Is my view of soteriology divinely determined to be wrong or is it right?
Deterministic believers choosing to debate us should keep in mind that our view is either determined by God, if you are right, or very possibly accurate if your not.
A divinely determined view or the RIGHT view?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Skandelon, Feb 16, 2014.
Page 1 of 2
-
The one who holds a deterministic view, then argues against the one perceived to be in error, really demonstrates that:
1) he merely holds an intellectual assent to his position, and
2) his heart is actually devoted to the contrary. -
....iluvit... :)
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
We are all born into the same state of unbelief, not predetermined by God, but determined by Adam when he fell. It takes God to change us, or we're left in that same state of unbelief.
Don't blame God, blame Adam. God gave Adam the "keys to the car", and he drove it into a rock cliff and killed us all via free will. Only God can undo what free will did. -
Thou shalt not steal...:tonofbricks::tongue3::smilewinkgrin: -
If indeed God has pre-determined the "means" to both bring man to salvation, and also presumably to engage in the process of sanctification, then, it stands perfectly to reason (logically) that debating with an Arminian might be one of those methods....
As per the O.P. though....
It's simply absurd within a Determinist schema that God would DESIRE to leave anyone who sought to know the truth in a state of Arminian ignorance.
"Seek, and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you."
Inasmuch as Skan is a former Calvinist, what is absurd is the thought that God would have chosen or determined for one of his former Calvinists to DEVOLVE into an Arminian....
This would, in essence, be God DE-SANCTIFYING one of his children. It would be God taking one of his children to whom the Spirit had divulged the great sanctifying truths of Calvinism, and determining that he be then convinced otherwise to his personal detriment...
That, is, of course, insane. And it demonstrates one of the myriad ways in which the Calvinist schema is un-tenable, and utterly un-Scriptural.
Personally, I am always floored when I meet un-saved non-believers who are completely CONVINCED of the TULIP, who maintain that the Scriptures clearly teach it, but are no more Christians (even by admission) than the man-in-the-moon.
This always makes me chuckle when some (usually rather arrogant) Calvinist suggests that it will be only by the grace of "The Spirit" that we will learn the "truth" of these matters. :laugh::laugh:
Oh, o.k.....sure. :laugh:
I know plenty of professed non-believers who maintain that the Bible teaches Calvinism. (one of whom, who's father is a missionary, debates it with me quite ably actually). <----even pulls out those tired Romans 9 / God hated Esau arguments all the time.:tongue3: -
-
-
I ask because I can't think of a better excuse in the world than the Calvinistic dogma of Total Inability.
-
You must accept and admit, that ultimately, it is GOD who determined that:
1.) Adam's sin would be attributed to all mankind
and
2.) That due to that man would be incapable of believing.
You want to blame man...
Man did NOT decide nor decree that Adam's sin would result in a situation whereby all persons were inescapably foreordained not to be able to believe, or bound over into sin. Skan is right...that's what you refuse to address.
As he said:
A SHAAAAAM.
Be honest with yourself and go Arthur Pink on us, and admit that God just hates a whole lot of people.
It will be refreshingly liberating.
You can't make man the Sovereign over his own destiny within Calvinism, Convicted.....
God is Sovereign, and he chose whether he saves some, or whether it is impossible for some to be saved....
...And if those who are not saved were ones whom God simply "hated" then admit it, and stop with the games. -
I'll dance a jig B.T.W....
When we all find out that Esau (the person) is a saint in heaven...
Divulged of his Earthly blessing, but, who's heart was changed by God.
I think the Calvies around here will poo themselves when the (entirely likely) scenario comes about when Esau personally introduces himself and shakes their hand in glory. -
-
I agree with what Brother Jim1999 says about a permissive will w/i the will of God, "this far and no further"...
I also believe God has a love for all, but a special love for His own children... -
-
Both sides say that man must "respond" to the gospel. The only difference is whether he's godly first, or ungodly.
That's why I've said elsewhere that Calvinists are Arminians in disguise. Different package, but the same surprise in the box - no response, no salvation.
I don't agree with the response doctrine, and there is absolutely a biblical way to reconcile the seeming tension. Problem is, it steps on some doctrinal toes.
But in this particular debate, Arminians have scripture on their side. Romans 4:5 says clearly that God justifies the UNgodly, not the godly.
Calvinist view is that God must give man a new heart first. Or in other words, make man godly enough to make the right choice. Antiscriptural. -
Inspector Javert said: ↑Even Arminians agree with you about God permitting the fall, Willis....That
IS NOT the point.
The point is that since the fall God has irresistibly BOUND ALL MEN OVER to sin such that they are incapable of responding to Divine Revelation...
You still don't seem to realize that.
Do you think that man's being inescapably pre-disposed towards sin such that they CANNOT love nor choose to obey God is a result of:
1.) Some Natural Law that God has no control over
2.) A choice man makes when he becomes a sinner
Tell me honestly, from the depths of your heart...
If God "loved" the non-elect at all, wouldn't he choose NEVER to have CREATED the poor wretches??
Do you think that the "rain" which he gives them on Earth is some kind of "gift" to a person whom he has pre-determined to punish in the eternal torments of hell???
Lemme tell you this Convicted.
Any un-saved person in your nasty schema would have been "loved" by God, if God had never created the wretch....
God didn't do, and never HAS DONE one "loving" thing for the un-saved person in that perverted World-view.
If you think anything God does for the un-saved can rightly be defined as "love".... than please, no matter what, NEVER tell me you "love" me.
Because a "love" that God supposedly has for the non-elect in your schema is a sick and disgusting thing which rats and snails are more adept at than God.
I'll take the "love" your Calvinism has for the non-elect and tell the one who offers it to shove it where it stinks....
Pink knew that....
That's why he's an honest and intelligent Calvinist instead of the Infralapsarian idiots so prevalent in today's Neo-retardo-Calvinism so prevalent on Baptist Board today.Click to expand...
Let me give you MY beliefs in a nutshell...
Adam is our fountain head, and we being in his loins, fell with him...I know you don't agree with that but...tough...lol...j/k
Mankind since the fall, has had no desire to come to God. I see examples of God conversing with Adam and Eve and also Cain, post-fall, shows God instigating the conversation by coming to them first.
God sent His Son to save His people from their sins.
Jesus took their sins, and their sins only, and atoned for them.
Those who were given to the Lamb, were chosen from the foundation of the world, and their names were already recorded in the Lamb's book of Life. -
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Before I begin, I have to point out that this statement:
Inspector Javert said: ↑That's why he's an honest and intelligent Calvinist instead of the Infralapsarian idiots so prevalent in today's Neo-retardo-Calvinism so prevalent on Baptist Board today.Click to expand...
Inspector Javert said: ↑Even Arminians agree with you about God permitting the fall, Willis....That
IS NOT the point.
The point is that since the fall God has irresistibly BOUND ALL MEN OVER to sin such that they are incapable of responding to Divine Revelation...
You still don't seem to realize that.Click to expand...
Inspector Javert said: ↑Do you think that man's being inescapably pre-disposed towards sin such that they CANNOT love nor choose to obey God is a result of:
1.) Some Natural Law that God has no control over
2.) A choice man makes when he becomes a sinnerClick to expand...
Inspector Javert said: ↑Tell me honestly, from the depths of your heart...
If God "loved" the non-elect at all, wouldn't he choose NEVER to have CREATED the poor wretches??
Do you think that the "rain" which he gives them on Earth is some kind of "gift" to a person whom he has pre-determined to punish in the eternal torments of hell???
Lemme tell you this Convicted.
Any un-saved person in your nasty schema would have been "loved" by God, if God had never created the wretch....
God didn't do, and never HAS DONE one "loving" thing for the un-saved person in that perverted World-view.
If you think anything God does for the un-saved can rightly be defined as "love".... than please, no matter what, NEVER tell me you "love" me.
Because a "love" that God supposedly has for the non-elect in your schema is a sick and disgusting thing which rats and snails are more adept at than God.
I'll take the "love" your Calvinism has for the non-elect and tell the one who offers it to shove it where it stinks....Click to expand...
One of the things we do in our church--and intentionally so--is that whenever we sing about the love of God, we sing about the cross--simply because the Cross is where God's love is ultimately demonstrated.
His love is further demonstrated by causing the rain to fall on both saints and sinners. But, His love does not have to look the same for everyone. After all, I love my own children differently from how I might "love" other children.
Judging from your semi-raging rant, I doubt you'll care or even interact with these comments in any charitable ways. But, Willis isn't your punching bag--and that just needed to be pointed out to you.
The Archangel
Page 1 of 2