"All"

[TSIBHOD]

Is it possible for a Calvinist to believe that "salvation is available to every individual" if the meaning is clarified the right way? Or do you think that that is definitely not a Calvinist statement.

[Imblessed]

would you care to clarify what it means? :)

[TSIBHOD]

would you care to clarify what it means? :)
I'm letting Calvinists clarify it. I'm just wondering Calvinists here can find some sense to give the statement so that they would agree with it.

There are some things to which I say, "That's definitely not true." There are other things to which I say, "That could be true, depending on how you define it." So I'm wondering what Calvinists think about my original statement. Do they think it is definitely not true, or do they think that it could be true if it was defined in the right way?

[Imblessed]

I'm letting Calvinists clarify it. I'm just wondering Calvinists here can find some sense to give the statement so that they would agree with it.

There are some things to which I say, "That's definitely not true." There are other things to which I say, "That could be true, depending on how you define it." So I'm wondering what Calvinists think about my original statement. Do they think it is definitely not true, or do they think that it could be true if it was defined in the right way?

Ah, I see! (really, I do! ^_^ )

Well, as a calvinist, I personally would say that "That's definately not true"

n't think that any clarification or change of definition would make it true. I think the command for ALL to repent is true, but I don't think that salvation is available to ALL. Belief in predestination negates that option, in my opinion.

Maybe a Calvinist will come on here and put it in a different way, a way that would make it true, but I can't think of one.

[frumanchu]

Is it possible for a Calvinist to believe that "salvation is available to every individual" if the meaning is clarified the right way? Or do you think that that is definitely not a Calvinist statement.

I would have to say it is true, depending on the context of the statement.

The Gospel is preached to all men, elect and reprobate alike. All men have free will in the sense that they have the natural ability to choose according to their desire. But only the elect, upon regeneration by the Holy Spirit, have the moral ability to choose Christ. The will of the unregenerate man is in slavery to sin. Only when he is freed from the wicked desires of his own heart can he truly incline himself to good and to God.

Salvation is available to every individual, but only the elect shall lay hold of it.

[drstevej]

The "Liver & Onions Parable"

The Reformed Doctrine of Free Will


Suppose you detest L&O. The sight and smell makes you sick.


Just once, to appease the insistence of a friend that L&O really is good tasting, touched your tongue's tip to the L&O and the taste repulsed you.

You are invited to a buffet where a friend suggests you try some L&O. You refuse. He insists that the L&O is wonderful. He takes a bite and smiles saying "Just try it." You say, "No way!"

You freely reject the L&O because of your senses (sight, taste and smell). You do so on this occasion and every occasion it is offered to you. Your action regarding L&O is predictable and certain.

► SUCH is the unregenerate person's free rejection of God because his heart and nature is only evil continuously.

===

Now suppose this L&O loather is supernaturally changed into a L&O lover.

God changes his taste buds as well as olfactory and mental responses. Now, at the buffet he asks his friend, "What smells so good?" He is surprised to find that the great smell comes from a plate of L&O! He is further surprised that it really doesn't look that bad now, in fact it looks good. He is salivating.

He grabs a fork and timidly takes a small bite to his tongue for a test. The test becomes a taste -- then he eats a huge serving. L&O has suddenly become his favorite food. From that day on he looks for L&O whenever he can find it and he specifically requests it. He is a L&O lover now.

He freely and predictably chooses L&O after this craving has been placed upon him by God.

► SUCH is the response of one who is regenerated by receiving a new heart and nature.

====

BTW, in Heaven... Everyone loves L&O. Nothing else is eaten or even desired. All freely savor the smell and taste of L&O forever and ever. Hallelujah!

[Jon_]

Is it possible for a Calvinist to believe that "salvation is available to every individual" if the meaning is clarified the right way? Or do you think that that is definitely not a Calvinist statement.

No. God determines the availability of salvation. This is the doctrine of limited or particular atonement. Christ's sacrifice was effective only for the elect; therefore, salvation is only for the elect.

[Imblessed]

I would have to say it is true, depending on the context of the statement.

The Gospel is preached to all men, elect and reprobate alike. All men have free will in the sense that they have the natural ability to choose according to their desire. But only the elect, upon regeneration by the Holy Spirit, have the moral ability to choose Christ. The will of the unregenerate man is in slavery to sin. Only when he is freed from the wicked desires of his own heart can he truly incline himself to good and to God.

Salvation is available to every individual, but only the elect shall lay hold of it.

see I knew someone more qualified than I would find a way to make it true!

nice explanation Fru :thumbsup:

[TSIBHOD]

God determines the availability of salvation. This is the doctrine of limited or particular atonement. Christ's sacrifice was effective only for the elect; therefore, salvation is only for the elect.
You answered "No," but do these statements really disagree with what frumanchu said? I know that the doctrine of Limited Atonement means that Christ's sacrifice was effective only for the elect, but is this necessarily always at odd with the statement, "Salvation is available to every individual"?

[Jon_]

You answered "No," but do these statements really disagree with what frumanchu said? I know that the doctrine of Limited Atonement means that Christ's sacrifice was effective only for the elect, but is this necessarily always at odd with the statement, "Salvation is available to every individual"?

It's a semantical argument, I think.

When you consider that God has already preordained those who will accept Christ and those who will not, the scope of the question defeats itself. Salvation is not available to the reprobate because God has already preordained that they will not believe. It is similarly true that it is unavailable because they would never willingly accept it. Either way, both statements are accurate, so it doesn't do a whole lot of good to argue which one is "more correct."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Antman_05]

1 Tim 2:4
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.[/url]


(http://www.christianforums.com/t1591486-all.html#_ftn3)The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

OK the way i look at this is, yes God desires all to come to salvation this is showing what God's heart is but it doesn't mean all will be saved as God hasn't predestined all to come to Salvation. The reason for this is best stated in Romans 9:15 and 18.
Romans 9:15
15 For He says to Moses, x (http://www.christianforums.com/t1591486-all.html#_ftn1)“I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” x (http://www.christianforums.com/t1591486-all.html#_ftn2)Ex. 33:19

The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville
Romans 9:18
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He a (http://www.christianforums.com/t1591486-all.html#_ftnref2)hardens. a (http://www.christianforums.com/t1591486-all.html#_ftn2)Ex. 4:21; Deut. 2:30; Josh. 11:20; John 12:40; Rom. 11:7, 25

[url="http://www.christianforums.com/t1591486-all.html#_ftnref2"]The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

[Lockheed]

Antman, have you considered that v. 1 -2 is expressing a different kind of people than people would normally pray for?

1Ti 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
Thus v4 is not saying God desires something He cannot have, rather, that God desires to save even kings and those in authority.

Finally, this is just another view of that passage. Yet another view is found here: http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/sratonement.htm

[Antman_05]

The only problem with what your saying is that in the Greek the word all does mean all, mean everyone, or as Jesus put it "whosoever". So the most logical conclusion is just what i put up.

[Lockheed]

The only problem with what your saying is that in the Greek the word all does mean all, mean everyone, or as Jesus put it "whosoever". So the most logical conclusion is just what i put up.

There's no problem with "all" meaning "all", the problem is whether "all" means "each and every person who ever lived". This is clearly not the case given Romans 9.

[Antman_05]

LOL, what the, for real. If all doesn't mean all as in everyone then what does all mean, most but not all.

[Jon_]

LOL, what the, for real. If all doesn't mean all as in everyone then what does all mean, most but not all.

It means all of a specific group--like Christians.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Antman_05]

G3956

πᾶς

pas

pas

Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

[Antman_05]

Thats the Greek All means all not just Christians, dang i could be a good Weslyan, to bad i think He got it wrong.

[frumanchu]

LOL, what the, for real. If all doesn't mean all as in everyone then what does all mean, most but not all.

The Greek word pas has many different meanings. The simplest translation is "all" but the assumption that all means each and every individual thing or person is not necessarily correct.

Consider the following verse in the KJV:

1 Timothy 6:10For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Love of money is the root of all evil? Did Adam transgress the commandment of God in the garden for financial gain? Of course not.



Now consider another translation:For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. (ESV, emphasis added)



This makes much more sense. Money motivates men to commit all sorts of unrighteous acts, but not every unrighteous act that man does is motivated by the love of money.


Consider the following by Spurgeon, which I believe to be an apt description of the word:


... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...



- C.H. Spurgeon, from a sermon on Particular Redemption

[Lockheed]

From Calvin's Commentary of 1 Timothy...



But not to dwell longer than is proper on a matter that is not essential, Paul, in my own opinion, simply enjoins that, whenever public prayers are offered, petitions and supplications should be made for all men, even for those who at present are not at all related to us. And yet this heaping up of words is not superfluous; but Paul appears to me purposely to join together three terms for the same purpose, in order to recommend more warmly, and urge more strongly, earnest and constant prayer. We know now sluggish we are in this religious duty; and therefore we need not wonder if, for the purpose of arousing us to it, the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, employs various excitements...


Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. “If God” say they, “wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.” They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.

But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, “Now, kings, understand,” and again, in the same Psalm,

“I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession.” (<190208>Psalm 2:8-10.)

In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising: out of that love which we owe to our neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.

With the same view does he call God our Savior; for whence do we obtain salvation but from the undeserved kindness of God? Now the same God who has already made us partakers of salvation may sometime extend his grace to them also. He who hath already drawn us to him may draw them along with us. The Apostle takes for granted that God will do so, because it had been thus foretold by the predictions of the prophets, concerning all ranks and all nations.

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/1tim.htm


----------




Let's take the "all means all" argument a step further.Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.


Here in Romans 5:18 it states, clearly, that through Christ's act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to "all men". G3956

πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.



Look familar? The same Greek word for "all" in Romans 5:18 is the same for "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4.

What would the "all means all" view indicate for this passage but that "each and every individual who ever lived" is in fact justified by Christ's righteousness?

I don't think we as good scholars of the Bible are quite ready to say that "all means all" in every situation, especially in the writings of Paul. Therefore it is true that in some cases "all" doesn't mean "each and every individual that every lived" but sometimes means "all of a specific group" or even "all kinds".

As Calvin points out, it is all kinds of men that Paul has in view here, not the Arminian "each and every person who ever lived."

[Jon_]

Thats the Greek All means all not just Christians, dang i could be a good Weslyan, to bad i think He got it wrong.

You have to look at context, my Wesleyan friend. ;)

If I say that everyone has to pay taxes, I do not mean that every living soul has to pay taxes. I mean that everyone who is obligated to pay taxes must pay them.

Another example:

We all went to the ice cream parlor after the baseball game. Well, who is all here? It is we. Who are we? Context defines it. Many Scriptures follow this use of all, such as 2 Peter 3:9, which is one of the most often misquoted Scripture proofs for Wesleyans:
(2 Peter 3:9 KJV) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
"The Lord is longsuffering to us-ward." Us here does not mean all men, instead it means all beloved, which we know from context. See v. 8:
(2 Peter 3:8 KJV) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Beloved is a synonym for believers. 2 Peter 3:9 does not talk about God's desire for all men to come to repentence, it talks God's desire that all the beloved should not perish. This verse affirms eternal security.

This is just one of many examples where "all," "us," or "we," needs to be considered in context. All rarely means all in Scripture.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Antman_05]

But you can not say that God doesn't command all to be Saved, otherwise those who weren't commanded could say on Jugement Day i wasn't commanded so it didn't apply for me, and God would have to let them in.

[Antman_05]

I'll have to debate another day i got work Cya you all God Bless.

[frumanchu]

But you can not say that God doesn't command all to be Saved, otherwise those who weren't commanded could say on Jugement Day i wasn't commanded so it didn't apply for me, and God would have to let them in.

Nobody is saying that all men individually and without exception are commanded to believe. But the command to obey does not necessarily imply the ability or willingness to obey. This was at the core of the dispute between Pelagius and Augustine.

Have a great day, antman!

[Jon_]

But you can not say that God doesn't command all to be Saved, otherwise those who weren't commanded could say on Jugement Day i wasn't commanded so it didn't apply for me, and God would have to let them in.

Again, I think this is largely a semantical argument. God requires perfection. His righteousness cannot permit him anything else. The only source of perfection by which we have access is Jesus Christ. This is why we are required to accept Christ.

We're required to accept Christ because it is the only way that we can be perfect. If Pelagius was correct and we were capable of being perfectly righteous (perfect), then we would not need Christ at all. But because the fall has totally depraved man and rendered him incapable of any inherent righteousness, we must receive Christ in order to receive atonement.

The requirement of perfection applies to all men. Anyone who is not perfect on Judgment Day will be judged. That God chooses only some to renew to repentence in Christ is to his glory. God has appointed men to their own unbelief, even this so that he might receive glory.
[. . .] for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed (1 Peter 2:8 NASB).

Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory (Rev. 16:9 NASB).
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Lockheed]

Again, I think this is largely a semantical argument. God requires perfection. His righteousness cannot permit him anything else. The only source of perfection by which we have access is Jesus Christ. This is why we are required to accept Christ.

Right... this isn't about God commanding people to "be saved" but to "be righteous". While faith in Christ is the only means we obtain the perfect righteousness required to be saved, God commands men to acknowledge Him as creator and worship Him, Christ's coming was to save those who would not.

[Jon_]

Right... this isn't about God commanding people to "be saved" but to "be righteous". While faith in Christ is the only means we obtain the perfect righteousness required to be saved, God commands men to acknowledge Him as creator and worship Him, Christ's coming was to save those who would not.

Precisely.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Antman_05]

Well people i have read over these posts a few times, and i don't really have any come back. that Romans one was the best one was like the nail in the coffvin.

[rnmomof7]

Is it possible for a Calvinist to believe that "salvation is available to every individual" if the meaning is clarified the right way? Or do you think that that is definitely not a Calvinist statement.

God will not refuse any that come to Him.

The Gospel is to be universally available to men .

The question is who will 'choose" to come


The problem with Arminian theology from my stand point is that it implies that man is somehow worthy of anything but damnation and so God owes him an opportunity .

[TSIBHOD]

The problem with Arminian theology from my stand point is that it implies that man is somehow worthy of anything but damnation and so God owes him an opportunity.
I won't argue this, but I want to clarify that an Arminian would probably imply not that God owes everyone an opportunity, but that He simply wants to give everyone an opportunity. They think that giving everyone an opportunity is more in line with what we know about God's nature.

But like I said, this is not the place for me to argue, so what I say is just to hopefully prevent any misunderstanding of the other side.

[Lockheed]

God will not refuse any that come to Him.

"No one seeks for God."

The Gospel is to be universally available to men.

"...we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."

The question is who will 'choose" to come...

"There is none righteous, no not one."

The problem with Arminian theology from my stand point is that it implies that man is somehow worthy of anything but damnation and so God owes him an opportunity .

Yup.

[rnmomof7]

"No one seeks for God."



"...we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness..."



"There is none righteous, no not one."



Yup.

Exactly

[Jon_]

I won't argue this, but I want to clarify that an Arminian would probably imply not that God owes everyone an opportunity, but that He simply wants to give everyone an opportunity. They think that giving everyone an opportunity is more in line with what we know about God's nature.

But like I said, this is not the place for me to argue, so what I say is just to hopefully prevent any misunderstanding of the other side.
It is impossible for God to give man an "opportunity." Opportunity implies chance, it implies that there are multiple possible outcomes. God has already foreordained everything. He doesn't give chances, he gives mercy and he gives punishment, each according to his good and pleasing will.

Thanks for clarifying the faulty reasoning of the Arminian perspective! :thumbsup:

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[rnmomof7]

I won't argue this, but I want to clarify that an Arminian would probably imply not that God owes everyone an opportunity, but that He simply wants to give everyone an opportunity. They think that giving everyone an opportunity is more in line with what we know about God's nature.

Is there a reason why God must adhere to mans idea of 'fair" Did God give Adam and Eve another chance? the builders of babble another shot? the residents of Sodom ? Those killed in the flood?

When God ordered israel into to take the land, did he tell them to try to convert them or to slay them?

Why would we assume that the righteousness of God can not be so offended that destruction is not His choice?
I would think that the justice of God demands it, only His mercy spares some that deserve that fate .


God is so offended by man that it is a miracle that He spares any I think




Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.


Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

[TSIBHOD]

Is there a reason why God must adhere to mans idea of 'fair"
I'm not going to argue with you here. It's not the place for it. But I will say that I never used the word "fair" in the post you quoted. An Arminian doesn't (or at least he doesn't have to) think that God must give everyone the opportunity of salvation in order to be "fair"; the Arminian can just think that God wants to give everyone the opportunity because that is how He works and because that is His nature. Okay? It's not that "God must adhere to man's idea," but that God wants to.

Now, you may not think that it is God's nature to offer everyone the opportunity. I'm not arguing that here. But I do wish that all of you would quit spreading misinformation about Arminians. I'm not even an Arminian myself, but I don't like to see them mischaracterized.

[rnmomof7]

I'm not going to argue with you here. It's not the place for it. But I will say that I never used the word "fair" in the post you quoted. An Arminian doesn't (or at least he doesn't have to) think that God must give everyone the opportunity of salvation in order to be "fair"; the Arminian can just think that God wants to give everyone the opportunity because that is how He works and because that is His nature. Okay? It's not that "God must adhere to man's idea," but that God wants to.

Now, you may not think that it is God's nature to offer everyone the opportunity. I'm not arguing that here. But I do wish that all of you would quit spreading misinformation about Arminians. I'm not even an Arminian myself, but I don't like to see them mischaracterized.


Can you tell us why God would feel constrained to offer a second chance to men ? Why would he want to ?

[TSIBHOD]

Can you tell us why God would feel constrained to offer a second chance to men ? Why would he want to ?
Why does he want to offer a second chance even to the elect?

[Lockheed]

Why does he want to offer a second chance even to the elect?

He doesn't offer chances, He saves sinners.

[TSIBHOD]

He doesn't offer chances, He saves sinners.
I don't suppose that He could do both....

[Lockheed]

I don't suppose that He could do both....

What we suppose is unimportant, what the Bible says is.

Christ did not come to "give a chance" but "to save sinners". Christ's sacrifice doesn't make people saveable if only they'll do x, y or z but it actually affects salvation for those whom the Father gives to the Son.

We all had our 'chance' in Adam, and through him we are all under condemnation. Our 'chance' is already done for us we are "in sin from birth" and so show that Adam rightly represented us.

Thus God saves whom God wills because He is God.

[TSIBHOD]

What we suppose is unimportant, what the Bible says is.

Christ did not come to "give a chance" but "to save sinners". Christ's sacrifice doesn't make people saveable if only they'll do x, y or z but it actually affects salvation for those whom the Father gives to the Son.

We all had our 'chance' in Adam, and through him we are all under condemnation. Our 'chance' is already done for us we are "in sin from birth" and so show that Adam rightly represented us.

Thus God saves whom God wills because He is God.
I said I wasn't going to argue here.

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

"There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who can not endure to be so."
— Francois de La Rochefoucauld

[Jon_]

Can you tell us why God would feel constrained to offer a second chance to men ? Why would he want to ?

Why does he want to offer a second chance even to the elect?

He doesn't offer chances, He saves sinners.

God does not and cannot take chances. :)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

I said I wasn't going to argue here.

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

"There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who can not endure to be so."
— Francois de La Rochefoucauld
I love la Rochefoucauld!

"If we had no faults of our own, we would not take such delight in the faults of others."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

What we suppose is unimportant, what the Bible says is.

Christ did not come to "give a chance" but "to save sinners". Christ's sacrifice doesn't make people saveable if only they'll do x, y or z but it actually affects salvation for those whom the Father gives to the Son.

We all had our 'chance' in Adam, and through him we are all under condemnation. Our 'chance' is already done for us we are "in sin from birth" and so show that Adam rightly represented us.

Thus God saves whom God wills because He is God.
I wonder... did we really have a chance? ;)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.
I'll say this: if you're sure he's wrong, then you might want to prove it. ;)

(It doesn't have to be here. Start a thread in GT or Soteriology.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[TSIBHOD]

I'll say this: if you're sure he's wrong, then you might want to prove it. ;)

(It doesn't have to be here. Start a thread in GT or Soteriology.)
I never said I was sure that he was wrong. I've just been trying to clear up some misrepresentations of Arminians. I haven't been trying to debate. And I do think he's wrong, but my mind is not closed. I continually search and see if what I believe may be wrong in this spot or that one, because all of us have blind spots.

And proving people wrong is overrated; most people just believe what they want to believe anyway. So I just try to stir up some thoughts when possible. Most people of any group get a certain thought that satisfies them, then close their mind to anything else.

The other thing that I try to do on this board is learn what others believe. And I guess I also like to refine my own beliefs. Sometimes, by arguing with someone, I can polish my own position. But I never really expect to convince anyone. I've had too many times where I was clearly right and the other person just abandoned the conversation or said something along the lines of, "I believe what I believe and that's that."

[TSIBHOD]

I love la Rochefoucauld!
Agreed. I have quite a number of quotations from him that I have harvested off of the Internet. Something like seventy, I think. And I only picked the best ones, although that was more than half of what I found, probably. (I also tried to pick the most eloquent version of any given quotation.)

Here's another good quotation, and one that fits into what I was trying to say here.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
— Albert Einstein

[TSIBHOD]

God does not and cannot take chances. :)
By the way, I never said that He does. :)

Giving someone a chance is different than taking a chance. God could give a person a chance while knowing what they would do, thus not taking a chance.

I just want you to think that I believe something that I don't.

[Lockheed]

I'll say this: if you're sure you're right, then you might want to think again.

I've already done my 'thinking again', I was once an Arminian charismatic... but the Bible could support neither position. Again, what I think and what I suppose and what I feel is unimportant to what the Scriptures say.

Rather than suggesting I think again, why not present and defend a position?

[Jon_]

By the way, I never said that He does. :)

Giving someone a chance is different than taking a chance. God could give a person a chance while knowing what they would do, thus not taking a chance.

I just want you to think that I believe something that I don't.
Having preordained that very chance... it is no chance. Chance implies randomness, implies multiple possible outcomes. There is only ever one possible outcome with God; therefore, "chance" is not at all the correct term to use.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[TSIBHOD]

I've already done my 'thinking again', I was once an Arminian charismatic... but the Bible could support neither position. Again, what I think and what I suppose and what I feel is unimportant to what the Scriptures say.

Rather than suggesting I think again, why not present and defend a position?
Just try to keep from thinking that you've "arrived." Maybe you had weak spots in your doctrine before, but if you've eliminated some, that doesn't mean that you couldn't still be wrong. You could even be wrong about your new beliefs. It could be that your old ones were better. Not all change in doctrine is progress--indeed, some is regress--but there can be no progress without change.

EDIT: Oh, and you might be using this kind of argument (http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/08/ab-homine-fallacy.html) since you mentioned that you used to be an Arminian.

[TSIBHOD]

Having preordained that very chance... it is no chance. Chance implies randomness, implies multiple possible outcomes. There is only ever one possible outcome with God; therefore, "chance" is not at all the correct term to use.
Semantics.... Call it an "option" then. "Chance" is often used with an element of unpredictability, but it can also be used to mean "opportunity to either do something or not."

[Jon_]

Semantics.... Call it an "option" then. "Chance" is often used with an element of unpredictability, but it can also be used to mean "opportunity to either do something or not."
Contradiction. Whenever there are multiple possbile outcomes, there is an element of randomness. Nothing is random to God. Your position is indefensible, my friend.

Soli Deo Gloria

[TSIBHOD]

Contradiction. Whenever there are multiple possbile outcomes, there is an element of randomness. Nothing is random to God. Your position is indefensible, my friend.
*sigh* Let me try explaining this again. I never said anything about something being "random to God," now did I? And where did I say that there were "multiple possible outcomes"? God sets before people two choices. He puts them at a fork in the road. He knows which road that they will take. They have the choice of taking which ever one they want. They had a "chance" to take the other road, which ever one that was. I don't mean that taking the other road was something that might or might not have happened, and that God was guessing. God knew. What I mean is that they had the opportunity to take the other road if they had wanted to take it.

Call it an opportunity or an option if the word "chance" bothers you so much.

And just for fun:

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.—Frost

[Lockheed]

Just try to keep from thinking that you've "arrived."

This is silly. Should one doubt the doctrine of the Trinity because they're afraid of boasting of having "arrived"? How about the deity of Christ... oh, there's that pesky deity of Christ doctrine, maybe we should rethink it.


Maybe you had weak spots in your doctrine before, but if you've eliminated some, that doesn't mean that you couldn't still be wrong.

I eliminated none, if it were up to me, I'd still be in those false doctrines and wallowing in sin, but God in His graciousness promises to sanctify us in truth, His Word is truth.

You could even be wrong about your new beliefs. It could be that your old ones were better.

This is why Scripture must be the authority of what we believe... when one cannot support said doctrines from Scripture those doctrines should be discarded immediately.

Not all change in doctrine is progress--indeed, some is regress--but there can be no progress without change.

EDIT: Oh, and you might be using this kind of argument (http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/08/ab-homine-fallacy.html) since you mentioned that you used to be an Arminian.

To the contrary, my argument is not valid because of me, or anything within me or that I did, but rather because it is founded on the Scriptures and the harmony therein and not on emotional appeal or philisophical non-sense.

[Jon_]

*sigh* Let me try explaining this again. I never said anything about something being "random to God," now did I?
Like I said, "chance, opportunity, choice" all imply a random element because a "chance, opportunity, choice" necessarily has alternative options.

And where did I say that there were "multiple possible outcomes"? God sets before people two choices.
Two is multiple. Multiple is more than one.

He puts them at a fork in the road. He knows which road that they will take. They have the choice of taking which ever one they want. They had a "chance" to take the other road, which ever one that was. I don't mean that taking the other road was something that might or might not have happened, and that God was guessing. God knew. What I mean is that they had the opportunity to take the other road if they had wanted to take it.
Mankind has no "chances, options, opportunities." We have our free will, which itself is predetermined. God can foresee precisely how we will react to everything that will happen. He is then free to permit our own natural response, or to interject his own will. Since God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make. They have already been preordained by God.

But even apart from his determination, he already knows precisely how we will respond in every situation. So you see that it is really impossible for him to give us a "chance," because no matter how many alternatives he puts in front of us, he always knows that we can only choose one and he always knows which one we will choose. The very act of him ordaining "options" for us and affirming or denying our will toward them dictates our choices for us.

Trying to argue that there is indeed a fork and that man is required to choose between the paths is complete vanity when it is clear that there is really only ever one possible choice for natural man. Humans will always choose the left fork to evil. Only God can lead us down the right path of righteousness.

Call it an opportunity or an option if the word "chance" bothers you so much.
All of these words mean the same thing. I don't have a problem with the language you're using, I have a problem with the conclusion at which you're arriving, viz. that we are ever posed with more than one "option" or alternatives to the necessary course of things as ordained by God.


And just for fun:


I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
—Frost
I like Robert Frost, too.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[TSIBHOD]

This is silly. Should one doubt the doctrine of the Trinity because they're afraid of boasting of having "arrived"? How about the deity of Christ... oh, there's that pesky deity of Christ doctrine, maybe we should rethink it.
All I can tell you is my opinion: major beliefs should stand firm; minor ones should be open to question.

I eliminated none, if it were up to me, I'd still be in those false doctrines and wallowing in sin, but God in His graciousness promises to sanctify us in truth, His Word is truth.
I'm sure that a number Arminians could also claim that God in His graciousness brought them out of Calvinism.

This is why Scripture must be the authority of what we believe... when one cannot support said doctrines from Scripture those doctrines should be discarded immediately.
People who claim to be in line with Scripture sometimes believe opposite things on issues. This brings us a point: many people think that they believe the Scripture when they don't. Just because you think your doctrine meshes with Scripture doesn't mean that it does, and that's why we should be open to changing our doctrine if it is shown to us that Scripture says something different. If you're determined that you're right, then you'll make the Scripture fit with your doctrine even if it doesn't.

[Jon_]

All I can tell you is my opinion: major beliefs should stand firm; minor ones should be open to question.
What qualifies as a "major belief"?

I'm sure that a number Arminians could also claim that God in His graciousness brought them out of Calvinism.
Only because they chose to cooperate with his grace, though. ;) :D

People who claim to be in line with Scripture sometimes believe opposite things on issues. This brings us a point: many people think that they believe the Scripture when they don't. Just because you think your doctrine meshes with Scripture doesn't mean that it does, and that's why we should be open to changing our doctrine if it is shown to us that Scripture says something different. If you're determined that you're right, then you'll make the Scripture fit with your doctrine even if it doesn't.
This is why sound philosophical conclusions are so important. You can make Scripture say almost anything you want, which is why critical thinking and accurate deduction according to sound exegesis are so important. Calvinists can claim a sound, deductively provable doctrine, Arminians cannot.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[TSIBHOD]

Like I said, "chance, opportunity, choice" all imply a random element because a "chance, opportunity, choice" necessarily has alternative options.

Two is multiple. Multiple is more than one.
Multiple options, yes; multiple possibilities from our perspective, yes; multiple possibilities from God's perspective, no, because God knows what will happen.

Since God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make. They have already been preordained by God.
Saying that we don't have any choices goes beyond what Calvinism necessitates. I'll give a quotation from a Reformed work. The author said that he holds "a traditional Reformed position with regard to questions of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, the extent of the atonement, and the question of predestination" (p. 16 in the work quoted below).
Scripture nowhere says that we are "free" in the sense of being outside of God's control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. [...] Nor does it say we are "free" in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God's power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make choices.
—Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, p. 331).
You've said that "there aren't any choices for us to make," and Grudem said that it is erroneous to conclude that "we cannot really make choices." I don't know if your statement is within the bounds of Calvinism, but at least some Calvinists disagree with you.

[TSIBHOD]

What qualifies as a "major belief"?
Oh, the Nicene Creed type stuff.

Calvinists can claim a sound, deductively provable doctrine, Arminians cannot.
And Arminians would say the opposite.

[Jon_]

Saying that we don't have any choices goes beyond what Calvinism necessitates. I'll give a quotation from a Reformed work. The author said that he holds "a traditional Reformed position with regard to questions of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, the extent of the atonement, and the question of predestination" (p. 16 in the work quoted below).
Scripture nowhere says that we are "free" in the sense of being outside of God's control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. [...] Nor does it say we are "free" in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God's power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make choices.

—Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, p. 331).
You've said that "there aren't any choices for us to make," and Grudem said that it is erroneous to conclude that "we cannot really make choices." I don't know if your statement is within the bounds of Calvinism, but at least some Calvinists disagree with you.
Grudem isn't at all saying what you are trying to make him say. His statement here perfectly parallels what I've been saying: that man's choices are only choices from man's perspective. God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass, but sense man is incredibly limited in his understanding, he still perceives that his day-to-day actions warrant discrimination on the part of his free will to bring about effect. This perception is relative. You have heard it said that perception is reality. This is true in the context of free will. We understanding that we willingly choose the things we do within the capacity that we are capable to do them, but the true is that God has already ordained the choice before we are even confronted with it.

This is among the core principles of Calvinism and I subscribe to it whole-heartedly. The problem is that you are trying to interpret this viewpoint according to your own. You are trying to resolve conflict according to the traditional sense of free will when that traditional definition has been flawed all along.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[TSIBHOD]

Grudem isn't at all saying what you are trying to make him say. His statement here perfectly parallels what I've been saying: that man's choices are only choices from man's perspective. God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass, but sense man is incredibly limited in his understanding, he still perceives that his day-to-day actions warrant discrimination on the part of his free will to bring about effect. This perception is relative. You have heard it said that perception is reality. This is true in the context of free will. We understanding that we willingly choose the things we do within the capacity that we are capable to do them, but the true is that God has already ordained the choice before we are even confronted with it.

This is among the core principles of Calvinism and I subscribe to it whole-heartedly. The problem is that you are trying to interpret this viewpoint according to your own. You are trying to resolve conflict according to the traditional sense of free will when that traditional definition has been flawed all along.
No, I've read what Grudem said about our free will and how he thinks that it is different from the common perception of free will. I understand what he means by our "choices." But the fact remains that Grudem said that we do have choices by which we truly do effect things, and you said that we don't have choices to make. At the least, it appears that you've misrepresented yourself by what you said, and you actually do agree with Grudem. The other possibility is that you accurately represented what you mean and you don't agree with Grudem.

Grudem said that while we can't make choices "outside of God's control," "we make willing choices, choices that have real effects." You said that because our actions "have already been preordained by God," and "[s]ince God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make." Do you see the difference? Grudem said that although are actions are foreordained (they are inside God's control), we still make free choices, although they are not to be understood under the common definition of "free choice." You said that because our actions are foreordained, we have no real choice at all and that our perspective just provides us with merely apparent choices that aren't real.

[Jon_]

Grudem said that while we can't make choices "outside of God's control," "we make willing choices, choices that have real effects." You said that because our actions "have already been preordained by God," and "[s]ince God foreknows our every reaction to future events, there really aren't any choices for us to make." Do you see the difference?
Now you're beginning to take things out of context. The specific context of the discussion was whether or not men had effectual choice concerning their destiny. This is derived from the illustration that God puts a fork in front of men and gives them the option of which road to take. In truth, while we do make an effectual choice according to our perspective, God has already ordained the choice, therefore our choice is not effectual in a universal sense. The primary point I am trying to make is that there are not choices that men make that were not preordained by God.

Perhaps I read more into your argument than I should have. If that's the case, then I apologize. The tone and nature of the language you used seemed to indicate to me that you thought man had effectual choice concerning his fate, which is incorrect. Man's choices are consequential.

Grudem said that although are actions are foreordained (they are inside God's control), we still make free choices, although they are not to be understood under the common definition of "free choice." You said that because our actions are foreordained, we have no real choice at all and that our perspective just provides us with merely apparent choices that aren't real.
They aren't real in the truest sense, i.e. God has already made them. They are equivocal only according human perspective. Does man make conscious choices? Yes, of course. Do man's choices matter? Again, yes. Do man's choices affect the course of God's plan? That we answer with a resounding no. Man is held accountable for his own choices, but God has already preordered them according to his foreknowledge. That God has already established his plan does not leave us with excuse for our lack of liberartian free will (which is where I sensed you stumble in the logic of choice thread). Paul affirms this:
(Romans 9:19-20 KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
The most important thing to remember is that man's will is consequential, not effectual.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[TSIBHOD]

Now you're beginning to take things out of context. The specific context of the discussion was whether or not men had effectual choice concerning their destiny. This is derived from the illustration that God puts a fork in front of men and gives them the option of which road to take. In truth, while we do make an effectual choice according to our perspective, God has already ordained the choice, therefore our choice is not effectual in a universal sense. The primary point I am trying to make is that there are not choices that men make that were not preordained by God.

Perhaps I read more into your argument than I should have. If that's the case, then I apologize. The tone and nature of the language you used seemed to indicate to me that you thought man had effectual choice concerning his fate, which is incorrect. Man's choices are consequential.


They aren't real in the truest sense, i.e. God has already made them. They are equivocal only according human perspective. Does man make conscious choices? Yes, of course. Do man's choices matter? Again, yes. Do man's choices affect the course of God's plan? That we answer with a resounding no. Man is held accountable for his own choices, but God has already preordered them according to his foreknowledge. That God has already established his plan does not leave us with excuse for our lack of liberartian free will (which is where I sensed you stumble in the logic of choice thread). Paul affirms this:
(Romans 9:19-20 KJV) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
The most important thing to remember is that man's will is consequential, not effectual.
Okay. I can better understand this.

[Jon_]

Okay. I can better understand this.
Okay, great. I wasn't sure if I had explained it well enough. :)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon