Man's responsibility.

[justbyfaith]

You left out a heck of a lot. You just came up with a theory you think will work, but your still have the tail wagging the dog. It makes a mockery of the cross. But I don't expect you to even try to think through that.

Just so you know, you were not just talking with me. Be careful not to get people confused.

 

[sawdust]

You left out a heck of a lot. You just came up with a theory you think will work, but your still have the tail wagging the dog. It makes a mockery of the cross. But I don't expect you to even try to think through that.

Strewth. So John 3:16 isn't a promise to save believers? If you want the full practical mechanics of how it works, I'm happy to oblige but it will take time to put together. However, as you were unable to give me a practical reason as to how the Laodiceans can love God while disobeying Him, I don't hold out much hope you will understand a word I say.

I don't need to be treated as if I'm some sort of idiot who doesn't take the word of God seriously especially from someone who holds the position of administrator. I have spent most of my life seeking answers form the scriptures and did not simply "come up with a theory I think will work".

You have a good one.

 

[His clay]

The choice is not between believing in man's responsibility or God's culpability in man's condemnation. That is a false dichotomy. What is so false about it is that it makes the actions of man determine who God is. God is the Creator. We are the creature. We of all that creation in Gen. are created by Him in His image and likeness. Animals do not have any responsibility to their Creator, they simply do what God created them to do. Vegetation has no responsibility to their Creator they simply do what God created them to do. And all this He sustains, and His faithfulness reaches to the heavens and His glory is over all the earth.

Man has a responsibility to God, to worship Him, to obey Him, to honor Him, to submit to Him, and to reflect His image of righteousness. And man does not have a responsibility to choose Christ. Man has a responsibility to trust in Christ and it is the only way he can be reconciled to God, and it is the only way man can be found to be trusting God. It has nothing to do with choice but only to do with belief.

And fallen man is incapable of trusting in Christ or trusting in God, that is how fallen he became. It was not a mistake that Adam made. It is not mistakes we make when we sin. It is high treason against a holy God who created us. It is unimaginable grace and mercy that any are saved for He has no obligation to do so. And He did not send His Son as Savior for our sake, but for the Son's sake, and for His glory, not ours. He gives people to the Son as an inheritance and reward for the suffering He endured at the hands of the wicked. (Eph 1:3-6,15-21; John 17)

It takes the power and will of God to save. It takes His power and His will to change a hard heart into a heart that is moldable and pliable in His hands. Man cannot choose to do this and then do it. And no man can tell God that He must be a certain way and if He is not that way then He is unjust and He is culpable for sending them to hell and they have no responsibility for their going to hell. That is ABSURD! He is the Potter. We are the clay. He can do as He pleases with the clay and no one can stay His hand. From the very mouth of God: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

And arbitrary is not a synonym of the biblical concept of unconditional. As you have had illustrated to you over and over again, everytime you use them as synonyms.

Excellent!

 

[sawdust]

Just so you know, you were not just talking with me. Be careful not to get people confused.

I think she was well aware of who she was talking to.

 

[makesends]

I'm saying that sin is the transgression of the law.

Rebellion against God in NT theology would be disobedience to the Spirit and/or rejection of Christ.

Let's back up off this tangent, lest the goalposts continue to slide across the field.

justbyfaith said:
My full trust is in Christ; and I also know that I have Him because I made a decision to receive Him as Lord and Saviour from sin.

That decision, to you, is your evidence. Let me ask it a different way: Have you not seen how fickle your will is?

 

[justbyfaith]

And arbitrary is not a synonym of the biblical concept of unconditional.

I think that it is.

 

[justbyfaith]

Let's back up off this tangent, lest the goalposts continue to slide across the field.

justbyfaith said:
My full trust is in Christ; and I also know that I have Him because I made a decision to receive Him as Lord and Saviour from sin.

That decision, to you, is your evidence. Let me ask it a different way: Have you not seen how fickle your will is?

God has placed within me His Holy Spirit and within that a diligence to stay true to the Lord.

In and of myself, my will might be fickle indeed.

But with Him dwelling in me, the fruit that is produced is, among other things, faithfulness (Galatians 5:22-23).

 

[makesends]

God has placed within me His Holy Spirit and within that a diligence to stay true to the Lord.

In and of myself, my will might be fickle indeed.

But with Him dwelling in me, the fruit that is produced is, among other things, faithfulness (Galatians 5:22-23).

Sidestepping, but stepping right into it nonetheless, without even realizing it.

The constancy of faithfulness is not, even according to your own words here, according to your will, but according to God's work. Salvific faith is not generated by you, but by God. It is yours, because it is done in you, not because you produce it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Sidestepping, but stepping right into it nonetheless, without even realizing it.

The constancy of faithfulness is not, even according to your own words here, according to your will, but according to God's work. Salvific faith is not generated by you, but by God. It is yours, because it is done in you, not because you produce it.

Yes, it is generated by God; however it is not generated in a person against their will.

If someone is unwilling to be a recipient of the Spirit and the producing of His fruits in their life, I would say that Jesus is a gentleman and will not produce in them those fruits by His Spirit.

Most assuredly, one must receive the Spirit by receiving Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin (a free will decision when a person is drawn to Christ) if that fruit is even going to be produced.

Once a person is sealed by the Spirit, that fruit will be produced consistently, since the person in permanently receiving the Spirit becomes permanently willing to produce those fruits.

I think that this has been a fruitful conversation (no pun intended) so thanks for bringing things up.

 

[His clay]

I think that it is.

The arbitrary objection has been soundly and completely refuted. As of yet, you have not dealt with the refutation of the arbitrary objection. I'll provide the link. I had to divide up the opening post. However, one can find them at the following link by reading Post #1 (part 1 of 4), post #58 (2 of 4), post #123 (part 3 of 4), and posts #160-161 (part 4 of 4).

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-arbitrary-objection-to-unconditional-election.1159/

 

[justbyfaith]

The arbitrary objection has been soundly and completely refuted. As of yet, you have not dealt with the refutation of the arbitrary objection. I'll provide the link. I had to divide up the opening post. However, one can find them at the following link by reading Post #1 (part 1 of 4), post #58 (2 of 4), post #123 (part 3 of 4), and posts #160-161 (part 4 of 4).

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-arbitrary-objection-to-unconditional-election.1159/

You will notice that there is plenty of room between those posts for your objections to have been refuted.

I will not say that I have refuted them; only that the posts in between ought to be looked at and considered.

Because I don't think that you have made an airtight case for what you are contending for.

Also, most of your responses are boring and I lose traction after the first paragraph of many of them.

You would do well to put the cookies on the bottom shelf.

 

[makesends]

Yes, it is generated by God; however it is not generated in a person against their will.

Of course not. The will is being remade, born again. Not consulted.

If someone is unwilling to be a recipient of the Spirit and the producing of His fruits in their life, I would say that Jesus is a gentleman and will not produce in them those fruits by His Spirit.

If a person is unwilling, he is not born again.

Most assuredly, one must receive the Spirit by receiving Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin (a free will decision when a person is drawn to Christ) if that fruit is even going to be produced.

Almost assuredly. Not quite (not nearly quite). You must be born from above.

Once a person is sealed by the Spirit, that fruit will be produced consistently, since the person in permanently receiving the Spirit becomes permanently willing to produce those fruits.

I think that this has been a fruitful conversation (no pun intended) so thanks for bringing things up.

Sliding the posts clear around the corner of the field to the sidelines.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Hi @Papa Smurf, I will only say that when people receive general revelation, they are in effect being drawn to Christ; since the end result of this, if they are obedient to light #1 and #2, is that they will be given the light of Christ (hearing the gospel) as was the case with Abraham.

Hello again JustByFaith, yes, you said as much before, but my question of how these things that you believe can in any way be seen or proven to be the case certainly remains.

Quite frankly, the systematic theology of Arminianism (or Free Will) is hardly dependent upon John 12:32's "all men" meaning "all men w/o exception". That, coupled with the historic fact that when Jews (such as the Lord Jesus and the Apostle John) spoke of "all men" or the "whole world", etc., in the Bible, they typically meant "not Jews only", IOW, Jews ~AND~ Greeks, the Jewish nation ~AND~ the Gentiles nations, ~not~ every individual who ever lived.

Perhaps it is best, then, to go with what can be clearly seen/is clearly provable and makes sense Biblically, that by "all men" in v32, Jesus was speaking in terms that a 1st Century Jew would best understand, IOW, that His crucifixion and the resulting Good News for us was meant for people from every nation, tribe and tongue, not for the people of Israel alone.

As far as Abram/Abraham goes, we are never told what his beliefs were in regard to God's "general revelation" (though we do know that he, in concert with his father, Terah, formerly made and worshiped household idols as gods), but we certainly know that he received PLENTY of AMAZING "special revelation", and that directly from God Himself, beginning in Genesis 12. That said, attempting to tie what we know of Abraham's newfound faith in the living God of the Bible to what we are specifically taught in John 12:32 about Jesus Christ and Him crucified/the Gospel is (again) simply conjecture on your part.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[justbyfaith]

Of course not. The will is being remade, born again. Not consulted.

If a person is unwilling, he is not born again.

Almost assuredly. Not quite (not nearly quite). You must be born from above.

Sliding the posts clear around the corner of the field to the sidelines.

The will is not remade against the will. The person must consent to being born again by repenting and receiving Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin; and then and only then will he be born again.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hello again JustByFaith, yes, you said as much before, but my question of how these things that you believe can in any way be seen or proven to be the case certainly remains.

Quite frankly, the systematic theology of Arminianism (or Free Will) is hardly dependent upon John 12:32's "all men" meaning "all men w/o exception". That, coupled with the historic fact that when Jews (such as the Lord Jesus and the Apostle John) spoke of "all men" or the "whole world", etc., in the Bible, they typically meant "not Jews only", IOW, Jews ~AND~ Greeks, the Jewish nation ~AND~ the Gentiles nations, ~not~ every individual who ever lived.

Perhaps it is best, then, to go with what can be clearly seen/is clearly provable and makes sense Biblically, that by "all men" in v32, Jesus was speaking in terms that a 1st Century Jew would best understand, IOW, that His crucifixion and the resulting Good News for us was meant for people from every nation, tribe and tongue, not for the people of Israel alone.

As far as Abram/Abraham goes, we are never told what his beliefs were in regard to God's "general revelation" (though we do know that he, in concert with his father, Terah, formerly made and worshiped household idols as gods), but we certainly know that he received PLENTY of AMAZING "special revelation", and that directly from God Himself, beginning in Genesis 12. That said, attempting to tie what we know of Abraham's newfound faith in the living God of the Bible to what we are specifically taught in John 12:32 about Jesus Christ and Him crucified/the Gospel is (again) simply conjecture on your part.

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

It is a matter of interpretation.

I think that while I may not be able to refute the Calvinistic interpretation with scripture, that neither can the Calvinist, with scripture, refute my interpretation.

So, the crux of the issue is whether or not you believe man is responsible for his decision to either receive or reject Christ (as I have posted about elsewhere).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

God doesn't regenerate a man against his will...He waits for the man to give God permission to change His will.

"... for the man to give God permission ..."

I'm just going to leave that there, for all to see.

Jesus is a gentleman. He stands at the door and knocks.

In that passage, to what does the door belong? The heart of an unbeliever? (Nope.)

That is incorrect. Every Calvinist will tell you that man has a choice in the matter, and that he always and only chooses sin, for which he is responsible—which is why he is facing condemnation!

So, his condemnation is based in merit (or the lack thereof).

His condemnation is based on demerit (i.e., his many sins).

In order for that to be true, man must be able to make a decision.

Man's decision is whether or not to believe in Christ. And he freely makes that decision—against Christ, not for him.

And he is held responsible for that decision.

If he cannot make a decision for Christ, then he has no choice but to reject Christ ...

He does have a choice. And he freely makes it.

And stands condemned for it (and his countless other sins).

Therefore, God is ultimately responsible for his decision to reject Christ.

I repeat: Define "responsible."

No. Those who are not being drawn are not being faced with a decision to either receive or reject Christ ...

On the Calvinist view, those who are not being drawn nevertheless hear the message of Christ (e.g., in a Facebook conversation) and decide against him.

On your view, there is no person who is not being drawn.

Your choice in the matter of what you believe about John 12:32 will result in your rejecting man's responsibility and accepting God's culpability in the condemnation of the sinner.

Except it doesn't, as I demonstrated to everyone—and you have failed to disprove.

That is incorrect. The reprobate are responsible for the decisions they make.

Not if they don't have a choice in the matter (if their non-elect status is predetermined rather than foreknown by the Lord).

According to Calvinism, the reprobate do have a choice, and they freely make that choice, and they are held responsible for that choice. If you continue to dispute this, then I will start quoting and citing Calvinist confessions of faith and catechisms, and even scholars and theologians, demonstrating that this is what Calvinism teaches.

I realize that it's terribly inconvenient for your argument, but that's a problem for you, not us. Your argument about "if they don't have a choice in the matter" is targeting a view that Calvinists don't hold or even recognize.

I hate to break this to you but I suspect you believe the same thing. Does God know who will reject him their entire life and create them anyway? Why would he do that, unless he is some sort of cosmic sadist?

Before the person is created, he can make no decisions.

Before God can know whether someone will receive or reject him, they have to be a concept in his mind at the very least.

Once they are a concept in his mind, he cannot help but create them because he is love and he wants them to have a chance at life.

This concept of them in God's mind, does it include the entirety of the life that they will live? Does God know, in this concept of them, that they will go to the grave rejecting him?

Or would you say God doesn't know that they'll go to the grave rejecting him until the moment of their death? What does his foreknowledge include?

If God is omniscient and his foreknowledge includes the entirety of their lives, then my statement stands: You likewise believe God creates people for the fires of hell. Yes, yes, he gives them a choice—and he knows how they will choose, and he creates them anyway.

Nevertheless, if you don't persevere to the end, you were never saved in the first place. And, therefore, how can anyone know that they are saved until they have reached the end of their llves and have persevered to the end?

It's not about knowing that I am saved, it's about knowing my Savior. My focus is on him and his faithfulness, not on me and my confidence. My assurance of salvation is rooted in the same surety as my security of salvation, namely, the faithfulness of Christ and the sure promises of God. By his grace, I cling to nothing else. Am I one of the elect? Who cares. That's not the point.

This is what one learns through the expository preaching one receives from a Calvinist pulpit (such as the late R. C. Sproul).

Since [the redeemed] could not be saved apart from the blood of Christ being shed for them, Christ is ultimately responsible for their salvation ...

On your view, did the death of Christ secure their salvation? No, it only made them savable. What has to happen for them to be saved? They must choose to receive him. Without that choice, they are doomed. That makes them "ultimately responsible" for their salvation, as I said. Christ is penultimately responsible, whereas the sinner is ultimately responsible.

Unless I misunderstood something about your view. If so, then please feel free to correct anything I said there, and carefully explain how it was incorrect.

 

[justbyfaith]

"... for the man to give God permission ..."

I'm just going to leave that there, for all to see.

So, are you inclined to say that God doesn't need permission to invade a person's life?

I would say that He does in fact have the right, as God, to violate a man's free will and do such a thing;

However, I believe in a God who does not violate man's free will.

btw, the problem of evil is solved in non-Calvinism by saying that angels and mankind made a choice to sin because of pride and that this is the origin of evil.

I do not see Calvinism having any explanation for the problem of evil except the idea that God is the author of it; while I know that certain writings of Calvinists deny that this is their belief.

Therefore they have no explanation whatsoever for the problem of evil

And therefore I find that the Calvinist is unable to obey the following scripture.

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:

In that passage, to what does the door belong? The heart of an unbeliever?

Yep.

His condemnation is based on demerit (i.e., his many sins).

It follows that the salvation of the elect is based on his personal merit.

Man's decision is whether or not to believe in Christ. And he freely makes that decision—against Christ, not for him.

And he is held responsible for that decision.

He does have a choice. And he freely makes it.

And stands condemned for it (and his countless other sins).

If he freely makes the choice to reject Christ, it follows that he had the option and ability to receive Christ.

Is that what you are saying is the case?

I repeat: Define "responsible."

accountable.

On the Calvinist view, those who are not being drawn nevertheless hear the message of Christ (e.g., in a Facebook conversation) and decide against him.

On your view, there is no person who is not being drawn.

Correct (sort of). And that is the plain, simple meaning of John 12:32 when you don't add your own interpretation.

I would say that there are those who are not being drawn in the present moment; however, there is no one who never will be drawn at some point in their lifetime.

Except it doesn't, as I demonstrated to everyone—

when and where did you do that? I must have missed it. Maybe you can provide a link to the post.

According to Calvinism, the reprobate do have a choice, and they freely make that choice, and they are held responsible for that choice. If you continue to dispute this, then I will start quoting and citing Calvinist confessions of faith and catechisms, and even scholars and theologians, demonstrating that this is what Calvinism teaches.

I realize that it's terribly inconvenient for your argument, but that's a problem for you, not us. Your argument about "if they don't have a choice in the matter" is targeting a view that Calvinists don't hold or even recognize.

So, you are saying that Calvinism teaches that the non-elect have a choice in the matter of whether or not they are saved; that is, that they have the possibility of making the choice to receive Christ.

Correct?

Why then would God not base His decision of making them of the elect or non-elect on the choice that they will make?

Simply because your theology denies it?

This concept of them in God's mind, does it include the entirety of the life that they will live? Does God know, in this concept of them, that they will go to the grave rejecting him?


Or would you say God doesn't know that they'll go to the grave rejecting him until the moment of their death? What does his foreknowledge include?

If God is omniscient and his foreknowledge includes the entirety of their lives, then my statement stands: You likewise believe God creates people for the fires of hell. Yes, yes, he gives them a choice—and he knows how they will choose, and he creates them anyway.

God looks down from eternity and sees the day of their death and whether or not they persevered to the end; and that is how He knows whether or not they would persevere to the end.

It's not about knowing that I am saved, it's about knowing my Savior. My focus is on him and his faithfulness, not on me and my confidence. My assurance of salvation is rooted in the same surety as my security of salvation, namely, the faithfulness of Christ and the sure promises of God. By his grace, I cling to nothing else. Am I one of the elect? Who cares. That's not the point.


This is what one learns through the expository preaching one receives from a Calvinist pulpit (such as the late R. C. Sproul).

Again I will say, that the true gospel is conducive to assurance of salvation (1 Thessalonians 1:5 (kjv)).

On your view, did the death of Christ secure their salvation? No, it only made them savable. What has to happen for them to be saved? They must choose to receive him. Without that choice, they are doomed. That makes them "ultimately responsible" for their salvation, as I said. Christ is penultimately responsible, whereas the sinner is ultimately responsible.

Yes; thank you for agreeing with me. But I don't think that your view here is in accordance with basic Calvinism.

Unless I misunderstood something about your view. If so, then please feel free to correct anything I said there, and carefully explain how it was incorrect.

I offer you the same courtesy. If I have misrepresented your point of view, please say how I have done so in your next post.

 

[justbyfaith]

Am I one of the elect? Who cares. That's not the point.

Why wouldn't you care whether or not you are of the elect?

Don't you fear God?

Also, I think that love requires that we care whether others are of the elect and that we do something about their non-elect status as nonbelievers (as that non-elect status can be changed to elect status the moment they receive Christ).

(for lack of better wording).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So, are you inclined to say that God doesn't need permission to invade a person's life? I would say that he does, in fact, have the right as God to violate a man's free will and do such a thing. However, I believe in a God who does not violate man's free will.

Yes. But then you're also inclined to say that God doesn't need permission to invade someone's life.

One difference between us is that you think God can but won't, that God refuses to work in people without their permission. Another difference is that I have biblical examples of my view, and you do not.

By the way, the problem of evil …

—is a related but separate topic.

(Side Comment: You said that you don't see Calvinism having any explanation for the problem of evil. First, that tells us something about you, not Calvinism. Second, I can recommend some reading material on that subject. Then you would see.)

In that passage, to what does the door belong? The heart of an unbeliever?

Yep.

Incorrect. It belongs to a church. "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write … Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking!" (Rev 3:14, 20; cf. 3:22; 1:4-6, 9, 11). He is standing at the door, so to speak, of a particular church, not at the heart of an unbeliever.

It follows that the salvation of the elect is based on his personal merit.

You are losing the plot. Allow me to recap:

1. First, I said Calvinists believe that "man has a choice in the matter, and that he always and only chooses sin, for which he is responsible—which is why he is facing condemnation!"

2. Then, in response to this, you replied, "So, his condemnation is based in merit (or the lack thereof)."

3. So, I attempted to correct that misperception by reiterating, "His condemnation is based on demerit (i.e., his many sins)."

Merit, worthy of praise. Demerit, worthy of condemnation.

To make it even more clear, we're talking about those who go to the grave rejecting Christ and the reason they face condemnation. We are not talking about the elect and their salvation.

(Side Comment: No, the salvation of the elect is not based on his personal merit. It is based on Christ's merit, which is to say his righteousness. The merit of the regenerate elect is not the ground of his salvation but the fruit thereof. God works in those he saves to produce fruit or merit that proves his salvation, good works which God prepared in advance for us to do.)

If he freely makes the choice to reject Christ, it follows that he had the option and ability to receive Christ. Is that what you are saying is the case?

Correct. Because the late Mitch Cervinka, a staunch Calvinist, explained it best, I will simply quote him (all emphases mine):

Another argument commonly raised in support of free will is that God cannot hold man responsible to do what is right if the man has no ability to do what is right. This argument likewise confuses free will with free agency. It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it!

The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.
​

Why, then, would God not base his decision of making them of the elect or non-elect on the choice that they will make?

Because there would be room for boasting if he did. Smith could point to something he did that Jones didn't do as the reason he is saved. "I'm elect because I did X, but you did not." By not conditioning election on anything man does, God ensured there would be no room for any boasting

Simply because your theology denies it?

Sort of. That which scripture denies my theology denies.

I repeat: Define "responsible."

Accountable.

To whom, sir? To whom is God accountable?

Correct (sort of). And that is the plain, simple meaning of John 12:32 when you don't add your own interpretation.

That Christ will draw to himself all people without distinction is a plain and simple meaning of the text. That he will draw to himself all people without exception is another plain and simple meaning of the text. Both are interpretations. One is exegetically defensible and consistent with the whole counsel of God, the other is not.

There is no one who never will be drawn at some point in their lifetime.

The would follow if your interpretation of John 12:32 is correct—and that word, "if," is doing A LOT of heavy lifting there.

I have also never seen you define, from scripture, what "draw" means. I hope you have, because that would be a glaring oversight.

When and where did you do that? I must have missed it. Maybe you can provide a link to the post.

This, from the guy who refuses to provide hyperlinked quotes to stuff that has been said, admits that he's too lazy to crawl through pages of threads to find it, but invites me to either do it for him or simply ignore his comments "since that is what you want to do anyway" (October 21, 2023). The irony here is absolutely thick.

Here, it's in this thread. Go find it.

God looks down from eternity and sees the day of their death and whether or not they persevered to the end; and that is how he knows whether or not they would persevere to the end.

So, God knew from all eternity that this person would go to the grave rejecting him, while that person would believe for a season but not persevere—and he created them anyway. He knew they would end up in hell, and he created them anyway. Like I said, "I hate to break this to you but I suspect you believe the same thing"—but for different reasons.

Again I will say, that the true gospel is conducive to assurance of salvation (1 Thessalonians 1:5, KJV).

Obviously, I agree. But what you are presenting is a man-centered gospel, which is not the true gospel. The entire thing centers around man instead of Christ, such that man is "ultimately responsible" for his salvation while Christ is "penultimately responsible." Your gospel has Christ playing second fiddle to man, God hoping man will choose him, even that God waits for man to give him permission.

As for 1 Thessalonians 1:5, you really need to include the preceding verse: "For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction" (cf. 1 Cor 2:4-5). The nature of their response was the evidence that God had chosen them (cf. Acts 16:14; Luke 24:45; John 8:47). God's choice first, man's response follows. That's Calvinistic.

Yes; thank you for agreeing with me. But I don't think that your view here is in accordance with basic Calvinism.

That is not my view. It is yours (as you admit). I said, "On your view, did the death of Christ secure their salvation? No, it only made them savable. What has to happen for them to be saved? They must choose to receive him. Without that choice, they are doomed. That makes them ‘ultimately responsible’ for their salvation, as I said. Christ is penultimately responsible, whereas the sinner is ultimately responsible."

On the Calvinist view, the death of Christ secured their salvation. He did not just make them savable, but actually and completely saves them. They choose him because they first were chosen.

I offer you the same courtesy. If I have misrepresented your point of view, please say how I have done so in your next post.

I do, each and every single time you mispresent what Calvinists believe (like me)—including this post, above.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Why wouldn't you care whether or not you are of the elect?

Because—as I said RIGHT THERE—that's not the point.

Don't you fear God?

Define "fear," as used here.

Also, I think that love requires that we care whether others are of the elect, and that we do something about their non-elect status ...

Since it is impossible for us to know who is elect and who is not, that cannot be what love requires. And if election is something that happened before the foundation of the world, there is nothing we can do about it. Election is an act of God, not man.

As a matter of fact, we can't even know who is saved and who is not—even on your view, where that can't be known until the person dies (at which point it's too late anyway).

Maybe take another crack at what you were trying to say there.

… (as that non-elect status can be changed to elect status the moment they receive Christ).

In your Bible, John 10:26 says, "You are not my sheep BECAUSE you do not believe"—which carries the implication that they can become his sheep by believing.

In every single other Bible in the world, it says the opposite: "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep"—which carries the implication that only his sheep become believers (cf. Acts 13:48).