The MEANS of SALVATION...

For the umpteenth time, the scriptures clearly show an unsaved man can do some good. Cain was lost, the NT scriptures show so. But God himself said he could do well.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

You can quote any number of your Calvinist heros you want. They are wrong when they say a man is so depraved that he can not hear God, believe, or do any good thing. The scriptures clearly show the contrary.

Of course, I expect you to absolutely ignore this scripture.

 

Ok, I'll play along. Why do you ignore all the "Calvinist" Scripture?

 

I was just reading back in my posts and noticed that I didnt explain what I meant by unresponsive very well. unresponsive to spiritually good things. I don't recall purposely stating that a soul is a corpse, but where did I imply that?

 

That would be hyper-Calvinism and unbiblical

 

I would agree. I would rather be a dog, or never born, than to be Judas

 

This is why folks should use doctrinal statements

3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

1689, chapter 9:Of Free Will
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc09.html

 

I don't. First of all, I rarely see scripture from Calvinists. When I do, it is the same old ten verses that have been cherry-picked that could appear to support it if you ignore literally hundreds of verses that clearly contradict it.

[Offensive remarks removed.]

Catholic- Pope(s)
Jehovah's Witness- Charles Taze Russell and the Watchtower
Mormons- Joseph Smith
Christian Science- Mary Baker Eddy
Calvinists- Augustine and John Calvin (modern Calvinistic writers)

When Calvinists do present scripture, it can almost always be shown that they are misinterpreted. In fact, I have shown many times that Calvinists seem to understand scripture in the exact reverse of what they really say. When I do, nobody challanges me, they just ignore me.

Present the scripture.

 

Wow. And here I thought you were reasonable. Buh-bye now. :wavey:

 

This is a sad commentary of your decline in attitude and grace toward your fellow brethren. You do realize that you are in effect stating those in Calvinism or Reformed theology are unsaved since you equate them to the cults and state they are followers of men rather than Christ. Your words are becoming more and more careless and would advise more care and love and grace than you are currently giving. I DO realize this can be said toward all of us at various times but at this moment I such advise to you brother.

Furthermore, none of your ascertions that Calvinism is a cult nor that they are followers of men, are true or accurate.

Calvinism no more the following of a man than your view is the following of whomever you agree with. In fact, if you knew much about Reformed theology you would know that John Calvin didn't even set up this system or what became known as the 5 points. Its name, much like Pelagainsim and Arminianism was created by their oppoents as a way to 'demean' the view by making it sound like something man made, as well as demeaning the person to whom the system was popularized so as to make them infamous rather than famous.

Also if you knew much about Reformed theology you would know that most Cals have never read either Calvins Institutes nor His Commentaries nor even his biography. So to state they are followers of men (most particularly John Calvin) is inaccurate at best and a false testimony against them at worst. Reformed theology (or Calvinism) like any other theological system is simply a system of belief that shows the way a particular group understands scripture and God's interaction with and toward man.

Not that it means much but in any case it is my opinion that you owe them an appology in the very least.

 

One seemingly obvious note - but just in case it isn't:

Pelagainism IS a heresy and a man-made view, but my point in using it as an example of a man-made view was that the system (much like Arianism and others) was named after the person to call attention to the person (much like an FBI wanted poster) and the view(s) they are creating or increasing the propagation of such views considered unbiblical.

 

Allan, thank you for defending us Calvinists, even though you do not defend Calvinism. All of us, on either side, should look to you as an example of how to attack your opponent's views without attacking your opponent, or misrepresenting his views.

How do I know I am saved? Because God has proven himself to be true and faithful, and I have placed my trust in the finished work of his Son. If I die and go to hell, I will go there trusting Christ as my Savior and Lord.

How do non-Cals come to salvation? The same way.

We do not have different ways of being saved. We both agree on on election. We disagree on the ground of God's election.

Thanks, my brother.

 

Perhaps I have become careless. I would say I have become frustrated. I get aggrevated with Calvinists, they get aggrevated with me. They come back with harsh comments to me often, you haven't seen me complain, I can take it.

It is utter nonsense to say the Calvinists are not heavily influenced by men. Some have pictures of Calvin or Spurgeon as their avatars. They tend to answer objections with copy and paste's from Calvinist commentaries rather than scripture. Do you deny this?

I do know many men who agree with me. Everyone at my church agrees with me on the vast majority of scripture, no two people are in 100% agreement on every point. That is why I go to the church I go to, because they teach what I consider sound doctrine. The day my preacher gets up and says "whosoever" does not really mean "whosoever" is the day you see me get up and walk out never to return.

I do not think myself infallable, I know for a fact I am not. But this is not minor disagreement here. Calvinism is absolutely and utterly contradictory to how I understand scripture. When many scriptures say Jesus died for all mankind, I believe it. But they do not believe this and have said so many times. So, these are not minor disagreements.

The Calvinists say an unsaved man does not have the ability to obey God. I have showed where God told Cain himself he could present an acceptable sacrifice and God would accept it. No Calvinist came back and told me I was wrong, they just choose to ignore this easily understood scripture. I have presented hundreds of scriptures that clearly contradict Calvinism, they ignore it all. They do not challange how I understand these verses or even attempt to show me how I am in error. Why not? If their doctrine is so sound, the scriptures should easily support it, and that should be easy to show.

No, they just copy and paste from some Calvinistic commentary. Of course, being Calvinists, they agree in every point. That has no bearing on truth. The scriptures are our authority, if doctrine doesn't line up with scripture it should be rejected.

 

This is the last I will comment on this subject as I believe you get the gist for my posting on it.
Just please be more ..umm.. careful and loving in your posts as you get frustrated. No accusations just an encouragement for you brother

We all understand this, me just as much and am just as guilty at times. But that does not excuse you or me for such actions/statements against our brethren. And it is due to this, IMHO, that you aught to appologize.

It is utter non-sense to assume that you are not influenced by men either.
To be 'influenced' is not the same as being a 'follower of' nor part of a cult.

There is nothing wrong with this as many of us non-cals and arminians quote from Calvinist commentaries about as much as they do from non-cal commentaries. To quote from a commentary is, for the most part on a debate board, to give a better articulation to an argument that we could not say any better. It is true that we should come to a place of understanding in which we can articulate our views well enough for another to grasp our meaning, however to quote from well studied and highly educated men does not mean one has not studied for themselves.

And this you ought to do.

Let me enlighten you on what John Calvin held regarding 'whosoever'.. This is an excert from his commentary on John 3:16 specifcially regarding 'whosoever' and 'world':

So when a Calvinist or Reformed person states the 'whosoever' of John 3:16 does not include all men or that world in John 3:16 is not refering to all men.. they indeed are not following Calvin's own views regarding the subject.

And THIS is key to understanding debate. We must deal with the tex of course, but also 'their understanding' of why they see it the way they do.

Actaully it is a minor disagreement because the major disagreements revolve around things like the divinity of Christ, how salvation is obtained (by grace through faith), etc..
The scope of the atonement is a secondary issue (don't get me wrong as it is still important) but the fact remains both groups agree with what atonement does for the person to whom it is applied and that it is only applied to those of faith whom God foreknew before the world began. So the scope of the atonement, while important, isn't a main issue per-say.

From reading many of your posts it isn't so much that they 'can't' come back with something but that your attitude and words turn them away from continuing a discussion. So it isn't your arguments that keep them from continuing but you. I know this because many of them who are discussing these with you, I as well as many others have held these same discussions and have gotten much better responces and discussions with them. I do agree the Cain argument is a good one but you MUST understand not just what they say but WHY they are saying it. You just plopping scripture out there isn't enough to change anyone's mind, view, or opinion. You must deal with 'why' they understand it as they do AND THEN bring your rebuttal into the mix dealing not just with the text but their understanding as well.

You do realize there are about as many Calvinistic types as there are baptists, right?
There are some Cals on here that believe regeneration comes AFTER faith, and though this is a minority view it is a prominant one. Just like most Cals believe regeneration and faith are virtually simultanious there are 'some' who believe it can take seconds or years before a person who is regenerate comes to faith. Please be careful that you don't do what you accuse them of doing when you lump them into boxes that do not accurately depict what they truly believe verses what you presume they might believe.

 

I agree with Allan, we all do get frustrated and are guilty of saying things or even getting into arguments we dont want to just to "win" or for pride reasons (I cant be wrong!).

I have read very few writings of reformed theologians. I hated reading my whole life. When I got saved 2 years ago I prayed and God gave me a large passion for Scripture. I spent many hours in Scripture and felt like it was wrong to read anything else or listen to anyone else. I actually turned from a non-Cal perspective to a Cal perspective through Scripture reading, but just didnt understand it very much. I have since gained a more balanced perspective on relying on Scripture alone and wisely choosing my influences and teachers. I think we should all be careful not to fall to much in love with any teacher so that it turns into idolatry. There is a balance we need to have in our studies.

The Limited or unlimited Atonement is most likely the weakest argument of Calvinism because it covers all of time in one event. It is hard for any to put their minds around.

A good example of 3 of the most accurate orders of salvation are-

Arminian ordo salutis- Prevenient grace, Faith, [Union with Christ], Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification, Glorification

Calvinist Ordo Salutis- Election/Predestination (unconditional), Regeneration, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification

Another Calvinist- Election/predestination, God's Call, faith, regeneration-justification, sanctification, glorification.

Some of these are commonly thought as simultaneous events and some occurances may happen at the exact same time. It is good to note that God works in many different ways and it we ought to be careful not to try to box Him in.

 

If you are "dead to sin" using the Calvinistic definition of dead, you would not be able to sin at all. This verse pretty much shows that Calvinism is a false doctrine.