To My Calvinist Brethren

Strictly speaking, I don't fall into either category (Calvinist or Primitive Baptist), although I lean strongly toward both.

When did I come out of my Arminian snare? That's an excellent question for me, because my early Christian experience was affected by people who called each other Arminians, and I had no idea what that meant at the time.

Anyway, the more I read the Bible, and the more the Spirit questioned my objections to how God seemed to have done things in the past and seemed to be doing things now, the more my views changed.

If I had to guess, it started with my feeling that God seemed somewhat cold or cruel to institute a system that required the Jews to sacrificie so many innocent animals on such a frequent basis. After a while, I understood the point of the sacrificial system, but I still kept thinking God could have done something else - something that didn't require killing so many poor animals.

But no matter how I tried to understand, justify or rationalize this decision on God's part, I was confronted with the answer that "Who am I to question this? He's God. They're His animals. Only He knows what is truly good and bad about doing such things, and He can do with His creations what He pleases." I suspect it was the Spirit talking, because I certainly did not think that way at the time.

But the clincher was when I tried to write an apologetics article that focused on the inevitable consequences of free will. I could never finish it, because my logical arguments kept leading me to scriptures that contradicted my points. For me, that was probably the real turning point. It was obvious that if I can't create a solid argument without contradicting scripture, then something must be wrong with my view. So I kept reading the Bible and letting scripture speak for itself, and eventually I came to the views I now hold. I still have unanswered questions and am confused about some issues, but I am convinced that free will with respect to salvation is purely an illusion.

 

i am no calvinist, but i see that their doctrine has something to say, and i want some clarification.

as far i have read (and have argued some months ago), i see at least two different views from calvinisms. and those would be:

1. Christ died for all men, it's just that all men reject him and thus God does the effectual calling for his elected people; or

2. Christ died only for the elect...

i just have this thought and would like some clarification on your part.

1. when a human being is born, he is already spiritually dead. this is not because of his sin, since he has not committed one yet, but because of the imputed sin of Adam to all mankind.

2. this concept has some major effect. one is that men do not get condemned because of their sins. but even before their first committed sin they are already dead. and this is because of Adam's (or the original) sin.

3. it is NOT that man get spiritually dead because they sin. it is rather that men sin because they are spiritually dead.

4. now then, who would be the cause of spiritual death of men? one's self? i don't think so.
Adam? maybe to himself, but not to everybody. God? well, this is how i view it:

First, God did not, as He is not, the author of sin.
Second, God imputed the sin of Adam to everyone, causing everyone to die spiritually.
Third, God has put everyone to condemnation so that everyone will be reached by Christ's death.

my question therefore is: if it is the original sin that God imputed on every man that caused man their spiritual death and not their personal sins yet calvinists believe that Christ died only for the elect, what do you teach regarding that? is it sovereignty? double predestination? both? or you do not agree with what i said?

 

Would it be inaccurate to say that according to Calvinism (in which there is no free will) you are a Calvinist because God made you a Calvinist and the Arminians are Arminians becuase he made them Arminians? Did God foreordain this discussion that we are having? Is God the author of confusion? Did Adam have free-will or is God the author of sin? You cannot that Adam did not have free will but that God is not the author of sin! If Adam did not have free will then God made him sin and is thus the author of sin! BUT, did God make Abel righteous and Cain wicked? If God had foreordained Cain to go to hell, then why does God tell him "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?"? In Calvinism no man who lived after the fall of Adam can do good without regeneration. Yet, Cain is unregenerate and God tells him that it is both possible for him to do good AND be accepted! Why would God tell a wicked unregenerate man that he could do good if that is not the case? Is the god of Calvinism a liar? (Gen 4:7) The true God is not, therefore, Calvinism (especially Total Depravity) is a lie! Unregenerate Cain had a CHOICE - to do good or to sin. He chose sin, but God told him that he could do good and be accepted - he just CHOSE (by FREE WILL) not to.

[ January 25, 2003, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

I came out of Arminianism in the last 2 years. The cause was a year and a half long study of Romans from the Greek. You cannot come out of Romans an Arminian in my opinion.

 

I have to agree with this thing called free will. I am free to will anything my heart desires. Just in a lot of cases I am unable to perform the thing that I have willed. Paul covered this very well in Roman's 7. That which I would not do, that I do, and vice versa.....

The real blessing upon our lives is when God restrains us from evil. And this is not just limited to the saved.... All men are to some extent restrained from evil acts. If not this world wouldn't even have the organization to publish a newspaper to read about such deeds.

So I think that when we start to get the big head for all the good 'we have choosen to do,' and when our chest swells as we observe the active sinner. And our lips say something real wise like "Well I never". We may, if we are saved, expect God to relax his restraint on our lives and for us to taste a little of our real nature by His gracious hand, i.e....., lest we be overtaken in the same fault.

To the orginal intent of this post.... I began life as a methodist. I consider the church I attended to preach a diluted form of Goodism. The goodism faith preaches, "be as good as you can, hurt the fewest number of people, and hope for the best". At least that is what I understood there doctrine to be.

After many years on the outside of church, and desiring one, I began a quest that went Television church, Chrasmatic Baptist, Independent Baptist, Soveriegn Grace Baptist. It seems a logical progression to the truth for me. To those who would take arguement with the Soveriegn Grace doctrines, I only believe them cause they are proclaimed long and loud in scripture. There is, after all, great comfort and rest in letting God be God. It is He that has made us and not we ourselves.

 

So, basically, Tommy-boy, you just can't accept that God told Cain he could be accepted if he did well, even though he was nonelect unregenerate scum (in Calvinist terminology). Therefore, you create to yourself a god that lied to Cain telling him that he could be accepted although this god had previously decreed by right of divine sovereignty that Cain would burn in hell for eternity regardless of whether he did well or not.

 

Cains problem was not his offering unto God, but rather his attitude in offering. It was that attitude that caused God to set himself against Cain.

So yes, Cain did have equal opportunity!

 

I don't think I mentioned Cain, nor any of my thoughts of Cain..... so I'm not sure where that came from. I do believe that Cain's lesson to learn (and the lesson we might learn from Cain) was that we are not made righteous by the works of our hands.... but by the sacrafice of blood.... looking forward to the future sacrafice that would atone for our sin.

...... nonelect unregenerate scum (in Calvinist terminology)????? Sorry but I don't think I have run across such terminology in Calvanist circles.... just from your mouth... Is it your position that the unregenerate are scum?

God said (of Cain) he should be accepted if... he doeth well.... and if... he doeth not well... then sin lieth at the door. I have no objection to this biblical truth. Is there, by the way, any biblical evidence as to Cain's eternal destiny?

I do think that the overall attitude of your post is uncalled for...

 

SolaScriptura,

Clean it up. Your attitude is uncalled for and will not be tolerated. If you would like to discuss theology, then feel free. But in so doing you, like everyone else, will be expected to abide by the rules and the general demeanor expected from all. "Tommy boy" and the like is not acceptable.

If you wish to participate please do, but do it in a proper Christian manner.

Larry

 

There is free will in Calvinism so you are starting off on a bad foot.

Yes.

No

False dichotomy. The answer to the first is yes, the second is no.

I don't know of anyone that says Adam did not have free will. But you should not tell other what they can or cannot say, especially when you do not understand the position you are refuting.

Because if he would do well ... i.e., come to God as God had told him ... he would have been accepted.

They cannot do anything acceptable to God.

God didn't tell he could do good, at least not in any translation I have seen. God told him what he must do to come to God. Cain refused.

No

Non sequitur. You have misrepresented Calvinism and thus drawn a faulty conclusion about God.

You are exactly right ... of his own free will he chose not to obey God. We do not dispute with at all.

However, it appears you have a hard time with titles. This thread was addressed "To my calvinist brethren" of which you clearly are not one of. Why did you post here?

 

So, you are saying that it's possible for the nonelect to come to God?

[ January 26, 2003, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Anyone who "will" can come to God. They "Will not" because they are seeking their own ends and following the free choices of their nature. The non-elect will not come.

 

I am in a I guess what you would call a semi-arminian church in the sense that they believe that man has a part in his salvation as far as his faith to come to Christ but believe in eternal security of the believer. I never considered myself an Arminian because I always belived in OSAS, and always thought that Arminians believed that one can "lose" his salvation. Right now I am kind of a "closet" Calvinist since there are no Reformeded Baptist churches in my area and besides, I like the church I am attending and keep my Calivinist views to myself.
I wrestled with predestination almost all my Christian life but always had trouble with the "L" in Tulip. What got me thinking was verses like Romans 3:10-11 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

Also verses like Proverbs 15:29 "The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous." and Isaiah 59:2 "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."
Now I,ve heard many Baptist preachers say that the Lord does not hear the prayers of the unregenerate except the prayer for salvation but I never heard scripture to back the last part of the statement up. If man is totally depraved and dead in sin and does not seek God in his unregenerated state then how could God hear a prayer for salvation? It dawned on me that God has to do the saving. All of it! Regeneration has to come before faith! I am just finishing up a book by James White called "The Potter's Freedom" and it is kind of "putting the icing on the cake" and cant understand why I missed something so obvious.
I have come to appreciate what I have in salvation even more than ever.

 

Praise God! That is the same reaction I had: Awe of His love, appreciation, a renewed sense of worship, and a profound sense of relief! Yes, worship, because the recognition that we have no part in our salvation promotes awarenews that only God is worthy of all the glory and praise.

 

Although I am not a brother, I suppose you will
not mind if I reply. If this is intended for men only,
I will understand if you must erase this post and
will not attempt to reply here again (I hope I will
remember, though!).

My first introduction to something being wrong
with holinesss-Arminianism was when I was
walking across the entry to the camp meeting I
used to attend, and I over-heard a family
confrontation. The family members were
confronting a father in the family with a very
damaging sin he had committed upon family
members. I remember the frustration upon some
of their faces as he defended himself with the
idea that what he had done could not have been a
sin, because he was a "Christian, and Christians
don't sin." This was very ugly, and it haunted me.

In time, my famiily and I began to personally
experience the same damaging attitude, as we
were very deeply wronged by two ministers and
their family members, as well as by pastors'
attitudes toward them and us. No one has yet so
clearly proven to me that believers do sin than
these persons have, and all the time, they have
continued to preach that they do not sin, that they
are so holy (as in righteous), and that they are
headed toward Heaven while leaving us in their
sanctified dust.

These people used the pastor to harass me
when I quit responding to their personal
harassment. Who needs this? The fact is that I
really do not want their god nor any reasonable
facsimile of it. I want the God of the Bible.

[ January 27, 2003, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Sorry - I won't speak for others, but I almost always use "men" when referring to "humans", but I in no way mean to exclude or diminish the significance of women by doing so. I suspect that others use terms like "brethren" instead of "sistren" for the same reason.

We love ya, sister!!

[ January 27, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

All it took for me to "Come to Calvinism" was to study the history of the SBC. I looked at the changes in Theology and Doctrine since 1845 and asked myself where is all this heading?

I didn't like the answers folks gave me to that question, so I went back to the Bible and there it was - The Faith of my True Baptist Fathers - How could I have missed it for so long!