Frustration over debate about Calvinism

Sorry about your luck...

sorry about your logic....

sorr...ok never mind.

well...I'm not sure what to tell you Bob, other than Calvinist always say that God will over power the will of man. This is what happen to Paul, who was not looking to be saved, but God save him anyway. Now...if your saying this over powering of mans will is the view of the Arminian...lets do a high 5......gets some coffee and stop the debate.

yep...and still is.

Who's idea was it to blind Paul and talk to him from Heaven? How about the non-believer Roy from NYC. Do you think Roy will believe if God blinds him and talkes to him from Heaven? Does God blind all people and talk to all people from heaven?

Why did Adam eat the apple? Could God have stopped him? Could God have blinded him and talked to him?

God steps in and speaks to some...and some he does not. 1 John 4...


Paul's will was OVER POWERED. Will Roy's will from NYC be over powered?

Only God knows.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

pretty clear

Let me add one thing to this.

Irresistable grace is a point in time, not a state of man as some think.

 

No it does not.

Actually, James Dunn's commentary has this right. The catena of verses in that chapter are from the OT, and were originally directed at non-covenant peoples, not Israel.

Paul is about to say that God overlooked Israel's sin until the arrival of Christ (3:23-25), so the attitude here is that apart from a covenant with God, the Jew would be counted as the nations if sin were the only basis of judgement. But as I said, their sins were "overlooked."

Dunn explains it better. This link is by someone who almost nails it, but I'll explain more later.

http://www.chiuni.ac.uk/theology/documents/CatenaofRom3.10-14.doc

 

No, what I'm saying is so clear as to blind the eyes of the obdurate.

According to C theology, irresistible regeneration is what is required to get a man to believe, and nothing else. Indeed, nothing else will get a man to reconsider. So pointing out that Paul was confronted in this way helps the non-C, not the C, since the non-C says that the confrontation was one of the elements needed to get Paul to come around.

But we can still do coffee.

 

Than why is it you cannot see?

Lets run your idea by some well known Calvinist to see if you do indeed understand what you are talking about....

Brother A.A Hodge you are a well known Calvinist, do you agree with Bob here, when he says "nothing else" comes about in salvation to get a person to believe?

This "communication of a new spiritual life"...what is meant by that?

Well known Calvinist..John Hendryx

I see, so Scripture is needed ?

Wait are you guys saying ...all that read Gods word will be born again?

Ok...That seems clear. So Regeneration happens through the communication of a new spiritual life by Holy Spirit that uses Gods word as the means or medium. But...The Word alone does not bring about new birth. Holy Spirit must work on the heart. Is that it?

Well knewn Calvinist John Piper says...

Thanks John.

Well you guys seem to agree that our bother Bob is wrong on this. But do all Calvinist believe like this?

**********

Well Bob, these Calvinist disagree with you.


Bob says....

reconsider what?

What do you Calvinist think???

CALVINIST....:laugh::1_grouphug:

ok. One xLarge cafe mocha

 

JArthur - Thanks for answering... Your answer is logical from the point of view of the Calvinist. We have no choice in the matter. God supernaturally makes us alive and we must choose salvation.

I've been waiting for someone to just say that. I won't argue. I don't agree. I don't think that's what the Bible teaches, but I appreciate the honest answer to such an obtuse question. :tongue3:

 

Hello Tom,

Let's be clear. When you say...."we must choose salvation", it is stated in such a way that many may think it is forced on the person, which indeed is not the case. As I stated before, IG is a point in time. Its the moment when ones eyes are open for the 1st time, and at that point in time, they for the 1st time really see their need of salvation. They want salvation, they long for it, for at that point in time, grace indeed becomes irresistable.

As scripture says....And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

and with that new heart comes.....a desire to follow God.

And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

 

If you had read Dagg's comments carefully you would see that those who are regenerated would want to believe.

 

Wait... now you're saying that at that moment in time, they are free to choose. But because they see salvation for the first time and feel that need, they will choose salvation. But they don't have to choose salvation. But if God's grace is irresistible they have to at that moment, it's hardly a choice.

Or if they are for the first time free to choose doesn't there exist the possibility is that someone could presumably choose not to be saved?

Maybe the problem is with your word of choice "irresistible" When my child was a baby, I picked her up in my arms. My choice was irresistible to her. She couldn't have broken away. Is God's grace for that moment in time irresistible?

About the verses, you quoted, we both agree about the Scriptural truths you presented. I would just put it in a different order. That those things follow salvation.

Old Regular - I read the comments carefully... it did not to me answer my question. I guess you're just brighter than this obtuse old guy,

 

indeed.

Understanding human will is the key to this debate. Why do we choose what we choose? It is our desire...our love that drives use. If we love sin, we will always choose sin over God. That is why the Calvinist says that man's will is bound by sin.

When God changes the heart,..........And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
..................
this is followed by a new love, that causes us to follow God. Sin and rejecting of Gods will is still there, but the desire is to follow God.

 

Jarthur001 said:

Because the law was written to reveal our sin to ourselves.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

You are not going to come to Christ unless you realize you are a lost sinner. The law makes it clear and obvious to the honest heart that we are all sinners.

If a person cannot resist the will of God, then why would the scriptures say;

Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

It is clear here that to listen to God is a choice of the will. Man can choose whether to harden his own heart or not.

Also, in the same chapter

Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

If God alone determines whether a man believes or not, this verse would not make sense. There is no reason for a person to even consider belief or unbelief. If God wills you to believe you will, if God wills you to not believe you won't according to your belief. This makes no sense at all.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Why would Jesus tell someone to believe in him, if God himself chooses who believes or not?

 

This will most likely be [hopefully] my last post here. I am writing this only to answer you and your passages as I see them in scripture and context. I hope you are having a good day in the Lord James. Mine is good but also uneventful as I'm just relaxing today due to some issues on going but good and blessed all the same.

No, it is a logical 'conclusion' because it is not chronologically stated in scripture as such thus it is a logical order from their theological perspective.

So you contend that men like Hodge, Sproul, Pink, Gill and men the like are "not very good scholars"? Well I wouldn't personally go that far, though they do make quite a few wrong assumptions on various points here and there.

Yes, In Jesus is life (eternal life) and that life was the light of men or better 'that life illiminated men'. If we take your understanding of what the passage means - that one must be alive (in Christ) to be able to have light then by your own stated position you must also contend for universalism because just a few verses down John also states the He is the light the enlightens every man

If light comes only after life has been imparted then your contension is that all men are saved (in Christ) since every man/all men are enlighted by Him.

This is a very poor place to try to proof text brother.
You must remember that the primary meaning of the Greek tenses is not time, but type of action (sometimes called aktionsart). This passage is not about 'when' it happened but 'that' it happened and the context of the passage and book share this same fact.

Of course it is the Spirit who gives life (salvation) and not man himself. No one disputes this.

Actaully there is an order here but it refutes your view
However what must be noted first is the context of the passages in question. And that is no man can understand spiritual things unless the Spirit of God reveal them to him. Because man can only understand for or by himself those things that pertain men and therefore needs to have the Holy Spirit explain them to us since He alone understands those things with pertain the spiritual things. With this context in view you will see prior to verse 12 (in verse 10) the passage states the the Spirit has revealed these things And then states after that "We having now recieved".

It is of note that the 'received' is not passive but the tense here is Active-Indicative (meaning the person is the one doing the action and is a statement of fact). And therefore the person in question is 'we' doing the action of receiving the Spirit of God; and His being given was to teach them all the things that have been freely given to them. So the order given here is 1) Spirit of God revealing and then 2) Him being received. This follows the scriptural pattern whereby we do not recieve the Spirit of God except by faith (Gal 3:14) and not prior to it.

No, the Spirit must reveal in order for us to understand.

I love how you have to add to scripture to make it say what you want. "By the Spirt" does not equate to 'born from above'. That is your theological 'assumption' with no warrent for it to be added here in this verse. The salvation of a person happens by two things in conjunction with each other.
There is no order here displayed 'at all' but what is found is that which is necessary to reveal a person is born-from-above/saved. These two things are the sanctification (setting apart) of the Spirit AND (in conjuction with this) belief/faith in the truth are those which reveal that a person is, in truth, saved. We know that salvation is something God does to man and not man to himself. But also neither is there sanctification apart from faith since scripture states we are sanctified BY faith. (Acts 26:18). In light of this what we have here in this passage is not an order of salvation but those things that establish ones salvation which is in Christ Jesus or better establish that one is indeed saved.

LOL.. that is not talking about the gospel. Talk about forcing a view into a passage of scripture :laugh:

Iwasn't asking for other passages but for you to deal with those passages which specifically state those who believed were called while they were stll slaves [to sin] and that they turned to Christ while still in darkness and in the power Satan for forgiveness.

No actually your wrong or at the very least that is how you view things. I disagree with my C-brothers over the mechanics an can still fellowshp with them and even preach the gospel message and go witnessing with them. We still hold to same immutable truths and are still 'close' in our views. Thus I can debate and still go out for a cup of coffee saying 'whatever' with my Calvinistic friends even if many of them can't do the same toward me.

Even Cals debate over the mechanics of their own views with other cals but that does not mean they don't talk/debate those issues when they have differing views of and still not go out for coffee/sweet tea Why do they waste their time since their views are 'so similar'? Because everyone wants others to know what we know and if it can be proven wrong we want to change it to what is truth. We desire to know as much as we can and thus talking and debating are good for those who are similar and those who diverge greatly.

No?

Do you believe in depravity? I do
Do you believe in election? I do
Do you believe in atonement? I do
Do you believe in grace based salvation through faith? I do
Do you believe in Perseverance/preseverance of the saints? I do

If you do then our views of the immutable truths MATCH UP. Where we have distinction is in the mechanics of how those truths operate. And thus before each one of those we have qualifier to denote NOT a difference of immutable truths but a difference with respect to the mechanics brother.

I agree. I think I'm going to step out for a while and maybe just watch. I didn't wish to take this thread down this path but since it has it is best to just leave it lie and hopefully person who started it can get some good advice with respect to the OP.

Peace to you also brother and blessing many times over.

 

OT.

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

NT.

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,


Tribulation Period.

Re 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Re 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God,

Re 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

What is the one common denominator between all these verse???

 

The issue wasn't whether or not you could find a Calvinist that agreed with you. This appears to be a childish manuver to attempt to avoid directly responding to what I said. The fact that you quote people that don't address what I said makes the act even more silly.

What I said remains unrefuted. Simply posturing by quoting others that don't directly address my exegesis is not enough.

 

Hello Allan,

I'll skip my reply. To lazy to type a long one today.

I would like for you to give reason why you would say what you said above. Now up front, I will tell you I have not read much of Gill. He could indeed agree with you. However, many people call Gill hyper, which would make it hard for me to believe till I read a line where he agrees with you.

Hodge I have read and know very well. I quote him all the time. I know what he believes. In fact, I quoted him in this thread which agrees with me.

Pink...what can I say? I have read ever work I know of his and again I am sure he is with me on this. I am 100% sure Pink agrees with me.

Pink...

Sproul..I have read some, and I listen to him nearly every week. I'm on his mailing list. I have many CDs by him. I know pretty much where he stands on this subject. Now...there may be some strange line that seems to agree with you, but I would have to see the full context to believe it. I can give you a handful of quotes from him saying that the new birth comes 1st.

SPROUL.."Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith."

Please read this....

LINK

*******
So I am not clear why you would say something like this. I'm not sure about Gill, but I would love to see what you have to make such claims.

 

Bob...Your whole point was based on what "CALVINIST" believe.

BOB SAYS>>>LINK post 44

ACCORDING TO C THEOLOGY.....I have showed you are WRONG by quoting top Calvinist. Please try to say focused on the case YOU was trying to build. At any rate...case closed. :BangHead::BangHead:

 

Jarthur001, you quoted Calvinists saying EXACTLY what I claimed they say. How does that refute my point?

The issue was the passage in question. I said that the passage in question disproved C theology. Then you go and quote C's saying EXACTLY what I claimed they say. Thank you for proving my point.

Sheeesh!

 

The comment by Paul is a response to Paul's opposition. The opposition is wrong, so Paul goes on to clarify that God is working to save them.

Paul's opposition claims that God's word to Israel has failed. And if Israel is God's people via a covenant, then how can God find faut? After all they are a covenant people by his will.

Paul goes on to explain that they have been cut off because of disbelief, but they can be grafted back in.

Again, Paul's opposition misunderstands the situation. Every question they ask demonstrates that.