Why do Calvinists debate?

[Arial]

fww, I mostly agree. In reading through the numerous writings from reformed believers here and elsewhere, I get the impression that many seem to believe that their understanding of scripture, their use of doctrine, the way they can describe their Calvinism is salvation.
However I lean toward the premise that Christianity is lived, not learned.

I think you are mistaken.

First of all why would they believe such a thing since they know that it is what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines whether one is saved or not? And they realize, most having come from the other side of the fence, that if something is almost exclusively taught, as free will in all its forms is, when someone is introduced to the gospel that is likely how they were introduced to it. Being newborn and unskilled in theology, they naturally assume what they hear is the truth. I remember very well making a choice of sorts, I said the prayer that was given in the book I was reading. And it was showing the prophecies fulfilled to the letter within the Bible that were fulfilled within it, and so I said to myself before I prayed, "Just in case this is true." And then I set it aside.

Was that the point of rebirth? Was that the first softening that brought a willingness to yield? Who knows besides God? I only know that that happened in the afternoon and not another thought was given to it. But in the morning, after a strange and peaceful beyond measure, of coming half awake, smiling, and drifting back to sleep, something was happening. When I awoke in the morning, I was a different person than I was when I went to bed, and I knew one thing. Every word in the Bible was the truth, the absolute truth I had been looking for for years and finally decided even if I found it, I would not know it for sure. That was in 1983.

I say all that to also say, that God works in individuals as the individuals that they are. But the unavoidable fact is that no one can come to Christ without God revealing to them the same thing He revealed to Peter that caused him to identify Jesus as "The Son of the living God!" "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven revealed it to you." was Christ's reply.

My journey into the study of Reformed theology did not begin until 2005. And this is what I found when I look back and my former path. That before, it was as though I were looking at a beautiful picture, which satisfied me for a long time, and then a yearning for something more took root in me. And again I recognized it when it was set before me. And now I am no longer just looking at the painting, but am inside of it where my soul longed to be. And there I wander and explore taking of the many delights.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

I think you are mistaken.

That's certainly possible. I've been wrong about many things in my life.

..why would they believe such a thing since they know that it is what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines whether one is saved or not?

because you just stated it right there (emphasis added).
"it is what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines whether one is saved"
Is that even Calvinistic? I'm not certain that it is supported in the TULIP. Is what one believes part of election (U in the TULIP) or does having a correct Calvinistic exegisis of Scripture fall under one of the other parts? IE Can one be saved and not understand penal substitutionary atonement (PSA)? Can one be saved and disagree with PSA?

That is the common observation that I'm referring to when I said. "I get the impression that many seem to believe that their understanding of scripture, their use of doctrine, the way they can describe their Calvinism is salvation."
Again, I can be wrong. It just seems too overt to overlook.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

fww, I mostly agree. In reading through the numerous writings from reformed believers here and elsewhere, I get the impression that many seem to believe that their understanding of scripture, their use of doctrine, the way they can describe their Calvinism is salvation.
However I lean toward the premise that Christianity is lived, not learned.

No matter which way you boil it down, you end up with hell being full of tortured sinners to whom God never gave a chance at salvation and Heaven full of redeemed sinners who never had a choice. If you are hard-core Reformed, you believe God created them to be in hell because of Romans 9:22. The whole thing seems a little staged, but what do I know?

 

[GoKart Mozart]

No matter which way you boil it down, you end up with hell being full of tortured sinners to whom God never gave a chance at salvation and Heaven full of redeemed sinners who never had a choice. If you are hard-core Reformed, you believe God created them to be in hell because of Romans 9:22. The whole thing seems a little staged, but what do I know?

Agree, and those in hell are there, accountable, for the decison God made in not giving them that choice (supposedly). That's not Matthew 25 by any stretch of the imagination.
To the OP/topic, there's an old, overused cliche' that says one can't see the forest for the trees. Sometimes (sometimes) the debates are more like seperating pine needles from fallen leaves on the ground completely unaware that there are even trees, much less a forest.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Agree, and those in hell are there, accountable, for the decison God made in not giving them that choice (supposedly). That's not Matthew 25 by any stretch of the imagination.
To the OP/topic, there's an old, overused cliche' that says one can't see the forest for the trees. Sometimes (sometimes) the debates are more like seperating pine needles from fallen leaves on the ground completely unaware that there are even trees, much less a forest.

Yes, I have been there and done that.

 

[Josheb]

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Romans 10:10

Which heart? Is it the sinfully dead and sin-enslaved heart of sinful flesh with which one believes? Or is it the Spirit-regenerated no-longer-dead-in-sin-newborn heart with which one believes and is saved?

To whom was Paul writing?

Romans 10:5-11
For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down), or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' - that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whosoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."

Is Paul writing to the still dead-in-sin sinfully enslaved non-believer who has only his flesh with which to believe and speak? Or is Pal writing to the saints, those already regenerate and saved by the blood of Christ (by which they were first justified?

About whom is Paul writing? First, Paul couches his words in Moses, in the OT covenant people who had been chosen by God, called by God, separated by God, and called holy long before they were ever asked to openly profess their allegiance. Next, Paul explicitly states the word is already in their mouth and already in their heart! Lastly, Is it human psychology or divine intervention to which Paul attributes this salvation?

Romans 10:14-17
How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Paul's words cannot be made to say the word by which hearing comes determines faith is psychologically determinative because he's just said not all believe when they heard. Hearing does not necessitate anything! At the beginning of the Romans epistle Paul explained how many knew and understood God's existence and His power but denied it all and became futile in their thinking and darkened in their heart (Rom. 1:18-32). Notice Pail explicitly stated the word was in a person, in their heart. It was in their heart, not merely in their mind as an intellectual assent. Might this be a reference to something God told Ezekiel?

Ezekiel 36:22-32
"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. "I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you. I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations. I am not doing this for your sake," declares the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!"

Paul is writing to a regenerate people about regenerate conditions. Paul is not writing to unregenerate people about unregenerate conditions.


What justification is there for taking words written to and words written about those in a covenant relationship and applying them to non-believers?

 

[Josheb]

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. Romans 10:10

Jesus explained this to the eleven. He quoted from Isaiah when he did so.

Isaiah 6:8-10
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed."

God had previously decided, already foreknown, and prophetically determined there would be people who would see but not correctly perceive, hear but not understand. Their hearts were made callous, ears deaf and eyes blind. Made that way by God, not merely the cumulative effect of repeated denial self-hardening their own hearts. God is explicitly cited as the cause, not human psychology. All of the gospel writers saw fit to report this. Here's how it went when the Isaiah prophecy came to fulfillment...

Matthew 13:10-17
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Mark 4:10-12
And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

Luke 8:9-15
And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’ Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.

John 12:37-43
Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore, they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.


This is alarming because, according to Jesus, their hearts were hardened, their eyes made blind, and their ears deafened specifically so they would not be healed! The keys of the kingdom had not been given to them. There is more to be said about this because the Isaiah text describes the eschatological context (not just the soteriological context) but the above is sufficient to address what Paul wrote in Romans 10.

Go give the Acts 3 report at Pentecost a read and read all the way to the end of the chapter. When you have done that ask yourself, "To what or to whom does the text attribute the cause of those people's hearing and subsequent salvation? Does the text attribute the cause to human psychology of the sinful flesh? Or does the text attribute the cause to God and God alone?


Do not bend your reading to doctrine. Bend your doctrine to scripture and what is explicitly states.

 

[Arial]

because you just stated it right there (emphasis added).
"it is what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines whether one is saved"
Is that even Calvinistic?

It is Scripture. If what one believes about the person and work of Jesus does not determine salvation, then what does?

I'm not certain that it is supported in the TULIP. Is what one believes part of election (U in the TULIP) or does having a correct Calvinistic exegisis of Scripture fall under one of the other parts?

What one believes about Jesus, that is who He says He is and what He does, if it is according to Scripture, is because of election. "No one comes to me unless the Father draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." "No one comes to Me unless it is granted him by My Father." "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep.? It is not about whether one has a correct "Calvinistic exegesis." Unconditional election has to do with God's purpose in election. All the letters in TULIP follow one another consecutively. If T is true, then U is true, if U is true then L is true etc. And they align with what the scriptures have to say about each particular "letter",derived from a systematic method.

If total depravity is true, and the Bible tell us that we are spiritually dead; that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14); that unless a man is born again he cannot even see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3);and it tells us in Eph 2 that we are in this spiritually dead condition unless and until God purely from mercy (grace) makes us spiritually alive; then being made spiritually alive must come first. And as all are not made spiritually alive, and God is the one who does this, then He must choose who to make spiritually alive. There is logic that goes into it and the logic is based on the premise of who God is and what He says.

IE Can one be saved and not understand penal substitutionary atonement (PSA)?

Yes. We begin understanding very little.

Can one be saved and disagree with PSA?

That is something only God knows as He is the only One who changes hearts and the only one who sees the heart. I presume it would depend on motive, the reason one does not believe it, in what way they are considering penal substitution to be, (their definition) etc. If substitution is denied altogether there is a very important work of Jesus that is being denied, I would even venture to say the most important part. And without penal substitution, that is Christ bearing the punishment for our sins so that we would not have to, satisfying God's justice against our sins, that His righteousness might be imputed to us (us being declared righteous by virtue of being in Christ) I fail to see what those who deny this see in the cross.

That is the common observation that I'm referring to when I said. "I get the impression that many seem to believe that their understanding of scripture, their use of doctrine, the way they can describe their Calvinism is salvation."
Again, I can be wrong. It just seems too overt to overlook.

In Calvinism, salvation is by the same way as it is in A'ism. "By grace, through faith---" And that faith is placed in the sufficiency of the person and work of Christ---alone. Where the two differ is in the process. Calvinism interprets the rest of the passage, "By grace,through faith, and that is not of yourself but is a gift of God, that no one should boast." to be saying that faith is a gift actually given and the A'ist say it is a gift offered that can be accepted or rejected. However it does not say it can be accepted or rejected, it says it is given. And if one is given faith, they have faith. If they reject it how can it also be called faith?

 

[Arial]

No matter which way you boil it down, you end up with hell being full of tortured sinners to whom God never gave a chance at salvation and Heaven full of redeemed sinners who never had a choice. If you are hard-core Reformed, you believe God created them to be in hell because of Romans 9:22. The whole thing seems a little staged, but what do I know?

I am still wondering where you get the idea God is obligated to give anyone a chance concerning anything. But to correct your statement that Reformed base any doctrine on a single scripture, they never do that. But what does Romans 9:22 mean since you bring it up? I would truly be interested in knowing.

 

[Josheb]

This highlights the deficit of labels. I know at least half a dozen people who are the Calvinism label that would disagree with you. So it is evident that self-described calvanists do not agree on exactly what IG is.

Irrelevant. Complete red herring. What others do or don't do has no bearing on my posts and if you approach this comparatively, you're only fooling yourself with your own fallacious reasoning. The first problem is that orthodoxy exists within Calvinism and so too does diversity. It is by that orthodoxy that the diversity can be measured for its veracity - and you do not appear to have a very good grasp of either the orthodoxy or the diversity that falls within the spectrum allowed by that orthodoxy. The second problem is I have used scripture and endeavored to use scripture exactly as written, beginning with the most explicit statements, and an exegetical examination of those texts. Not once have I appealed to Calvinism as a doctrine to justify my beliefs. Where I used extra-biblical sources I used an authoritative document, not a particular theologian. Where I used specific theologians it was specifically because the question of some theological statement was questioned.

I gave you evidence beginning first and foremost with scripture. I gave you proof.

The response is cr@p like the above completely fallacious appeal to what others do. I do not care what others do. If what I have posted is correct, then accept and believe it because it is correct and do it in complete disregard to what anyone else says.

Now let's cut to the chance: Can IG be resisted and rejected by one upon whom God is bestowing it?

I have already answered that question. My answer is the question is dross. The question is dross because Irresistible Grace had absolutely NOTHING to do with the sinner being saved. IG pertains solely to God accomplishing His purpose when He extends His grace for the purpose of salvation.

Others here have born witness to that fact.

And, given the fact YOU posted your knowledge IG is also called effectual grace we all have evidence you are trolling and not here for an authentic dialogue.

Therefore all men should be saved since that is the will of God.

Proof-texting.

God wills many things, and He wills many thing simultaneously. This is already posted content - content you have chosen to ignore. That makes this more evidence of trolling, more evidence we're not actually having an authentic conversation with someone sincerely interested in learning the answer to his own question.

Of course not, God's purpose is to bring mankind to the point where they can reject or submit of their own free choice. That is why Christ died on the cross instead of simply speaking the word and changing everyone's minds, hearts, and purposes to His own.

Then they appropriate response is, "Yes, that is correct, Josh," and you post that without any qualifiers, diversion, or other subterfuge.

Because you say so? I don't think so. That is an argument by fiat.

No, because 1) I provide scripture for evidencing my posts and 2) you ought to recognize a fallacy in your own argument simply because it is a fallacy.

It depends, did he have a DNR order in place? Was he trying to commit suicide?

No, it does not depend on any of that nonsense and this if more evidence you're not here genuinely.

After is conscious he can decide whether to submit to the doctors or resist their efforts to help him heal.

After he is conscious everything has changed. THAT is the point. You have abjectly failed to address his condition PRIOR to gaining consciousness. More evidence you are not here to discuss the answer to this threads' title inquiry.


The unconscious individual is unable to help himself, and cannot respond to any helpful agent because of his condition. THAT is what we now call Total Depravity and TD is not a uniquely Calvinist position. Arminius was also a TDer. You are on record stating you think TD was Calvin's sole (valid) contribution to theology. Now you must be consistent with your own statement because if sinful humanity is UNABLE to respond (as TD stipulates) then you cannot use scripture to say otherwise without contradicting yourself!!!

More evidence of trolling.




So take a few minutes and think about your own errors before posting a response. Take a step back away from the auto-criticism mindset seeking only to find flaws in everyone else's views and look at your own errors.


You cannot concede to TD and say the unconscious man has qualifiers.
You cannot concede to TD and say the TDer just has to believe. He CANNOT just believe.

You cannot contradict your own posts and expect anyone here to think you are being authentic.

Of course, it was. God brings us to life so that we may either consent or resist.

Show me the scripture. Show me the explicit statement in the Bible explicitly stating what you just posted. Do NOT show me a verse you interpret to mean what was posted. Show me the explicit statement in scripture.


Absent any such explicite statement then simply post, "There is none." OR... "I have none, BUT I read verse book #:# to mean that," because at least then you and everyone else here will know AND agree there is no such verse and the position is arrived at solely through an eisegetic, inferential reading of scripture and not what is explicitly stated.

If a man cannot consent and still be saved, then how is it he is guilty of consenting to sin?

Great question but that has nothing to do with IG. You have failed to address the point you specified, are now attempting a move of the goalposts, and proving what I posted many, many, many posts ago: you have way too many questions for one thread and need to PICK ONE and stick to it.

Stop muddying the conversations with repeated changes of topic.

Those whom Calvin claimed were never made alive cannot be held responsible for things they are unaware of.

Utter nonsense and I will be happy to take up that subject with you when you stop conflating multiple topics and we have finished discussing the correct meaning of IG and how scripture (not Calvin) proves that doctrine necessarily correct to the exclusion of all other alternatives.

Only if I accept your premise but I don't.

That's on you.

Don't know what you mean

Then you have no basis for critiquing anyone's posts or any soteriological doctrine and should take another approach than omni-critic. It is incomprehensible that you would think to critique and criticize others' views without understanding the force brought to bear on sin.

More evidence of trolling.

Is it then actually resistible?

Is it effectual?






Decide whether you have any sincere interest in learning before posting again.

 

[Josheb]

Sorry, you lost me on that last one. I was simply saying that God knows the end and the beginning but we don't.

I will make allowance because of my typo. Ontology and epistemology should not be conflated.


This is important.

Our not knowing the end is irrelevant. God's knowledge is not always causal or determinative. However, regardless of whether His knowledge is causal or not, He cannot not know what He knows and if He knows who is saved before that person is saved then that person will be saved and cannot not be saved. It has absolutely nothing to do with how a person wills or acts.

The argument that says, "God looked down the timeline of human history to see what would happen and that is how He knows," has long been refuted and justly so. Why? It compromises God's omnipotence and omniscience! God, the Creator, is not all-powerful if He is dependent on the creature and He is not all-knowing if He first has to look down the timeline to know something.

And these and other relevant concepts, truths, and facts are very elementary to the subject(s) of this thread and anyone not correctly and adequately understanding them has not business critiquing or criticizing others' views without first examining their own view(s) and taking on a more collaborative and learning disposition.

Sorry, you lost me on that last one. I was simply saying that God knows the end and the beginning but we don't.

You should not be lost by the content of my post. If that content does lose you then you should self-examine yourself and ask why BEFORE posting another criticism.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

It is Scripture. If what one believes about the person and work of Jesus does not determine salvation, then what does?

According to reformed theology, as I understand it, what determines Salvation is an election that took place before the foundation of the world. It is not dependent on anything, at all, from a human being. It's not based on their acceptance, choosing, nor any specific thing that they would believe.. it's all planned ahead by God alone. Further, this regeneration must take place even before the individual makes an expression of faith.
It sounds to me that you have abandoned Calvin on this point and placed a human prerequisite on salvation, a criterion, a specific "what one believes".

"No one comes to me unless the Father draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." "No one comes to Me unless it is granted him by My Father." "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep.? It is not about whether one has a correct "Calvinistic exegesis." Unconditional election has to do with God's purpose in election. All the letters in TULIP follow one another consecutively. If T is true, then U is true, if U is true then L is true etc. And they align with what the scriptures have to say about each particular "letter",derived from a systematic method.

I'm aware of Calvinism as presented in the TULIP. Is this the prerequisite you refer to that one must believe to make salvation possible?

If total depravity is true, and the Bible tell us that we are spiritually dead; that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14); that unless a man is born again he cannot even see the kingdom of heaven (John 3:3);and it tells us in Eph 2 that we are in this spiritually dead condition unless and until God purely from mercy (grace) makes us spiritually alive; then being made spiritually alive must come first. And as all are not made spiritually alive, and God is the one who does this, then He must choose who to make spiritually alive. There is logic that goes into it and the logic is based on the premise of who God is and what He says.

Sure there's logic, it's a scholastic innovation from the 16th century based on rhetoric from Augustine that was further developed by Anselm.
Total Depravity as understood by Calvinist was never taught anywhere prior to Calvin.

Yes. We begin understanding very little.

but you said, "what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines salvation." What is the what in your declaration?

That is something only God knows as He is the only One who changes hearts and the only one who sees the heart. I presume it would depend on motive, the reason one does not believe it, in what way they are considering penal substitution to be, (their definition) etc. If substitution is denied altogether there is a very important work of Jesus that is being denied, I would even venture to say the most important part. And without penal substitution, that is Christ bearing the punishment for our sins so that we would not have to, satisfying God's justice against our sins, that His righteousness might be imputed to us (us being declared righteous by virtue of being in Christ) I fail to see what those who deny this see in the cross.

There would be very few that deny that there is a substitution that takes place, but was it specifically PSA?
Is that a necessary belief that is prerequisite for salvation?

In Calvinism, salvation is by the same way as it is in A'ism. "By grace, through faith---" And that faith is placed in the sufficiency of the person and work of Christ---alone. Where the two differ is in the process. Calvinism interprets the rest of the passage, "By grace,through faith, and that is not of yourself but is a gift of God, that no one should boast." to be saying that faith is a gift actually given and the A'ist say it is a gift offered that can be accepted or rejected. However it does not say it can be accepted or rejected, it says it is given. And if one is given faith, they have faith. If they reject it how can it also be called faith?

This is my opinion based on my own observations but I don't think it is the same.
A'sm does teach Grace through faith. Calvin flips that script to be faith through Grace. Calvinism suggests that regeneration takes place prior to faith, not through faith.


It's interesting points to ponder. I hope you have a happy new year.

 

[Arial]

According to reformed theology, as I understand it, what determines Salvation is an election that took place before the foundation of the world. It is not dependent on anything, at all, from a human being. It's not based on their acceptance, choosing, nor any specific thing that they would believe.. it's all planned ahead by God alone. Further, this regeneration must take place even before the individual makes an expression of faith.
It sounds to me that you have abandoned Calvin on this point and placed a human prerequisite on salvation, a criterion, a specific "what one believes".

You didn't answer the question. The question was, if what one believes about the person and work of Jesus does not determine salvation, then what does? I did not ask you what your understanding of Reformed theology is.

But you seem to be interpreting what Reformed theology teaches about election and confusing that with salvation. The TULIP is not discussing the faith that saves. Quite simply it says in all its parts: Man, because of the fall, has no ability to come to God on His own. He does not want to, cannot understand it, and is at enmity with God. Therefore, God elects some according to the pleasure of His will, and not according to anything good or bad in the person. Those chosen have no more merit to be saved that those who are not. Since God elects some, not all, the atonement must be definitely for those He has elected, not all without distinction, but all without exception(not restricted to any types of people or places.) It was large enough in scope to same all but was not intended to. ANd since those things are the case, the grace of God that saves through faith, must be effectual. It does what God intends it to do---bring the elect to saving faith in the person and work of Christ. And since this is done, God preserves them in the faith unto the end. They overcome. There is no prerequisite on persons and I placed none on them. God does it all in them.

I'm aware of Calvinism as presented in the TULIP. Is this the prerequisite you refer to that one must believe to make salvation possible?

You are not aware of Calvinism as presented in TULIP or you would not repeat it as something other than it is. There is no prerequisite on man to. The prerequisite for any to be in Christ is all done by God through the Holy Spirit. But as to your sentence----Jesus is the One who makes salvation possible, through His person and work.

Sure there's logic, it's a scholastic innovation from the 16th century based on rhetoric from Augustine that was further developed by Anselm.
Total Depravity as understood by Calvinist was never taught anywhere prior to Calvin.

Are you prepared to prove that rather than just say it? What is in the doctrine of total depravity is taught from Gen 3 forward. Jesus taught it, Paul taught it, particularly in Romans 1-3, the other apostles taught it.

but you said, "what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines salvation." What is the what in your declaration?

Whatever God has revealed to them.

There would be very few that deny that there is a substitution that takes place, but was it specifically PSA?
Is that a necessary belief that is prerequisite for salvation?

You would have to give your definition of penal substitution and why you don't believe it if you don't, before I could begin to answer that question. And if it is not penal, what sort of substitution is it?

This is my opinion based on my own observations but I don't think it is the same.
A'sm does teach Grace through faith. Calvin flips that script to be faith through Grace. Calvinism suggests that regeneration takes place prior to faith, not through faith.

Did you not understand what I wrote? I said both believe in salvation by grace through faith. Calvinism does not teach faith through grace and if you think they do,there is something you are not understanding. However you left out a very important word. "By" grace. So you have the Calvinist saying "By faith through grace," and the A'ist, if we leave out the word "by" thinking of grace as being something other that what it is. WHich in most instances I find to be the case.

Grace is an act of God is saving grace. But for His grace, no one would be saved, so it is by grace that we are saved, through faith---that means we have to have the faith, which in ourselves we do not, it is a gift of God. Without regeneration, without being born from above, without being brought to spiritual life we cannot have faith in God or Christ. We can't even understand spiritual things, let alone believe them. How can what we don't have regenerate us? And how can the natural man have what the natural man does not have, unless God, who can give it, gives it? Who but God can raise the dead to life?

 

[GoKart Mozart]

.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I will make allowance because of my typo. Ontology and epistemology should not be conflated.


This is important.

Our not knowing the end is irrelevant. God's knowledge is not always causal or determinative. However, regardless of whether His knowledge is causal or not, He cannot not know what He knows and if He knows who is saved before that person is saved then that person will be saved and cannot not be saved. It has absolutely nothing to do with how a person wills or acts.

I would posit it has to do with their soil. Throughout the Bible, humility receives God whereas pride resists God and God resists pride. God's knowledge is omnipotent if we take the NT understanding of God, (which I do) He is omnipotent, but certainly a case could be mounted using the OT depictions of God that would deny this. Suffice it to say, I agree that God is omnipotent and I would add that He knew those who would submit to His power and grace before He had created a single soul. But that does not mean that He dictated or unilaterally chose those whom He would save and those whom He would not.

I would also add that once Christ paid for the sins of the world, the world now belonged to him and He could do with it whatever He wanted and still not abrogate His law. But I also believe that He desired followers that, of their own free choice submitted to Him and so He allowed those who "would not" to perish according to their choice.

To reach a plane upon which one could make an informed choice without violating The Law required that that which is equal in value to the debt of all sins be paid against the demands of the law. Unless God wanted to do away with His law and in that case all of this is moot. Thus in Christ shall all be made alive, but not all will submit and continue therein.

The argument that says, "God looked down the timeline of human history to see what would happen and that is how He knows," has long been refuted and justly so. Why? It compromises God's omnipotence and omniscience! God, the Creator, is not all-powerful if He is dependent on the creature and He is not all-knowing if He first has to look down the timeline to know something.

God is all-powerful and thus He can choose to stay His hand whenever He chooses. God can allow time and chance can happen or God can intervene and who are we to say He can't? Now if we say God forces it all to go a certain way, Then we are saying that God created the devil and He created mankind. He then brought sin and suffering upon the world. He then sent His son to die so He could then irresistibly change those whom He chose for salvation to think and behave the way He wanted them to while those He created but selected for destruction would be cast into eternal turmoil even though they had no chance whatsoever by the sovereign decision of God. Furthermore, if God created them in this state of sin, they had no choice other than to sin.

This picture of God does not comport with God being love.

And these and other relevant concepts, truths, and facts are very elementary to the subject(s) of this thread and anyone not correctly and adequately understanding them has not business critiquing or criticizing others' views without first examining their own view(s) and taking on a more collaborative and learning disposition.

But you judge that they are not adequately understood when the case may be that they do not adequately agree with your opinion.

You should not be lost by the content of my post. If that content does lose you then you should self-examine yourself and ask why BEFORE posting another criticism.

I think learning to live with other people's ideas without becoming personally invested in the arguments would be a good point for all of us to learn.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Irrelevant. Complete red herring. What others do or don't do has no bearing on my posts and if you approach this comparatively,

So you think all Calvinists think alike?

you're only fooling yourself with your own fallacious reasoning. The first problem is that orthodoxy exists within Calvinism and so too does diversity. It is by that orthodoxy that the diversity can be measured for its veracity - and you do not appear to have a very good grasp of either the orthodoxy or the diversity that falls within the spectrum allowed by that orthodoxy. The second problem is I have used scripture and endeavored to use scripture exactly as written, beginning with the most explicit statements, and an exegetical examination of those texts. Not once have I appealed to Calvinism as a doctrine to justify my beliefs. Where I used extra-biblical sources I used an authoritative document, not a particular theologian. Where I used specific theologians it was specifically because the question of some theological statement was questioned.

We can throw texts at each other all day long.

I gave you evidence beginning first and foremost with scripture. I gave you proof.

No, you gave me a one-sided argument that on;y considered the texts that you felt supported your point of view.

The response is cr@p like the above completely fallacious appeal to what others do. I do not care what others do. If what I have posted is correct, then accept and believe it because it is correct and do it in complete disregard to what anyone else says.

You seem to be upset by all this. Perhaps this is not a path we should continue on. Whatever things are good, think on these things. Once the ad hominem monster starts showing itself. It is time to stop.

 

[Josheb]

So you think all Calvinists think alike?

I have repeatedly stated there is diversity of thought within Calvinism, so the question indicates the posts either were not read, were read but the content neglected, or this is more evidence of trolling.

The problem in this thread is NOT the diversity of thought within Calvinism. The problem in this thread is 1) the opening post and the supporting posts present a gross misunderstanding of Calvinism that is believed correct when it is not, 2) the opening post is so full of concerns they obfuscate each other, and 3) nothing has been done to correct these problems when appropriate attention to these errors is broached even though correcting these errors is fairly easy and would help you, me, and everyone else in the thread.

I, for one, am increasingly inclined - based on the evidence - to believe this is intentional.

In ancient times people would go to the marketplace to purchase pottery. Cheap pots would be placed at one end of a vendor's wares and the expensive ones at the other end. The cheap pots were simple bowls and pots; pots without handles or spouts. They may not even have been kilned. A kilned pot with spouts and/or handles costs more. Even more expensive were the pots that were painted, more so if the artistry was glazed. the problem, however, with a painted pot is that some merchants were unsavory, and they would sell cracked pots that had the cracks filled with wax, the excess shaved, and then the pot was painted to hide the repair. This was not necessarily a bad thing because dirt, ash, grain or other dry goods could easily be carried in a cracked pot without losing much or any of the contents. The wax, however, was a serious problem if the pottery was going to be used for cooking because as the pot heated the wax would melt and the liquid inside would pour out. Potters addressed this problem by guaranteeing a pot's integrity. They would place painted pots known to have no flaws on a table and over that table they would hang a banner that said,​

"SINCERE"​

the word originally meant, "without wax." Asking questions already answered is wax. Accepting TD but posting beliefs directly conflicting with that acceptance is wax. Arguing straw men is wax. It's not meager; there is eighteen pages of it.


Sixteen pages ago, in Post 34, I first noted some of the errors in the op and asked a few questions. Some of the questions and comments were addressed but most remain unattended and its been more than ten days. I have not read every post but I have read most of them and as far as I can see - as far as I can objectively and demonstrably prove, not just evidence - every single Calvinist in the thread has observed the same errors. They have each patiently and with kindness and forbearance endeavored to help you accurately understand what Calvinism teaches so the errors contained in this op can be corrected and your next op on Calvinism won't repeat the misguided 18-page subterfuge evident in this thread. We want you to better understand. We want you to be a better poster. We are not your adversaries. None of this is personal. If Calvinism is going to be criticized, then at least criticize what it actually teaches and refrain from straw men. In the process of these 18 pages the how and why Calvinist debate has been witnessed experientially, and you have seen it happen in diverse ways - which, again, adds another layer of explanation how and why Calvinists debate. We debate because there are honest, earnest, and sincere posters who want to accurately understand. We debate because there are trolls that seek to provoke and those in bondage seeking to lead the less mature astray. We debate because we learn from others. We debate because there is diversity of thought within Calvinist orthodoxy. We debate because we enjoy stimulating conversation.

In Post 44 I added more correction to more errors, some of them so obvious they confront the premise of intelligence and sincerity. How could anyone ask, "Why do Calvinists debate?" and also think what Calvin said is irrelevant? That is a tell. In Post 44 I listed nine points where the onus is on you to prove claims previously made and I invited you to pick a single topic you and I could discuss.

That has not happened.


The title's inquiry has been answered. We debate because posters like you will not have a civil, sincere discussion even when asked to do so and provided with that opportunity. We debate because people like you ignore preemptive answers, repeat questions already answered, and expect others to play along.

You seem to be upset by all this.

I get that a lot. I consider it projection (Lk. 6:45).

What I am is ever-hopeful. I hope everyone here has the ability to look at this 18-page mess and realize every single Cal hear has the same message for you: Dear brother, you do not have an accurate understanding of Calvinism and have argued straw men, but we are available for cogent conversation if you can lay aside, just for the time it takes to have this discussion, all the prejudices. We can show you how scripture states what we believe, and we can show you how scripture exegetically teaches monergist precepts where it is not explicit. All you need to do is have an interest in learning, be sincere, and prove that sincerity in the posts (by sticking to one subject, providing parity when questions are answered and new ones asked, not asking questions already answered, not assuming things about others no one can possibly know, etc.).

No one is upset. I, for one, am never invested that way in internet discussion boards. Nothing here is personal and if it is taken that way then that's not a Josh problem.

 

[Josheb]

I would posit it has to do with their soil.

Very common response.


Who made the soil? What does whole scripture state about the "soil"?

Throughout the Bible, humility receives God whereas pride resists God and God resists pride.

What does that have to do with soil?

Can you see the problem? You bring up the "soil" and then head off on a tangent that is void of scripture and has nothing to do with soil! And, apparently, I am expected to entertain that subterfuge.

I think learning to live with other people's ideas without becoming personally invested in the arguments would be a good point for all of us to learn.

Me too. You should try it.

I'll offer you an option: Either stick to the subject of Irresistible Grace alone and have that conversation with me to the logically necessary conclusions or we exhaust our mettle OR go back to Post 44 and pick one - and only one - of those bullet points, prove your position and then discuss it with me to either its logically necessary conclusions or we tire of the conversation. Use scripture wherever possible, beginning with scripture's most explicit statements (not inferential readings).

You choose.

Anything else will be taken as evidence of insincerity and trolling and ignored because it does not evidence a capacity to learn to live with others' ideas.

 

[Josheb]

But you judge that they are not adequately understood when the case may be that they do not adequately agree with your opinion.

Never judged any such thing and will thank you not to put words into my posts I did not write.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

So why does Jesus Christ warn about hell if God already decided who would end up there?