The god of Calvinism's arbitrary decision.

[justbyfaith]

Calvinism did not invent a new gospel or a new soteriology. Calvin was Catholic. Calvin was Augustinian (so was Arminius).

Why, then, is Calvinsim by the name of Calvin?

 

[Josheb]

Does not Calvinism teach Unconditional Election?

Yes

Am I wrong to believe that this means that there is no condition other than God's will, in Calvinism, that results in salvation (and also damnation)?

Yes, you are wrong.

There are no condition of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinful flesh that merits salvation and God does not use anything of that flesh to decide who He saves.
God's will did not result in damnation for anyone. Thise is made explicitly clear in Article 3.1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) when it states God is not the author of sin and He has done no violence to the human will. Sin is what cause the damned to be damned, not God.
All have sinned and fall short of God's glory so when God looks at who He might save He is looking at only one group og people and ALL of them are dead in sin and destined to damnation unless He acts.
He saves some. He does not save all.
His decision to save a person is not based on the conditions of the ones being saved.

That's a more accurate understanding of Unconditional Election relative to your comment.

I have read Calvinistic authors...

I do not care what you have read. I cannot discuss anything with authors who are not here.

I have read Calvinistic authors who proclaim that God chose us and we do not choose Him; to the exclusion of the concept that God chose us on the basis of His foreknowledge of whether or not we will choose Him.

I would be one of those Calvinists but you most understand Calvinism is not monolithic. Some Calvinists are much more deterministic than others. Someone like A. W. Pink is going to sound much different than someone like R. C. Sproul. Diversity exists within Calvinism. Within that diversity we are all working with the same set of scriptures and reading them similarly. I recommend you read Calvin's commentaries and not his Institutes or other "Calvinistic authors." I also recommend you read the WCF with its larger catechism so you are familiar with the scriptures upon which it is based.

I, a fairly ardent Calvinist who used to be a vigorously Arminian do not agree with everything written in the WCF, butit's a good place for beginners who own a Bible to start.

In this understanding it seems to me that if I come to Jesus and am not one of His elect (i.e. He did not choose me), that He will cast me out as being of the non-elect.

Why would you come to Jesus if you're not one of his elect?


I believe you will find the problem lies in starting with yourself, or starting with your sinful self. Calvinism is monergistic. Augustinian soteriology, Lutheran soteriology (and others) are monergistic. I do not know whether you know the term and I do not mean to talk down to you but this is important. Pelagianism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism are synergistic. The monergists believe salvation is God's doing and the doing of God alone. Salvation is singular in its origin - it is mono in origin. The synergists believe there is a synergy between God and the still unregenerate sinner who has only his sinful flesh with which to think, believe, feel, and act.

So monergism will never be correctly understood by anyone who is starting with the human. Calvinism never starts with the human.

In this understanding it seems to me that if I come to Jesus and am not one of His elect (i.e. He did not choose me), that He will cast me out as being of the non-elect.

I do not know about "this understanding," because it is a deeply flawed understanding but what I can tell you is that Jesus said NO ONE comes to Jesus unless the Father draws that sinner to Jesus (Jn. 6:44) and the Greek word used in that verse is the term used for hauling a net out of water. It is active, not passive. So you cannot come to Jesus unless God dragged you to him.

Now, that being said, if you can provide me with an explicit statement in the Bible that explicitly states the still sinfully dead and enslaved sinful flesh is what caused the sinner to come to Jesus for salvation apart from his being drawn to Jesus like a net hauled out of water then we can discuss that.

Otherwise think of your question and its answer in light of what Jesus said. He was pretty deterministic and exclusive when he said "NO ONE" could come to him. He was standing in front of a large audience when he said it. He acknowledged there were those who seek him, but he noted they were not seeking him for salvation from sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

The reason is given besides that it is God's will. They are enemies of God. They rebel against God. They hate God. There is nothing in them worthy of God's mercy. Do you need more? —THEY will it.

The only way they can be held morally responsible for being an enemy of God is if they are given an opportunity to become friends of God.

The Bible teaches (John 12:32) that everyone is drawn to Christ at some point and given an opportunity to receive Christ.

If being drawn is the same as being given, that is Universalism (heresy).

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes

Yes, you are wrong.

There are no condition of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinful flesh that merits salvation and God does not use anything of that flesh to decide who He saves.
God's will did not result in damnation for anyone. Thise is made explicitly clear in Article 3.1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) when it states God is not the author of sin and He has done no violence to the human will. Sin is what cause the damned to be damned, not God.
All have sinned and fall short of God's glory so when God looks at who He might save He is looking at only one group og people and ALL of them are dead in sin and destined to damnation unless He acts.
He saves some. He does not save all.
His decision to save a person is not based on the conditions of the ones being saved.

That's a more accurate understanding of Unconditional Election relative to your comment.

I do not care what you have read. I cannot discuss anything with authors who are not here.

I would be one of those Calvinists but you most understand Calvinism is not monolithic. Some Calvinists are much more deterministic than others. Someone like A. W. Pink is going to sound much different than someone like R. C. Sproul. Diversity exists within Calvinism. Within that diversity we are all working with the same set of scriptures and reading them similarly. I recommend you read Calvin's commentaries and not his Institutes or other "Calvinistic authors." I also recommend you read the WCF with its larger catechism so you are familiar with the scriptures upon which it is based.

I, a fairly ardent Calvinist who used to be a vigorously Arminian do not agree with everything written in the WCF, butit's a good place for beginners who own a Bible to start.

Why would you come to Jesus if you're not one of his elect?


I believe you will find the problem lies in starting with yourself, or starting with your sinful self. Calvinism is monergistic. Augustinian soteriology, Lutheran soteriology (and others) are monergistic. I do not know whether you know the term and I do not mean to talk down to you but this is important. Pelagianism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism are synergistic. The monergists believe salvation is God's doing and the doing of God alone. Salvation is singular in its origin - it is mono in origin. The synergists believe there is a synergy between God and the still unregenerate sinner who has only his sinful flesh with which to think, believe, feel, and act.

So monergism will never be correctly understood by anyone who is starting with the human. Calvinism never starts with the human.

I do not know about "this understanding," because it is a deeply flawed understanding but what I can tell you is that Jesus said NO ONE comes to Jesus unless the Father draws that sinner to Jesus (Jn. 6:44) and the Greek word used in that verse is the term used for hauling a net out of water. It is active, not passive. So you cannot come to Jesus unless God dragged you to him.

Now, that being said, if you can provide me with an explicit statement in the Bible that explicitly states the still sinfully dead and enslaved sinful flesh is what caused the sinner to come to Jesus for salvation apart from his being drawn to Jesus like a net hauled out of water then we can discuss that.

Otherwise think of your question and its answer in light of what Jesus said. He was pretty deterministic and exclusive when he said "NO ONE" could come to him. He was standing in front of a large audience when he said it. He acknowledged there were those who seek him, but he noted they were not seeking him for salvation from sin.

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The above passage teaches us that there is something that we do in order to obtain salvation.

As far as I can see, Calvinism attempts to reject the concepts given in Romans 10:9-13 by saying the opposite of what is written above, that "if you are saved, you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God has raised Him from the dead" And that "whosoever is saved shall call upon the name of the Lord." and "salvation is unto confession with the mouth". Or, worse, that none of these things are required for salvation.

Not what the Bible teaches.

 

[Arial]

No, Calvinism teaches that we are saved by grace and faith comes afterward; contrary to Romans 5:2.

Anything God stoops down to do for us is grace. He owes us nothing. We owe Him everything. For in Him we live and move and have our being. That He saves any is grace. We can't earn it and we can't meet the requirements of salvation ourselves, which is perfect righteousness. We cannot even desire perfect righteousness. Regeneration comes by grace and with that regeneration we are given faith and the evidence is that we believe the gospel when we hear it. Calvinism has distinctions in the process but not separation because that is how it is demonstrated in the Bible. So again, you have the doctrine incorrect.

 

[justbyfaith]

Anything God stoops down to do for us is grace. He owes us nothing. We owe Him everything. For in Him we live and move and have our being. That He saves any is grace. We can't earn it and we can't meet the requirements of salvation ourselves, which is perfect righteousness. We cannot even desire perfect righteousness. Regeneration comes by grace and with that regeneration we are given faith and the evidence is that we believe the gospel when we hear it. Calvinism has distinctions in the process but not separation because that is how it is demonstrated in the Bible. So again, you have the doctrine incorrect.

The requirement for salvation is not perfect righteousness, it is faith. That is doable for the person who is being drawn to Christ. One can be drawn to Christ and yet not be given to Christ.

 

[Arial]

No, the Bible teaches that predestination is based in foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 2:2).

Foreknowledge is knowing them before, not knowing what they will do. 1 Peter is talking to those who already believe and are to grow in this salvation that they have.

So, if someone chooses Him, they are of the elect.

If someone believes Him and in Him according to who He says He is and what He did according to the scriptures. He is the second person of the triune God come as one of us to lay down His life that those who believe will live. He takes our sins away, nailing them to the cross and gives us His righteousness as though it were our own, while we await the fulness to come.

I believe that the Holy Spirit draws every man to Christ at some point in every man's life (John 12:32). When they are drawn, they are enabled to receive Christ. If or when they receive Christ, they are given to Christ. One can be drawn and not be given. Being drawn means that they are offered motivation to receive Christ.

Except that Eph 2 tells us it is a gift given, not one offered. And everything God sends His grace to do it does.

Later for the rest. I have things I need to do.

 

[Josheb]

Because if my salvation has nothing to do with my choice in the matter, then His choice is all that matters; and my choosing Him will not avail for me in procuring salvation.

Once again, I have to say that sentence is filled with premises that are completely alien to Calvinism.

It my help if you think of this discussion as a discussion about conversion and not the whole of salvation. There is a single moment in which a person is brought from death to life. Conversion. Having been brought from death to life that person is saved from sin but they are also many other things. They are regenerate, justified, sanctified, inheritors, elect, indwelt, etc. There's a bunch of stuff that goes into salvation. It does not help that scripture speaks of our having been saved (past tense), our being saved (present-tense ongoing), and we will be saved (future tense).

Simply put conversion from life to death take a moment but salvation is a process that takes a lifetime and is not completed until you and I are resurrected incorruptible and immortal into eternal life.

Calvinism does not teach conversation (or salvation) is coerced. The synergistic idea I have no choice and my salvation is coerced; it is done TO me without regard to what I want is something completely unnecessary in Calvinist soteriology. To us that entire paradigm is sheer unadulterated foolishness.

Take, for example, the analogy of an unconscious man found washed up on a beach on the verge of death, knowing he will die if nothing is done to revive him. You or I may shake the person and call out to them, "Sinner! Sinner! Do you want my help? Do you want my help?" We could drag that guy all up and down the beach and yell at him in a 100 different languages up close to his ear or far away with a bullhorn and it would not make any difference when it comes to the unconscious man's will because his will is not operational while he is unconscious. The decision to save that unconscious man is entirely yours or mine. Do we save the man because he is black, white, stripe, polka-dotted, Zimbabwean or Low Slobovian? Is our decision to act based at all on faculties of this unconscious man? No! We do not even know the guy! Our decision is made based on us, not him. If we do not know CPR then the entire question is moot. That guy is gonna die. The question is relevant only if you or I possess the ability to revive the man. The man can do nothing to express his want for resuscitation or not. So we decide to revive the man because we choose to do so. We did not cause his current state and he cannot tell me what he wants; his will is irrelevant.

Sin kills.

Now, once you or I have revived the man then he is suddenly able to think rightly, choose rightly (or not), and act in a manner consistent with his revival. Not knowing how long that man was unconscious you and/or I may exhort the man to go to the hospital, we offer to drive him there and pay for his medical bills and only now can he choose to go or refuse our aid.


The analogy is imperfect because God is not you or me and God would know everything about the unconscious man, etc., etc. The analogy is useful because it illustrates the problem with thinking the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will is relevant. Even if the dead slaves will was working it would be a will solely of the dead and enslaved flesh. The question then becomes.....

Is the sinfully dead and enslaved still-unregenerate flesh of any value to God?

Calvinists say, "No!" Most Arminians do, too. Many Arminians do not know their Arminianism well. They do not know that Arminius was an adherent of what we now call "Total Depravity." A Reformed Arminian would also agree with my analogy of the unconscious drowning victim. He shouldn't have fooled around in the water and in that state of sin he cannot do anything God would consider salvifically good. I'm gonna link you to Arminius' Disputation 11 and ask you to read Article 7 so you know what I just wrote is correct. The reason I am telling you this is because if you are not an adherent to Total Depravity then you are neither Calvinist or Arminian (or Wesleyan).

Your only remaining options are Pelagiansim, Traditionalism (which is semi-pelagian), or the view held by the Orthodox Church that views sin more like an illness to be cured rather than something lethal.

 

[justbyfaith]

Foreknowledge is knowing them before, not knowing what they will do. 1 Peter is talking to those who already believe and are to grow in this salvation that they have.

But He knows them because of what they will do (Romans 10:9-13)

If someone believes Him and in Him according to who He says He is and what He did according to the scriptures. He is the second person of the triune God come as one of us to lay down His life that those who believe will live. He takes our sins away, nailing them to the cross and gives us His righteousness as though it were our own, while we await the fulness to come.

In Calvinism, we are saved and then God gives us faith. That is not the testimony of holy scripture.

Except that Eph 2 tells us it is a gift given, not one offered. And everything God sends His grace to do it does.

It is given to those who have received it; it is offered to those who have not.

In Romans 5:18, is it the free gift or the offer of the free gift? If it is not an offer, that verse teaches Universalism (heresy).

 

[makesends]

So, Calvinism is the gospel which saves.

For some 1400 years of church history, no one was saved according to that idea.

The mocking of what you don't understand, and the further distorting of @Bob Carabbio 's distortions, comes across as disingenuous. Calvinism makes no claim to be something new, but only to straighten up the thinking that has migrated from God's causation to self-determination.

 

[justbyfaith]

Once again, I have to say that sentence is filled with premises that are completely alien to Calvinism.

It my help if you think of this discussion as a discussion about conversion and not the whole of salvation. There is a single moment in which a person is brought from death to life. Conversion. Having been brought from death to life that person is saved from sin but they are also many other things. They are regenerate, justified, sanctified, inheritors, elect, indwelt, etc. There's a bunch of stuff that goes into salvation. It does not help that scripture speaks of our having been saved (past tense), our being saved (present-tense ongoing), and we will be saved (future tense).

Simply put conversion from life to death take a moment but salvation is a process that takes a lifetime and is not completed until you and I are resurrected incorruptible and immortal into eternal life.

Calvinism does not teach conversation (or salvation) is coerced. The synergistic idea I have no choice and my salvation is coerced; it is done TO me without regard to what I want is something completely unnecessary in Calvinist soteriology. To us that entire paradigm is sheer unadulterated foolishness.

Take, for example, the analogy of an unconscious man found washed up on a beach on the verge of death, knowing he will die if nothing is done to revive him. You or I may shake the person and call out to them, "Sinner! Sinner! Do you want my help? Do you want my help?" We could drag that guy all up and down the beach and yell at him in a 100 different languages up close to his ear or far away with a bullhorn and it would not make any difference when it comes to the unconscious man's will because his will is not operational while he is unconscious. The decision to save that unconscious man is entirely yours or mine. Do we save the man because he is black, white, stripe, polka-dotted, Zimbabwean or Low Slobovian? Is our decision to act based at all on faculties of this unconscious man? No! We do not even know the guy! Our decision is made based on us, not him. If we do not know CPR then the entire question is moot. That guy is gonna die. The question is relevant only if you or I possess the ability to revive the man. The man can do nothing to express his want for resuscitation or not. So we decide to revive the man because we choose to do so. We did not cause his current state and he cannot tell me what he wants; his will is irrelevant.

Sin kills.

Now, once you or I have revived the man then he is suddenly able to think rightly, choose rightly (or not), and act in a manner consistent with his revival. Not knowing how long that man was unconscious you and/or I may exhort the man to go to the hospital, we offer to drive him there and pay for his medical bills and only now can he choose to go or refuse our aid.


The analogy is imperfect because God is not you or me and God would know everything about the unconscious man, etc., etc. The analogy is useful because it illustrates the problem with thinking the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will is relevant. Even if the dead slaves will was working it would be a will solely of the dead and enslaved flesh. The question then becomes.....

Is the sinfully dead and enslaved still-unregenerate flesh of any value to God?

Calvinists say, "No!" Most Arminians do, too. Many Arminians do not know their Arminianism well. They do not know that Arminius was an adherent of what we now call "Total Depravity." A Reformed Arminian would also agree with my analogy of the unconscious drowning victim. He shouldn't have fooled around in the water and in that state of sin he cannot do anything God would consider salvifically good. I'm gonna link you to Arminius' Disputation 11 and ask you to read Article 7 so you know what I just wrote is correct. The reason I am telling you this is because if you are not an adherent to Total Depravity then you are neither Calvinist or Arminian (or Wesleyan).

Your only remaining options are Pelagiansim, Traditionalism (which is semi-pelagian), or the view held by the Orthodox Church that views sin more like an illness to be cured rather than something lethal.

My belief is not that the person is dead to the point of not being able to be revived; but that the person is dead in sleep.

When the Holy Spirit convicts and draws a man to Christ, it is like an alarm going off.

It will wake the sinner up, at least to the extent that he is able to either wake up completely or else hit the snooze button and go back to sleep.

Being drawn to Christ does not necessarily mean being given to Christ. Being drawn enables a person to receive Christ; and if they receive Christ, then they are given to Christ. Being drawn does not guarantee being given.

I bring to you again, Romans 10:9-13. You have to twist the passage in order to adequately come out of reading it with any Calvinistic concepts still in your thinking.

 

[justbyfaith]

The mocking of what you don't understand, and the further distorting of @Bob Carabbio 's distortions, comes across as disingenuous. Calvinism makes no claim to be something new, but only to straighten up the thinking that has migrated from God's causation to self-determination.

So, why was Calvinism not preached before Calvin came up with the doctrine? Because if it had been preached, it would not have been identified by that name. It is named after Calvin.

 

[Josheb]

However, John 6:37 tells me that if I come to Him He will in no wise cast me out.

And John 6:44 states you won't come to him unless God brought you to him. It's not a good thing to make one verse define all others. It's not a good thing to pit one verse against another. It's not a good thing to use scripture selectively, and it is not a good thing to read scripture only inferentially.

If the entire larger passage is read some of it will conflict with other parts but it doesn't contradict itself. It can all be understood to speak with one voice to one effect even despite its seeming contradictions.

Therefore if I come to Him, there can be no presupposed rejection of me based on my being of the non-elect.

It cannot be presupposed you came of your own sinfully dead and enslaved will, either. You get rid of your presupposition and I will get rid of mine. Fair enough?

Which indicates that my choice in the matter does have a relevance to my salvation.

I addressed that in a previous post.

Now, you may be a Calvinist who does not believe what many Calvinists believe about free will not being a factor in salvation.

Do you have an eReader? Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" can be downloaded for free (or maybe 99 cents). There are scores of occasions when Calvin discusses free will. Calvin never denied the existence of free will. Calvin NEVER denied the agency of human volition in salvation. He simply believe we make choices upon our condition. The sinfully deadly and enslaving condition of sin leads to sinful choices. The regenerate condition leads to regenerate choices. If you do go read the WCF you will find it states the following,

"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."​

Take that apart.

• God ordained all things from eternity.
• God is not the author of sin.
• What God ordained did no violence to the creature's will.
• What God ordained did no violence to the liberty or contingencies of secondary causes.

In other words, Calvinism affirms God as the causal ordaining agent. Calvinism affirms the existence of sin but denies God as its cause. Calvinism affirms the existence of the human will and states God's ordaining has done it no violence. Calvinism affirms the existence of secondary causes and their contingencies.


So when people tell you free will does not exist in Calvinism they are either ignorant, lying, or mentally ill. The sad thing is sometimes even Calvinists get it incorrect.

You have made it clear that you do not personally, as a Calvinist, believe the things in Calvinism that I have attempted to refute.

I had a recent conversation with a fellow ardent Calvinist in this forum in which we had a significant dispute on the very topic of human volitional agency prior to and subsequent to conversion. To his credit, he went and did some research and unknown to me and without any influence on my part posted an entire opening post surveying noted Calvinist theologians articulating the position I had endeavored to prove.

My Calvinist peers here and in other forums do not always agree and we defend our views vigorously. Some of them may even take issue with some of the things I've posted to you. You are going to have to sort through Cal GuyA's posts and Cal Guy B's posts, and Cal Guy's C's posts to decide for yourself in ANY of it is correct.

I will tell you to measure everything by whole scripture. Not selectively picked and eisegetically inferred interpretations of scripture but whole scripture read as much as possible exactly as it is written and examined exegetically, not eisegetically. I also tell you to go to Calvin and the authoritative documents within Calvinism because Cal Guy A and Cal Guy B may have a long list of letters after their name and still disagree.

Therefore I suggest that you leave the arguing up to those Calvinists who do believe what I am trying to refute....

ROTFLMBO!


Okay


This op is messed up. It's filled with factual errors and logical fallacies. I've endeavored to help and hope my blunt style did not seem adversarial. Do with it as you like.

 

[makesends]

So, why was Calvinism not preached before Calvin came up with the doctrine? Because if it had been preached, it would not have been identified by that name. It is named after Calvin.

I'm sorry, but that sounds pretty ignorant. Do you know what was going on in the established church (the RCC) before Luther and Calvin? Do you know what they taught? Do you know about the differences between the established church's and the Scripture's doctrines and disciplines? You may not be aware of this, but much of what you do believe comes from Luther and Calvin's (and others) influences —that are contrary to the RCC of the time.

What Calvinism and Reformed Theology posit have been things Scripture has taught from the time Scripture was written. Of course it was not called Calvinism! So what?

 

[Josheb]

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The above passage teaches us that there is something that we do in order to obtain salvation.

As far as I can see, Calvinism attempts to reject the concepts given in Romans 10:9-13 by saying the opposite of what is written above, that "if you are saved, you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God has raised Him from the dead" And that "whosoever is saved shall call upon the name of the Lord." and "salvation is unto confession with the mouth". Or, worse, that none of these things are required for salvation.

Not what the Bible teaches.

Who is the "thou" in Romans 10:9?

You are just doing more of the same failure to correctly identify the audience or group reference. The book of Romans was not written to un the unregenerate nonbeliever who has only his sinful dead and enslaved sinful flesh. Most of the book of Romans was not written about the unregenerate nonbelievers who has only the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.

Stop taking passage written to and about the regenerate believers and applying them to unregenerate nonbelievers.

 

[makesends]

@justbyfaith

• What God ordained did no violence to the creature's will.
• What God ordained did no violence to the liberty or contingencies of secondary causes.

And further, "but rather establishes them".

Apart from him we can do nothing. Not even exist.

The creature's will and the liberty or contingencies of secondary causes are ESTABLISHED by God's ordaining.

 

[makesends]

The only way they can be held morally responsible for being an enemy of God is if they are given an opportunity to become friends of God.

This is amazing. Are you suggesting that according to Calvinism they are not given an opportunity to become friends of God? The only way I see that can be misconstrued as true has nothing to do with Calvinism, but with the spread of the Gospel.

At every opportunity, every human rejects Christ, (even those who in a moment's passion thought they had accepted Christ, only later to have it revealed that they are fickle and still at enmity with God), —every human rejects Christ until the Spirit of God changes them from death to life, giving them faith in Christ.

The Bible teaches (John 12:32) that everyone is drawn to Christ at some point and given an opportunity to receive Christ.

And....? Does Calvinism say different?

If being drawn is the same as being given, that is Universalism (heresy).

I don't understand the statement. Can you elucidate? What do you mean by, If "being drawn is the same as being given..." ? and how is that Universalism?

 

[justbyfaith]

And John 6:44 states you won't come to him unless God brought you to him. It's not a good thing to make one verse define all others. It's not a good thing to pit one verse against another. It's not a good thing to use scripture selectively, and it is not a good thing to read scripture only inferentially.

If the entire larger passage is read some of it will conflict with other parts but it doesn't contradict itself. It can all be understood to speak with one voice to one effect even despite its seeming contradictions.

It cannot be presupposed you came of your own sinfully dead and enslaved will, either. You get rid of your presupposition and I will get rid of mine. Fair enough?

And John 12:32 tells us that God draws everyone to Christ; while John 6:44 tells us that no one can come to Christ unless they are drawn to Him.

Then, those who are given to Christ shall come to Christ (John 6:37); and these are those who come to Christ, not necessarily all who are drawn to Christ.

If all those who are drawn are also given, then the teaching is Universalism (heresy)...John 12:32..

I don't think that I am pitting any scripture against any other scripture. I understand the scriptures in question in perfect harmony. I do believe that scripture interprets scripture in the teaching of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 2:13).

 

[justbyfaith]

I'm sorry, but that sounds pretty ignorant. Do you know what was going on in the established church (the RCC) before Luther and Calvin? Do you know what they taught? Do you know about the differences between the established church's and the Scripture's doctrines and disciplines? You may not be aware of this, but much of what you do believe comes from Luther and Calvin's (and others) influences —that are contrary to the RCC of the time.

What Calvinism and Reformed Theology posit have been things Scripture has taught from the time Scripture was written. Of course it was not called Calvinism! So what?

I disagree that Calvinism teaches what scripture teaches. I believe that Calvinism is a distortion of what is taught by holy scripture; effectively another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

 

[justbyfaith]

Who is the "thou" in Romans 10:9?

You are just doing more of the same failure to correctly identify the audience or group reference. The book of Romans was not written to un the unregenerate nonbeliever who has only his sinful dead and enslaved sinful flesh. Most of the book of Romans was not written about the unregenerate nonbelievers who has only the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.

Stop taking passage written to and about the regenerate believers and applying them to unregenerate nonbelievers.

So, you interpret it as "if you are saved, you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe that God rose Him from the dead".

I'm sorry, but that scripture doesn't put it in that order.