Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Re: anti-Calvinism does not = biblical apostasy

Re: anti-Calvinism does not = biblical apostasy

Originally posted by 1Way

All - One interesting idea is that in Adam, all fell, thus EVERY human needs to be saved in order to get right with God, but, anyone who goes to hell, does so because of their own sins, not Adam's, because Christ brought redemption to the world just as much as Adam brought sin and death to the world.

I agree. :thumb:

I think that the age of accountability is a serious factor,

I don't believe their is such a thing. Just the name of it itself suggest the fact that we are accountable for our own salvation, which is just not the case.

There is no age of accountability because man has no accountability of their salvation! It's all God's work.

But that's a whole nother topic...

I believe that no man, apart from God’s aid, is righteous enough for eternal life, we all need God’s grace to become accepted by God.

And I agree. But where we part ways is in believing how that grace is applied to a person's life. Is it through some act of goodness on our part, or an act of mercy on God's part? I, of course, believe in the latter. Saving grace through faith is a gift from God.

:think:

But all in all, godrulz is right and Z Man was wrong for suggesting that we open theists promote a means of salvation that is in any way apart from the finished work at the cross.

I was not implying that Armenians, or Open Theists, or whatever you wanna be called, believe that they can be saved apart from God's work at the cross. I was simply making the point that you guys believe there is more to it than just the cross. That Christ's work on the cross did not grant us saving grace, but rather it only allowed men to be saved through their own obediance. You guys believe that:

...the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

Man’s faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work...

Of course not. That's called irresistable grace.

...and faith is a gift of God, God gives everyone coming into this world the light of revelation of Himself, even the invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY seen, so everyone has God’s clear “light revealing” aid before they ever respond to God, EVERYONE.

To believe that God grants faith to every individual is not biblical at all. I could list many scripture references that prove my point if you'd like.

If God did do such a thing, than why do some believe and some don't? You said:

Man’s faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work

and you're exaclty right about that. However, if that call was given to all men, and only some take the initiative of their own will to respond, then it becomes a work, not a gift.

Which is a gift:

1) Bill Gates offers everyone in the world $1 million dollars IF they believe and confess that he is the richest man alive.

or

2) Bill Gates offers you $1 million dollars, which you hastily take because you are in a lot of debt. Because of his generous offer, you believe that he is the richest man alive.

In scenario #1 you get a million dollars IF you accomplish a certain task. In scenario #2 you are given a million dollars freely.

:think:

Another way of saying that, is that rejecting “Calvinism’s individual predestination scheme” does not whatsoever imply that we add to what Christ did for our salvation, that is blasphemous and we simply do not do that.

What do you think Christ did for your salvation?

An anit-Calvinist position, is not an anti-Christ position.

No one said it was.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

I'm not interested in what other's think right now. This is between you and me. I wanna hear what you think. Now, let's go over this step by step, if we have to. Let's start with this first and simple question:

What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

What do you think?

Post #226 was my post on what I think. There is not a need for any of us to answer every line of every post and then every rebuttal, ad nauseum.

Jesus answered questions with more questions.

Was the atonement a literal commercial transaction and paying of a literal debt to the Father, Satan, or someone else.

Did God need appeasing like the heathen gods, because He was miffed at our sins?

There are 4 main theories on the atonement (moral influence, moral government, commercial transaction, etc.).

Christ's death was a substitute for the penalty of the law. This has to do with PUBLIC justice, not RETRIBUTIVE justice. If Christ died to pay a person's sin debt, then nothing further is needed and all should be saved (universalism). The atonement made it possible for God to freely, wisely forgive without undermining His moral law and moral government (He did not need His inner disposition of mercy and grace changed by a bloody sacrifice).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Romans 5 makes it pretty clear that through Adam we all became unrighteous. So how do we not have a moral sin nature if it's by our own free will alone that we sin and has nothing to do with Adam's sin?

By the way... I do not really know what I believe on this issue. I know I'm talking like I believe we sin because we are sinners but I really don't exactly. I just know I do not believe in TULIP'S T.

Briefly, Adam's sin was the occasion/opportunity for humanity's sin. The Federal Headship view is merely a theory, but contradicts the basic thought that the soul that sins is the one that dies (Ezek.). Romans 5 is difficult to exegete. If the same logic is applied throughout, then it would seem to teach that Christ's death was automatically good for everyone (leading to the false doctrine of universalism). In Adam we die (?physically due to sin) and in Christ we are made alive must presume that we identify with Adam when we sin (consequence= death), and we are only made alive in Christ if we believe in Him (not just because He died for humanity= all saved automatically) i.e. the context does have elements of conditionality (e.g. v.17).

We inherited physical depravity from Adam as there were consequences to the human race after the fall...physical death and disease, a propensity to live in the flesh/desires, rather than walk in the Spirit. Moral depravity results as we make sinful choices forming habits and character leading to a destiny. Morality is not inherited since it is a wrong moral choice/lawlessness (not a substance in the genes or blood).

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way gets into Romans five, close to a greater truth he needs, yet he leaves Ro. 5 without it.
"As in Adam all die..."---who are the "all" in Adam spoken of?
They are all those descending from him--and all humanity was "in Adam." As a consequence, they die.
All die in Adam because he was a federal head of all those in him; that is, Adam was (and still is) their representative before God. Therefore, having Adam as a federal head, they became accountable for Adam's sin, and died because of Adam's sin.
As the SCRIPTURE testifies, "...by one man's offense many died..." (v.15); "...by one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation..." (v.18); "...by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." (v.19). Paul stresses the point that all died BECAUSE OF ADAM'S SIN by referring to the death of infants who were yet in such a state of innocency that they "...had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam..." (v.14). Today, newborn infants still die because of Adam's sin even though they themselves have not sinned personally as Adam did.
1Way leaves Rom. 5 without really seeing the clear contrast Paul was making between Adam and Christ.
As all Adam's children were in him and died as a consequence of his sin, so Christ had in Him children also--all those chosen in Him "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) For that reason, because children were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, Christ is referred to by Isaiah as ..."the everlasting Father..." Isa. 9:6 and in Isa. 53:10, His children are referred to as "His seed." Notice carefully in Isa. 9:6 that Christ is called the "Prince of Peace" immediately after He is termed "the Everlasting Father." It is to those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, His "seed," (Isa. 53:10) that He is both the "everlasting Father" and "the Prince of Peace."
Now, begin reading--"As in Adam ALL die, EVEN SO in Christ ALL shall be made alive..." (1 Cor. 15:22); How did all die in Adam? All in Adam DIED. LITERALLY AND WITHOUT FAIL. WITHOUT FAIL AND LITERALLY, ALL IN ADAM DIED!
"EVEN SO"
Even as ALL in Adam died (each and every one literally and without fail,)
"EVEN SO"
"in Christ ALL" LITERALLY AND WITHOUT FAIL, all--each and every one, WITHOUT FAIL AND LITERALLY "SHALL BE MADE ALIVE."
ALL Adam's Children died because of his sin, and ALL Christ's children LIVE (each and every one, literally and without fail,) because of His righteousness.
Adam was a federal head to all in him, and Christ was (and is) the head of the church. Because Adam was a federal head, his sin was imputed to all those in him and they died. Because Christ is the Federal head of the church, His righteousness is imputed to all His seed--those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world--and they LIVE. The apostle Paul spends almost the entirety of Romans chapter five making that point.
Much more could be said, but for the sake of brevity, I stop here. What else could my friends add to this? Does this consideration, and do these mentioned verses bring other verses or points to your minds? PLEASE be my guest!! Expand on it, if you please. Anyone who truly understands Romans chapter five and Romans 9:11 is a CALVINIST!!

 

[godrulz]

Morality, responsibility, accountability, virtue, vice, sin, righteousness, love, selfishness, belief, unbelief are all rooted in our God-given wills. There is nothing back of the will to result in obedience or disobedience (the essence of sanctification).

One cannot impute sin to someone. Sin is a wrong moral CHOICE. Likewise, God does not impute righteousness literally to someone who is still in a state of rebellion, selfishness, disobedience, and sin. Sin and righteousness are not 'things', but right or wrong moral choices. We form a sin nature or Christ-like nature by our choices. We can be declared righteous based on faith in Christ, but there will be sanctification.

Salvation is a change in ultimate intention. It is so radical that the metaphor 'born again' is used. We used to live supremely for Self and where at enmity with God. Now we lovingly, obediently submit to His Lordship and live supremely for the good and glory of God. These are moral choices, not physical changes in our body.
We also love others equal to ourselves (rather than living selfish in our relationships).

Salvation is a love relationship that involves reconciliation. Literal debt payment, imputation, etc. are concepts that take metaphors and make them literal. If salvation is all of God, then all men should be saved (I Tim.; 2 Pet.). Since all men are not saved, man must be a factor as a moral agent in his lost estate.

 

[1Way]

Z Man – 1 of 2

You said man has no accountability of/for their salvation.

I don’t think so, the bible is replete with the sincere and earnest expectation of man to respond to the call of the gospel salvation, we are to seek God, for He is near, yet by your statement and belief in TULIP, man could never in his wildest dreams seek God. God is right, Calvin is wrong, God holds man accountable for his salvation, the warning, the heart cry, the message itself, of the gospel unto salvation, requires man’s reasonability to respond correctly.

Salvation is all God’s work, we open theists agree that the finished work at the cross is sufficient nothing can be added to it, and we are by no means Arminian, they are way too Calvinistic for us, please refrain the thought.

I said

I believe that no man, apart from God’s aid, is righteous enough for eternal life, we all need God’s grace to become accepted by God.

to which you said

And I agree. But where we part ways is in believing how that grace is applied to a person's life. Is it through some act of goodness on our part, or an act of mercy on God's part? I, of course, believe in the latter. Saving grace through faith is a gift from God.

Right, you think that God’s grace is less like what the word necessarily means, it means God’s unmerited favor, it does not mean that God grants it in an arbitrary or capricious way, to me, it means that God honors those who humble themselves and trust in Him. Just like every other single aspect of salvation and righteousness in God, it’s a relationship, God is not a controller, He is pro freedom and agape which is not selfish, i.e. everything has to go my way, He is fine with allowing for the freedom of free will agents to hate or love Him in response to God’s self revealed goodness.

Anyway, we are far apart on all that, just thought I’d share towards a better mutual understanding. But, here seems to be your main issue, and one that I strongly disagree with, you said.

(1) I was not implying that ... Open Theists, ... believe that they can be saved apart from God's work at the cross. (2) I was simply making the point that you guys believe there is more to it than just the cross. That Christ's work on the cross did not grant us saving grace, but rather it only allowed men to be saved through their own obedience. You guys believe that:

(3) ...the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- (4) IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

(1) Good for you, we are saved by Christ’s work and nothing else.

(2) Wrong, but, it directly contradicts your previous point. We can not be saved by Christ’s work alone, and at the same time, it’s Christ’s work plus more.

As to Christ’s work “granting” verses “allowing” men to be saved, that is one vague comparison, we’ll have to go deeper into your thought progression to see what you mean.

But it seems to me that this issue is easily settled, if you agree that Christ died for the world (many passages teach this), but that only the few actually end up getting saved (sure we agree), then you necessarily believe that there is “more to it” than the meritorious work of redemption that Christ brought to the world. If that was all there was to it, then everyone would be saved, closed case, done issue, what are we having for lunch.
... continued next post. ...

 

[1Way]

Z Man – ... continued ... 2 of 2

(1) I was not implying that ... Open Theists, ... believe that they can be saved apart from God's work at the cross. (2) I was simply making the point that you guys believe there is more to it than just the cross. That Christ's work on the cross did not grant us saving grace, but rather it only allowed men to be saved through their own obedience. You guys believe that:

(3) ...the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- (4) IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

(3) The converse is, the death and resurrection of Christ actually saved everyone because He died for everyone and His work is the only work and nothing more for salvation, so all must be saved. Of course that is wrong, so this initial thought is flawed from the get go. It only provided the only work that God would accept so that man could be saved, that is accurate, no other work can save a man, it was required, God provided, God is satisfied with it, most men do not get saved, such is the truth of the matter. It does actually remove God’s punitive wrath from all whosoever is saved, such language is obviously leading up to an eventual point to somehow rescue the author from speaking so many vein things.

Yes, the cross is a place of mercy and grace, it is the only place for the work for salvation, nothing more, nothing less.

(4) There it is again, anti-Calvinism is portrayed as anti-Christian. Sorry, wrong answer. Like I said, and you earlier agreed, God does not leave man up to his own, God gives significant revelation of Himself and His gospel unto salvation, such that God has already demonstrated and offered His grace first, because of this, man can never by his own means respond properly to god. Even when God created Adam, He made him good, thus even though God’s goodness upheld man until he sinned. Man always has aid from God, faith is a gift of God, not as though faith is generated from man without any aid from God.

God’s work of revelation of Himself aids man, every man such that man is able to respond properly to God. And when you say irresistible grace of God, you infer yet another part of TULIP, and again you are wrong. Even after we are saved and have the HS indwelling us and are under His sanctifying grace, we still grieve and resist the HS! To say that God’s grace or goodness can not be resisted is biblical foolishness. Go by God’s word, not mans.

You said

(5) To believe that God grants faith to every individual is not biblical at all. I could list many scripture references that prove my point if you'd like.

If God did do such a thing, than why do some believe and some don't? You said:

Man’s faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work

and you're exaclty right about that. (6) However, if that call was given to all men, and only some take the initiative of their own will to respond, then it becomes a work, not a gift.

(5) I didn’t say that God grants faith to everyone, I said what I said, that God reveals Himself to everyone, significant revelation and understanding such that even His invisible attributes are clearly seen, etc. This means that everyone has God’s aid in doing good and right, no one is left unable to respond to God and His ways appropriately. God and His grace is first, then man may reject or accept God based on their own free will.

As to why some do or do not believe, because God is not a controller, man has the freedom to choose, some accept and most reject God, evil is at it’s heart illogical yet we understand it’s ways. Good is perfectly logical and we understand it’s ways too. The best I can say is that men get lost in their sin, which as we know, is illogical. But don’t get too carried away with such a question, when the free will theist askes the same question of the Calvinistic predestinian, why does God choose only the few to get saved, the can of worms is spilt and the mess remains even until this very day. We free will theist’s have the luxury of looking at any evil or sinful deed, and once considering why man does such things, you have the same workings for why man also rejects God in favor of eternal damnation.

(6) If, please don’t insult yourself so blazingly, you know that the call of the gospel has gone out into all the world. Secondly, it’s not that only some take the initiative, everyone has the initiative, everyone responds for or against, if you are not for me, you are against me.

Lastly, you say that when man responds in faith to God, then that (somehow) becomes a work not a gift, ,,, what can I say but, no that’s wrong. I think you even know the scripture that refutes that view, faith is accounted for righteousness without works, to him who believes but does not work, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Again, just because we do not accept your brand of individual predestination, does not equate to violating scripture.

:1Way:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

godrulz--Concerning your post #245:

"...David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom
God IMPUTES righteousness apart from works." Rom. 4:6


The capitalization in the above verse on the word IMPUTES
are mine, added for emphasis.
There are other verses in scripture which teach imputation.
Get yourself a good concordance and spend some time finding out what Scripture teaches. If you don't correct your error on the
matter, I will assume that you consider your authority to exceed the authority of God. I will not take more time with this. Now demonstrate to everyone whether you consider yourself to be an authority higher than the Scripture or not.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

godrulz--Concerning your post #245:

"...David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom
God IMPUTES righteousness apart from works." Rom. 4:6


The capitalization in the above verse on the word IMPUTES
are mine, added for emphasis.
There are other verses in scripture which teach imputation.
Get yourself a good concordance and spend some time finding out what Scripture teaches. If you don't correct your error on the
matter, I will assume that you consider your authority to exceed the authority of God. I will not take more time with this. Now demonstrate to everyone whether you consider yourself to be an authority higher than the Scripture or not.

Romans 4:6 (NIV) "...blessedness of the man to whom God CREDITS righteousness apart from works..."

This blessedness is on the basis of FAITH, not faith and works. The argument of Rom. 4 is that we are justified by faith, as was Abraham. We are justified in God's sight by faith, but in man's sight (evidence) by works. When a person believes, God credits the faith as righteousness, apart from works of the law (instead of counting his sins against him=> forgiveness...relaxing of the penalty of the law). Either you misunderstand the biblical concept of imputation, or the translators are smuggling in their pre-conceived theology of imputation (cf. 'sinful nature' vs literal 'flesh'). A literal imputation of sin or righteousness becomes a metaphysical (substance, essence, thing) issue. In fact, salvation is not a literal metaphysical problem (except perhaps glorification by the resurrection body). Salvation is a MORAL issue, which is in the realm of moral choices and agency. Confusing these different concepts will lead to erroneous conclusions.

Vine's: impute (archaic English KJV may not be the best concept)= to reckon, take into account, or METAPHORICALLY, to put down to a person's account (not literal imputation of a thing)...to reckon or credit is a better sense than impute.

So, God reckons us righteous because of our faith, not works. We still have to have had a change in ultimate intention (who or what we live for), followed by subordinate choices that lead to holiness in life (not just theory or on paper).

(dictionary...impute...ascribe goodness as from another...vs we are sinful or holy in reality, not abstract).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz
Was the atonement a literal commercial transaction and paying of a literal debt to the Father, Satan, or someone else.

The atonement was God freely choosing to pay the debt we owe to Him.

Did God need appeasing like the heathen gods, because He was miffed at our sins?

Of course not. Which just goes to show how gracious and wonderful God truely is. Despite our sins and wicked ways, and the fact that God didn't have to die for us, He did so anyways.

If Christ died to pay a person's sin debt, then nothing further is needed...

THAT'S EXACTLY IT!!!! He did it all!!! Glory to God!!!

...and all should be saved (universalism).

Why should all be saved? Why should anyone be saved for that matter?

If God died for one individual, is it not fair to others? Is God obligated to save anyone? Can He not choose who to bestow His grace upon if He so chooses?

The atonement made it possible for God to freely, wisely forgive without undermining His moral law and moral government...

That's it? Christ's death only made it possible to be saved? You believe:

that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

 

[godrulz]

Your conclusions do not compute, but show a classic Calvinistic misunderstanding. Paying a debt is one of several metaphors about salvation. If Christ literally paid the debt for humanity, all would be saved since the penalty would be relaxed for everyone if God is impartial and just. God does not demonstrate mercy and wrath in an arbitrary way (another Calvinistic error). This would be against His holy, just, loving nature and the universal moral law of God.

 

[Z Man]

1Way,

You have shocked me. I am pleased that we can debate in a mature manner. Thank you.

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man – 1 of 2

You said man has no accountability of/for their salvation.

I don’t think so, the bible is replete with the sincere and earnest expectation of man to respond to the call of the gospel salvation, we are to seek God, for He is near...

Let me clarify myself. I believe that man has no responsibility over their salvation in that they can do nothing to earn it or to lose it. Salvation is all God.

yet by your statement and belief in TULIP, man could never in his wildest dreams seek God.

Untrue. Man desires not to seek God unless God has saved them. Then, and only then, does man genuinely seek and desire holiness and to be close to God.

God is right, Calvin is wrong, God holds man accountable for his salvation, the warning, the heart cry, the message itself, of the gospel unto salvation, requires man’s reasonability to respond correctly.

Call me Calvinist for the sake of arguement, but I don't follow Calvin any more than you follow Arminious (or whatever his name was). I am in agreement with Jonathan Edwards, who said in the Preface to his great book on THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL:

"I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught."

...to me, [grace] means that God honors those who humble themselves and trust in Him.

In other words, grace is granted to all the good boys and girls on earth...



I don't think so. You're extremely wrong here. In fact, your statement contridicts your previous statement in which you defined grace as "being an UNMERITED favor". Yet you turn right around and proclaim that "[grace] means that God honors those who humble themselves and trust in Him."

(2)But it seems to me that this issue is easily settled, if you agree that Christ died for the world (many passages teach this), but that only the few actually end up getting saved (sure we agree), then you necessarily believe that there is “more to it” than the meritorious work of redemption that Christ brought to the world. If that was all there was to it, then everyone would be saved, closed case, done issue, what are we having for lunch.

Show me one verse that says Christ died for everyone? Need I remind you the specific statement that Christ made in regards to who He actually came to die for? Here, I'll show it anyways, case it slipped your mind:

John 10:15
As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life FOR THE SHEEP.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way
(3) The converse is, the death and resurrection of Christ actually saved everyone because He died for everyone and His work is the only work and nothing more for salvation, so all must be saved. Of course that is wrong, so this initial thought is flawed from the get go.

Again, show me one verse that says Christ died for everyone.

I just proved that Christ only died for the sheep.

[Christ's atonement] only provided the only work that God would accept so that man could be saved, that is accurate, no other work can save a man...

I don't understand. Maybe you can help my confusion. But you just said that:

"the atonement only provided the work that God would accept SO that man could be saved."

Then you state that:

..."no other work can save a man."

So which is it? Does the atonement save men, or does it just provide the work that God accepts so that man can be saved? If it's just the work that God accepts so that man can be saved, what action must take place for salvation?

:think:

Yes, the cross is a place of mercy and grace, it is the only place for the work for salvation, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, it only provided the work that allows God to forgive men for their salvation. You don't believe that the atonement itself granted salvation; it only made it possible. What does save men? That's what I want to know. Is it the atonement or not?

(4)God’s work of revelation of Himself aids man, every man such that man is able to respond properly to God.

Then why do some respond and others do not? Is it stupidity? Is it pride? Do they have something you don't, or vice-versa?

And when you say irresistible grace of God, you infer yet another part of TULIP, and again you are wrong. Even after we are saved and have the HS indwelling us and are under His sanctifying grace, we still grieve and resist the HS! To say that God’s grace or goodness can not be resisted is biblical foolishness. Go by God’s word, not mans.

The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.

In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did." And Paul speaks of grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). God gives many entreaties and promptings which are resisted. In fact the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament is one protracted story of resistance, as the parable of the wicked tenants shows (Matthew 21:33-43; cf. Romans 10:21).

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace".

NOTE: It should be obvious from this that irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will. That would even be a contradiction in terms. On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their best interests.

- from Desiring God Ministries webpage

(5) I didn’t say that God grants faith to everyone, I said what I said, that God reveals Himself to everyone, significant revelation and understanding such that even His invisible attributes are clearly seen, etc. This means that everyone has God’s aid in doing good and right, no one is left unable to respond to God and His ways appropriately. God and His grace is first, then man may reject or accept God based on their own free will.

As to why some do or do not believe, because God is not a controller, man has the freedom to choose, some accept and most reject God, evil is at it’s heart illogical yet we understand it’s ways. Good is perfectly logical and we understand it’s ways too. The best I can say is that men get lost in their sin, which as we know, is illogical.

Wrong. God doesn't save the ones who are good. That's not how it works buddy.

But don’t get too carried away with such a question, when the free will theist askes the same question of the Calvinistic predestinian, why does God choose only the few to get saved, the can of worms is spilt and the mess remains even until this very day.

Who says God only saves a few? There are many whom God has saved.

(6)everyone has the initiative, everyone responds for or against, if you are not for me, you are against me.

Everyone responds against unless God has saved them.

Lastly, you say that when man responds in faith to God, then that (somehow) becomes a work not a gift, ,,, what can I say but, no that’s wrong. I think you even know the scripture that refutes that view, faith is accounted for righteousness without works, to him who believes but does not work, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Again, just because we do not accept your brand of individual predestination, does not equate to violating scripture.

:1Way:

If God's grace is offered to everyone only if they meet the requirements He asks of us, then salvation has become nothing more than what it was before Christ; obeying the commandments of God. No man can do that. The 10 commandments taught us that.

If God's grace is given to us freely, with no strings attached, then it's a gift.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Your conclusions do not compute, but show a classic Calvinistic misunderstanding. Paying a debt is one of several metaphors about salvation. If Christ literally paid the debt for humanity, all would be saved since the penalty would be relaxed for everyone if God is impartial and just.

God did not die for everyone. What a false statement! That's your error! Find one verse that states Christ died for everyone? You'll never find it. In fact, if you really want to know who Christ died for, look in John 10. He blatantly tells all that He came to die only for the sheep. That's it. Not everyone is a sheep.

God does not demonstrate mercy and wrath in an arbitrary way (another Calvinistic error). This would be against His holy, just, loving nature and the universal moral law of God.

It's nice to know that you have the mind of God and know His ways.

Seriously though, how do you know such things? Are you God? Do you know what's best for the world?

 

[godrulz]

I Tim. 2:1-5 "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for EVERYONE- ....this is good and pleases God our Savior, who WANTS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himslef as a ransom FOR ALL MEN..."

'All' means 'all' in the Greek!

2 Peter 3:9 "..He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance."

Anyone/everyone means the same in Greek!

i) It is God's sovereign will that all men will be saved (see above). The atonement is unlimited and efficacious for all those who respond to His call to repentance and faith. Calvinism is passive waiting for God to regenerate the so-called elect. The biblical view is persuasion evangelism, preaching the Gospel in love, truth, and power as dying men persuading dying men. We are ambassadors for Christ, actively preaching truth with the intent of impacting the will, intellect, and emotions to chose the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of Self.

ii) Not all men are saved. Is this God's will? (no...see above). Is it man's fault? The soul that sins is the one that will perish (Ezek.). You MUST be born again or you will not see the kingdom of God. This is an imperative (command) or ultimatum from the sovereign God to free-will man.
unless YOU repent, you will perish (Lk.). Believe= life; unbelief= death (Jn. 1-3).

Summary: God wants all men to be saved and as provided an efficacious atonement.

Not all are saved due to unbelief and selfish rebellion. They suffer the consequence of separation from God, grieving and breaking His tender heart.

Those who respond to His love and truth appropriate the finished work of Christ on their behalf and are saved.

Jn. 10:9 "I am the gate; WHOEVER enters through me WILL BE SAVED."

It is not explicit in this passage that regeneration precedes faith. In fact, anyone who hears His voice and trusts in Him will become sheep who know and hear his voice. Those who ignore Him, will not become sheep and will not know Him or be known as sheep. Repentance and faith precede regeneration and placement into the Body of Christ. This is not possible without God's drawing and enablement (not negating the role of man's responsive free will).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

I Tim. 2:1-5 "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for EVERYONE- ....this is good and pleases God our Savior, who WANTS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himslef as a ransom FOR ALL MEN..."

'All' means 'all' in the Greek!

2 Peter 3:9 "..He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance."

Anyone/everyone means the same in Greek!

Some passages speak of Christ's dying for "all" men and of His death as saving the "world", yet others speak of His death as being definite in design and of His dying for particular people and securing salvation for them.

There are 2 classes of texts that speak of Christ's saving work in general terms: (a) Those containing the word "world"- John 1:9,29; 3:16-17; 4:42; II Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; 4:14

(b) Those containing the word "all"- Rom 5:18; II Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:4-6, Heb 2:9; II Pet 3:9.

One reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., He died for Jews and Gentiles alike) but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

There are other passages that show that He meant to save a "particular" people.

Matt 1:21 "...for He will save HIS people from their sins."

Matt 20:28 "...the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Matt 26:28 "...for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

John 11:50-53 "...you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of His own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took council how to put him to death.

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained for Himself with His own blood.

Eph 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, that the church might be presented before Him in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be Holy and without blemish.

Rom 8:32-34 He who did not spare His own Son but gave Himself up for us all, will He not also give us all things with Him? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?

Heb 2:17; 3:1 Therefore He had to be made like His bretheren in every respect, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people......Therefore, holy bretheren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.

Heb 9:15 Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgression under the first covenant.

Heb 9:28 ....Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many...

Rev 5:9 ....and they sang a new song, saying "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou was slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation..."

Not all are saved due to unbelief and selfish rebellion. They suffer the consequence of separation from God, grieving and breaking His tender heart.

Everyone is guilty of this. To state otherwise is to put Christians into a special category of people who are not included in the word "all" found in Romans 3:26.

Those who respond to His love and truth appropriate the finished work of Christ on their behalf and are saved.

Thus, salvation by works. We are saved granted we respond. The atonement had nothing to do with our salvation, according to you. Only our actions in response to God's call do. That's salvation by works.

Jn. 10:9 "I am the gate; WHOEVER enters through me WILL BE SAVED."

It is not explicit in this passage that regeneration precedes faith. In fact, anyone who hears His voice and trusts in Him will become sheep who know and hear his voice.

Wrong. Jesus stated that His sheep would hear His voice and then follow Him, because they are His sheep and know His voice. They are sheep before He calls out to them. They respond because they are His sheep.

 

[godrulz]

We become part of the elect (corporate) when we individually believe. We do not believe because we are predestined to be elect. We become sheep/children of God after we receive Him (Jn. 1:12).

This will go in circles. God commands men everywhere to repent. The intelligent response is to obey and repent. He would not command this if it were impossible or just for an elite 'elect' group.

Volumes have been written about this subject. I do not find your verses contrary to a non-Calvinistic understanding.

The 'all/everyone' verses stand on their own and do not need to be rationalized away to fit a pre-conceived theology.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz
We become part of the elect (corporate) when we individually believe. We do not believe because we are predestined to be elect. We become sheep/children of God after we receive Him (Jn. 1:12).

That's not what the bible says. We hear and follow His voice because we are His sheep...

This will go in circles. God commands men everywhere to repent. The intelligent response is to obey and repent. He would not command this if it were impossible or just for an elite 'elect' group.

Volumes have been written about this subject. I do not find your verses contrary to a non-Calvinistic understanding.

The 'all/everyone' verses stand on their own and do not need to be rationalized away to fit a pre-conceived theology.

Instead of repeating your opinions and making broad and general statements concerning the TULIP doctrine, why don't we go over the facts. I've presented my case, in clarity, and with scripture. I would like to hear your comments on them specifically.

Your general thoughts on the TULIP doctrine itself is duely noted. But it sounds like you're just being stubborn. You seem afraid, or extremely too close minded to have this discussion with me. Either that, or you just don't know that much about it to present a defense. Either way, quit stating that other's have debated this topic for years. I know that already. I could care less about that right now. This discussion is solely between you and me right now. Let's have a debate. If you can't handle this subject, just admit it and we will move on. But I ask that you sincerely take a hard look at what I have presented to you, compare it to the truth of scripture (noting what I have presented to prove my case), and make a rational conclusion based on all the evidence that is before you.

Not saying that you are or anything, but don't base anything on feelings that you have, or pre-eminitions that you have had since you were a youth; simply open up to the truth of God's word and allow Him to show you and teach you things that you would otherwise be too close-minded to understand.

 

[geralduk]

HOW can DEAD men WALK if God does not CALL THEM?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by geralduk

HOW can DEAD men WALK if God does not CALL THEM?

The metaphor of being dead does not mean that we literally have no capacity to use our will, intellect, and emotions. This is self-evident in the reality of our daily lives.

God DESIRES all men to come to Him. His desires are not realized with every individual (His will is thwarted). God's INTENTION to create moral beings who can accept grace is realized in that many do chose to follow Him.

ZMAN: We have talked on other threads and there are 1000s of posts here dealing with Calvinism vs Open Theism. Not wanting to engage every post does not mean that one cannot. We are stewards with limited time and energy. We are both coming from perspectives that we are convinced of.

Arminians see the Jn. 10 'sheep' passage with a different twist than a Calvinist would. We agree that the sheep hear and follow His voice. Any other assumptions or presuppositions related to TULIP are not explicit in this passage. Alternate understandings have validity. We have to base our case on all relevant passages. I have shared my perspective on many verses with you and others. We really are going in circles, so thank you for respecting my freedom to comment briefly when appropriate or desired.

Do not make the mistake that Mormon King David makes to think that if every comment is not engaged or refuted, it must mean his/your position is correct.