtings over Scripture. The truth is that it's an issue of putting Scripture over yourself. No one naturally likes Calvinism. But it's true. I'll never understand how you can totally ignore the numerous clear statement of Scripture, subordinating it to your own human mind, while at the same time spouting rhetoric about the authority of Scripture. I take it by the fact that you call yourself a moderate that you don't hold to Biblical innerency, so I don't know what business you have talking like that anyway.[/QUOTE]
First, the "whining" thing: Its not whining to point out the continued abuses that Calvinists commit. Ask yourself if Jesus would publicly execute someone who disagreed with him, or would take away their livelihood over such a disagreement. Feel free to cite a Gospel passgae if you have one.
"Enemies of the truth?". Sounds like another name for heretic in need of public execution.
Of course, I do have some nerve pointing out the murderer Calvin's hypocrisy since I am just a heretic (aka moderate) who deserves to be executed for deviating from Calvinism, so why listen to me?
Y'all feel free to follow an unrepentant torturer and murderer. I'll stick with jesus.

 

Continued abuses. Get real David. Where are Calvinists continuing to murder people? or remove their livelihoods for disagreement?

If you "stuck with Jesus" you would believe as we believe. I follow Jesus myself. Calvin just happened to put it in a memorable fashion.

You have to realize that, even though it removes your argument, calvinism is about soteriology, not about how you treat those who disagree with you. You are chasing after straw men. If you have something to say about the theology we are talking about feel free to contribute. If you want to discuss history, there is a more appropriate forum for that. Please use it.

 

But once again it is being ignored that these analogies do not match, because being left home from dining out, and being "passed over" from escaping hell are two totally different things, and that while people may not deserve salvation, because of their wickedness, the question is whether they, as yet non-entities, deserved to be created in that state of wickedness and givne no chance to be saved. (they could have just been left as non-entities, and that would be less people suffering in Hell). For James and others to keep repeating these remarks about people "saving themselves" or "controlling God" "not letting God be God" "refusing to accept that He is God, I am not", etc. as the main argument, skirts the whole issue. Nobody here is trying to control God. We are trying to correct a mistaken interpretationm of what He has revealed about Himself.
The only answer you have is Romans 9, suggesting they are just "vessels of wrath", God in His "divine prerogative" created for destruction (--then people like Larry go on to vehemently deny that people are "elected to Hell", but that is exaclty what this reading of this passage says, and most other Calvinists, using the same passage, will confess this belief). But as was also shown, this was not talking about individual people, and the Church before Augustine did not read it that way.

No, God as the Sovereign of the universe did not have to save anyone, but the fact that He did reveal Himself as one "not willing that any should perish" (how ever extensivley you take this), this shows He is not in the business of purposely trying to populate Hell (supposedly to "give Himself glory", yet).

As for the whole "passivity" argument, a passive word can be used for something a person did to themselfs (Think of "he was given over to drunkenness. The states of the different soils in the Parable of the Sower may be passive, but the point is not how they got that way, but how that current state affects their reception og the Word.

(I may be mistaken, but I think I once saw or got the impression somewhere, perhaps some catechism in a Reformed church, that at least some Calvinists once interpreted the seed as people's hearts. This seemed to be a strong argument for election/reprobation, as the seed were totally passive in where they fell. That is, until I read "the seed is the word of God".)
Did people once make this interpretation?

 

Because all fell in Adam we all are unworthy of God's consideration. If He then selects some to everlasting life and rejects the rest, He would have shown Himself partial to those receiving eternal life and He would be unjust toward those poor souls who will inherit Hell for eternity. We are not talking about a Hell that endures for only 10,000 years. We cannot fully fathom the meaning of an eternity without being in the Presence of the Triune God.

Romans 5:18 portrays the equanimity of our Lord. ' . . . by the offence of one, judgment came on all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One, the free gift came on all men unto justification of life.'

Dr. Berrian

 

How many years did Noah preach to all the lost before the Lord shut the door of opportunity? God was patient in giving all the opportunity to believe even though there was a meager amount of understanding about the things of God. {The lost, those who} ' . . . were disobedient ' {heard the truth} ' . . . once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah . . . ' [I Peter 3:20] The fact that God was 'longsuffering' (patient) toward those sinners indicates that He was reaching out with grace toward them and not bringing about their eternal demise.

As far as Abraham, one of the chief concerns of God was to bring into existence a righteous lineage that would produce our Savior. The depravity of the pagan nations held them captive, for the most part, and away from the covenantal truth that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob enjoyed. God did not forbid them from entering into the covenant. In fact, Ruth and Rahab opened their lives to Jehovah Lord and He received them.

My regards,

Dr. Berrian

 

The whole discussion seems to me to be irrelevant. To misquote Paul, Did Calvin die for your sins? Were you baptised into Calvin? Can't we concentrate upon the essentials of the gospel? IMHO, it is more important to recognize that we, as fallible humans are sinners with no hope of redemption within ourselves, and that Jesus' death, burial and resurrection offer us our only hope of salvation through His imputed righteousness. God sees Jesus' righteousness in us, and no works of our own could ever possibly earn our salvation. In essence, God saves us from Himself, i.e. His wrath. By His grace, we can debate the non-essentials throughout all eternity. Let's spend the time we have here on Earth spreading the good news of our salvation.

 

The essential difference at this point is that Ray and Eric believe that because humans are humans they deserve something, we believe that because humans are sinners they deserve hell.

No one will end up in hell unfairly because God is just. No one will end up in hell unfairly because all have sinned.

The difference here is teh man centered view vs. the God-centered view. The man-centered view wonders why God did not save everyone or at least make possible salvation for everyone. The God-centered view wonders in amazement that God would save anyone.

Salvation is all of God and Scripture attributes that to God's electing grace without which no one would be saved. We must submit our theologies to God's written revelation, not to what I think God should do or be.