Wrong Take On Romans 12:3c

Blammo, you've described a phenomenon that I struggle to understand - the seeming inability of some to understand calvinist doctrine. For me, although my conversion to full Calvinism happened over a long span of time and in a multitude of small increments, nevertheless, for me the Calvinist system always made perfect sense. It was only my determination to find fault in it that I did not convert sooner, and the only reason I was determined to find fault in it to begin with was because I had so much time, energy, and yes, money, invested in the "arminian" system. The calvinistic system has the answers - the arminian system does not. The only question that can not be answered by any man is "why would God choose to save some but not others?" Well, now that I think about it, the calvinist system answers that also, because we understand the question to have a wrong premise. The real question that we should be asking is "Why does God save ANYONE, seeing the no one deserves the mercy of God?"

All references to God's commandments and man's refusal to obey them are proof of the first letter in the infamous TULIP. "Ye would not" is descriptive of the fallen nature of man, and therefore, of Israel also. The Lord would have gathered them, and His tears are shown to prove the reality of that. But you must understand that salvation under the law was CONDITIONED on man's obedient response. And IF man had responded obediently, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. The fact that God knew, ye, FOREKNEW, that man would not, ye, COULD NOT, obey the law does not in any way make His offer of salvation under the law any less sincere.

Now, that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, is self-evident. Calvinism does not and has never painted the picture of a sadistic God, reveling in the suffering of the lost. That is a caricature painted by opponents of Calvinism. However, the punishment of the lost is a glorification of the justice of God, and it serves his righteous purposes. You have to remember that NOT ONE person will be in Hell undeservedly.

As for your issue with the man John Calvin, I wonder if you are sincere in your statements. This is nothing but a red herring - you can't possibly believe that we Baptists that are called "calvinists" associate ourselves with the MAN John Calvin or his non-soteriological theology? We do not believe in a church ruled by a Presbytery. We do not believe in magistrial powers for the church or its officers. We do not believe in a covenental relationship confered on children by baptism. Why would you make such an accusation if you are interested in a serious conversation on the matter?

Keep studying the issue. The resources available today are innumerable. You could spend years just reading the books and articles available on monergism.com alone. And that's just the tip of the ole ice burg.

 

J.D., I want to thank you for, once again, offering a well thought out and sincere argument for the Doctrines of Grace.

I agree. This is a far better question.

This may illustrate the greatest remaining resistence in me to accept all five points refered to as "TULIP". I'm not sure I can ever understand why God would be grieved or angry over people who He knows "do not possess the ability to respond to the gospel." There are verses that clearly show God as being grieved over the resistence of man to His word and the Holy Spirit. Why would that be, if God is aware of the inability of man to understand and respond?

I never said calvinists rejoice over the death of sinners on the way to hell. The point was: Why, according to calvinists, doesn't God give all men the ability to respond in a favorable way to the gospel, unless He does not care to save them?

How can one call himself a Calvinist without associating himself with all of Calvins actions and beliefs?

I will, and I want you to know, you and Npetreley have made the most compelling arguments. (As always)

 

I have never claimed that God does not "violate" man's "free-will". It is clear from scripture that God is sovereign, and can override man's will at any time. And, I would not call it a violation, I'm sure you agree. I think God says, "I have made a way for you to be saved, it is finished, all you have to do is take it. If you choose your own way, because of your pride, you will go to hell, and it's your fault."

 

Your response is basically the same thing I was trying to point out in my rhetorical post on free will. Why does God not save everyone? According to you, it is because God gives us a choice and some choose, "No." So why doesn't God save them anyway? I assume your response is that he does not want to violate their free will, or he does not want robots in heaven. Well, my retort to that is, I'd rather have robots in heaven than people in hell.

The point in all of this is to show that the age-old charge against Calvinists that their God is evil since he chooses some and not others can be turned against the non-Calvinist just as easily - their God is evil too since he could have saved everyone but chose not to, out of some lofty ideal about the integrity of man's free will, blah, blah, blah. If I were an atheist, I would say both camps have an evil god: One chooses some and not others. The other lets people choose hell, even though he could have stopped it. Makes no difference.

This all goes back to your statement here:

"I agree, "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". So, if I were a calvinist, I would wonder why God doesn't give everyone the ability to hear, understand, and believe the gospel."

Well, the question for the non-Calvinist is, If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why does he not save everyone? I have shown above that "free will" or giving man a "choice" does not excuse God from that baseless charge.

 

I'll go with..... robots.

I believe that all men do have the ability to respond to the gospel. Therefore, when they don't, it does not make God evil, it means the sinner has chosen to pridefully continue in his own way, and remains evil.

 

Hello Blammo,

If you have the time, you may love this link.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonid=122503205557

“The Sovereignty of God” by Pink on mp3.

This link is to the 1st part of 11 parts. It is over 11 hours long. This book by Pink is one of the best books LOADED with verse after verse and hammering home the Doctrine of Grace. Pink covers every angle. He leaves no stone unturned. Every reason given by others, as they change the meaning of election to mean other things is covered and anwsered strongly. The 2nd chapter and the 4th chapter are RICH. I do not know of a book other then the Bible itself with so many verses in it.

I read the book a few years ago. My brother-in-law just gave me this link last week. I am now listening to it on my laptop. I think you will find it worth your time.


In Christ...James

 

Thank you, James. I'll check it out.

Lots of good stuff on sermonaudio.com. Haven't been there in awhile.

 

"I believe that all men do have the ability to respond to the gospel. Therefore, when they don't, it does not make God evil, it means the sinner has chosen to pridefully continue in his own way, and remains evil."

That's fine. So God has passed over those who did not respond. He passed them over in favor of letting them choose their own destruction. And the same thing is true in the Calvinist system - he passes over some and lets them choose their own destruction, which they always do, because of their sinful nature.

So we are in the same boat on this one.

 

We are in the same boat. We may be on different sides, but it's the same boat. I am saved by grace through faith, and you are saved by grace through faith. I believe the drunk on the corner could be saved the same way, you are not so sure about that.

 

Your last sentence is exactly what I have argued many times on many threads, here. It is absolutely Biblical to not attempt to divide this on the sole basis that one is a noun (pistis- usually rendered faith); the other a verb (pisteuO- usually rendered believe) in the Greek, and still be the exact same root word.

Ed

 

Bob, I would argue that "the faith" is not exactly equal to "faith" or "thy faith" in this context, the former referring to revelation as in "...contend for the faith which was once for all time delivered...", and the latter one's to a matter of personal faith (i.e. believe), as in "...by grace you have been saved through faith..." (My rendering on both cited verses, which I believe to be consistent with the action and tenses).

Ed

 

Heh! Heh! Heh!

Ed

 

Uh, anybody get the definite article, here? "the faith",not 'personal faith' or 'faith from God' here, folks!


Ed

 

He certanly shall!! And He certainly is just, as well.

Ed

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Preach on, Bro.!

Ed

 

Chapter and verse on this, please??? Abraham was not a Jew; Noah was not a Jew, Abel was not a Jew, and that Biblical paragon of righteousness, and the only man the Bible specifically identifies as 'Godly', "Hizzoner", the Mayor of Sodom, Lot, was not a Jew. Until after Abraham, there was no such thing as a Jew. Further, Scripture says that "Salvation is of the Jews", I believe, not ever that salvation is 'being' a Jew, as far as I am aware.

Ed

 

Not accusing anyone specifically of this, but the BB seems just loaded with experts in this field, perhaps even starting with yours truly. But it is reassuring to know that I have "...safety in the multitude of counsellors." (Exhibit "A") :type: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I was going to make several more comments, but it is getting late and I've seen so many "strawmen" erected from all points of view that I began to fear a possible arc from the keyboard might result in an inferno! :type: And I only have a small extinguisher handy, at the moment. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Wrong. More misrepresentation. If the drunk or anyone else believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he will be saved. Period.

 

If He is elect, think he left that part out but not sure. If he not elect or pre-chosen then he is lost and can't do nothing about it.