Featured The Major Mistake of Calvinism?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Is that how you describe Romans 10??

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [/FONT]

 

"Enable a response" is OK on the surface, that is - it sounds good; however, enabling a response must be considered in the following light.

If "enable a response" is creating a way to acquire salvation and not as a result of salvation, then such enabling is not accurate in light of the Scriptures.

If "enable a response" is a result (a proclaim salvation has taken place) then such enabling is correct.

The typical non-cal "enabling response" requires the need of prevenient (preceding) grace. The views express that God must exalt humankind as the final arbiter and therefore placing God as submissive to some human effort (work) in order to acquire salvation.

This such thinking is in conflict with John 6:37.

 

[FONT=&quot]Rom 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." [/FONT]


"God is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

Those who are lost cannot make the Calvinist claim about them - that they were never drawn to God through Christ, convicted of sin, enabled to choose to respond to "the light that coming into the world enlightens every man" John 1

in Christ,

Bob

 

The first step in a debate is to establish the arguments, and see that they are understood for what they really are by both sides. Once understood those views can be disputed. You have been arguing against my view as if God wasn't even capable of creating an appeal powerful enough to enable the lost to respond. Is that your position? That even if God WANTED and PURPOSED to send an appeal that enabled a response that He wouldn't be capable? Yes or no?

It doesn't matter how hard the heart of man is, God can make stones worship Him. The question is whether God has chosen to enable a response or NOT. It matters not how fallen a man is, but how far God is willing to go to enable that fallen man to be response-able. That is the point you refuse to address, for to do so requires you deny omnipotence.

Your gospel must be accompanies with 'pre-regeneration,' otherwise its powerless. In my view the gospel actually carries power. Truth has power. It sets men free. Light is powerful. Just because men are responsible and can trade it in for lies, doesn't make that less true.

Because the Word of God is powerful. To ASSUME, as you do, that when people reject the Word of God its because it didn't come in power but that somehow the Word is too weak for them, you do injustice to the text. You take the blame off of the individual who is trading the truth in for lies and you put the blame onto the Word for not 'coming in power.' Don't give rebellious men that excuse! They don't reject because the word is too weak!!! They reject because they are RESPONSIBLE! They CHOSE to rebel and their punishment is well deserved. They are not victims, without hope of escape. They are being pursued by a loving, gracious God who has given them ample opportunity to come and escape condemnation. The ONLY reason they remain condemned is because they CHOOSE to remain in unbelief. Not because God's Word is too weak for their measly little fallen condition.

And all the proof texts you mention talk about man's response to the word, never the word being too weak for them in their fallen condition to respond to it.

 

That doesn't make since to me. You seem to be arguing that someone has to be reconciled in order to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled.

I avoid the use of those systematized words. We are responsible. God sends us an invitation, an appeal, "Be reconciled to God." Truth sets you free. Words are 'spirit' and 'life.' Words, and the tongue, carry power. Its an external means but can pierce into the soul and create inward change. It is that simple.

MUST? No.

He gracious chooses to exalt man. "Humble yourselves and you will be exalted."

That is incorrect.

When the Prodigal was on his path back to the house. Was it his decision or the Fathers to forgive and restore him back as an heir? Who in that situation is the final 'arbiter.' Your error is in assuming that one who asks for forgiveness deserves or merits forgiveness just by asking for it. Untrue. A humble man deserves hell too. Someone begging for God's mercy still deserves HELL. The decision to save is all of Grace.

Apply this same logic to YOUR system. Do you believe men are justified and saved because of their good deeds following regeneration? Do you believe their faith, even if effectually caused by regeneration, merits being saved? Do you believe they earn forgiveness by asking for it, even if they only ask because God's spirit made them desire to ask? See your error?

 

Your mishandling of this parable is legendary.

The simple, yet profound truth Jesus teaches is that no sin is too despicable to keep a sorry sinner from coming to God for forgiveness of sin.

The Lord WELCOMES repentant sinners.

The only ones deserving to be stoned are those unrepentant sinners who will not come.

P.S. I see that in your latest posts you are now referring to the dictionary.
Defining terms can be of great help to all concerned.

 

In fact Calvinists would argue that God overwhelms the lost person with such "purpose" that they have not choice but to respond and accept the Gospel.

God places "enmity between" the see of the woman and the see of the serpent - mankind is in some sense at war against the kingdom of darkness as early as Genesis 3.

That is a highly imaginative speculation on your part. Is it your purpose to prove it - or are you offering your speculation itself "as if it were proof" ?

That is the speculative idea proposed by Calvinism - is it your purpose to show that it has merit from the stand point of scripture?

Sort of like "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"

And like "I STAND at the door and KNOCK - if ANYONE hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in" Rev 3.

And like "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" 2Cor 5:10

And of course "I will draw ALL MANKIND to Me" John 12:32

So "yeah" --- prevenient grace.

That is an unduly negative view of the mechanism that disconnects God from responsibility for man's choice in rejecting the Gospel. Thus the very Bible mechanism that proves that God is not the cause of his own lament - is disparaged in Calvinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

On another thread Winman said

Making the same case as we find in Romans 10.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Because they deserve it? Does their repentance EARN or MERIT the welcome?

Or is that Welcome all of Grace?

 

I and notable Calvinists, such as John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, teach that this perspective is tending to hyperism and is not orthodox Reformed theology. They say no teaching should remove the 'offer' (or appeal) aspect of the gospel call to faith and repentance.

I don't point that out because it somehow proves you are incorrect, after all men like MacArthur could be mistaken. But I point it out because it shows that this teaching is not conclusive enough for even those who agree with your overall Reformed premise to adopt it as their own. That is very telling.

But only for the Elect in your system.

And that is the 'law of sin' you believe God has no sovereign control over, right? The one condition God just doesn't have the ability to enable a response from, right?

Ok, I think I understand this argument, but let me make sure I get what you are saying. Are you suggesting that making man responsible (meaning able to respond), that makes them equal to being 'regenerated' thus making the need for them to be 'regenerated' unnecessary?

Does a man with Alcoholism, as just an example, who finally hits rock bottom and attends a meeting even need to go after the first time? After all, his heart was 'good enough' to seek help, do you think that will suffice for his healing? See my point? Just because someone admits their need for help doesn't mean they don't need help anymore. They are crying out for help in humility because they NEED IT.

Because asking for help doesn't mean your have already have it...it just means you've stop trying to do it without help and you have come to the end of yourself. Humiliation.

But remember, those who ask for help don't deserve it. Those who humble themselves still deserve Hell. The decision of God to forgive someone who asks is still ALL OF GRACE.

 

Phil Johnson, doesn't make this distinction in his warning against Hyperism.

He writes, "A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal)....In fact, most hyper-Calvinists categorically deny that God makes any offer in the gospel whatsoever." LINK>>>>>

Phil goes on to quote from 2 Cor. 5, just as I did with you in an earlier discussion, but we all know how you interpret that in comparison to Phil Johnson and MarArthur.

So, I don't believe I'm accusing you falsely according to this very specific explanation, though I'm sure you might want to take issue with that label. Again, your issue is with them, not me.

And it would be an argument from silence to presume that God's word could come any other way.

They who reject it certainly don't do so because it was weak, that would be an excuse. They reject it because they chose to trade the truth in for lies. Don't give them an excuse by suggesting that the Word they heard wasn't sufficiently powerful enough for them to respond to it. That is why they are responsible and without excuse.

Now, you are moving beyond the point of the analogy to discuss yet another point. The POINT was that asking for assistance doesn't mean you no longer need assistance, which is what you seemed to be implying by suggesting that those who ask for forgiveness must already have a new heart, when in reality they may have a broken heart, a needy heart, a heart that need healing and is finally humiliated enough to reach out to another for help.

Jesus' sheep, while he was on earth, were a select remnant of Israel, who would latter be commissioned to go and bring in 'another fold' (Gentiles) with the gospel of grace. Christ wasn't entrusting himself to anyone else at that time except the remnant who were chosen to ensure the purpose in electing Israel would be fulfilled.