A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[ReverendRV]

And of course that problem must be answered by those who hold to the Christian faith.

As a non-Calvinist, I have an answer.

Do you?

1Pe 3:15, But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I do...

But for another day and another Thread...

You don't??

 

[justbyfaith]

I do...

But for another day and another Thread...

Be sure to tag me when you post.

 

[Josheb]

There are many to this day who are part of the Calvary Chapel Movement and who hold him as an authority.

I know. I knew Chuck Smith. I talked to him personally, face to face. I ate with him. I sat in the Costa Mesa building and worshiped and heard him preach. I read his books. I surfed Newport and Huntington and preached gospel on the boardwalk in Venice. I used to know the skating turbaned man seen in Pretty Woman. I enjoyed the fellowship with the leftovers of the Jesus People and the congregations that networked (including Jack Hayford's Church on the Way) to feed the hippies and the poor. To this day I know many Christians young and old in Calvary Chapel congregations in many parts of the US.

Imagine my concerns when all the predictions he made in the 70s and 80s never happened. He was wrong about Israel, wrong about the timeline of end times, wrong about the rapture and most importantly wrong about the return of Christ. He was a wise man in many ways, and served God faithfully, helping others in both earthly and spiritual ways. He never recanted and as far as I know never repented (if someone knows a record of him doing so, I would dearly appreciate the link). Imagine learning a man you love and respect taught you incorrectly. One of Smith's hopes (a common one in the evangelical no-denominational movement) was to do away with denominations and yet now there are hundreds, maybe thousands of Calvary Chapel congregations, every one of them proudly affiliated with his teachings, apparently oblivious to that being a problem. To this day pastors of Calvary Chapel congregations continue to teach the Dispensationalism they learned as Calvary Chapel affiliates. Many of them can be heard routinely teaching the same errors on the radio (like Dan Sexton and Jack Hibbs).

When a congregation sends out local missionaries to a local locale to start a new congregation, they maintain their ties to the parent congregation and its leadership. Once the newer congregation reaches its ability to do likewise both parent and offspring congregations send out church-planting missions, bot affiliated with the parent congregation and its leadership. Now there are four affiliated congregations. Each them sends out new church plants, then the eight does so to form 16, the 16 to form 32 and so forth. At some point we must ask ourselves,

"How many congregations affiliated with a specific leader, a specific set of teachings and practices, does it take before they qualify as a
denomination?"

Many Christian leaders of that era failed to grasp they were worsening the problem, not solving it. Believing to be guided by the Holy Spirit they created works of flesh.




More to the point I was making about the op, however, Smith is not a particularly valid source for understanding Calvinism, although Smith's soteriology was rooted in classic Reformed soteriology, his views were compromised by Dispensationalism. Calvinism starts with the sovereignty of God and the universal salvific depravity of humanity, believing the gospel is available to all.

And if the only thing offered in response is,

There are many to this day who are part of the Calvary Chapel Movement and who hold him as an authority.

Then I'll add two more thoughts and move on.

There are pseudo-Reformed preachers who claim to believe and emphasize God's sovereignty, but they more accurately elevate grace above sovereignty and that adversely affects their doctrines and teaching. John MacArthur would probably be the most well-known of that sort. God is gracious because He is sovereign, not the other way around.

The chief problem discussing soteriological doctrines is getting the doctrines correct. Neither monergism nor synergism are monolithic so it can be challenging to get either side correct. This is why so many strawmen argued...... and then replicated but others less informed than their poorly informed sources.

 

[justbyfaith]

The chief problem discussing soteriological doctrines is getting the doctrines correct. Neither monergism nor synergism are monolithic so it can be challenging to get either side correct. This is why so many strawmen argued...... and then replicated but others less informed than their poorly informed sources.

In other words, in order to understand Calvinism properly, you have to be heavily steeped in the doctrines of Calvinism. If you are poorly informed about what Calvinism teaches, you have no authority to speak on the subject of Calvinism.

Just like the mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses say that you ought to go to the source if you want to truly understand the doctrines that are espoused by them.

That those who seek to expose them as cults are biased and uninformed as to what is truly taught by the respective religions.

I would say that those who have been preached to by these groups have an idea of what is taught by them.

Just like I think that I have an idea of what is taught by Calvinism...

And that the conclusions that I make about what I have heard are in fact logical and even reasonable.

 

[justbyfaith]

Every Greek word has a gender (male, female or neuter) and things like nouns must have the same gender to identify which noun goes with which pronoun. Here is the verse with gender identified:

[Eph 2:8 NASB] For by grace[f] you have been saved[m] through faith[f]; and this[n] is not of yourselves, it is[n] the gift[n] of God[m];

“this” and “gift” are both ‘neuter’ in Greek, so whatever they refer to cannot be either ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. Therefore, Greek grammar will not allow any one of the following:

• grace[f]
• saved[m]
• faith[f]

to be either “this” or “the gift”. If any one of them was “this” or “the gift”, then the Greek would have not been ‘neuter’ but would have matched either the ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ of the word that was the “gift” and “this”. The only meaning that works with Greek grammar and a ‘neuter’ “gift” is for the gift to be both masculine AND feminine, thus making ‘neuter’ the appropriate gender for a mixed gift. In the verse (Ephesians 2:8), that means that both “this” and “the gift” are the whole phrase “by grace[f] you have been saved[m] through faith[f]” … grace, saved and faith are ALL “this” (“not of yourselves”) and “the gift” (“of God”).

I don't really trust what is espoused by amateur Greek scholars.

That is conducive to a cult mentality; in which the amateur Greek scholar is given an authority to tell us what the Bible really teaches...

 

[justbyfaith]

It remains that in Calvinism, the sovereignty of the Lord is exalted as a doctrine to the exclusion of Him being righteous and holy.

Because, certain Calvinists have contended that God is the First Cause of everything.

But if that is the case, then He is the First Cause of murder, rape, and incest.

I would contend that God is the First Cause of everything good;

And that the sin of Adam and Eve (their free will decision) or else satan's pride (also a result of free will; otherwise God is responsible for it) are the First Cause of everything sinful in the Universe.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Let's establish here what is believed by Calvinists.

This should be fun. Let's see if you describe anything recognizable as Calvinism.

DISCLAIMER: I am a member in good standing of a local Dutch Reformed church, which is just about as Calvinist as one can get.

What does every Calvinist here have to say of the following proposition?

Well, that was short-lived. We went from establishing what Calvinists believe to asking whether Calvinists believe this thing.

All right, switching gears, then. Let's do this.

There is the concept when considering Calvinism that, "I may not be one of the elect; and therefore, if I am not, choosing Christ will not avail for me."

I don't understand why you would pay that concept any attention when considering Calvinism, for it is antithetical to Calvinism. It must be said that choosing Christ avails infinitely much, and always. However, those who are not elect never choose Christ—ever. They might look like Christians and talk the talk and everything else, but it is only an appearance. It is entirely possible for someone to seem quite religious but actually reject the power that could make them godly (2 Tim 3:5). Remember the parable of the sower?

On the authority of scripture I can confidently proclaim that those who permanently walk away from the church were never Christians (and, by extension, never elect).

The unbeliever might reply, "Listen, I went to church nearly every week. I was baptized. I served in ministry. I studied the Bible. I prayed all the time to God."

And I would say, "I don't doubt any of that. I said you were never a Christian." As someone once said, going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car.

Pastor Chuck Smith put it this way: "If you choose Christ, you will find that you are of the elect."

Well, almost. In order to accurately reflect what Calvinism teaches, you would have to amend that to say, "If you persist in choosing Christ for the entirety of your life, you will find that you are of the elect." The acrostic TULIP has that P at the end there, without which it's not Calvinism. This whole one-and-done thing so popular within American evangelicalism—where you "make a decision for Christ" and that's it, you're forever saved—is not at all popular within Calvinism. We believe in the perseverance of the saints, such that repentance and faith is daily, not just once, characterizing the saint's entire life. (And this is primarily because the closer we get to God the more acutely we are aware of our loathsome and manifold sin. Every sin over which God gives us victory just uncovers yet more sin that needs to be vanquished. It's all a part of our sanctification, conforming us to the image of the Son.)

An analogy has been given:

Everyone at some point stands outside a door, above which is written, "Whosoever will, let him come." Those who enter in by that door will find a heavenly table with a place set specifically for them, with a name tag with their name written on it at their place at the table. They look back at the door and it says, "Predestined from before the foundation of the world."
​

Accurate or inaccurate to Calvinistic teaching?

I would like to get a bunch of responses from different Calvinists on this one.

Accurate. Calvinists likewise believe, "Whosoever will, let him come."

Our disagreement centers on the "whosoever will" part, with Calvinists believing that the only ones willing are those who were chosen and regenerated. It's the sheep who know his voice and follow him.

But if God is the first cause of everything, is he not also responsible for such things as murder and rape and incest?

I can't answer that question until you define "responsible." You see, as far as I know it refers to culpability (i.e., liable to be called to account). We are responsible to God who is judge of the whole earth, but to whom must God be called to give an account? Nobody. So, in that sense, he is not responsible.

If I am not chosen by God, I will not be accepted even if I choose him.

If you're not chosen by God, you will never choose him (John 10:26). All who are appointed for eternal life believe (Acts 13:48).

My God, as being the Holy Ghost, is all about liberty/freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17). How do any of you [Calvinists] deal with that verse?

It says where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

From what, sir?

My hope is that, as soon as you answer that question, you'll see there is nothing there that Calvinists need to "deal with."

So, God doesn't even need us.

Correct.

No need for us to evangelize, since God does it all.

God COULD do it all—but he doesn't. He calls us to participate with him in achieving his eschatological purposes, which includes evangelism.

That the Spirit of the Lord brings freedom means that he is not going to force a singular decision when he draws a person to Christ.

You are using fallacious language. "Force" implies resistance, which simply begs the question against Calvinism. (See the I in TULIP.) If your arguments against Calvinism have to rely on logical fallacies, then all the better for Calvinism.

But if you think they would have merit when validly constructed, then please eliminate the fallacies when and where identified, like this one here.

Yes, and the logical conclusion is that there is no need for any of us to evangelize. A distinctly Calvinistic concept.

It is not just Calvinistic but also biblical (e.g., Luke 19:37).

God doesn't NEED us to evangelize, he WANTS us to and commands us to do so.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

A person who is drawn to Christ is not necessarily given to Christ.

1 + 1 = 2 ... right?

• "Those the Father has given me will come to me" (John 6:37).
  
• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (v. 44), "has enabled them" (v. 65; "gives them to me," NLT).

Ergo, one who is drawn to Christ is necessarily given to Christ. "My Father, who has given them to me, ..." (John 10:29).

However, [1 John 2:2] is a valid counter to the concept of limited atonement ...

You really need to deal with how Christ himself limited the atonement:

• "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15).
  
• "You are not my sheep" (v. 26).

You are correct that if irresistable grace is true then either limited atonement or universalism is true—and universalism is not.

There is nothing meritorious about a faith that is based in a sinful fear of the lake of fire (instinct of self-preservation).

My man, there is nothing meritorius about our faith. If there were, grace would no longer be grace.

Please hear me when I say this: It is not your faith that saves you, it is Christ who saves you (through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand). You contribute nothing meritorious. You contribute nothing but your debt of sin. If you ever start to think there might be something meritorius you bring to God, just remember Isaiah 64:6, "All our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight."

As we sing in that old hymn, "Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling."

It is Christ and his faithfulness that is meritorious.

Does God NEED us? Is God incapable of saving anyone without human aid?

As a matter of fact, [God] had to BECOME HUMAN in order to save us.

But it wasn't because he needed us. Salvation is entirely of grace. He doesn't need us, but he wants us.

However, apparently in Calvinism, one is saved before they call on the name of the Lord; and therefore calling on the name of the Lord isn't really necessary.

False, and at the most basic level, too.

When you say "before they call on the name of the Lord," I get the impression that you're talking about election. If you want to critically scrutinize Calvinism, you need to understand that salvation includes election but is much more than that. Being saved involves the whole gamut, from election through to glorification and all the things in between (e.g., justification). I would recommend reading John Murray on the ordo salutis.

Some Calvinists on these boards have said that they believe the very thing that you say isn't true in Calvinism [i.e., one is saved before they call on the name of the Lord].

Which Calvinists were those? Links, please.

However, one Calvinist may say one thing and another will say that it's not the belief of Calvinism.

Calvinism has too many doctrines in it that are not accepted by others in its ranks.

That is disunity.

Can one Calvinist have greater theological knowledge than another Calvinist?

The answer, of course, is yes.

The follow-up question is, then, "Would that explain why their answers differ?"

The answer, again, is yes.

That is disparity, not disunity.

What I find perplexing is how you failed to deduce that yourself.

Certain Calvinists have said on these boards that regeneration precedes salvation ...

I suspect that no Calvinists on these boards have said that. Feel free to prove otherwise.

I think that the Calvinistic theology is too complicated for me.

It is written,

2Co 11:3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.[/B]

What you have been presenting in this thread are strawman caricatures of Calvinism. I am willing to grant that those caricatures are too complicated for you.

They're also not Calvinism.

But we are not regenerated through faith?

No—as basically all Calvinist materials will state.

 

[Arial]

It is not meritorious either.

No one said it was.

 

[Arial]

Doesn't matter. In the original context it was referring to Israel.

The New Testament interprets the Old, not the other way around. That is because there was much of redemption and in prophecy in the OT that was not fully revealed and had not been fulfilled. Surely you have heard it said that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. So when Jesus or the apostles quote something from the OT *and the NT is filled with them doing that* it is saying "This is what that meant. This is how it is fulfilled."

 

[Arial]

Is this a common approach with the poster? I have had minimal interaction; and if this is the case, then I may have to reconsider my approach. I've generally been seeking to approach the poster in good faith. But if what you say is true, then we're only dealing with an opinionated troll. The ability to receive correction and learn is fundamental in any give and take dialogue.

I too began in true faith with the poster. However when you see him going from thread to thread repeating the same straw man fallacies as though they had never been addressed and clarified, then starting a new thread as is done here, to repeat the same fallacies, while he is still engaged in other threads on the same subject and same fallacies---yeah I would call that a troll.

 

[Arial]

It is a valid argument; and while I can easily make it, I am not talking to you.

You don't have to say it to me. Just post your exegesis. It seems it would be a necessary ingredient to successfully counter what you are trying to disprove. Especially since you say you can easily do it. To clarify I will repost the question.

Re; 1 John 2:2

However it is a valid counter to the concept of Limited Atonement; and is also not the only passage that does that.

Exactly how does it counter limited atonement? Give a detailed exegesis way of countering limited atonement.

 

[Arial]

It does not lead to Universalism if you base salvation on the choice of man to believe in, receive, and follow Christ...

The universalism in that view is that it also says that Jesus made propitiation for the sins of the whole world, with world being all people without exception. If propitiation is what propitiation is, that would mean all without exception have been reconciled to God. So after the fact of having said that they add the caveat, but only for those who choose Christ. Which of course makes an oxymoron out of 1 John 2:2 and of their own doctrine.

Which is denied by some; perhaps because they personally have not made that decision, and want to consider themselves saved?

This too is a logical fallacy, Changing the goal posts, deflecting, by casting doubt on the salvation of others rather than stick with the actual subject.

 

[Arial]

Does "our sins" refer to the sins of the elect or does it apply to a smaller group of people?

Because, it must apply to a smaller group of people than the elect if you are going to interpret "the sins of the whole world" as being the sins of the elect.

"The sins of the whole world" is not what is being interpreted as the sins of the elect. Propitiation is what is applied to the sins of the elect. The whole world is interpreted to mean that salvation is available to all nations etc, is powerful enough to save all, but limited to the elect in its purpose, that Christ is the only means of salvation and the remission of sins.

 

[atpollard]

I say again, if God is the First Cause of everything, then He is the First Cause of murder and rape and incest.

I would say that Adam and Eve's sin (or else satan's pride) is the first cause of everything sinful in the Universe.

A FIRST CAUSE is an “uncaused cause” … it has no outside force that acts on or controls it.
Do you really advocate, rejecting the absolute control of Biblical Calvinism, a DUAL “god“ system where Satan and God are both “uncaused causes” in competition?

• Job (the book) disagrees … God clearly controls evil by setting boundaries.
• Romans 1:24,26,28 disagree … God restrains evil and lifts His restraint.

 

[atpollard]

I don't really trust what is espoused by amateur Greek scholars.

Then go to a professional Greek scholar and ask them.
Truth is truth and your error is still error … irrespective of the source.

 

[Josheb]

In other words, in order to understand Calvinism properly, you have to be heavily steeped in the doctrines of Calvinism. If you are poorly informed about what Calvinism teaches, you have no authority to speak on the subject of Calvinism.

Nope. That is a Uber-Fail. No one has ever said that; I did not mean to imply or insinuate any such premise. I was speaking more about your bias than Smith's. Logically, if someone wanted to understand something they would start with those thinking, believing, or practicing that thing.

You didn't.

One of my practices that irritate others the most is my use of original sources. I do NOT tend to appeal to extra-biblical sources but when I do it's either because that source is the subject of discussion or an original source in his/her own words. I get accused of posting doctrine when post after post after post after post of mine is scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture read exactly as written or properly exegeted. I'm not one to "read" things into scripture (like you) that scripture does not actually state. It is profoundly revealing, for example, to show someone where an epistle explicitly states it was written to the saints, those chosen of Christ, and then read, "The letter was not written to the saints; it was written to Jewish Christians." I'm not the one "interpreting" scripture, denying what it actually states, and/or imposing my personal doctrines on the thread. The use of extra-biblical sources always runs the risk of creating fallacious appeals to authority. It's bad practice. When it comes to diverse subjects like soteriology it also runs the risk of construction errors whereby one source is generalized to be representative of the whole when it is not. That too is bad practice. Happens a lot in this board.

This op happens to be explicitly on Calvinism. The op asserts an analogy that isn't actually an analogy. If an analogy from Smith was going to correctly be submitted for thought and discussion it would have been a statement different from mainstream Calvinism. There's is no comparison between like statements because there are no differences to compare. That is all on you. And yet, despite that foolishness the posts were kept about the posts and the op addressed with manners and respect.

In order to understand Calvinism correctly, find a source who understands Calvinism correctly and link to the source so others can verify its context to makes sure any quotes are not quote-mines. That is not a particularly difficult concept to know, understand, apply, or practice with others.

Just like the mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses say that you ought to go to the source if you want to truly understand the doctrines that are espoused by them. That those who seek to expose them as cults are biased and uninformed as to what is truly taught by the respective religions.

How would anyone know what to criticize if the source hadn't been consulted.

Let's say you, a non-LDS person, were debating an LDS and had never read anything LDS in its original source. The only way you'd have any means for doing so is by using second-hand (someone who had themselves read LDS sources) or third hand sources (someone using a second-hand source but hadn't themselves done so. You might even be basing your dissent of fourth-hand or further removed sources trusting each person in the telephone-tag line of information was correct. You'd have placed your trust in others not knowing whether or not they been honest and accurate.

So I read the book of Mormon, the writings of Jospeh Smith, Brigham Young, some of the Presidents' in their own words, their articles of faith, and basic doctrines. I've also read my Bible and read it from cover to cover as written and in chronological order many times. I can make comparisons without second-hand or third-hand sources. So could you if you had it in you to do so. Be careful though because folks will call you arrogant and condescending, and attack you for posting original sources and plainly read scripture.

I would say that those who have been preached to by these groups have an idea of what is taught by them.

And you would be wrong.

Just like I think that I have an idea of what is taught by Calvinism...

And op after op shows 1) you don't, 2) the effort is not made to learn on your own, and 3) you're not willing to learn from others. What's the evidence for that?

I posted three points about Calvinism from Calvinism as a Calvinist in direct reply to this opening post and we are now two exchanges into this discussion, and you have not dicsussed any of them!!!

No one made you do that but you. It does not look like you are genuinely here to Calvinism. It looks like you're trolling. The next post will prove the matter because you'll either ignore all the off-topic material and get back on Calvinism relevant to the op or you won't.

And that the conclusions that I make about what I have heard are in fact logical and even reasonable.

They are not.

I've offered cursory explanations how and why and they've been ignored in favor of the non sequitur....

In other words, in order to understand Calvinism properly, you have to be heavily steeped in the doctrines of Calvinism. If you are poorly informed about what Calvinism teaches, you have no authority to speak on the subject of Calvinism.

Utter foolishness no one here believes, but that is where your mind took you.


Now, do you intend to discuss your own op or not.

• The "analogy" isn't an actual analogy.
• Not being elect does preclude choosing but that's not a specifically Calvinist position.
• Calvinist theology starts with God's sovereignty.
• Calvinist soteriology is monergist.
• Calvinist soteriology does not start with election; it starts with the universal salvific depravity of humanity (which is also shared by synergistic, non-Pelagian views).
• Calvinism believes the Bible when teaches the unregenerate non-believer cannot see the door, understand the writing on it, and does enter it it without God working in the individual for the specific purpose.

And if you'd studied Calvinism there would not be any debate about what I just posted or about what Calvinism teaches, and we'd be discussing one or more of the points found in Post 112 without the foolish rhetoric found in Post #164. Don't get mad at me for calling you on the subterfuge.

Just get back on topic.

Pick a point and discuss it as rationally as you can using well-rendered scripture and/or original source material wherever you have the ability to do so.

 

[justbyfaith]

This should be fun. Let's see if you describe anything recognizable as Calvinism.

DISCLAIMER: I am a member in good standing of a local Dutch Reformed church, which is just about as Calvinist as one can get.

Well, that was short-lived. We went from establishing what Calvinists believe to asking whether Calvinists believe this thing.

All right, switching gears, then. Let's do this.

I don't understand why you would pay that concept any attention when considering Calvinism, for it is antithetical to Calvinism. It must be said that choosing Christ avails infinitely much, and always. However, those who are not elect never choose Christ—ever. They might look like Christians and talk the talk and everything else, but it is only an appearance. It is entirely possible for someone to seem quite religious but actually reject the power that could make them godly (2 Tim 3:5). Remember the parable of the sower?

On the authority of scripture I can confidently proclaim that those who permanently walk away from the church were never Christians (and, by extension, never elect).

The unbeliever might reply, "Listen, I went to church nearly every week. I was baptized. I served in ministry. I studied the Bible. I prayed all the time to God."

And I would say, "I don't doubt any of that. I said you were never a Christian." As someone once said, going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car.

I will only say to this that soil types #2 and #3 in the parable of the sower are living plants (which I would identify as saved for all practical purposes in the present tense; though they may not be of the elect).

Well, almost. In order to accurately reflect what Calvinism teaches, you would have to amend that to say, "If you persist in choosing Christ for the entirety of your life, you will find that you are of the elect." The acrostic TULIP has that P at the end there, without which it's not Calvinism. This whole one-and-done thing so popular within American evangelicalism—where you "make a decision for Christ" and that's it, you're forever saved—is not at all popular within Calvinism. We believe in the perseverance of the saints, such that repentance and faith is daily, not just once, characterizing the saint's entire life. (And this is primarily because the closer we get to God the more acutely we are aware of our loathsome and manifold sin. Every sin over which God gives us victory just uncovers yet more sin that needs to be vanquished. It's all a part of our sanctification, conforming us to the image of the Son.)

Accurate. Calvinists likewise believe, "Whosoever will, let him come."

Our disagreement centers on the "whosoever will" part, with Calvinists believing that the only ones willing are those who were chosen and regenerated. It's the sheep who know his voice and follow him.

I can't answer that question until you define "responsible." You see, as far as I know it refers to culpability (i.e., liable to be called to account). We are responsible to God who is judge of the whole earth, but to whom must God be called to give an account? Nobody. So, in that sense, he is not responsible.

If you're not chosen by God, you will never choose him (John 10:26). All who are appointed for eternal life believe (Acts 13:48).

So, if you choose Him, you're chosen. Just want to establish this.

It says where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

From what, sir?

Not from what; but to what?

And the answer is, to, being able to make a free will decision for or against Christ.

My hope is that, as soon as you answer that question, you'll see there is nothing there that Calvinists need to "deal with."

Correct.

God COULD do it all—but he doesn't. He calls us to participate with him in achieving his eschatological purposes, which includes evangelism.

You are using fallacious language. "Force" implies resistance, which simply begs the question against Calvinism. (See the I in TULIP.) If your arguments against Calvinism have to rely on logical fallacies, then all the better for Calvinism.

But if you think they would have merit when validly constructed, then please eliminate the fallacies when and where identified, like this one here.

Paul resisted grace (Acts 7:51) because he resisted the Holy Ghost; yet God saved him eventually.

Grace was not irresistible, for Paul was able to resist it for a season.

Paul resisted grace all the while that he was persecuting Christians.

God eventually got a hold of him; but there are those who resist grace whom God never lays a hold of.

It is not just Calvinistic but also biblical (e.g., Luke 19:37).

God doesn't NEED us to evangelize, he WANTS us to and commands us to do so.

Luk 19:37, And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;

How does this teach that evangelism isn't necessary?

Jesus, the great Apostle and High Priest of our profession, was doing the evangelizing here.

 

[Mr GLee]

John 6:44 [NASB] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

I was making plans to set enemies on fire and die when God claimed me as His property [literally]. As a criminal, raised atheist and morally embracing Nihilism [there is no such thing as good or evil, only subjective individual morality], I was most certainly NOT looking for God ... I was just planning how to take as many enemies as possible with me.

I consider that irrefutable proof that the Father DREW me to the Son.
I make no judgement concerning others [I am unqualified to do so.]

I stand with the preponderance of scripture that God is God and "salvation" is of the LORD. In my opinion, THIS is the money verse:

• "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL SHOW COMPASSION TO WHOMEVER I SHOW COMPASSION." So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. - Romans 9:15-16 [NASB]

I would suggest like many things two kinds of evil. Satan the father of lies would say evil all one in the same .What Christ calls calls separate Satan calls one. . . . the upside down counterfeiter

There is a evil that comes when mankind violates the loving commandments and a evil that God creates when mankind ignore his word. God bringing one nation against another You could say Satan casting out Satan both going to outward darkness.

He faithfully form light "Let there be". bring the light in darkness. the peace of God that surpases our understanding according to his understanding called faith His eternal labor of Love


Isaiah 45:6-8King James Version6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it. . . . (Both)

 

[Josheb]

I don't really trust what is espoused by amateur Greek scholars.

But we are to trust a poster who adversarially and deliberately chooses second-hand biased sources? Can you smell the hypocrisy?

That is conducive to a cult mentality; in which the amateur Greek scholar is given an authority to tell us what the Bible really teaches...

Irony.