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

glf, with all due respect, you need to be more specific. Above your reply there are three separate posts from me (2 addressed to you and one to Christos), and I am not sure to what point you are addressing in this comment.

You accuse me of "pouncing" (another word for replying to an argument in a debate forum, no less), and I'm now accusing you of making blanket and unfounded accusations against me. I'm fine with people accusing me of things, I really am. I just insist on specifics. Quote my actual words and then show why my comment is "misrepresentative," for example. Use my actual words and then show what you agree with and where I have contradicted myself on my blog or in previous posts. I welcome you to show my contradictions and I think in doing so you will either realize your accusation is unfounded OR you will give me an opportunity to clarify my intent. But all this mudslinging at generalities gets us no where.

 

You do know we are in agreement on this point, right? I mean, you do understand that our point of contention is about the effectuality or irresistibility of the means God uses to intervene, right?

Again, you do understand that we agree here as well, right? When you say "nothing we can do on our own" what you seem to imply is that we (non-Calvinists) believe that what we do is without God's gracious help. Again, the difference is in regard to the irresistibility of that help. Okay?

Both Cals and non-Cals affirm that faith is a condition for salvation, so I'm not sure how our answers would differ to the questions you pose here.

The only weakness these questions seem to pose are ones of the Calvinistic belief that men are born unable to believe God's revealed salvific truth. For instance, why would God permit fallen humanity to believe many biblical truths but not the 'salvific' ones, as may be the case for the religious sects you mentioned?

 

I see that you ignored my response to your similar accusation above and continue to persist without support for your argument.

My friend, why does the non-Calvinistic interpretation of scripture bother you so? Is it perhaps you don't really understand it?

Maybe you missed my response to this above? Please read it and then come back. Thanks

 

Christos, I have taken the liberty to repost my response here so you won't miss it...

 

Well, if you read through that thread I linked to in my reply you will notice that many here would vehemently deny that is a "hyperist" view. When I said "doesn't REALLY love or desire their salvation," I'm referring to salvific love and sovereignly will. As I acknowledged before, I know mainstream Cals teach that God has a 'common love' for all mankind and an expressed pleasure in seeing all come to repentance, but on the other hand they "REALLY" affirm that God doesn't savingly love the reprobate or sovereignly desire for their salvation, obviously. That is all I was alluding to in my comment. The fact that some find the need for such qualifications proves the justification of its distain.

 

I meant to reply to this point...

Arminians DO NOT believe "one can earn their own salvation." That is a misrepresentation.

 

Because God's plan to 'make the rocks cry out' is not his primary desire. Of course God has the ability to MAKE worshippers, whether from rocks or flesh. But scripture seems to indicate that God is 'seeking' those who believe and worship him, not that He is deterministically causing them to worship him as he would the rocks if no person chooses to do so. God's apparent will is for men to 'humble themselves' so as to be exalted.

This question presumes God's will is not to give man a free will and thus His love MUST somehow supersede His will to create free moral creatures. In other words, you are assuming that the Calvinistic way (to irresistibly save that which you love) is the only option to express love, which is the fallacy of question begging.

 

This is a popular approach for Calvinists, but they fail to see that they are actually committing the fallacy of question begging. Allow me to explain. In essence you are asking me to define what determines my freedom, which presumes determinism.

As I've said time and time again, "What you need to realize is that the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explaination is required. Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way: "the choice between available options "is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94)."

Further, I might turn the tables on you by asking you to speculate as to why some believers affirm the 'truth' of Calvinism, while others reject it? Are you better, smarter or in any way more worthy to receive these truths? See my point?

Right, the scriptures that you interpret to teach 'irresistible grace,' same thing...

Paul also refers to believers as being dead to sin, does that mean they too can't respond to the temptations of the evil one? Calvinists make the error of taking Paul's analogy of spiritual death too far, after all if man was truly a 'corpse' in this regard then he wouldn't be able to adamantly rebel against the gospel either, would he? How many corpses do you see say, "I don't want that!"

Point being that the analogy of death is to indicate natural separation and enmity with God, not total inability in the face of God's gracious and powerful provisions for reconciliation.

I affirm that men are born enslaved, which is why God sent a truth that can set them free.

I affirm that men are born enemies, which is why God sent an appeal to be reconciled.

I affirm that men are born dead, which is why God sent a life-giving gospel wrought by the Spirit of God Himself.

To deny that Gospel's sufficiency to save is unfounded biblically and it gives unbeliever the perfect excuse for not believing it. What better excuse is there than, "God didn't grant me the faith to believe that message?" I believe all men are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

God uses MEANS to change men. He used a blinding light to change Paul's mind and a big fish to change Jonah's mind. Why assume that he would use some secret inward working to change pre-selected members who listen to their message?

Of course God could snap his fingers and make Paul or Jonah believe and preach where he wants them to go, but that is not the MEANS God uses. He uses outward means (blinding light, big fish, The Gospel). These means, though resistible, are non-the-less powerful in accomplishing their purpose. Those who resist them by 'trading the truth in for a lie' do so to their own peril are are completely without excuse. They don't reject God because God first rejected them....they reject God despite his love, provision and appeal for them to turn and be saved.