Why do Calvinists debate?

[Josheb]

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.

Start with the word "impossible."

Is anything impossible for God? If the answer is "Yes," then God is not almighty. If the answer is "No," then the problem is in any reading that renders the text contradictory to God's omnipotent ability to save those who fall away. Only by ignoring the "impossible" can we make the passage limit both God and the sinner being saved.

Therefore, the passage must mean something other than what Post #111 perceives to be a problem. The Hebrews 6 text cannot be read in contradiction to other texts, like John 10:28.

To borrow from noted Calvinist Charles Spurgeon,

"This is the doctrine that we preach; if a man be saved, all the honor is to be given to Christ; but if a man be lost, all the blame is to be laid upon himself. You will find all true theology summed up in these two short sentences, salvation is all of the grace of God, damnation is all of the will of man."​

The ordinary Calvinist pov is that if a person "loses" his salvation he was never saved in the first place and if eternal life could be lost once gained, then it is not eternal.

1 John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Not, "going to receive," but "have."

 

[ReverendRV]

First of all, full disclosure. If I were to choose between being on an Island with only Amininists or one with only Calvinists, I would choose the latter since the sincere ones would be fully relying on God alone for their salvation. But I am not fully convinced that the Tulip doesn't have at least one plastic petal albeit an insignificant one of no salvific properties.

Calvinism, it seems to me is preoccupied with how one is saved whereas Aminianism wrings its hands over how to be saved. But, If I understand it correctly, in essence, Calvinism says "It is finished" and there is nothing one can do about it. So why would a Calvinist argue doctrine since it will not change the outcome of what God's sovereignty dictates? What is the core reason to argue forgone conclusions if they are truly forgone?

If one is sealed signed and delivered by Christ to an eternity in paradise, it should not matter whether others believe it or not. Right? Lastly, if we take Calvinism to its logical conclusion, one does not even have to ascribe to reformed theology to be saved: It is God's choice alone and not what one does or believes. So even Arminians can be saved if God chooses them. So why argue?

The bickering can be problematic; Clanging Cymbals and all. When dealing with Calvinists who Love the Doctrine of 'Grace Alone' too much; there is the Doctrine of Faith Alone, you can turn around and Rub in their Faces. If I weren't a Calvinist, that's what I would do...


Calvinist ~ You are Saved by Grace Alone...

Me ~ Aren't you a Sola Fidest?

Calvinist ~ Yes, but...

Me ~ Please don't call me a Butt. Since you are a Sola Fidest, Aren't Grace Alone and Faith Alone equals; since both belong to the Category of "Alone"?

Calvinist ~ Faith is a Grace because it's a Gift, so...

Me ~ How can Faith be a Gift, if it belongs to a Category other than Grace?


Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Arial]

I find no evidence to support this statement.

Well, the subject was the commandments of God and whether or not that was the issue, when you stated that the primary issue of the Bible was God appealing to us to be reconciled to Him.

The Hebrews 6 scriptures you gave to support that are dealing with, according to you, OSAS. Near as I can remember. I am not going back through it all. In any case I addressed them when you presented them again.

 

[prism]

We don't do it to convince anyone since that seldom if ever happens. We do it for other reasons.

What 'other' reasons do you do it for?

 

[Arial]

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.’"

No, you see it as manipulation and misstate the actual teaching. This is what Reformed run into again and again in every debate, discussion, argument. And no matter how many times they are given the correct way of looking at the teaching, and according to the Bible, they continue doing it. That is the definition of a strawman. I mean no disrespect but it is a fact, and I guess it boils down to we don't know what we don't know, and tradition can and usually does, lock away the ability to see things other than the way we do. But I am not operating from tradition. I lived in the same one you are in for 23 years. And "somehow" I was able to see outside of it.

When God purposes to do something, He has always purposed to do it, and His purpose is accomplished---and in this case, saving to the uttermost all those He has purposed to save. That is not manipulation. The creature belongs to Him. He can and does do whatever He pleased. Who is man to tell HIm what He pleases or how He should deal with what is His? There is only one way it can be done, and that is not by distributing to all just enough grace to to break the barrier of enmity He has with them and they with Him. That is a Catholic belief, though it morphs into the priests and the eucharist giving that same grace repeatedly.

The only way it can be done is the way in which it was done. By regenerating those He created to belong to Christ, yet are born in Adam, taking them out of Adam and placing them in Christ. Rebirth. Not by the will of the flesh or the will of man, but by His will. It is grace that He does this. Thus it is said, "By grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves but it it a gift of God." It does not say it is a gift held out to everyone for them to accept or reject. It is the grace of saving that places one in Christ through faith. Grace isn't the gift, it is the attribute of God that gives to those who do not deserve it. Faith is the gift. And if faith is given, the one who it is given to has it. Faith in Christ is something we either have or don't have, not something we choose or that is offered.

There is nothing indirect or tactical about it. It is definite and full of love, a perfect love that existed personally for the person before they were ever born. Why anyone would balk and kick against the goads at that, I cannot fathom.

Jer 31:3 is about national Israel and God's choosing them (I wonder if they ever got upset over His doing that, choosing them over all the other nation to bring about His purpose in salvation, and cried out that He was manipulating them)for His purpose. All of it leading to Christ. It is not talking about eternal life or being placed in Jesus, or choosing anything.

 

[Arial]

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.

How can we submit to Him with our hard heart that hates Him? He doesn't force us. He changes us, something we cannot do. Who is the Potter? Who is the clay? Why such resistance to this?

 

[Arial]

God is no longer otherness, He is Emanuel, He is now one of us. It is our mission to speak on God's behalf, appealing to mankind to be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.
God has done it all becoming sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. But reconciliation is a two-party action that brings both parties into harmony and peace.

Mercy, this surprises me. You have just stated that God changed, whereas you also say He never changes. And you said God became sin so we could be righteous. Now you very well may not mean what this sounds like, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But as it stands it is so far removed from the biblical as to astonish me.

And you are confusing two things. God's purposes with our position. His purpose is to redeem a people for Himself to be in His kingdom. Jesus did the work of that redemption and returned to the Father where He intercedes for us, and will return in judgment. As soldiers in His army so to speak, ambassadors of Christ, it is our privilege and honor to be used as vessels of mercy, preaching the good news of reconciliation---the gospel. So that His sheep might hear His voice. "How are they to believe what they do not hear? And how are they to hear, unless one is sent---" But we are not appealing to mankind to be reconciled to God, anymore than He is appealing to us to be reconciled to Him. We are simply doing what we are told. Preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. In our doing this, He gathers His sheep to Him. Hearing and believing is the thing. Not hearing and choosing.

 

[Arial]

But without their consent.

They would never give their consent. Who says they have to? Does God say they have to or does He say he as the Potter has the right to make of one lump of clay vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor? Same clay. All one lump. God does as He pleases with what is His. It is His sovereignty you are fighting against while at the same time you are struck with awe at what he says about His sovereignty. It is fallen man, redeemed or otherwise that insists God must have their consent to do anything with them. Even if you look at grace that saves as resistible and that it is given to all men without exception, He would have to do that without our consent. Why is that ok but that if in His grace He actually removes someone from Adam and places them in Christ, without their consent, it is not ok.

If We are not the center of His purpose why does He refer to us as the apple of His eye? Why are we engraved upon the Palms of His hand?

We are the crowning glory of His creation. And that is because we are made in His image and likeness. We are the recipients and beneficiaries, and the ones through whom He works His purpose---but His ultimate purpose is to destroy the devil and in doing so all the wicked and all evil. The fulness of our salvation. And those He redeems are the apple of His eye. They are the ones engraved upon the Palms of His hand and were before the foundation of the world. Not all people without exception.

His glory, His victory, His love, His power, praise to Him. That is His purpose and what He achieves when all His enemies are put under His feet and every knee bows before Him.

 

[Arial]

No one has made that clear. When I read what reformed theology says about irresistible grace, it is just that irresistible. No one upon whom it shines can resist and those upon whom it does not shine will never be drawn. If it quacks like a duck...

It has been made perfectly clear but you don't accept it. Irresistible grace is not something that shines. It is the light that shines so you present a false dichotomy and something no one said when explaining how effectual grace does not make robots and puppets of people. Why would someone to whom God gave a soft heart that loved God, believe Him against their will. How can anyone believe anything against their will?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

It has been made perfectly clear but you don't accept it. Irresistible grace is not something that shines. It is the light that shines so you present a false dichotomy and something no one said when explaining how effectual grace does not make robots and puppets of people. Why would someone to whom God gave a soft heart that loved God, believe Him against their will. How can anyone believe anything against their will?

But who changed their will? That is what is never made clear. Did God change their will without their consent?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

They would never give their consent. Who says they have to? Does God say they have to or does He say he as the Potter has the right to make of one lump of clay vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor? Same clay. All one lump. God does as He pleases with what is His. It is His sovereignty you are fighting against while at the same time you are struck with awe at what he says about His sovereignty. It is fallen man, redeemed or otherwise that insists God must have their consent to do anything with them. Even if you look at grace that saves as resistible and that it is given to all men without exception, He would have to do that without our consent. Why is that ok but that if in His grace He actually removes someone from Adam and places them in Christ, without their consent, it is not ok.

No, He wouldn't. He would bring them to a point of understanding the question. But their will would not be altered unless they submitted to Him. It is by beholding we become changed, it is not by fiat.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Mercy, this surprises me. You have just stated that God changed, whereas you also say He never changes. And you said God became sin so we could be righteous. Now you very well may not mean what this sounds like, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But as it stands it is so far removed from the biblical as to astonish me.

Through Jesus Christ God became sin for us that we might in him we might become the righteousness of God. I think you have misunderstood what God means when He says He changes not. He was not speaking of his physical manifestation, for he has been a burning bush, a man, a fiery tornado a cooling cloud. etc. When God says that He changes not He is speaking of his thoughts and purposes.

And you are confusing two things. God's purposes with our position. His purpose is to redeem a people for Himself to be in His kingdom.

His will is that all men should be saved and He made provision for that but He will not force anyone to take it.

Jesus did the work of that redemption and returned to the Father where He intercedes for us, and will return in judgment. As soldiers in His army so to speak, ambassadors of Christ, it is our privilege and honor to be used as vessels of mercy, preaching the good news of reconciliation---the gospel. So that His sheep might hear His voice. "How are they to believe what they do not hear?

Are you saying that if one upon whom God wills His irresistible Grace were to not hear the gospel, He would be lost?

And how are they to hear, unless one is sent---" But we are not appealing to mankind to be reconciled to God, anymore than He is appealing to us to be reconciled to Him. We are simply doing what we are told. Preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. In our doing this, He gathers His sheep to Him. Hearing and believing is the thing. Not hearing and choosing.

That is not what the bible says. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:20

 

[Mercy_Shown]

How can we submit to Him with our hard heart that hates Him? He doesn't force us. He changes us, something we cannot do. Who is the Potter? Who is the clay? Why such resistance to this?

If God manipulates hard-hearted people who hate him and turns them into people who love Him without their choice involved in it. Then the whole world should be saved.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

No, you see it as manipulation and misstate the actual teaching. This is what Reformed run into again and again in every debate, discussion, argument. And no matter how many times they are given the correct way of looking at the teaching, and according to the Bible, they continue doing it. That is the definition of a strawman. I mean no disrespect but it is a fact, and I guess it boils down to we don't know what we don't know, and tradition can and usually does, lock away the ability to see things other than the way we do. But I am not operating from tradition. I lived in the same one you are in for 23 years. And "somehow" I was able to see outside of it.

The teaching is simple to boil down. Can someone resist and reject God's irresistible or effectual Grace? According to everything I have read on reformed theology, the answer is no. So no matter how it is dressed up, it still is forced upon people. If I had the power to change people's wills and went around doing so, would that not be manipulation?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

What 'other' reasons do you do it for?

Mostly to learn what other people think and why. I good debate that does not slide into personal attacks is a good way to test your own beliefs.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The bickering can be problematic; Clanging Cymbals and all. When dealing with Calvinists who Love the Doctrine of 'Grace Alone' too much; there is the Doctrine of Faith Alone, you can turn around and Rub in their Faces. If I weren't a Calvinist, that's what I would do...


Calvinist ~ You are Saved by Grace Alone...

Me ~ Aren't you a Sola Fidest?

Calvinist ~ Yes, but...

Me ~ Please don't call me a Butt. Since you are a Sola Fidest, Aren't Grace Alone and Faith Alone equals; since both belong to the Category of "Alone"?

Calvinist ~ Faith is a Grace because it's a Gift, so...

Me ~ How can Faith be a Gift, if it belongs to a Category other than Grace?


Etc, etc, etc.

Once bickering starts, I, by the grace of God, stop and disengage. As I have gotten older, I have become much more sympathetic to reformed theology. Age teaches you how much you don't know.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Start with the word "impossible."

Is anything impossible for God? If the answer is "Yes," then God is not almighty. If the answer is "No," then the problem is in any reading that renders the text contradictory to God's omnipotent ability to save those who fall away. Only by ignoring the "impossible" can we make the passage limit both God and the sinner being saved.

I can't change the bible. It would be too risky for me. However, if we consider the Greek word translated as "impossible" it indicates that it is referring to the individual rather than to God. It connotes impotence on their part to repent again.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Start with the word "impossible."

Is anything impossible for God? If the answer is "Yes," then God is not almighty. If the answer is "No," then the problem is in any reading that renders the text contradictory to God's omnipotent ability to save those who fall away. Only by ignoring the "impossible" can we make the passage limit both God and the sinner being saved.

Therefore, the passage must mean something other than what Post #111 perceives to be a problem. The Hebrews 6 text cannot be read in contradiction to other texts, like John 10:28.

To borrow from noted Calvinist Charles Spurgeon,

"This is the doctrine that we preach; if a man be saved, all the honor is to be given to Christ; but if a man be lost, all the blame is to be laid upon himself. You will find all true theology summed up in these two short sentences, salvation is all of the grace of God, damnation is all of the will of man."​

The ordinary Calvinist pov is that if a person "loses" his salvation he was never saved in the first place and if eternal life could be lost once gained, then it is not eternal.

1 John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Not, "going to receive," but "have."

One would have to be God to know if this is the case or not. At what point does salvation occur? For God who knows all things, it has occurred already, but for us mortals, we must tread the timeline until we die or He comes again.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

The means is in God's hands but the choice is in ours, given by God. Ez 33:11 ... turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”

 

[Mercy_Shown]

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.

It is the verdict by which all sinners die. John 3:19 And this is the verdict that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.