A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Mar 6, 2011.
Page 3 of 7
-
Skandelon said: ↑This whole line of argumentation is begging the question.
If the gospel's intent is to irresistibly draw all who heard it then yes it is not effective in accomplishing that intent, but that is not what we believe, so you are attacking the straw-man, or presuming your views upon us.Click to expand... -
Andy T. said: ↑It's not begging the question; we just have different views of what the Gospel's "effective" purpose is:Click to expand...
My view is that its purpose is to actually save people,Click to expand... -
Skandelon said: ↑Yes, I know, and your presuming your view onto me by inferring that the gospel can't be effective unless it effectually accomplishes salvation when that is not what we believe the purpose of the gospel is... That is a model example of question begging.Click to expand...
Well, to be perfectly accurate your view is that its purpose is to save "elect people." It has no power for the majority of people in the world bringing all the passages which speak of its power, effectiveness etc into serious question.Click to expand... -
Andy T. said: ↑You are the one who brought up "culpability" first, so I think you need to defend your view first. You said that God is not culpable of sin merely because he has foreknowledge and permits it. So I ask again, are you culpable if you allow another man to murder someone else, if you had the full power and means (and even foreknowledge) to stop it? And how is this different from your view of God?Click to expand...
-
Andy T. said: ↑I'm not question begging - just comparing our differences on how the Gospel is effective.Click to expand...
But according to your view, it has no "power" over anyone -Click to expand...
We don't claim that it has power to effectually change man's will to believe it. It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to accomplish.
Have you looked up the word "power" in the dictionary recently?Click to expand...
The gospel according to our view is capable of accomplishing exactly what it was intended to accomplish. It appeals for men to be reconciled, by which they respond to that appeal. No issue unless you presume that the intent is something other than this, which you do. -
-
But you never replied to my post 37.
-
Andy T. said: ↑I'm not question begging - just comparing our differences on how the Gospel is effective.
But according to your view, it has no "power" over anyone - lest man's unfettered LFW be violated. Have you looked up the word "power" in the dictionary recently? I don't think you want to mesh power with your view of LFW, otherwise men might become the dreaded robots of Calvinism! The ultimate power in your view of salvation is man's will, since your highest truth is that man's will not be violated.Click to expand...
Was the third servants talent inferior to the talents given the first two? NO. Could he have made gain of his talent? YES, in fact his master said he could have given it to the exchangers and at minimum collected interest.
Then the master said that to those that have (faith) shall more be given, but to those that have not (faith) shall be taken away even that he hath.
God provides enough grace through the gospel that any man hearing it might be saved. To those that hear and believe he will give more, but to those who refuse to hear and believe he will take away even that which was given them.
So, the gospel has power to save, but a man is responsible to believe it. -
Skandelon said: ↑Thus, in the Arminian model God gets the glory for lifting men to a higher plane to be able to make the right choice and men get the blame for resisting and jumping off into sin.Click to expand...
But that poses the question, who created them better?
Whereas, the Calvinistic model does give credit to God for the lifting but also leaves God to blame for those who sin because he never gives them what is needed to respondClick to expand...
Skandelon says yes, God is to blame.
The Scripture says God forbid. 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. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. The Calvinist yields to the text of the Scripture, and Skandelon rejects it.
It's like I told you, you think your questions are probing, but the Scriptures reveal them to be carnal and foolish, and has already answered them. -
Skandelon said: ↑It accomplishes exactly what it was intended to accomplish.Click to expand...
-
Aaron said: ↑And men who don't "jump off" are better men than those who do and get the praise for so being.Click to expand...
or
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God."
or
"In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil."
or
"Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
or
"Enoch walked with God"
or
Heb. 11
All giving praise for the great cloud of witnesses, whether effectually called to be so or not, the authors don't seem to have any issue giving praise or credit to man for their faithfulness to God. Why do you?
And so the Calvinist goes to the Scripture which asks: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?.
Skandelon says yes, God is to blame.Click to expand...
The Scripture says God forbid. 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. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. The Calvinist yields to the text of the Scripture, and Skandelon rejects it.Click to expand...
Those being hardened are Israel, with the exception of the remnant of Jews reserved to be messengers to the rest of the world. But those hardened might be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14) because the hardening is "in part" or "temporary." The Gentiles on the other hand are being grafted in. It is really very easy to understand if you know the historical context and intent of Paul. -
Andy T. said: ↑No, in your view it does not accomplish anything.Click to expand...
All the accomplishment lies with man's response.Click to expand... -
The gospel has power, but it only effectually works in those that believe (1 Thes 2:13). The gospel has power to profit, but it must be mixed with faith (Heb 4:2).
You might be bitten by a poisonous snake and dying. I have the antidote that has the power to save you. But it will not help you unless you receive it. Does this mean the antidote had no power to save you? NO.
Or you might be dying of thirst and I offer you a canteen of fresh water. Can the water save you? Yes, but only if YOU drink it.
So, the gospel has power to save, but a response is required on our part. This is scriptural, your view is not. -
Skandelon said: ↑For example, if you chose to where a red shirt yesterday, if all circumstances were equal to do over again, could you have willingly chose to wear a different shirt? Could you have chosen otherwise? Libertarian freedom says "yes," where as compatiblistism (Calvinists) typically say "no." Why? Because the act was determined by your desire which was determined by you nature which was determined by the creator of that nature, which is God.Click to expand...
In Calvinism: If you lied yesterday at noon, then you could not have resisted that temptation to lie.Click to expand...
If I reject Calvinism then it must be because that is my desire, which was determined by my nature which was determined by God. So, the reason I'm not Calvinistic is because God made me that way...same reason some are saved and others aren't. See the problem?Click to expand...
For a compatibilist a choice is free if it is according to one's desire, but that doesn't mean much in a world where God determines even the desires of men in such a way that they couldn't do otherwise than what they end up doing. Make sense?Click to expand... -
jbh28 said: ↑If all circumstances are the same, You would choose the same. I don't believe any choices is totally "random." There was a reason why you chose the red shirt. Maybe it was because that's your favorite color, or you haven't worn that color in a while, or any other number of reasons. But you had a reason to wear that shirt and made a choice.
Sure you could have. who told you that you couldn't?Click to expand...
Let me explain another way. Determinists (compatibilists) believe God has created man's nature and thus the desires are determined by that nature so that a choice couldn't have been otherwise than whatever it ends up being. To affirm that you could have willingly resisted that lie yesterday is to affirm libertarian free will, something most Calvinists would not affirm.
I see your problem with your understanding of Calvinism. Where you really hyper when you were a Calvinist?Click to expand...
Your statements seem to make God the author of sin, which is not the Calvinistic belief. At least not mainstream Calvinism.Click to expand... -
Skandelon said: ↑I don't believe their choices are random either, I believe they are self determined, and for the same reason you claimed that you wouldn't have been able to choose another shirt is the same reason you should have said you couldn't have willingly resisted the temptation to lie.
Let me explain another way. Determinists (compatibilists) believe God has created man's nature and thus the desires are determined by that nature so that a choice couldn't have been otherwise than whatever it ends up being. To affirm that you could have willingly resisted that lie yesterday is to affirm libertarian free will, something most Calvinists would not affirm.Click to expand...
No, I wasn't hyper and neither are compatibilists.Click to expand...
It is mainstream Calvinism, and I agree, it does appear to make God the author of sin, thus my debate with Luke and others....Click to expand...
From a Calvinist webside...
Although Calvinists believe that even sinful acts are ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11 / Proverbs 16:4) yet such makes the event certain, but not necessary. This clears God from being the author of sin. This view best explains the Cross (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28 / Luke 22:22).
http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html
I haven't read this, but the previous site linked to it and it talks about pre-ordination of God for all events, yet God not the author of sin.
http://www.corkfpc.com/shedd.html -
jbh28 said: ↑No, you could have chosen not to lie(or wear another shirt). that's very different from the statement that you would have made the same choice if everything was the same and you did it again.Click to expand...
God isn't the author of sin. Calvinists don't believe God is the author of sin.Click to expand... -
Skandelon said: ↑Did you think something about yesterday's lie had changed? I simply asked you if you could have willingly resisted the temptation to lie and you said yes. That is affirming LFW.Click to expand...It is the ability to choose other than what ever you ended up choosing.Click to expand...So if you chose to lie, the question is could you have chosen to not lie? Nothing has changed, just confirm or deny your ability to willingly choose to resist that temptation.Click to expand...
Bro, I know they don't claim to believe it. I was just agreeing with you that what they argue through compatibilism appears to support the idea that God is the author of sin. Calvinists (compatibilists) say they don't affirm that God is the author of sin, but they leave no room for anyone one else to author it because in their view God can't be "informed" by man through foreknowledge...etc...Click to expand... -
So, let me make sure I'm understanding your answer.
Supposing you lied yesterday at noon. Could you have willingly chosen to not lie given the circumstance or situation is exactly the same?
And if man is the author of his own sin, is he informing God when he commits it? In other words, did God foreknow that which man authored and then allowed it to occur?
Page 3 of 7