Frustration over debate about Calvinism

Neither is "remarkable conversion," since the words never appear in Scripture. Yet you know what I'm saying, so what you do with it is up to you.

I wasn't explaining Calvinist theology there. How silly can you get?

Actually, your comment should be directed at the few Calvinists who were opposing me, because they didn't see the error which I was pointing out. Yet you came and pointed out the error I was already addressing, as if I was making that mistake in the name of Calvinism. How confused can you get?!?!

I always thought they should open a thread for posturing, so that people who don't have an argument (or are unable to make one) and just want to make assertions will have a place to gather, and perhaps get the occasional pat on the back.

I've got all of them, but I've been selling them off on half.com to help pay for my kids' education at Bethel. Seriously. 30+k per year each.

 

They aren't? How about this verse?

Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

I would say this verse is about salvation and nothing else. This verse says that only those who doeth the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. And we know from scriptures that the majority of people will not enter heaven, so obviously they choose not to do the will of God.

And what is the will of God?

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Yes, they asked about works, and believeing is not a work, but this reveals God's will. And Jesus answered one thing only, that we believe on him whom he (God) hath sent.

So, to disobey and not obey the gospel is to resist the will of God. And that is what these verses are talking about also:

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Stephen was preaching Jesus Christ to these Jews, but they resisted God's Word and the Holy Spirit. This concerns salvation.

2 Tim 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

Rebrobate concerning what? The faith. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. These men were resisting the truth of the gospel. This concerns salvation.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Is it God's will that Israel should perish? No. Did God speak to them? Yes. Did they (Israel) know? Yes. But did they obey God's will? NO.

Here it shows God is pleading with his people to be saved (All day long I have stretched forth my hands). How did the Jews respond? They were disobedient.

This is salvation. And a man can choose to listen and obey God, or to resist and disobey. The scriptures are very clear on this.

 

This is not a verse to prove limited atonement. It is speaking of the gospel going to the Gentiles.

God has not cast away Israel.

Rom 11:1 ¶I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

He has blinded them because of their disobedience. But this is referring to national Israel, not individual salvation.

 

Blinded them to what?

 

Amy has it right. Israel was not cast away as God retains a remnant.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

And if you read the entire chapter God gives the reason the Jews who were lost were blinded.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

And if you read even further you will see that they could still be saved.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

So, you see here, if the Jews abide not still in unbelief, but believe in Jesus Christ, God is able to graff them in again.

So, the choice is theirs. God has not determined that they will never be saved. I don't know how it can be any clearer than this, you see from these scriptures that the Jews who were blinded can still believe and be saved.

 

A person blinds themself by closing their eyes to truth. A person is deaf because they refuse to listen.

Mark 8:14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?
18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

Here the disciples were worried because they forgot to bring bread. This was after Jesus had fed five thousand people with just five loaves of bread, and fed four thousand with seven loaves. They had seen this with their very eyes. They had helped distribute the food.

Now they were worried that they didn't have enough bread?

Notice that Jesus asked them if they had hardened their own hearts. Jesus did not harden their heart, they hardened their own heart.

Men can believe if they choose. Men are blind because they close their own eyes.

Acts 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

 

You left out verse 64

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus did not cause their unbelief, but he knew it from the beginning. Unbelief in Jesus is a sin, in fact, it is the one sin that dooms a person to Hell. God never causes a person to sin, they sin of their own lust and choosing.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

This is what is so terrible about your belief. You believe God chooses a person to go to Hell without any chance of salvation. I myself cannot comprehend how any person can believe that. Jesus died to save all men. You are taking away the responsibility of a man to respond to God's love and offer of salvation, and blaming a man's damnation completely on God. Horrible.

1 Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Your belief is absolutely contrary to 1 Timothy 2:4. This verse says God wants all men to be saved.

 

I have showed you with scripture that Jesus doesn't make us choose Him. While He was here on earth, show me one scripture where He forced ANYONE to believe, or serve him. It's just not there. Mankind has a responsibilty in his/her salvation, and that is to hear or forbear. When the Jews came to Samuel and wanted a king like everyone else, God told Samuel that they didn't reject him, but Me. So when the Gospel of our salvation is presented to us, it is up to us to accept, or to reject. I know you will never have this, and I relent. But, I have proved mine with scripture.

Willis

 

Jesus died to take the wrath of the law off of people, even for the sins of the whole world,

and the only reason people remain under the law/wrath is because they don't have "FAITH" in Jesus saving them from the law/wrath.

God doesn't condemn because we are sinners, but because we remain sinners by "UNBELIEF" in Jesus.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Does sovereign will/predestination only stand a "chance" of "MIGHT BE" surviving???

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

All of these have been "Spiritually" fulfilled for the "body of Christ",

and "literally" fulfilled at the end of the trib.

I agree with you, "TRUTH" is hard to come by today.

I understand that calvin also studied law, and for a lawyer to interpret the law, either civil or scripture, the way he did, shows he didn't understand either one of them.

A judge can not decided who he "WANTS" to be guilty or innocent, only the person can make themselves guilty or innocent according to the dictates of the law,

The only thing a Judge can do is issue the verdict by whatever the law says if they are guilty or innocent,

And the whole world can be "innocent" by faith in Jesus.

Predestination make the law, obedience/disobedience, Guilt/innocents, Belief/unbelief, and "judgment" for any of the forementioned totally irrelevant and useless,

and that includes about 95% of the information in the scriptures, information that will not benefit us one way or the other,

according to predestination.

 

I am not sure where you get the idea that God FORCES. When God regenerates a man, makes spiritually alive that which is spiritually dead, that regenerate person is also given the the desire and the faith by which to believe. [Ephesians 2:1-10]

Scripture tells us the following about the unsaved or unregenerate man:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I have posted the following explanation of the natural man, the unregenerate man, by John Dagg a number of times. Dagg [page 322 of his book Manual of Theology] comments on the natural man’s inability regarding salvation, as follows:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

Dagg notes [Manual of Theology, pages 277ff] of the regenerate man:

“So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed, as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed”

2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV
17. Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Dagg further notes:

“The change is moral. The body is unchanged; and the identity of the mind is not destroyed. The individual is conscious of being the same person that he was before; but a new direction is given to the active powers of the mind, and new affections are brought into exercise. The love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. No love to God had previously existed there; for the carnal heart is enmity against God. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the principle of all holy obedience; and when love is produced in the heart, the law of God is written there. As a new principle of action, inciting to a new mode of life, it renders the man a new creature. The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for he that loveth, is born of God.”

“The mode in which the Holy Spirit effects this change, is beyond our understanding. All God's ways are unsearchable; and we might as well attempt to explain how he created the world, as how he new-creates the soul. With reference to this subject, the Saviour said, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.[John 3:8, KJV] We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.[James 1:18, KJV] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God, because their knowledge of him is not connected with love. The mere presentation of the truth to the mind, is not all that is needed, in producing love to God in the heart.”

 

The 'chronology' is not stated in scripture. Thus it is stated by the Reformed/Calvinistic view to be a 'logical conclusion'. They have their views and those views are derived from what they see in scripture. However there is no stated chronology for the order they believe happens. At best they can make the statement that it can bibilcally be stated to happen almost instantly.

This is why you will note in their writings that they themselves state 'logical conclusion' or that it is a 'logical order' because the chronology they hold is not specifically stated in scripture. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Wrong. The basics of those 'doctrines' we hold identically. The mechanics of how those aspects operate (in some or many) differ.

The Catholic Church does not hold to these aspect in view of soterology they way believers understand them.

However we (non-cals and even Arminians) do and that being all men are so steeped in sin, alienated due to that sin and thus seperated from God that no man will seek after nor come to or understand any spiritual knowledge. Not unless God the Father first come to man and via the Holy Spirit work upon those men to bring truth and understanding to him, because no man seeks after God of his own accord or desire. This is the basic view of the doctrine of depravity. - Non-cals agree.

The basic view of the doctrine of election is that God before creation chose from men some whom He would save from out of the world. It was His choice and His decision whom He elected to salvation. Non-cals agree.

And the same can be said with each of the other positions.when speaking soterology. What they mean - we agree with, how they operate we see some aspects differently. Just like those who call themselves Calvinists but vary in one point soterologically or like the other end which add some more points to them (those of Amyraldism or Hypers)

Oh no, I agree with the immutable truths of them absolutely and without equivocation. I just disagree with how "Calvinists' interpret scripture concerning how some of them operate -there is a differance. I do not claim to be Calvinistic thus I do hold to their view on operation of those truths. But I do hold to those immutable truths themselves which makes us brothers in Christ and fellow believers in Him, our saviour, Lord, King, and God - Jesus Christ.

Well, you do seem to lean somewhat toward to the hyper aspect and so it is understandable why you have difficulty accepting what both stated are the same things. The only distinction in them is that one breaks it down a little more and other considers that which wasn't listed in their list to be within the sphere and understanding of what was given. Sorry you have difficulty with it but it is what it is since they wrote them and state they agree with each others list.

 

No need to apologize to me. For me it's like playing basketball in the yard. It's all fun.

 

Quite a number of belivers are closer to Roman Catholic soteriology than to the Reformed view.

Most non-Calvinistic belivers are in the Arminian camp. Calvinists are just being nice to call you non-Cals.

Non-Cals do not really affirm total depravity. If they would actually agree with the radical corruption of all people they wouldn't give any inherent power of choice (free will) to them.

Well, here you are making some progress. But I really don't think most non-Cals would agree with the above.



Oh no, I agree with the immutable truths of them absolutely and without equivocation. I just disagree with how "Calvinists' interpret scripture concerning how some of them operate -there is a differance.(sic) I do not claim to be Calvinistic thus I do [you mean don't]hold to their view on operation of those truths.

Well, you are retreating from your prior view that I am squarely in the Hyper-Calvinistic camp.

Just a bunch of useless verbiage above. Monergism's list and Phil Johnson's list have no correlation. I scored a big fat 0 on Monergism's 16 propositions regarding any inclination toward H-C. I agree with a number of articles on the issue of Hyper-Calvinism that Monergism.org has posted. I haven't had time to read them all. James Ellis and I are at one on the subject.

Colin Maxwell has an excellent article called : "The Doctrines Of Grace, Evangelism And Hyper Calvinism". Check it out. A section is called :"The Horrible Curse Of Hyper Calvinism". I am in 100% agreement with Maxwell's conclusions.

James White was called a hyper-Calvinist by a Dr. Allen (an "a" or an "e") based upon his faulty reading of Phil Johnson't Hyper-Calvinist Primer. White and Johnson are friends. Johnson certainly doesn't regard White as a H-C or even leaning in that direction. But Johnson's essay does need to be modified because of these kinds of interpretations.

White calls himself a high Calvinist and says that he may be slightly higher than that of Phil Johnson. But that in no way means any Hyper-Calvinistic baggage needs to be attached to Dr. James White. The same thing applies to me.