Posted on 07/28/2003 1:24:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
'many are called', so the call of God to ineffectual is it?
Now, how can they be 'called' unless they were Predestinated? (Rom.8)
I do read that Christ said "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink'. (Jn.7:38)
Ho, every one that thirseth come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat, yea, come, buy wine and milk without money without price.(Isa.55:1)
But God was just kidding us, He doesn't want everyone to come and isn't offering anything free now is He, since according to Calvinism, He has set it up that only those He chose (for no known reason) will come.
So how are we to define 'many' and 'few' by comparing scripture with scripture.
In Romans 5:19 we see 'many were made sinners' by Adam's disobedence (but we know that all were made sinners from Rom.3:23!) and 'many' will be made righteous by the obedience of Christ.
Thus, in certain contexts 'many' and 'few' actually have to do with the numbers involved (billions are called) but much fewer in number are actually 'chosen' because they are the ones who believe, which God foresaw doing so.(Rom.8, 1Pet.1:2)
Not at all.
Calvinists theologians want to represent their system as teaching 'total depravity' which is a bible doctrine held by both Arminius and Wesley.
What in fact, they are teaching is total inability which means that man must be regenerated before he can believe.
Thus, according to Calvinism, a man is not saved by faith, but believes because he is saved!
They do this since they reject the idea that an Omnipotent God can reach a spiritually dead man and give that man enough light to make a choice.
Thus, while we say that man is spiritually dead and needs God grace to understand salvation and respond to the Gospel, the Calvinists say that the spiritually dead man is incapable of doing so (and God is not able to make him capable of doing so as the Arminians and Wesleyians hold) thus, God must first regenerate the man and then give the man faith.
Thus, 'total depravity' is redefined to mean 'total inability'
Most Calvinists do not really know that is what is being taught, when the term is being used.
Concerning Unconditional Election: This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ. This is an opinion of the author, not what the teaching itself says. But he presents it as though that is what Calvinisits believe. Subtle deception (possibly unintentional) once again.
In extreme calvinism it is a reality.
In other words, if the elect are the elect by an Omnipotent decree, they will be saved no what anyone does or doesn't do.
I do not say all Calvinists hold to this, but it has been a problem for Calvinists, as even they admit among themselves.
Concerning Irresistible Grace: By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved. Once again, the author inserts his own opinion and passes it off as Calvin's teaching. That is his own interpretation of Calvin's teaching. The author doesn't even try to quote Calvin, or to deal with what Calvin actually said, he just takes it upon himself to tell the reader his own interpretation, from his own obviously biased viewpoint. He's saying, in effect, "trust me, I know what Calvin said, and I don't agree with it, so I'll give you some scripture that seems to speak against what I say Calvin says." He may have the best of intentions, but he is being dishonest in doing so.
Good point. He should have quoted Calvin.
Or at least the Synod of Dort which does state that very issue.
However, do you have a quote to show that he is wrong?
I mean here is a perfect chance to show what Calvin really taught.
Irresistable grace is an integral part of the Calvinistic TULIP system.
The very difference between Calvinism and non-Calvinism is just that, that grace can be resisted and rejected.
Closing remarks: I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ.
Amen!
I believe in the eternal security of the believer.
Amen!
I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men,
Amen!
and I believe what the Bible says, "That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Amen!
You sound like a Baptist to me!
Here he attempts to protray himself as being "above the fray", and adopts the philosophical "high ground", to lend weight to what he has written. It sounds good, and it certainly would persuade the average listener that he must know what he's talking about, because he's doing so from a neutral position. Then he says: But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. A dishonest statement. What he really means is, "But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as I have defined them."
Well, it would be very simple to find out how they are being 'redefined' but they aren't.
Since he has not been entirely truthful with his definitions, his whole teaching here must be called into question. He may sincerely believe he is right, but he hasn't been completely honest with his definitions. His bias against Calvinism has colored his perceptions, so he cannot lay claim to the high moral ground that he attempts to do at the end of his teaching here. Frumanchu had a word for it...sludge. I think it's an apt description.
I think you are being a bit harsh in that judgment.
This was an essay not a treatise.
For some works on Calvinism that supports what he wrote, see David Hunt 'What Kind of Love is This' a popular work, easy to read.
For a more 'scholarly' work, see Laurence Vance 'The Other Side of Calvinism'.
Now, if what is being said by the author of this article is inncorrect, all the Calvinists have to do is show that Calvin did not teach irresistable grace.
Show that Total Depravity isn't really inability, hence the need for regeneration preceding faith (a non-Biblical view-logical or otherwise)
thank you for the post.
No, they are chosen because they chose correctly.
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.(Rom.5:2)
See, to get the 'access' to the grace of God (Justification) we have to believe first
It is by faith ye are saved...
So in order to be 'chosen' you have to 'chose'!
They are 'flip-flops' only for those who refuse to see the truth.
So the choosing is not of God then. God doesn't get a chance to choose us, unless we choose Him. Why must you diminish God?
Unregenerate man has no such ability, for he is not only not in fellowship with God, he doesn't WANT to be. He is totally unable to do anything that is acceptable to God, totally unable to seek God, in fact he actively avoids God, just as Adam did in the Garden after he sinned. Unregenerate man cannot choose God of his own volition, on his own impetus, because he knows he is sinful and displeasing to God in his subconscious. He may not consciously know why he avoids God, all he knows is that he wants nothing to do with God. Such a man will not get up one morning and say to himself, "This is the day I seek God. This is the day I will find Him and yield myself to Him. This is the day I want to get saved." Not gonna happen!
Total Inability arise from the fact that man is already a sinner, not just a potential sinner. He is born that way! He has sinned from his earliest opportunity. It is his nature to sin. He can do nothing but sin. Proverbs says that even the plowing of the wicked is sin. "There is none righteous, no not one. None seek after God." "All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God." It isn't just that man doesn't WANT to seek God, he CANNOT! He is born in a state of already resisting God's Grace. It's not a decision he makes, it's his natural reaction.
It is God's Grace that apprehends a man, and causes him to turn and receive God's gift of salvation. It is never man deciding that he will stop resisting Grace, and receive God's gift. God must first enable the man to receive, or he will not, and therefore cannot.
That brings me to another point. A small one, to be sure, but one that I think is important. A lot of people talk about "accepting Christ", "accepting" God's gift. I think it's more accurate that we receive Christ, we receive God's gift. Acceptance implies an agreement between equals, and an even exchange, a negotiated settlement. Receive implies total submissivenenss on the part of the receiver. The Giver gives, the receiver receives. So it is with God and us. We didn't negotiate with Him, we submitted to Him. We received His offer, as-is. It's a small point, I know, but something I believe the Lord showed me some time ago.
Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. If one "chooses" to "believe or not," one is performing a 'work.' -indeed, the biggest 'work' of all.
It seems to me that if one believes the Protestant proclamtion of "faith alone," one perforce must accept the Calvinist concept of irresistable grace.
And I'm Catholic, for Pete's sake.
Isn't it rich, are we a pair?
Me with my feet on the ground,
Your head in the air
Dumbing it down
Isn't it Grace, by which we're approved?
Or is it the constant repentance
until you can't move
without falling down or
Dumbing it down
Just when I prayed you'd open your doors
And I started attending the church that is yours.
make my entreaty again for Christ's Lordship of all, only to
find left open skulls;
Nothing is there.
You must love farce
whose fault I can't say, but
He never gets what He wants
Without your okay, so
Omnipotence drowns
And Providence frowns
as you Dumb it Down
What a surprise that God predestined
you would think what you do
and forget about Him
Dumbing it down
You flit about
to build house and bridge
testaments to your compassion without
any mention of Him
In this week's church bulletin here
we've ditched the sermon for interpretive dance
and oh lookee here
There's going to be clowns
Next week there'll be clowns
Don't bother, they're here
But of course. -)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.