Why do Calvinists debate?

[Dave_Regenerated]

Sadly some fall away. I know that reformed theology portrays those as ones who were never saved in the first place, but the bible does not say that. That is a theologian addition to scripture. All we know is that some leave the faith. So faith has been left and if one falls away, they must fall away from something and they must have been elevated by it to fall.

Salvation is of the Lord. It is his free gift and by definition one may refuse a gift. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they would not accept it

How do people send their souls to hell when they can't even send their souls to the local mall?

 

[makesends]

Yes, they do, in so many words. To change one's will, or flood them with a grace that cannot be resisted or withhold that Grace which could save. That is manipulation, Manipulation is the practice of using indirect tactics to control others' emotions, behaviors, and relationships. It is the revelation of the love of God towards us that attracts us to Him.

Jer 31:3
"The Lord has appeared of old to me, [as in the past] saying: ‘yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness [unfailing love] I have drawn you.’"

The transformation from death to life is not manipulation. It is birth.

 

[Arial]

That makes no difference in whether or not they were manipulated. Are you suggesting that God made the soils differently? Each one was given the same seed, the same rain, etc. The Parable was not about God creating bad soil and then withholding his irresistible grace from it. It was about the condition of different hearts that influenced the choices that they made.

Will hell be made up of individuals who are put there not by their own informed choice?

Does God in the natural world make soils differently? Which is why in an agricultural society the parable was apt and should have been clear. Obviously it still isn't clear to many even after Jesus explained it to His disciples for us to read. The reason it is the same seed is because there is only one seed that relates to the kingdom of heaven and that is Christ and Him crucified.

I did not say the parable was about God creating bad soil and then withholding his saving grace from it. That is what you claim I said, but you do not understand what I said. Sound familiar? It is indeed about the condition of the hearts of the hearers, as I have indicated often. Not the will, but the heart. All heats are at enmity with God (total depravity). All hearts stay that way unless God plants it in good soil, a heart that is not at enmity with Him. And the only way a heart is not at enmity with Him is if He changes that heart. Not offer it the opportunity to change itself, for then it would not actually be changed would it? That parable is not even discussing saving grace and it is nowhere mentioned in the parable. Why do you stick it in there? It is about the kingdom of heaven and how it grows. As are the parables that follow, Parable of the weeds, parable of the mustard seed and leaven, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great value, parable of the net, new and old treasure.

They are informed. Romans 1:18-28;2;3. And the gospel goes round the world proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to God, and it lands on all hearts, and those that believe it have hearts made new---good soil.

 

[makesends]

I take it at face value unless it is an obviously hyperbole or a metaphor. It is too easy for me to make it say what I want it to say. If Jesus was the light of this world, then he lit it up completely. If He took away the sins of the world, then He took all of them. I find no place where it in invalidated.

Your point has weight but only if one doesn't examine it according to other scriptures on the same subject and empirical evidence. THe only way to look at the evidence and still agree with that view is to take the results out of God's hands and place them into the hands of man. But no matter how one looks at it, the plain statement that He took away the sins of the world, and apply that to mean all people without exception, is to say mostly He died in vain, those who do not choose Him pay for their own sins in hell, even though He actually took their punishment already. No amount of spin will change that.

@Mercy_Shown is assuming, I think, the mistaken notion that God sees all people the same, loves all equally, has equal hopes and plans concerning all. But, God is that much 'above' us that he is just to give to some and not to all, in whatever degree he sees fit, for his own purposes —even when it is not done for their good. WE are not the reason he created the universe and this 'temporal envelope' —HE is the reason. So, if it is valid to say, "he lit it up completely", it does not mean, "he lit it up evenly". When he took away the sins of the world, even if the eisegetical notion is accurate that it means 'everyone's sins', it is not necessary to assume that everyone's sins were taken away from them, but rather, that maybe they too are taken away with their sins. Do you see the universe breathing a huge sigh of relief after Christ died and was resurrected?

There is practically no end of mistakes to make from assuming God loves everyone equally in the same way, and does not have different purposes for each person.

 

[Arial]

Really? Who said so? Certainly, you must consider Hebrews 6:4-6

Who said what? The scriptures I quoted from 1 Cor? That would be Paul speaking the truth of God. And you left completely unaddressed, and did not even take into consideration in the rest of your post.

Or the ones I quoted from Eph? That would also be Paul. Are you saying he said something otherwise and your proof of that is Heb 6:4-6? Those passages have already long ago been addressed by me, and my interpretation of them never addressed or refuted (which means more than just disagreeing with it or repeating it. It means to doctrinally prove through exegesis and the whole counsel of God on the subject of whether or not one whom God has saved can fall away.)

Why do you equate quickening to complete salvation?

But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Because the Bible says so.

Of course not. He intends that everyone should have a free choice to be saved or lost. He does not intend that hell should be filled with suffering souls He created who never had a chance.

Who are you o man to talk back to God and tell Him what He intends, or to define that intention according to your own understanding?

I am going to break this post up. More to come.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Does God in the natural world make soils differently?

Soils in the natural world reflect the environment from which they are derived and are suitable for the set of plants that inhabit that region.

Which is why in an agricultural society the parable was apt and should have been clear. Obviously it still isn't clear to many even after Jesus explained it to His disciples for us to read. The reason it is the same seed is because there is only one seed that relates to the kingdom of heaven and that is Christ and Him crucified.

Which was for the sins of the whole world. All soils.

I did not say the parable was about God creating bad soil and then withholding his saving grace from it.

No, but the implication is impossible to avoid.

That is what you claim I said,

No, it is the implication of the doctrine no matter who recites it.

but you do not understand what I said.

I understand what you said, but its implication is what captures my attention. If someone says to me, "Good news, your garage didn't burn down" They have my attention but not on what they said, it is on what they didn't say.

Sound familiar? It is indeed about the condition of the hearts of the hearers, as I have indicated often. Not the will, but the heart. All heats are at enmity with God (total depravity). All hearts stay that way unless God plants it in good soil, a heart that is not at enmity with Him.

I do not see that being the good soil. The good soil was the common sinners who had no hope and knew they had no hope. It is the "low-life" from whom He selected His disciples and spent His time with.

And the only way a heart is not at enmity with Him is if He changes that heart. Not offer it the opportunity to change itself,

A heart cannot change itself nor can a person change themselves. We must allow Christ to do that. If we resist Christ we will never become changed but if we submit to Christ we will.

for then it would not actually be changed would it? That parable is not even discussing saving grace and it is nowhere mentioned in the parable. Why do you stick it in there? It is about the kingdom of heaven and how it grows. As are the parables that follow, Parable of the weeds, parable of the mustard seed and leaven, the hidden treasure, the pearl of great value, parable of the net, new and old treasure.

It is the grace of Christ that makes it Grow.

They are informed. Romans 1:18-28;2;3. And the gospel goes round the world proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to God, and it lands on all hearts, and those that believe it have hearts made new---good soil.

Those who believe it will be renewed. Paul tells the Roman Church in Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what. I am assuming these hearers already believed in Christ.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Who said what? The scriptures I quoted from 1 Cor? That would be Paul speaking the truth of God. And you left completely unaddressed, and did not even take into consideration in the rest of your post.

I was responding to your statement which reads, "No one who is quickened to spiritual life refuses to believe the good news. They hear it, understand it, believe it." The Bible has many examples of those falling away.

Or the ones I quoted from Eph? That would also be Paul. Are you saying he said something otherwise and your proof of that is Heb 6:4-6? Those passages have already long ago been addressed by me, and my interpretation of them never addressed or refuted (which means more than just disagreeing with it or repeating it. It means to doctrinally prove through exegesis and the whole counsel of God on the subject of whether or not one whom God has saved can fall away.)


But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Because the Bible says so.

Who are you o man to talk back to God and tell Him what He intends, or to define that intention according to your own understanding?

I am going to break this post up. More to come.

It is your perception that makes you say things like this. But in my experience when we are sure we speak for God we view those who disagree with us as disagreeing with God. Calvin himself fell into this trap. There are just as many people who would throw the same stone at you that you are now throwing.

This is a discussion and not a condemnation. We are saved by believing in Jesus Christ period. The rest is conjecture. People can coral as many texts as they want to support their side and rationalize away the rest. But the bottom line is none of this affects salvation.

 

[makesends]

To change someone's will is a use of force. "Why would God say, come, let us reason together?" Why all of this sin and suffering if God is going to change people's will without their consent? God does change the heart if we submit to Him. But he will never force us.

Is it a use of force for God to bring someone to hate the sin they use to love?

But your continuing use of axioms that are not in Scripture is puzzling. Who said he will never force us? If your definition of Force is the changing of one's inclinations, then get used to it, because, as @Arial rightly put it, he changes the heart, which changes the will, and so the inclinations of the heart. And he has every right and every reason to do so. We are not yet what we will be.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

@Mercy_Shown is assuming, I think, the mistaken notion that God sees all people the same, loves all equally, has equal hopes and plans concerning all. But, God is that much 'above' us that he is just to give to some and not to all, in whatever degree he sees fit, for his own purposes —even when it is

Probably assumptions are the biggest failing of debate forums. This is true especially when we respond to our assumptions rather than to what is being said. God, is the beginning and then the end, He has seen all time and observed all conclusions. He knew all the decisions of mankind before he laid the first rib in Adam's body.

not done for their good. WE are not the reason he created the universe and this 'temporal envelope' —HE is the reason. So, if it is valid to say, "he lit it up completely", it does not mean, "he lit it up evenly".

Now are we going to assume what God did? Are we going to tweak the words of scriptures that say, "Every man" because we assume it did not mean that?

When he took away the sins of the world, even if the eisegetical notion is accurate that it means 'everyone's sins', it is not necessary to assume that everyone's sins were taken away from them, but rather, that maybe they too are taken away with their sins. Do you see the universe breathing a huge sigh of relief after Christ died and was resurrected?

Why is it not necessary to believe the words written? Has exegesis become our eraser to correct the scriptures?

There is practically no end of mistakes to make from assuming God loves everyone equally in the same way, and does not have different purposes for each person.

What mistakes are overlooked when one assumes what and how God loves. Have we changed the scriptures from God so loved the world... to For God sorta' loved the world...

Once we assume the office of bible editor we are in a pretty precarious position, wouldn't you say?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Is it a use of force for God to bring someone to hate the sin they use to love?

Yes, if He does it without their consent or knowledge.

But your continuing use of axioms that are not in Scripture is puzzling. Who said he will never force us?

To choose or reject him.

If your definition of Force is the changing of one's inclinations, then get used to it, because, as @Arial rightly put it, he changes the heart, which changes the will, and so the inclinations of the heart. And he has every right and every reason to do so. We are not yet what we will be.

He does so because we submit to Him by choice.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The transformation from death to life is not manipulation. It is birth.

To live, to grow, to remain in the family is a choice that all people have after they are born.

 

[Arial]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Since you won't do the exegesis of these scriptures taking into consideration the whole counsel of God on the subject, I will do it for you.
Who is Peter writing to? The beloved. Why is he saying what he is saying? To "stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should rememer the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers---"
Read the rest for yourself, verses 3-7 if you think it is important, and it is important to figuring out what verse 9 is and is not saying. But it is speaking of the coming judgement of the ungodly. In verses 8-10 Peter is warning them to not become complacent in their faith as they wait for His return. It is in verse 9 that he says, The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that an should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Who are the you and by extension the all?

Considering that in the next sentence he says, "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God--"

If we take into account the many other scriptures that tell us God always accomplishes what He intends to accomplish, that He elects, chooses, predestines, calls, glorifies, conforms to the image of Christ. Those stating that He gives specific people to Christ and those are the ones Christ redeems on the cross, how can one single scripture mean something different than that. And I have given you many of those scriptures, exegeted them, they were never addressed in a way of refuting them by the same method, and will be again, I will not go through the so as to shorten the post. We now have the internet so the tediousness of checking all of the scriptures on any given topic are right at our fingertips so we can examine them in their context. But even with all the heavy labor taken out of the process because those of long ago have done it, people still feel no obligation to go to all the labor of typing a few words and pushing buttons. But that too is our duty if we desire truth and desire to grow in our knowledge and understanding of those things God has given us.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

How do people send their souls to hell when they can't even send their souls to the local mall?

They don't, apparently, God transports them to the mall and makes them like it.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Hi thanks
It does say that some tasted of the grace but they did not do the will of the Father .Having no power of thier own .Unlike those yoked with him .
Philippians 2: 13-14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

This is one of the reasons I believe that spiritual life is brought to us so that we can taste of grace and then make a decision as to whether to yolk with Christ or disengage and fall back into darkness. Judas was one of the chosen 12 but He never yolked with Christ. Jesus knew He wouldn't but chose him anyway to be the betrayer. I do not believe that Jesus made him the betrayer but He chose Him for it because He knew what was in him and what He would choose to do.

 

[Arial]

1 Timothy 2:4
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Of course that is not even the complete sentence that Paul wrote, let alone a stand alone doctrine. So what is the rest of the sentence? And what did he say before that sentence?

Verses 1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplication, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. For this is good, and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. So which is more likely? That he means all types of people since he mentioned types of people we are to pray for? And in the following verses why we should pray for them. And given that we know by God's own words that His purpose of will is never thwarted?

Or that he means every individual in the world without exception and He has made a way in which His will can be thwarted, and that by the will of man? Also consider that in order to be making it mean that, one has to break up a sentence and remove a portion of that sentence from all its surrounding context and from the whole counsel of God. Why would anyone want to do that or think it was valid? And where in either one of those scriptures you used is there even a suggestion of choosing, deciding, that there is a caveat to salvation (a work in fact), or that it is even dealing with the subject of believing?

Ezekiel 18:32
For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”

Apply scriptures in the way that they are used and in the place that they are used, and to whom they are said. That was said referring to the old covenant with Israel, a covenant of works, in which the works were clearly outlined, and the blessings and cursings attached to it. There is zero application to coming to Christ in that proof text.

But the fact that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked does not mean disobedience will not result in justice. It simply means it does not give Him pleasure.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Since you won't do the exegesis of these scriptures taking into consideration the whole counsel of God on the subject, I will do it for you.
Who is Peter writing to? The beloved. Why is he saying what he is saying? To "stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should rememer the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers---"
Read the rest for yourself, verses 3-7 if you think it is important, and it is important to figuring out what verse 9 is and is not saying. But it is speaking of the coming judgement of the ungodly. In verses 8-10 Peter is warning them to not become complacent in their faith as they wait for His return. It is in verse 9 that he says, The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that an should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Who are the you and by extension the all?

Considering that in the next sentence he says, "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God--"

If we take into account the many other scriptures that tell us God always accomplishes what He intends to accomplish, that He elects, chooses, predestines, calls, glorifies, conforms to the image of Christ. Those stating that He gives specific people to Christ and those are the ones Christ redeems on the cross, how can one single scripture mean something different than that. And I have given you many of those scriptures, exegeted them, they were never addressed in a way of refuting them by the same method, and will be again, I will not go through the so as to shorten the post. We now have the internet so the tediousness of checking all of the scriptures on any given topic are right at our fingertips so we can examine them in their context. But even with all the heavy labor taken out of the process because those of long ago have done it, people still feel no obligation to go to all the labor of typing a few words and pushing buttons. But that too is our duty if we desire truth and desire to grow in our knowledge and understanding of those things God has given us.

This sounds like a way to make scriptures say what we want them to say. If they all referred to the church, then why would God be wishing? He has already chosen and rejected those set for bliss and those for fire. Peter should also have known better. Furthermore, why would Peter warn his readers to be careful of falling away if they were chosen from the foundation of the world?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Of course that is not even the complete sentence that Paul wrote, let alone a stand alone doctrine. So what is the rest of the sentence? And what did he say before that sentence?

Verses 1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplication, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. For this is good, and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. So which is more likely? That he means all types of people since he mentioned types of people we are to pray for? And in the following verses why we should pray for them. And given that we know by God's own words that His purpose of will is never thwarted?

Or that he means every individual in the world without exception and He has made a way in which His will can be thwarted, and that by the will of man? Also consider that in order to be making it mean that, one has to break up a sentence and remove a portion of that sentence from all its surrounding context and from the whole counsel of God. Why would anyone want to do that or think it was valid? And where in either one of those scriptures you used is there even a suggestion of choosing, deciding, that there is a caveat to salvation (a work in fact), or that it is even dealing with the subject of believing?

Apply scriptures in the way that they are used and in the place that they are used, and to whom they are said. That was said referring to the old covenant with Israel, a covenant of works, in which the works were clearly outlined, and the blessings and cursings attached to it. There is zero application to coming to Christ in that proof text.

But the fact that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked does not mean disobedience will not result in justice. It simply means it does not give Him pleasure.

So then there was a different standard from the God who changes not? We do not have to turn to God anymore. There is no call to repentance. We will not likewise perish even if we do not repent?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Of course that is not even the complete sentence that Paul wrote, let alone a stand alone doctrine. So what is the rest of the sentence? And what did he say before that sentence?

Verses 1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplication, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. For this is good, and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. So which is more likely? That he means all types of people since he mentioned types of people we are to pray for? And in the following verses why we should pray for them. And given that we know by God's own words that His purpose of will is never thwarted?

Or that he means every individual in the world without exception and He has made a way in which His will can be thwarted, and that by the will of man? Also consider that in order to be making it mean that, one has to break up a sentence and remove a portion of that sentence from all its surrounding context and from the whole counsel of God. Why would anyone want to do that or think it was valid? And where in either one of those scriptures you used is there even a suggestion of choosing, deciding, that there is a caveat to salvation (a work in fact), or that it is even dealing with the subject of believing?

How about he means what he says? Why add to the scriptures meanings that are not spelled out? Quoting the last part of the text vs. quoting the whole verse has no bearing on the meaning that God desires all people to be saved. Of course he does and that is why He came to take away the sins of the world.

 

[Arial]

Romans 1:20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

What does that mean? Does it mean we have a choice of whether to be in Adam or Christ as you are using to prove? No. It is not even talking about that.It is telling us what we are like in Adam, but we have no excuse to not know of God's existence or His eternal power and divine nature just by looking at His creation. And yet we do not acknowledge what is revealed of Him in that creation.

Jesus is That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (John 1:9) If everyman is enlightened by Christ why is not every man saved>

It doesn't say enlightened, it says lighteth. Jesus is the light of this world, there is not other light, and that light was not in the world until the advent of the Son. He is the only way to God for any man.

I think the opposite is also possible. It becomes convenient for some people to apply multiple meanings to words and texts to get things to fit their beliefs.

In Reformed theology the correct meaning is applied given the other scriptures that would be contradicted if any other of the meanings were applied, and the context it is in. It is careful to keep all contradictions in truth out of the Bible, and since there are none, it can be done. A'ist in general do not bother to do this or do not realize when they have not done it. And do not acknowledge the contradiction as being a contradiction even when it is clearly shown to them. That is, in any case, what I find on forums.

 

[Arial]

How about he means what he says? Why add to the scriptures meanings that are not spelled out? Quoting the last part of the text vs. quoting the whole verse has no bearing on the meaning that God desires all people to be saved. Of course he does and that is why He came to take away the sins of the world.

It has every bearing on it! But have it your way. This is a conversation that has no end in sight, and one side has no intention of ever giving exegesis or support of any kind, and no intention of ever actually examining and giving actual refutation of the other sides views, so I will go through the rest of your posts and respond if they are more than just a repetition of all your other posts, and call it a day.