Why do Calvinists debate?

[Arial]

This is how I think the posts can be moved: Admins should have a small square at the bottom left corner of the post(s) to be moved. Clicking on that puts a check in the box and a menu ribbon appears at the bottom of the webpage and in that ribbon is a menu box that says, "Choose an action..." In that options box select "Move posts," and then "Go." From there a menu box opens asking if you're sure you want to move the posts with options for which forum and which thread - a new one or an existing one (and the url of the existing thread has to be put in there, which can be found in Post #19 of this thread). I'm not sure, but I think it might be possible to move more than one post at a time (that is, if God has determined that possibility ).

You can deselect the option to notify us because we'll know the posts were moved and if we can't find them, we should be able to go to our own posting history and connect to them from there. Or we can go to the contents page of the Arm v Cal board and find any new threads.

I just didn't go far enough in the process and got concerned I would miss up both threads permanently. Rather than wade through both threads again I will leave them where they are---that is paperwork to me and I hate paperwork---since you have both agreed to not carry it on here. I appreciate it and this information.

 

[Arial]

If God simply commands our righteousness, then He is commanding the impossible. He says that He has come "to preach good tidings unto the meek, bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. Sin binds us and Christ unbinds us but we are free to return to our sin as a pig returns to its wallowing in the mud. Why anyone would is beyond me but God does not chain us to His side for eternity. He wants our freely given love.

Why focus on this in what I said and not on the first thing, which is the focus, and directly relates to His command of obedience. Which was "The continuing them through Scripture is God period." Which was in response to you having said, that the continuing theme throughout scripture was God appealing to us to be reconciled to Him.

God is the Creator. We are the creature He created. And not only that, but of all His creation mankind is the only creation in our world made in His image and likeness. Already, at that juncture we are in a covenant with Him, a covenant He made, a covenant of works. We are to be like Him. Like Him, as similar to Him in many ways but exactly like Him, never. Those similarities include our way of conducting ourselves in the world, with the world, all that is in it, and in our relationships with one another. Adam and Eve could have done that, but they didn't. The consequence of not doing that was death to all their progeny, being cast out of the Garden no longer having access to the tree of life. Same for all their progeny.

That does not change the fact that as His creatures we are still under the same commands, whether we can meet them or not. Which of course we cannot. We are all born in Adam, born as sinful creatures. It was not, is not, never will be, a negotiation. God is God, we are creatures.God did not begin to appeal to us to be reconciled to Him. He set about according to His eternal purpose to do the reconciling. Enter, Jesus Christ our Lord, Son of God, Son of Man. He came, He did, He died, He rose again, He ascended. He was crowned King of kings, Lord of lords. Not to reconcile everyone to God. Not even to only make it possible for everyone to be reconciled to God. But to reconcile those who God sent Him to save, an inheritance for the Son, the ones God was giving Him, and that before the foundation of the world.

I am not going to address the scriptures you used to support your premise as they are not even dealing with this subject, but something else entirely and it would rabbit trail the thread.

 

[Arial]

Simply those whom God observed would not resist. God sees the beginning and the end all at once, but that does not mean that He manipulates it.

No one said He manipulates anything. That is your choice of word because in that way of thinking, if man is not more free than God, and that God gave him that freedom that was greater than His, then what comes to pass is manipulation. But cannot you not see that such an idea is not consistent with the scriptures I posted earlier, and all the hundreds if not thousands I did not post, that declare His absolute sovereignty over all His creation. Therefore it is not consistent with who God is? He never in any way even hints at abrogating that sovereignty to any creature, and in fact it would be impossible for Him to do so? If He did, He would no longer be God. "I AM who I AM" In truth it is hanging onto Adam with all one's might. Our need to be independent of God. To be autonomous. To be in control. To have Him at our beck and call. It is parallel with the earth thinking. It is us thinking we can reach up to God, when the only way of salvation is if He reaches down to us. The Tower of Babble all over again.

I know it is not intentional, and not even recognized, and motives count, but still, that is what it is.

 

[makesends]

If they are willing. Jesus desired to change the hearts of Israel. He longed to take them under His wing, but they were unwilling. Did not God shine His grace upon His chosen people? Does not God desire that all men should be saved? There is no doubt that without the intervention of God, the heart would be incapable of understanding spiritual things. But once one is enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, sharing in the Holy Spirit, and seeing the goodness of God to the point of experiencing the powers of the coming age, they can make an informed choice to submit or resist and crucify Christ in their hearts.

How were they to be willing? Nobody is willing until God changes their will. Need a reference, or do you get the point?

 

[Arial]

No, you are describing the heart before it is lit by the light that lights every man. God brings people to the point where they can see and choose. They cannot be Christians but they can choose to submit to the renewing of their minds. The Bible doesn't say, "This mind will be in you which was in Christ Jesus," No it says, "Let this mind be in you." Without our choice involved, we are companion robots for God. At the deepest level, we have been manipulated and made to be righteous without our consent. I don't see God in that light.

That starts with an assumption that is not verified or supported and a singular view of what it is possible for "the light that lights every man" means. You take it, I believe, to mean everyone without distinction receives this light, when it is obvious that is not true. Then in order to do an end run around that, one says it is the light that makes it possible for man to make a choice to accept or reject that light. And I admit, there is a legitimate reason to think that within the context that goes before it. But it goes out the window when in verses 12-13 But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Now you will have to go to John 3 and anywhere else where it talks about being born by something other than their natural birth, to find out what John is saying here. Rightly handling the word of God does not include jumping to conclusions are making it mean what we already believe. That statement in 12-13 is directly related to what was said before, and it identifies the light, and what the Light does. And it says plainly that those who believe are the ones who are born of God and according to His will. That man's will has nothing to do with it. Just as in John 3 we learn that no one can even see (understand and therefore believe) the kingdom of God, let alone inherit it, unless He is first born again by the Holy Spirit.

So the light that lights every man is Jesus, coming into the world and not secretly and only in one place or one type of people, or only for them, but rather all the world. And we do see that is exactly what happened as the voices of His redeemed spread the gospel over the whole world.

 

[Arial]

How were they to be willing? Nobody is willing until God changes their will. Need a reference, or do you get the point?

God changes their heart. Their will follows their heart. It isn't against their will, it is their will.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That starts with an assumption that is not verified or supported and a singular view of what it is possible for "the light that lights every man" means.

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

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You take it, I believe, to mean everyone without distinction receives this light, when it is obvious that is not true.

Everyone is given the light but many choose not to receive it because they love darkness more than light as Jesus has taught us.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is evidence of a choice being made. A choice to receive it. If I send you a package you must receive it to have it. If you refuse it, it is returned to the sender.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Now you will have to go to John 3 and anywhere else where it talks about being born by something other than their natural birth, to find out what John is saying here. Rightly handling the word of God does not include jumping to conclusions are making it mean what we already believe.

We could go around and around all day accusing each other of this but that would not be glorifying Christ.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Now you will have to go to John 3 and anywhere else where it talks about being born by something other than their natural birth, to find out what John is saying here. Rightly handling the word of God does not include jumping to conclusions are making it mean what we already believe. That statement in 12-13 is directly related to what was said before, and it identifies the light, and what the Light does. And it says plainly that those who believe are the ones who are born of God and according to His will. That man's will has nothing to do with it. Just as in John 3 we learn that no one can even see (understand and therefore believe) the kingdom of God, let alone inherit it, unless He is first born again by the Holy Spirit.

If this is true then we have a problem with Heb 6:4-8

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

These individuals

• were enlightened
• tasted of the heavenly gift
• shared in the Holy Spirit
• tasted the goodness of the word of God
• tasted the powers of the coming age

They must have been born again and yet they fell away.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

How were they to be willing? Nobody is willing until God changes their will. Need a reference, or do you get the point?

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

 

[Mercy_Shown]

No one said He manipulates anything.

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

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

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I am not going to address the scriptures you used to support your premise as they are not even dealing with this subject, but something else entirely and it would rabbit trail the thread.

I find no evidence to support this statement.

 

[Josheb]

Yes you do, or you wouldn't be.

No, I do not BUT I do understand that some might interpret the words that ways SO I preclude that interpretation by stating it is NOT my intent.


Let me revisit the previously made observations,

Your posts show a number of concerns, any of which could and should be a dedicated topic for discussion. I listed the bullet points in the form of requests I might make based on comments present in those posts....

• 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.

....and asked if the enormity of the problem and multitude of subjects is noticed and asked you to pick an item from that list for discussion. The answer to the question asked in the title is easily and readily provided: Calvinists debate because there is a lot of misguided thought pertaining to salvation and Calvinism is often misrepresented and the resulting strawmen used as criticism to devalue the theology when it is firmly couched in well-rendered whole scripture.

 

[Arial]

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

These individuals

• were enlightened
• tasted of the heavenly gift
• shared in the Holy Spirit
• tasted the goodness of the word of God
• tasted the powers of the coming age

They must have been born again and yet they fell away.

You will need to rethink what you think that is saying or talking about, in light of the fact that we are told;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Eph 1:13-14 In HIm, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of our salvation---having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.
Hebrews 6!!:17-20 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of His purpose, He guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

So what does Hebrews say before it speaks of what you call losing one's salvation. "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity---" And what precedes the therefore? chapter 5 11-14 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

So those verses you quote are a warning, not a teaching contrary to other teachings of the Bible. He was dealing with complacent, immature Christians, who probably were dismissive or unconcerned about sin, even though they belonged to Christ. They were stagnant; not growing in righteousness. And the amount of knowledge they had gained, the amount of time one spent within the community of believers as though one of them, directly affects one's ability to leave and come back. Those that reject outright, what they have witnessed and understood, and shared, cannot return, and they would never have had true saving faith at all. I am sure you have witnessed this or at least heard of it. But they would be the seed two or three in the parable of the sower.

 

[Arial]

We could go around and around all day accusing each other of this but that would not be glorifying Christ.

Accusing? How about you address the scriptures and the point I made. You make points. I make points. But how is showing how rightly handling the word helps us arrive at what a scripture is actually saying, then doing so and arriving at a conclusion, being accusatory?

 

[Arial]

Here is evidence of a choice being made. A choice to receive it. If I send you a package you must receive it to have it. If you refuse it, it is returned to the sender.

Analogies to not arrive at meanings, though sometimes they help us see the meaning. In this case you have to ignore the rest of what I said. The fact that a person believes is evidence that he has been born again. Your analogy has the presupposition that God saving a person is something offered, not given.

 

[Arial]

Everyone is given the light but many choose not to receive it because they love darkness more than light as Jesus has taught us.

You have said that before. I came up with a different way to see it that is valid, and showed my work. I need to see your work.

 

[Arial]

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

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