Calvinists have a "higher" view of mankind than Non-Calvinists

Oops, double post

 

If man is born with a sin nature that enslaves him and compels him to sin, he should be viewed as a victim, and not a transgressor. The sinner is doing the only thing he can possibly do.

It would be like a woman prescribed a medicine during pregnancy. This medicine causes a birth defect and the child is born crippled.

Do we hold the child responsible for his condition? Or do we hold the company who manufactured the harmful medicine responsible?

And is it not justice, and not grace that we make the company that manufactured the harmful medicine pay for all damages caused the child and his family, and for all procedures performed to correct his defect?

Likewise, if men are born with a sin nature, a moral birth defect through no choice or fault of their own, it should be that party that caused the defect to be held responsible, and not the victim.

 

John Calvin also stated in his own writing that if his theology were taken to far it would end in trouble. I am unable to find that Jesus ever said that. I fail to find John Calvin in my Bible.

What I do find is, "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

There is no pride to be found in fixing our eyes on Jesus.

 

Straight from the pen of Calvinist J. I Packer:

[J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness, p. 134]

 

Still at it, huh?

You can dream up more straw man arguments than any other human I've met.

Calvinism RIGHTLY states that man, created in God's image, is sinful and needs God.

 

Wow, for a second there, I thought that you finally got it...

Who ALONE can raise a corpse from death into life? Oh, I know, I know... God!

 

That is a no-brainer choice. You are making the assumption that calvinists do not think. For if they did they would be wrong.

 

I believe this misrepresents even your own view, skewed so you can go on to your next strawman argument.

Nothing is "making those who remain in unbelief truly horrible." They are already truly horrible. Yes, "truly" horrible. Thus they were, and are, truly horrible at birth.

That was either poorly worded on your part, or simply that you misunderstand. It could be both.

The better excuse would be "not elect." Why? Because its a hard Biblical truth. This truth is something you struggle with internally. God knows best here, deal with it. God also does exercise his hatred for sinners and sin. It's Biblical. No need to rehash what you need and state "hate" to mean, I've seen it before.

I believe the word "do" added above, to which I added "<sic>" is a misplaced word and a freudian slip of your theology. We "do" nothing to be saved. He does it all Himself.

We were all born rebellious. Faith is a gift of God, not an exercise of determination on the part of man, making himself salvific by choosing. I think you believe faith is a gift. Maybe not.

Non cals certainly do have a higher view of man. Consider: their non acceptance of original sin; their non acceptance of Romans 3 indictment upon the lost; their emphasis on the power of choice; the sayings and implications of non-cals that God is crippled to save unless we exercise faith; their emphasis on the goodness of man; their belief that election is conditional (the unbiblical and anti unconditional election stance). Some have argued on here that God saves by choosing them becaue of works. Cornelius being the text of choice to eisegetically prove their point. And there is more. There is so much more that proves non cals hold the higher and unbiblical view of man without the need to come up with a struggling and blundering argument to attempt to prove it otherwise.

You've completely failed to prove Cals have a higher opinion of man than non-cals. The evidence is quite the contrary my dear friend.

- Peace

 

Yes, still at it is correct.

Correct on all points here.

 

I will bite Winman. Just who is the guilty party, the one responsible for the sin nature? Name that one so he can be punished!

 

First: I am not a Calvinist, never have been and never will be. However, I do believe in the Biblical teaching of Sovereign Grace.

Scripture tells us: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.[John 6:44]

From this we see that Jesus Christ is saying that God must take the initiative in Salvation. I assume you agree with that truth.

Apparently we have two rebels above. I actually thought that all mankind in general were in rebellion to God as He shows us through the Apostle Paul:

Romans 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes..

Skandelon, I believe you have established a false dichotomy. You say both individuals were rebels [and we all are] but one rebel was given enough to believe and would not and the other was deliberately not given enough to believe and could not.

Then why did this individual #1 not believe if they had everything they needed to believe. I don’t know how you define “everything they need to believe” but it is obvious that this individual did not have all he needed to believe or he would have believed!

Now consider your characterization of Individual #1, a rebel,

I believe you will agree that all people are individuals and all may respond differently to the same information or stimuli.

1. Do some individuals require more “information, drawing or enlightemnt by the Holy Spirit” than other individuals to receive God’s gracious offer of Salvation or do all require exactly the same “drawing” by God?

2. If one individual requires more than another individual does God the Holy Spirit provide whatever amount is needed or does He not?

3. If God the Holy Spirit does not provide that extra stimolus, information required by some individuals to receive God’s gracious offer of Salvation, then they did not receive “all they needed”?

Did They??

 

As demonstrated earlier on BB, most calvinists have not read Calvin's writings but have bought into what others have said about what they heard. So many have a theology of "repeat after me" and buy into the ignorance of others.

 

I assumed he was joking.....ah, being a former Calvinist & all! :laugh:

 

Thats your opinion & I trust you know what opinions are like! :tongue3:

 

You did not respond to my post Skandelon!!!!!!:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

You really did not respond at all Skandelon. I ask you about the response of the

to the drawing of the Holy Spirit. You claim to have experience in the use of your "free will" in response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit so I think the question is reasonable.

You respond by asking me to explain the Grace of Sovereign God in the election of some to Salvation in Jesus Christ.

Do you see how silly that is Skandelon? I ask you a question about the mind of man which you, through an exercise of your "free will", claim you cannot answer. Yet you ask me to explain the mind of God!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: