How might you have been wrong about Calvinism all along (if what I posted is representative)?
Because to me there is no possibility that anything that does not happen, could have happened.
At this point, and I say that seriously since my walk with God is a journey, is that I see the cross of Christ as necessary because of God's sovereign decision to give humans the choice to allow him to redeem them. God could have forced irresistible grace on everyone and they would have been none the wiser. He did not need the cross to save us since He is sovereign. He could have reached into mankind's mind and changed their thinking and even hid that from the angles so only He would know, but He would know and that was unacceptable for Him. It was unacceptable because it would not be love.
God does not arbitrarily do anything, if by "arbitrarily" you mean something along the lines of "on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".
Same reason all "Theologians" debate, of course. They do it to "Prove" themselves right, and everybody else wrong.
How do you know what could happen?
You have assumed God caused only one cause, the first one. You have assumed that one cause begat all other causes and did not do so in only a generalized manner but also in a meticulous manner such that the cause of your post and my post is directly, not indirectly caused by the first cause. You have also denied the possibility God could/can and according to scripture, has added subsequent causes. Now your views do fall within the category of theology known as Calvinism, but meticulous determinism is an extreme version of monergism, much like Pelagianism is an extreme form of synergism.
On what do you base that though? Biblically speaking.
The fact that God is sovereign does not negate and is not in conflict with the fact that in His sovereignty He is also just. But Reformed theology does not teach that saving grace is forced on anyone. It puzzles me why anyone would look at it that way, but that is beside the point. What is being taught within the doctrine reduced to "I" in the acronym is that His saving grace is effectual. It does what it is given to do. Save.
All of God's attributes are equal in all places and at all times. Love does not rise above justice. It isn't that it was unacceptable to Him to save everyone by reaching in and changing their minds, it is that that would not defeat and ultimately destroy His enemy, the devil and in destroying him, all evil. He is doing more than just redeeming a people, He is winning a war. It was Jesus on the cross and in His death winning that victory, defeating the power of our enemies over us---sin and death----and in doing so setting the stage for the final victory. "O death where is your sting?"
Man did not lose his will in the fall and he did not lose his ability to make choices. He did lose his ability to understand spiritual things because he had been cut off from the tree of life. And in not being able to understand them or willing to submit to God, he has no ability to come near God (he is a sinner after all) who is holy, and all desire to do so. And though indeed Jesus is the light of the whole world, that does not mean that everyone is enlightened enough to desire and choose God. God does not stop in His purpose of redemption and every aspect of it, and suddenly abrigate His sovereignty in favor of man's sovereignty of choice. That does not even sound like the God as He reveals Himself. He has to do more than offer something. He has to give what only He has to give. Grace that saves.
That takes the "power" of the Holy Spirit out of the Spirit's hands and puts it into the hands of mankind. The power of the Holy Spirit raised Lazarus from the dead. Was Lazarus consulted in the matter? Was he given a choice only? The power of the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. Resisting has no power in it at all. Neither does submitting.
I will look into it a bit more and get back with you. Hopefully...time permitting!
There are some false teachings that a person can believe and still be saved. Some not, and those would pertain to who Jesus is and what He did and how He did it. It is the person and work of Jesus alone that provides salvation, so believing something about Him that is not in Scripture would disqualify for it would be a different Jesus that one placed their faith in. Muslims, believe in Jesus for example, believe He was a prophet and that He went to the cross and died, and maybe they believe He rose again, I am not sure about that, but they do not believe that He is God or that faith in Him saves.
My question to you would be: where do you get this vast knowledge of all theologians along with all that is in their minds and motives?
This is not relevant to the OP. @makesends made an invitation and request to @His clay to comment in another thread on that other thread, and you took up the conversation of the other thread here. You should have taken it to where it had been asked to be taken. Any future comments on this subject instead of the OP will moved or deleted.
Is that why you debate? I ask because that's not at all my motive, and I'm sure it's not the motive of many here. It's quite common to assume that others have your own motives, but it's often not true...
What is the "plastic petal"?
How is how a person is to be saved different from how s/he is saved? This reads like a distinction without a difference.
Calvinism is not correctly understood. It would be more accurate to say salvation is decided, not "finished." Classic Calvinism, along with most other soteriological povs, teaches a person is converted in an instant, is being saved throughout the entirety of the earthly life via the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, and concluded or "finished" with the transformation that occurs in resurrection whereby we are made incorruptible (never again able to be corrupted).
Because there is a large swath of Christendom that argues otherwise. Synergists not only claim God is dependent on the sinner for the sinner's salvation, and many argue a person can lose their salvation. God is not sovereign, and salvation is NOT foregone. They don't typically say this, but in synergism the blood of Christ can be made worthless, the purchase of one's life returned be the one purchased, NOT the purchaser!
And Calvinists do not tell others they are not saved. We fully accept our Arminian and Wesleyan brothers among the saved. We do not deny them their belief. We may disagree over the ordo salutis or the nature/degree of sinful human volitional agency, but not their salvation.
We do not argue those things.
Many Calvinists tend to argue from Calvin but I would prefer that arguments come from the scriptures. There is a lot in theology that is not in the bible. I have seen the simple made complex to the point of confusion. The bottom line is that if we fully rely on God and humble ourselves in His sight, we will be saved.
What makes the cross of Christ necessary? Even before there was a cross God declared that He could have mercy on whomsoever He chose. Exodus 33:19
No, force can also be considered when one can manipulate or change the will of someone else. God always consults the recipient of Grace. Jesus said it best, "Behold I stand at the door and knock." He does not barge in or use His powers to make the occupant want to open the door to him. I am convinced that each individual will see where they made their choice to resist or submit to God's law.
I seldom go by what Calvin said. Considering the entire volume of his writings, I have read very little. I learned the basic of Reformed theology through reading contemporary writers when I first was introduced to it. But for the most part now, I find it from the Bible, I see it in the Bible, and in the beginning I always checked what I read in the Bible.
No. On what do you base the statement that God sovereignly made a decision to give humans the choice to allow Him to redeem them.
God does not change the will of a person when He gives them grace. The new birth is by grace for without it no one can escape being in Adam. He is born in Adam in his natural birth. He must be reborn in Christ. And in this God changes a heart, not a will. The will follows the heart, always. He says He will change a hard heart into a soft one. The hard heart resists and hates God. The new heart desires God and loves Him.
If that scripture means what you say it means then we have contradictions in the Bible. I posit that one must ignore or explain away much of scripture to not see effectual grace. And also suggest that it would probably be very helpful to stop thinking of it as irresistible grace and begin seeing it for what the doctrine actually is, instead of what it sounds like in the acronym. Effectual grace. And relate effectual grace to the revealed giver of that grace, God, and that whatever God intends for something to do, that is exactly what it does.
