Why do Calvinists debate?

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

This is true. But at some point, some people resist God, and this hardens the heart over time. I believe God is as sad at this as He was in Christ weeping over Jeruselem.

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.

Effectual grace is a fact born out by the change in people who submit to God. My concern is not over whether effectual grace exists. It is over whether individuals have the choice to resist or submit. If the effectual Grace is irresistible, we have a problem in the scriptures.

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.

Some scriptures I have been going over extensively in another thread I bring to your attention for a careful study.

John 6:44-65
John 10:1-30

Here is the definition of irresistible Grace I am working off. This was provided to me by a reformed theologian.

Irresistible grace, also known as efficacious grace, is the idea that when God extends His grace to an individual, it is so powerful and effective that the person cannot resist or reject it. In other words, those whom God has chosen for salvation will inevitably and irresistibly come to faith in Jesus Christ. This concept emphasizes God's sovereign work in the salvation of individuals, asserting that human will is unable to thwart God's purpose in bringing one to faith.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

It is extrapolated by the overwhelming appeals and calls to salvation recorded in the bible. Every call to repentance is an appeal to the free choice of the individual to submit to God. So if we combine that with the fact that God is omnipotent and He desires that everyone would be saved we must look at the answer as to why that will not happen.

God reconciled himself to the world through Christ but unless we reconcile ourselves to God the full reconciliation does not happen. That is why Paul wrote, in 2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us; we [as Christ's representatives] plead with you on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God."

 

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

Things are called things to identify the premise and thrust and there is no way around it. It is unfortunate that then the name becomes the thing in peoples minds and they attack the teaching in its entirety, usually knowing little about its actual teachings or how they were arrived at. And not by checking scripture, merely using it out of all context, when opposing Reformed theology. And in all honesty and fairness, I find those of the Reformed persuasion on here, do not do the same thing when presenting their arguments and defenses.

What is called Calvinism should never have been called that imo. Not only has it been reduced to TULIP when it actually encompasses all the doctrines of traditional Christianity; but it was not Calvin's teachings alone, but the long and arduous and diligent task undertaken by many, and in the most sweeping way during the Reformation. That is when the confessions were penned. They do not become a replacement for the Bible but are the doctrines and practices of Christianity that are taken from the Bible. They too, should always be checked against the Scriptures. Reformed theology imo is a much more accurate depiction as opposed to Calvinism.

When I debate Reformed theology I am not debating with Reformed theology or Calvinism as a name or ism. I am debating with the Scriptures only.

Amen!

 

[Josheb]

Many Calvinists tend to argue from Calvin

Show me.

but I would prefer that arguments come from the scriptures.

Well then you have met the right poster because I rarely prove my cases with extrabiblical sources, and I tend to use those sources only when the sources are the subject of the discussion. I can make the case for Calvinism with scripture alone and I know most of the Cals here can do the same (even if they do have their preferred Calvinist sources).

There is a lot in theology that is not in the bible.

Not Calvinist theology.

I have seen the simple made complex to the point of confusion.

How is that relevant to this discussion with me?

The bottom line is that if we fully rely on God and humble ourselves in His sight, we will be saved.

Tell that to Pharoah, Esau, Nebuchadnezzar. In point of fact God humbles many in the Bible that are not saved. "Humbling ourselves" is works and it does not matter whether one is Calvinist or Arminian, both sides agree salvation is by grace through faith for works, not by works. Only the Pelagian end of the spectrum believes people can humble themselves on their own.

Whether Calvin said it or not is irrelevant.

ROTFLMBO!

Calvin was Augustinian. So too were Luther and Arminius. And who says what does matter sometimes because some people believe heretics. It is not the source that makes something correct or incorrect; it is consistency with well-rendered scripture that makes a doctrine correct.

And I know you would agree.

I do not mean to be unkind but I still think this thread is all over the place and not very organized in thought or word. Do you want to discuss Calvin, or Calvinism? Do you want to discuss Calvinism, or Calvinists? Or would you like to discuss soteriology (and do so solely from scripture alone)?

I think the nature of Christ in us by the power of the Holy Spirit that causes us to reflect the image and meekness of Christ is much more persuasive than the cleverest argument of mankind.

Spoken like an orthodox Calvinist . Do you understand the Arminian and Pelagian will disagree? And the former much less so than the latter?

God can save or damn whomsoever He is pleased to do so, but does He?

Yes, He does.

As I see it irresistible grace is not the will of God.

I think you misunderstand the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" because Irresistible grace is the will of God. IG has absolutely nothing to do with the sinner being saved. IG simply means God accomplished what He sets out to accomplish, not that His grace is resistible. Some of the labels in the anacronym TULIP do not mean what they sound like in ordinary terms. The terms have to be understood within the Calvinist soteriology. Very common mistake that leads to a plethora of straw men.

God's will is that no one would perish. (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)

And yet people perish. Does the world not work as God wills? Are sinners able to go against the will of God. Is God unable to make His will happen? Were those two verses written about the regenerate or the unregenerate? Were they written about eternal salvation or something more temporal (like the pending destruction of Jerusalem)? Do you think God has only one single, singular will and does not and cannot possibly have two or more co-occurring will? Can He will all to be saved AND also will all the sinners destroyed?

I trust you understand it is always inappropriate to single out verses, remove them from their inherent contexts and make them say things they were not intended to say. It is inappropriate, for example, to take verses written to the regenerate about the regenerate and apply them to the unregenerate. yes?

This fits with love much better than passively overpowering people with grace irresistible.

God's love does not occur at the expense of His justice (and vice verse is also true). God loves all humans, but He does not love them all the same way or to the same degree. Many He loves He will toss into the fiery furnace/lake.

What do you do with "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated," and the fact God loved Jacob and hated Esau long before either man had ever been born, long before either ever made a single choice or a single act? (Romans 9) How do you reconcile that hate with love?

No matter how many different explanations I get from different reformed theologians, it still boils down to a passively aggressive action.

Please prove that.

Force is more than just overpowering someone.

not sure how that is relevant. If you have read the Westminister Confession of Faith then you know Article 3.1 states God ordained all things from eternity without doing violence to the human will. If you have been thinking Calvinism is forcibly overpowering someone then this is another place where Calvinism is not correctly understood, and a straw man is being argued.

It is also changing their will to get them to follow your agenda.

Never happens in Calvinist conversion. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith and both are gifts, gifts of love.



One more point: Are you and I discussing these matters, or are we debating them? Are we discussing them debating them, or arguing them? Go back a re-read your op because the title of this thread uses the word "debate" but the op uses the word "argue". Was that switch intentional or not? Was it a bait-and-switch, or simply a mistaken conflation of terms that do not carry the same connotation?

I ask because Post #35 contains several errors in it presentation of Calvinism and I assume they are not deliberate, and I assume they are not posted with willful intent to unnecessarily provoke Cals. I assume any mistake on your part you would like corrected so that you have an accurate knowledge and understanding of Calvinism so that if it is going to be rejected then at least it is rejected on its merits and not on straw men.

So...

in review.....

• Please show me Calvinists tending to argue from Calvin (and not scripture).
• Please prove a lot of Calvinist theology is not in the Bible.
• Please explain how your personal observation, your anecdotal personal experience is relevant to this discussion.
• Please explain, using scripture, how an unregenerate person who is dead and enslaved to sin humbles himself in order to be saved from the sin that has made him dead and enslaved. Please provide three examples of someone explicitly stated to have done this.
• Please clarify what, specifically, it is you would like to discuss in this thread. Calvin, Calvinism, Calvinists, or soteriology.
• Please explain how it is, using scripture, that God's will is not accomplished when He wills all to be saved.
• Either acknowledge the mistake made misunderstanding Irresistible Grace or prove the correct version of Irresistible Grace is "passively overpowering people."
• Since I can point what is probably the most authoritative extra-biblical document in Calvinism, the WCF, and prove Calvinism does not teach forceful overpowering of the human will, I'd like to read what evidence you have of the contrary, the proof you have Calvinism teaches God forcibly overpowers someone.
• Please tell me whether it is a discussion, a debate, or an argument you'd like to be having with me.

Can you now see that you have bitten off quite a bit and need to pick one or two specific matters to discuss? There are a lot of Cals in this forum, so you are going to be on the defensive A LOT if you do not sort this out, pick your topics, and pick your discussions. I, for my part, do not want you one the proverbial defensive. I'd rather have parity in the exchanges. In case you did not already know, most of the Cals in the forum used to be Arms. We know Arm doctrine, we know it well, we know it well enough to take your place in this thread, we know it well enough to assert and defend the Cal alternative, and we know it well enough to find it does not reconcile with scripture as well as the monergist alternatives (such as Calvinism). We are, therefore, very sensitive and sympathetic to this op. The mistakes in Post 35 are common (similar ones can be found in just about any synergist-authored op in this board. We're not ripping anyone's head off. Trolls get banned. So far the op reads confused but you sound like you can have the discussion you want without rancor.

Pick one item from the list and teel me something specific or ask me something specific and we'll discuss one matter at a time. Or, if you find that there is something specific, you'd like to assert, ask about, and/or discuss that's not on that list above, then gather your thoughts and articulate that point of comment or inquiry as succinctly as you can.



Take your time thinking about this because I'm going to get dinner and I may not be back tonight.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Because to me there is no possibility that anything that does not happen, could have happened.

How do you know what could happen?

Who said I know what could happen? —But I know what could have happened after it happens, though even then, not very well, haha!
makesends said:
Calvinism, if what you say is representative of Calvinism, teaches that God does indeed cause actual alternative possibilities, which you support by the use of the word, "contingencies".

You have assumed God caused only one cause, the first one.

No. I have tried to correct you on this before. I do NOT assume God caused only one cause, the first one. God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will.
And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause.

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.

No. I have not said that meticulous cause is direct cause. The point may be argued, but I don't think I said that. Not even close.

You have also denied the possibility God could/can and according to scripture, has added subsequent causes.

No. I have not denied that Scripturally nor logically God has not added subsequent causes. Of course he has added subsequent causes. That's what every effect ever caused (as far as I know) always turns out to be —a subsequent cause.

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.


Yesterday I was reading an article on the classical Augustinian/Calvinist view of divine foreknowledge I think you'll enjoy reading (even if you still disagree after doing so). Unblessedly, I do not have time now to type it into a post and I cannot find an online copy. I'll quote some of it when I have time.I can, for now, use an analogy he employees to illustrate one relationship between foreknowledge and causality.

Suppose you and I were walking along a path on the edge of a mountain and either one of us kick loose a rock that falls downward through the air, or one of us deliberately throws a rock down the side of the mountain. In the first scenario neither one of us may know the rock has been kicked loose, but we might. If one of us deliberately throws the rock then we know that has been done. What, then is the outcome of the rock's fall? Neither you nor I know. Because of the way God designed the earth the rock will normally, ordinarily fall vertically and, assuming no one is beneath the rock's path the rock will stop its fall when it strikes the earth below. There are some ordinary influences on the rock, such as the rotation of the earth and winds (or rain if it is a rainy day), but otherwise the rock falls in a direct line and hits the earth below and he can assume that's what happens but we have no actual knowledge of that event having happened. In other words, we believe the rock hits the ground with knowing it has actually done so. Perhaps it hit a bird that just so happened to be flying below and hitting the bird altered its path, along with a particularly strong blast of wind the bird was enjoying that continued to have unusual effect of the rock as it continued its fall after hitting the bird. Both of those influences would "natural." Suppose, however, that God had a specific plan for that rock, and He wanted it to strike a person below, but the natural course of events would not otherwise see that rock strike that person. God could do any number of things to make that rock hit that person. He could hasten the footsteps or inhibit the footsteps of the person. He could create an especially forceful wind that forcefully alters the course of the stone to insure it strikes the person. He could do both and much more but His entering the otherwise ordinary cause-and-effect first created by the first cause of creation to created additional influences or forces (like a hastened footstep, a particularly strong wind, changing the temperature, or creating a bird for that purpose) would be additions to the first cause. They would be new, different, and unrelated causes.​

I get nothing out of that paragraph that deals with the facts of God's creation. Whether God 'intrudes' on the natural, or whether he causes the natural to 'coincidentally' cause his decree is irrelevant to the fact that everything that comes to pass is by his decree, which fits perfectly the simple logic of causation.

Jonah 1:17 KJV
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

And although I might argue forcing a fish to swallow Jonah and dumping on the beach of a town to which he'd refused to go is violence to the will in a post-disobedient world, not a single act on God's part in the above analogy need do any violence to any act freely chosen by the human as far as what was ordained from eternity. To think of creation is as a single line of cause and effect is simplistic and enormously problematic. It has the paradoxical effect of limiting God to just one cause and either having no creativity (any god can make action figures do what they are made to do) or no other recourse once having created. Both God and creation are much more dynamic than that.

Same reaction as to the paragraph quoted above: Who is talking about a single line of cause and effect? I'm not! Who is talking about doing violence to the will?

Whatever God has not caused directly is still caused, though indirectly, by God, and usually by many many lines of causation. MOST effects are the result of not only long lines of causation, but multiple lines of causation. This can particularly be seen in the causes by which a man's decisions are made. The influences are from many different sources. Perhaps he's sick because of all the causes that engineered Covid 19. Perhaps his mother called him an idiot. Perhaps a beautiful woman smiled at him. Perhaps he read some verse. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. I don't think anyone can demonstrate that anyone's choices are uninfluenced, and that, from many different directions. And meticulous causation knows exactly what choice he will make as a result of those influences, both those turned away from and those accepted, to include one's own inclinations —all caused.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I do not mean to be unkind

Yes you do, or you wouldn't be.

 

[makesends]

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 have to ignore or explain away a lot of scripture if I am going to arrive at irresistible Grace.

What reason do you have to say that his 'knock on the door' is about Salvation, and even subsequent regeneration, rather than about fellowship following regeneration? Don't forget, this is in Revelation, in the middle of a whole lot of things said to churches of people purportedly already saved. The verse just before it —Rev 3:19— says, "Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent." This is written to believers.

Your descriptions of God's work on the will seem to me contrary to fact. We don't know that God always consults the recipient of saving grace. The transformation is of the dead (see Romans 5, 8, and Ephesians 2 and many other passages) and other descriptions of those who cannot submit and cannot please God and are at enmity with God, to someone who has been made alive, whose inclinations desire God. I'm not saying they don't also choose. They do indeed. In fact, I insist that they do, but that choice is in keeping with what God has done within them.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What reason do you have to say that his 'knock on the door' is about Salvation, and even subsequent regeneration, rather than about fellowship following regeneration? Don't forget, this is in Revelation, in the middle of a whole lot of things said to churches of people purportedly already saved. The verse just before it —Rev 3:19— says, "Those I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be earnest and repent." This is written to believers.

Rev 3:21 is the other side of the two-edged sword: To the one who overcomes... We must, by the power of the Holy Spirit, strive to understand all of scripture to arrive at truth. This teaching to the Church at Laodicea brings out several key points such as, we must overcome even as Christ overcame.

Your descriptions of God's work on the will seem to me contrary to fact. We don't know that God always consults the recipient of saving grace.

I think appeals to is a better choice of words. And yes, unless the Father draws them, They will never come to Christ. We also know that this drawing includes all men. As Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." Some resist and others submit. Just as the Ark was open to all who would come and it drew all people to it, only 8 submitted themselves to it and climbed aboard.

The transformation is of the dead (see Romans 5, 8, and Ephesians 2 and many other passages) and other descriptions of those who cannot submit and cannot please God and are at enmity with God, to someone who has been made alive, whose inclinations desire God. I'm not saying they don't also choose. They do indeed. In fact, I insist that they do, but that choice is in keeping with what God has done within them.

We know, by drawing parallels to the parable of the sower that many who are brought to spiritual life fall away because they lose faith in God. Being made alive, it would seem, gives the spiritually resurrected the ability to make an informed decision as to whether to submit or resist. If God's Grace were irresistible Jesus would never have wept over Jerusalem, crying, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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?

Instead of popping into threads to invoke your negative feelings, either constructively contribute of stay away. This smacks of troll.

Debate = "my view is right, and YOUR view is WRONG". the word itself inducates its purpose. Why do YOU debate???

 

[Bob Carabbio]

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...

So what is your "Motive"??

 

[Arial]

When we begin to look into why Jesus died we see a yearning Saviour who made a way of escape. If God made His grace irresistible then Christ would not have been mourning the loss of Jerusalem. But they did resist His grace and that is why He said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

When we look into why Jesus died we see a warrior coming to the rescue, not only a people for the Father, but through their redemption, the restoration of the entire creation, the utter destruction of the evil one and all the wicked forever, never more to plague those inhabitants of His kingdom, from the kingdom of darkness.

When we look at why Jesus died we see the Mighty One, stepping down into our world and as one of us, to gain victory over all God's enemies, and ironically that victory was in His death, for through it God place His King on Zion. We do not see a yearning, impotent Savior who made a way of escape. We see a King, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Ancient of Days, crowned with glory. We see an actual Savior who does exactly what He came to do. Rescue and keep all those God gave Him before the foundation of the world. There are a number of scriptures that say this, so to say He died as a yearning Savior who only made a way, is to say He is not the Sovereign God who does as He pleases and always accomplishes what He purposes to do, who turns the heart of kings to accomplish His purpose, and whose purpose and will none can thwart.

I will address the scripture you use to support your statement in a separate post as it may get a bit long when added to this one.

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
Because to me there is no possibility that anything that does not happen, could have happened.

Who said I know what could happen? —But I know what could have happened after it happens, though even then, not very well, haha!

You do not know what could have happened after it happens. You know what did happen after it happens. Know what did happen, you assume it is the only thing that could have happened, and that assumption is made employing a post hoc logical fallacy. The "argument" is irrational. Calvinism is not irrational. If you do not know what could happen then you have no basis for saying there is no possibility that anything that does not happen could have happened. That is not the same thing as saying "Nothing happened but what happened."

makesends said:
Calvinism, if what you say is representative of Calvinism, teaches that God does indeed cause actual alternative possibilities, which you support by the use of the word, "contingencies".

No. I have tried to correct you on this before. I do NOT assume God caused only one cause, the first one. God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will.
And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause.

Secondary causes are not identical to or synonymous with second, third, fourth, fifth causes. The word "secondary" is ordinal, not nominal. Throughout these threads you've argued the first cause indirectly and necessarily caused all subsequent causes and that is true. However, it has nothing to do with God adding multiple OTHER unrelated causes. You haven't tried to correct. me. What you've been doing is trying to persuade me to accept an error. God is not only the first cause. He is also the subsequent cause, the second cause and not the secondary cause, the third, fourth, fifth, the multiple-causing cause and not the tertiary cause.

No. I have not said that meticulous cause is direct cause. The point may be argued, but I don't think I said that. Not even close.

Okay. I stand corrected. However, you are still arguing God as the sole cause of all other secondary causes based solely on the one first cause when scripture tells us God is adding new and different causes throughout history. All secondary causes are NOT consequences of the one cause caused by the First Cause.

And you do say that. We can see it in the previously quoted portion of Post #45.

No. I have not denied that Scripturally nor logically God has not added subsequent causes.

You just did so! You posted, "God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will. And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause."

This is hugely inconsistent with both scripture and your own posts. If God adds subsequent causes, then all the secondary causes are not effects of the earlier First Cause caused cause. They are effects of First Cause caused second cause that then causes other secondary causes that are NOT effects of any earlier cause, or any earlier causality.

Of course he has added subsequent causes. That's what every effect ever caused (as far as I know) always turns out to be —a subsequent cause.

Again, this is self-contradictory. God adding causes may have absolutely nothing to do with any prior cause He caused. God is not limited by His own (uncaused) causality. That's absurd.

I get nothing out of that paragraph that deals with the facts of God's creation. Whether God 'intrudes' on the natural, or whether he causes the natural to 'coincidentally' cause his decree is irrelevant to the fact that everything that comes to pass is by his decree, which fits perfectly the simple logic of causation.

For that to be correct the word "decree" must be plural, and not limited to one act on His part.

Same reaction as to the paragraph quoted above: Who is talking about a single line of cause and effect? I'm not!

You are. You explicitly stated every cause is an effect of an earlier cause that can all be traced back to the first cause and nothing can happen but what does happen. That is a single line of cause and effect. If, in your mind, you imagined this was not linear then there are huge inconsistencies between how this is conceptualized in your mind and how it is articulated in the posts.

Who is talking about doing violence to the will?

You do. Again, perhaps this is not being thought through to its logical conclusions but if there is no possibility of anything happening but what does happen then there are not multiple options from which any will might choose. The perception of possibilities, of options from which a person might limitedly or autonomously choose is an illusion that does not and is not an accurate reflection or understanding of reality. All mention of choosing is sophistry, all thought of choice a delusion.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants...

He can call on whoever he likes but it's all kabuki because nothing can possibly happen what does happen.

1 Corinthians 7:12-13
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

Consent is an illusion if there is no possibility of anything happening but what does happen. Either there is no will or great violence has been done to it. Neither is Calvinism correctly understood. Calvin wrote quite extensively about the will, the liberty of the will, and the limits thereof.

Whatever God has not caused directly is still caused, though indirectly, by God, and usually by many many lines of causation.

Not if only what has happened could have happened.

MOST effects are the result of not only long lines of causation, but multiple lines of causation.

Not if ONLY what happened could have happened.

This can particularly be seen in the causes by which a man's decisions are made.

There are no decisions to be made if ONLY what happened could have happened.

The influences are from many different sources.

There is only one influence if ONLY what happened could have happened.

Perhaps he's sick because of all the causes that engineered Covid 19. Perhaps his mother called him an idiot. Perhaps a beautiful woman smiled at him. Perhaps he read some verse. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. I don't think anyone can demonstrate that anyone's choices are uninfluenced, and that, from many different directions.

None of which exist if ONLY what happened could have happened.

And meticulous causation knows exactly what choice he will make as a result of those influences, both those turned away from and those accepted, to include one's own inclinations —all caused.

No, that is not what meticulous causation means. Theologically speaking, meticulous causation means God meticulously causes each and every event. He is the first and only cause of everything, not just the first cause of the first cause or the first cause of the only cause from which all secondary causes and effects ensue.

 

[Josheb]

What reason do you have to say that his 'knock on the door' is about Salvation, and even subsequent regeneration, rather than about fellowship following regeneration?

Is that the question you would like me to answer and us to engage in discussion? If so, then please affirm that intent and goal.

If not, then start over. State the thesis or inquiry you want answered and discussed.

 

[David1701]

So what is your "Motive"??

To declare the truth of God's word, and to learn.

 

[Arial]

But they did resist His grace and that is why He said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

I know you do not arrive at your beliefs through proof texting or usually use a scripture as a proof text or arrive at any doctrine from a single text, but that is what you have done here, as there is nothing supporting it but your interpretation. And it is at least presented as being all on its own producing a doctrine.

First we look at what the Bible says about God's sovereignty, therefore what God Himself says about it. Though there are hundreds of scriptures that can be used, I will limit it to a few, that should make His sovereignty clear.

Ps 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
Prov 19:21 Many plans are in a man;s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand.

His sovereignty over creation.
Is 43:12-13 "It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, and there was no strange god among you. So you are My witnesses," declares the Lord, "And I am God. Even from eternity I am He. And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?
Is 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.
Is 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.
Lam 3:37-38 Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the MOst High that both good and ill go forth?"

And don't forget Job 38-42

In light of this, how can we say that Jesus is mourning over something He could not do? And that the reason He cannot do it is because He has given His sovereignty over to fallen humanity to make a choice after He has given to all enough grace to believe? How can we interpret Matt 23:37 to mean that Jesus' death was mostly powerless and that it did not have a specific and definite intention?

If we cannot in good conscience do that, then what is that passage saying? Since it really is a part of the OT in the covenantal relationship with Israel, its interpretation must be placed there. It does show the compassion Jesus has for those covenant people, He as Son of Man is one of them. It does show that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and yet the wicked must die. But the fact that it uses the poetic analogy of a mother hen and her chicks or that they would have none of it, neither portrays Jesus as impotent or them deciding their own salvation by allowing Him to save them.

The covenant law never promised eternal life, was not intended to produce eternal life. All were born in Adam. They were born sinners and no amount of law keeping or animal sacrifices would change that. Salvation has always and only ever been by faith. The law served many purposes such as instruction in righteousness, and it condemned them and us. But most importantly it was meant to drive us to the coming Savior, whose sacrifice would give eternal life to those who believe.

Jesus wasn't speaking of salvation to eternal life in that passage. He was speaking to the Jews constant disobedience to the covenant stipulations that broke the covenant with God. That is the "you would not have it."

So not only can it not be used as a proof text or doctrinal foundation, it is not even speaking of what it was used to illustrate.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

To declare the truth of God's word, and to learn.

Yup - To declare YOU'RE INTERPRETATION of the "Truth", and to oppose theological opinions that you believe to be inaccurate.

 

[Arial]

makesends said:
Because to me there is no possibility that anything that does not happen, could have happened.

Who said I know what could happen? —But I know what could have happened after it happens, though even then, not very well, haha!
makesends said:
Calvinism, if what you say is representative of Calvinism, teaches that God does indeed cause actual alternative possibilities, which you support by the use of the word, "contingencies".

No. I have tried to correct you on this before. I do NOT assume God caused only one cause, the first one. God IS the first cause, that has caused many other causes, and, indirectly —that is, by means of secondary causes— has caused all other causes, to include the human will.
And every one of these causes, except for First Cause himself, is an effect of an 'earlier' cause.

No. I have not said that meticulous cause is direct cause. The point may be argued, but I don't think I said that. Not even close.

No. I have not denied that Scripturally nor logically God has not added subsequent causes. Of course he has added subsequent causes. That's what every effect ever caused (as far as I know) always turns out to be —a subsequent cause.

I get nothing out of that paragraph that deals with the facts of God's creation. Whether God 'intrudes' on the natural, or whether he causes the natural to 'coincidentally' cause his decree is irrelevant to the fact that everything that comes to pass is by his decree, which fits perfectly the simple logic of causation.

Same reaction as to the paragraph quoted above: Who is talking about a single line of cause and effect? I'm not! Who is talking about doing violence to the will?

Whatever God has not caused directly is still caused, though indirectly, by God, and usually by many many lines of causation. MOST effects are the result of not only long lines of causation, but multiple lines of causation. This can particularly be seen in the causes by which a man's decisions are made. The influences are from many different sources. Perhaps he's sick because of all the causes that engineered Covid 19. Perhaps his mother called him an idiot. Perhaps a beautiful woman smiled at him. Perhaps he read some verse. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. I don't think anyone can demonstrate that anyone's choices are uninfluenced, and that, from many different directions. And meticulous causation knows exactly what choice he will make as a result of those influences, both those turned away from and those accepted, to include one's own inclinations —all caused.

This conversation on causes and first causes etc is not to be carried on in this thread as I said in post #31. What has now happened is you responded to it reverting back to the conversation that was ongoing in the linked thread, so @Josheb has taken it up again responding to your response after being told not to. It is not the topic of the OP and is very distracting to it, not to mention a tangled up mess. Take it back to where it belongs. Both of you. There is a good chance someone else will jump in not paying attention to what the OP and hippity hop down the rabbit trail. By tomorrow I will delete this post and Joshebs response to it, to give you time to move it or start a new thread. Hopefully the rabbit trail will not have already begun.

 

[Arial]

Debate = "my view is right, and YOUR view is WRONG". the word itself inducates its purpose. Why do YOU debate???

Are you one of these people that thinks no one should think they are right? A debate is a pro and con being presented with evidence. The fact that most A'ist can never produce actual evidence because there is none, is beside the point. It is that side that turns things into empty arguments. And I already answered your question on the first page of the OP.

 

[Arial]

Debate = "my view is right, and YOUR view is WRONG". the word itself inducates its purpose. Why do YOU debate???

That is not what a debate is. That is an argument.

A debate is structured similar to a court of law. You have the prosecution and the defense. Each side presents their position. One tries to prove guilty the other tries to prove innocence. Both present their case. And they go back and forth addressing each point trying to support their position.

So lets say Reformed theology is the Prosecution and anti Reformed theology is the defense. Reformed theology presents it case for say, total depravity. The other side makes an argument against it both using Scripture. What we always find here is the defense may say things, i.e. quote a scripture, that sounds valid. But upon closer examination with other scriptures the prosecution shows the defense to have only made a statement without supporting it and without showing how and why the prosecution is wrong. Whereas what the reformed had said was duly supported using multiple scriptures on the same subject that contradict what the defense is presenting. And so on and so forth.

And the obvious reason why this always is the case eventually, is because the defense is not presenting the truth as the Bible gives it, and therefore there is no way he is able to make the Bible support what is not true, when it is carefully examined. The defense is arguing from hearsay and heresy, not admissible in court.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Are you one of these people that thinks no one should think they are right?

Nope - I'm one of those people that believes that everybody believes/does "That which is right" in their own eyes.

A debate is a pro and con being presented with evidence.

Or what is SUPPOSED to be "evidence", but is often only ''interpretation" supporting the person's personal theological paradigm. OBVIOUSLY I have a paradigm which comes out in my writing. Obviously your paradigm and mine differs. SO there's debate. I'll stand by my first post in this string.

The fact that most A'ist can never produce actual evidence because there is none,

Except that they believe there is, and you believe their "Evidence" is no good, and ignore it.

PERSONALLY I'm not "Arminian", Nor "Calvinist", but probably (since I'm not academically trained in either Paradigm) ascribe to certain things found in either or both paradigms. I USED to says "Calvinist leaning", but the more I encounder Calvinists on these boards, I no linger do that. The SUM TOTAL of my "Calvinism" is: "God Moves First in everything".