The Insecurity of Calvinism

[childeye]

Eventide,
I am disappointed and of course feel your conversation is not honest. Maybe this should be my last post, not sure. You wrote the paragraph below and I responded by accusing you of a misrepresentation of Calvinism. Then you denied misrepresenting Calvinism. Can you please show me even one Calvinist that ever answered the question "what must I do to be saved? and answer that question by saying "nothing?" Show me even one. Give it a try. Come one, please show me just one. You obviously will not try, because it was an obvious misrepresentation.




Then I responded to this by mentioning that the Reformed taught "sola fide" long before Arminian theology was in existence. You forgot that little fact, or maybe never thought about it. I don't know. You now seem interested only in winning an argument with those Calvinists. Rather then be honest and reply with integrity, and admit that no Calvinist would ever possibly respond to the question "What must I do to be saved" with the answer "nothing" you reply as below...



So now, rather then reply with honesty, and admit your misrepresentation, you suggest by the word "nothing" you were referring to regeneration. That is a red herring of course. Even if that is true, that you were referring to regeneration, that again is yet another misrepresentation. I would agree that Calvinists teach that regeneration is necessary for faith, but no Calvinists ever taught that salvation and regeneration are the same thing. Remember, you asked .... what must "I" do to be saved... Now you talk about regeneration as though it is the same concept as the concept of salvation. I know the problem, you also fail to understand that the biblical concept of regeneration is only one part of the ordo salutus (order of salvation). You equate regeneration with the whole order and then assume that Calvinists make the same mistake you do. That is yet another terrible misrepresentation of Calvinist teaching. Yes, we believe that regeneration is necessary for faith, and faith is required for justification, and all of those things are part of the order of salvation.

Oh, by the way, I would be happy to defend the biblical concept of regeneration before faith from scripture.

Your post Mondar seems to indicate a frustration with dealing with misrepresentation and I empathize. I would like to say I appreciate your contributions to discussion and hope you do not stop writing.

 

[adelphos]

Funny, how a post that starts with these words, "if one studies the Calvinistic doctrinal system" then goes on to raise a strawmen arguement, by denying the experiential element of calvinistic teaching. It seems my freind, you think there is no teaching of 'perserverence of the saints' in the calvinistic teachings. That is to confuse calviniosm with hyper calvinism!

Double pre-destination is not hyper-calvinism. It is centric calvinism. In other words, Calvin taught it clearly and distinctly. Therefore, if one claims to follow the teachings of Calvin, by necessity, they believe in what he presents. If, on the other hand, one says I believe some things Calvin taught, can one really say one is a Calvinist?

 

[adelphos]

I have to admit, I find this a bit unfair...not just to Calvinists in general but also to the ones here on this thread.

Has any of the Calvinists here stated that if one doesn't believe in Calvinism, one isn't saved at all? I've read through the threads and have found several say that they believe those who disagree are still saved if they are believers.

I was at a Calvinist church for 5 years. Not once did I ever hear anyone say that any believer in Christ who wasn't a Calvinist isn't saved. Quite the opposite in fact.

His Sheep stated his case clearly about "unbelievers"...not "believers".


Yet, other Christian theological streams don't seem to do this too much.
I have heard time and time again, many Christians say that Calvinists cannot possibly even be Christian and are of the devil.

These kinds of accusations, no matter which believer is hurling it, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist or Catholic (even Lutherans) are ungodly.

Hi,

Yes, it probably is unfair. However, I am talking about my experience, not necessarily what is exactly correct. I have been on many forums, and yes, it has absolutely been my experience that the most negative against other belief systems have been the Calvinists. If one were to do a study on this, it might prove to be false. None the less, I have PERSONALLY, seen this as a pattern. In fact, if one goes to some of their websites, it is even stronger!

However, I do not desire to justify this attitude any longer - thanks.

Respectfully

Adelphos

 

[HisSheep]

Oh man, this got so long… Sorry.

Not so. Jesus Himself taught it clearly in the parable of the wheat and tares.

Unbelievers fail to believe because they are not of God.

-HisSheep

How far will the Calvinists go? Accusing Jesus of teaching double pre-destination.

It is interesting, over the years, when I have had any kind of dialog with Calvinists, they always come to this position: "unbelievers fail to believe because they are not of God" as an accusation towards those who disagree with their form of Christianity.

My post was not an accusation or an editorial on your salvation at all. I, like Smaller, never get into that, ever… It’s just not in my lexicon to question anyone’s salvation. I take them at their word and resist any private thoughts I may have as sinful ones. (The righteousness that is by faith says: Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (Rom 10:6)).

I am in earnest. No one here will receive veiled attacks from me.

I was responding to your suggestion that double predestination was never taught before Calvin. In so doing, I was literally just reiterating the bible when I said, “Unbelievers fail to believe because they are not of God.†This is just my own personal “redux†of several verses that I figured you would recognize immediately as supportive of predestination. Two of them are:

John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Thanks, Childeye, for sharing the latter.

This IS predestination (Which is equivalent to double predestination, IMO.) as taught by the Master.

Predestination is taught throughout scripture, but one of the strongest passages is the parable of the Wheat and Tares (Mat 13:24-50), another teaching of Jesus’, in which we learn that the saved and unsaved are of different seed. One planted by God, the other by the devil. (think: “You are of your father, the devil…†(John 8:44)) They are allowed to grow together because that’s what’s best for the wheat. Keep in mind that God knows the wheat from the tares; one sprouted before the other. Even the angels (mere creatures) know the difference. We know this because they offer to pull the weeds!

God declines their offer, telling them that they will be harvested later along with the wheat, and burned up in “the furnace of fire: with wailing and gnashing of teeth.†(Mat 13:50). Jesus goes on to CLEARLY explain the parable; and probably more so than any other parable; so that there is no mystery at all.

On a similar note, in a different discourse, Jesus said:

“Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.†(Mat 15:13)

God is NOT waiting on the edge of His seat to see who He’ll have in Heaven with Him and weeping over the tares. This is a portrayal of weak, LOSER god, who loses “many†of the souls He really WANTS and only manages to saves a “fewâ€. (“and few there be that find it.†(Mat 7:14)) I can’t STAND for that flawed reflection of the Almighty God, the “Author and Finisher of our faith†(Heb 12:2)). God gets EVERYTHING He wants. He gets every soul He wants. This is THE FACT of sovereignty. If God doesn’t get His EVERY desire, He is LESS than sovereign.

God says what He’s going to do and He does it. His Word is so mighty that it is AS GOOD AS DONE! Listen , if He wants an incomprehensibly large universe, He just makes one; just as pretty as you please. How can we expect people to believe THAT if we teach them about a WEAK, WEEPING, god who loses most of His people to Satan? He saves ALL of His people and scripture is super clear about it.

Is it because they really believe that "they are the only ones who have the truth?" Don't we teach that only non-Christians cults make this kind of claim? It seems so surreal. Yet, other Christian theological streams don't seem to do this too much. I guess, on the other hand, John Calvin was not only a murderer, but a dictator. Why was he so evil?

Anyone with a bible "has" the truth. They may not believe it, though. Yes, I think denominational exclusivity is emblematic of a cult. For the record, I think there will be Arminians in Heaven.

Certainly, Calvin had his faults. I don’t worship the man. But imagine discounting the works of men who were badly flawed… Who would we have left? The founders' ownership of slaves doesn't invalidate the principals outlined in The Constitution, nor will I give up singing, "A Mighty Balwark Is Our God", just because Martin Luther was a anti-semite.

Also, consider the times and the common practices of society in Calvin's day. I’m not excusing it, mind you, but these were very brutal times. We can all find very ugly blemishes on our intellectual opponents. I try to avoid all of this though, in theological debate.

It is very hard to read “The Institutes†and disagree with any of it. Even though there is division on this specific issue, I’m pretty sure you’d agree with about 97% of what he wrote. (Baptism, Lord's Supper, confession, etc...) It happens that his accuracy in describing doctrines that you DO share, gives you greater confidence in accepting the ones on which you may at first differ. I promise.

And he didn’t teach predestination first, either. Please read at least paragraph 7 of Augustine’s A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, written in 428-429. Here, Augustine tells us about how he “Had formerly been in error†regarding predestination and he gives us a detailed, scriptural explanation of the doctrine of predestination. (Really, that's a link back there in blue, please go and read it!) If a person weren’t TOLD that it was Augustine, they might be inclined to assume it was Calvin. If you really can’t stand Calvin because of poor branding, please try Augustine.

I assure you, Calvin did not invent this stuff, and he didn't teach it first. It is biblical. When we read the bible we must expect our carnal minds to find parts of it confuing or even distasteful. When that happens, we are exhorted to “Lean not on our own understanding†(Proverbs 3:5).

HisSheep

 

[Grubal Muruch]

You said; "Certainly, Calvin had his faults. I don’t worship the man. But imagine discounting the works of men who were badly flawed… Who would we have left?

If you study the history of John Calvin you will read about a man that was more than a man "badly flawed" He was responsible for the death of over 50 people. He had those who disagreed with his opinions, either exiled or beheaded. He was an extremely "intolerant" man. And was a dictator in Geneva. A rather, "non-benevolent," dictator at that. Calvin was guilty of having his detractors killed. That was ego-mania at it's finest. To give credence to such a man is not advisable in my opinion...

 

[mondar]

You said; "Certainly, Calvin had his faults. I don’t worship the man. But imagine discounting the works of men who were badly flawed… Who would we have left?

If you study the history of John Calvin you will read about a man that was more than a man "badly flawed" He was responsible for the death of over 50 people. He had those who disagreed with his opinions, either exiled or beheaded. He was an extremely "intolerant" man. And was a dictator in Geneva. A rather, "non-benevolent," dictator at that. Calvin was guilty of having his detractors killed. That was ego-mania at it's finest. To give credence to such a man is not advisable in my opinion...

LOL, the above is little more then trashtalking and really does not deserve a response. I really should just ignore people talking smack like that.

My concern is that Oneness Pentacostals and Jehovah Witnesses consider Michael Servetus their spiritual Father and there are certain issues that could be discussed. The truth is that Calvin did not have the political power to put anyone to death. The rulers were the town council in Geneva had that political power. It is true the town council put Michael Servetus to death. Calvins part was to determine if Servetus was indeed a heretic. Servetus denied the trinity. Of course even today Calvinists still consider anti-trinitarianism a heresy, but we do not condone execution or banishment for any heresy. The worse would be excommunication. Yet would not anti-trinitarian Churches excommunicate someone for teaching the trinity? Servetus taught a form of modalism.

Historically, there was one small element of truth in the post above, but very little. It was basicly a trash talking post. But Calvin actually argue that beheading was more human then burning at the stake and he pleaded with the Geneva Town Council for beheading and not to have Servetus burned at the stake. But since Calvin had no political power to execute or exile, the council overruled his objection and had Servetus burned at the stake. Of course to non-trinitarians, Sertetus is considered a hero of the faith who was persecuted by Calvinists.

If you want to read some accurate information, just wiki Michael Servetus. There should be a good article in wiki.

I should add that I do not know if Grubal Muruch is a non-trinitarian, or just simply wants to trash talk Calvin.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

LOL, the above is little more then trashtalking and really does not deserve a response. I really should just ignore people talking smack like that.

My concern is that Oneness Pentacostals and Jehovah Witnesses consider Michael Servetus their spiritual Father and there are certain issues that could be discussed. The truth is that Calvin did not have the political power to put anyone to death. The rulers were the town council in Geneva had that political power. It is true the town council put Michael Servetus to death. Calvins part was to determine if Servetus was indeed a heretic. Servetus denied the trinity. Of course even today Calvinists still consider anti-trinitarianism a heresy, but we do not condone execution or banishment for any heresy. The worse would be excommunication. Yet would not anti-trinitarian Churches excommunicate someone for teaching the trinity? Servetus taught a form of modalism.

.

Historically, there was one small element of truth in the post above, but very little. It was basicly a trash talking post. But Calvin actually argue that beheading was more human then burning at the stake and he pleaded with the Geneva Town Council for beheading and not to have Servetus burned at the stake. But since Calvin had no political power to execute or exile, the council overruled his objection and had Servetus burned at the stake. Of course to non-trinitarians, Sertetus is considered a hero of the faith who was persecuted by Calvinists.

If you want to read some accurate information, just wiki Michael Servetus. There should be a good article in wiki.

I should add that I do not know if Grubal Muruch is a non-trinitarian, or just simply wants to trash talk Calvin.

Be-heading is much nicer than burning at the stake, that must of been comforting to the victims of John Calvin...

 

[mondar]

In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite.

I did a wiki search on this person Jacques Gruet and wiki presents Jacques Gruet as a bar room atheist who said that all laws, "both God's and Man's, were nothing but laws made by men for their very own pleasure." Wiki also says that "Gruet left an anonymous placard threatening Calvin, and the authorities investigated."

(sarcasm---->) I am sure that the fact that wiki says that Calvin had him put to death so very shocking that we can ignore that this was done to a barroom atheist who was involved in anarchist activities and threatened Calvin's life. The source quoted above does not mention any of that, does it.

In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.

Do a wiki search on this guy. He was a part of the libertines, a political group opposed to the Calvinists in Geneva. It is true, Perrin was a part of inviting Calvin to Geneva, but Perrin then lead the group that "staged a coup." The accusation above is that Calvin "defeating the man who invited him." This means what? Calvin was a winner? Terrible! LOL

Calvin forced the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment.

Shocking, they forced people to go to Church in a society where there was a state Church (LOL). Certainly the concept of the State Church relationship leads to a lot of wrong things, and I disagree with the state church.

Since Calvinism falsely teaches that God forces the elect to believe, it is no wonder that Calvin thought he could also force the citizens of Geneva to all become the elect. Not becoming one of the elect was punishable by death or expulsion from Geneva. Calvin exercised forced regeneration on the citizens of Geneva, because that is what his theology teaches.

Hahahaha, this is so absurd it is funny. I actually am sitting here laughing. Woow!!! Man, you can put any absurdity in print as long as it spews some sort of venom against Calvinists.

Calvinists do not teach that God "forces the elect to believe." No Calvinist ever said such a thing. It is true, we believe in regeneration as the cause of faith, but that is not the same thing as "God forces the elect to believe." But even if it were true that Calvinists actually do say "God forces the elect to believe." Think how horrible of a God that would be.... you mean he actually makes people do good things? Would God ever really do that? Would be actually make Balaam bless Israel? Would he actually force Jonah to preach to Ninevah? No, he would never stop Paul on the Road to Damascus would he? -----------What about when we get to heaven? Will God actually make us sinless in nature? Why how terrible would heaven be if God forced everyone to be sinless? The whole though is awful that God would actually make people do righteous and good things. (LOL)

This conversation is now getting so bizarre and absurd, I had better leave and move on. See ya all elsewhere. I am outta here.

 

[HisSheep]

You said; "Certainly, Calvin had his faults. I don’t worship the man. But imagine discounting the works of men who were badly flawed… Who would we have left?

If you study the history of John Calvin you will read about a man that was more than a man "badly flawed" He was responsible for the death of over 50 people. He had those who disagreed with his opinions, either exiled or beheaded. He was an extremely "intolerant" man. And was a dictator in Geneva. A rather, "non-benevolent," dictator at that. Calvin was guilty of having his detractors killed. That was ego-mania at it's finest. To give credence to such a man is not advisable in my opinion...

Grubal, I’m beginning to sense that you don't care much for this man, John Calvin. While I can separate the man from the teaching, perhaps you cannot and that’s okay with me. I have already agreed that Calvin was a scum bag, so let’s take him off the table entirely, shall we? It is unfortunate that what I would prefer to call “the sovereignty of God†has come to bear Calvin’s name. But it is what it is, ya know? I live with the term.

I have tried very earnestly to submit Jesus, Paul, Peter, Augustine, and Spurgeon as teachers of Gods sovereignty, but all of these submissions went unnoticed. Why is that? I’m beginning to suspect that you want conflict. What else explains exclusion of my citation of Augustine, and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares? They were the bulk of my post which you were replying to, and are much more productive sources to use for discussion anyway, if Calvin cannot be mutually agreed upon by us for inclusion. Instead, you reply to only three of my sentences, and they are the ones about Calvin. Even in those sentences, I twice disparage Calvin myself, yet you are not at all placated. I have been too lenient on him for you, and that’s the one issue you simply must take up?

How do you feel about the wheat and Tares? How do you feel about Augustine’s “Treatise on the Predestination of the Saintsâ€, Do you think God has power/will to bring a spouse into a person’s life? To what extent do you feel God can/does control things? What do you make of these verses and how have “Hippoistsâ€* misused/misunderstood them:

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (John 10:26)

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:47)

All of these questions you have left unaddressed in this thread so that you may convict Calvin instead. In that last screed of yours, you seem like a shark to meat, to the avoidance of more salient points.

I am interested only in proclaiming the absolute sovereignty of God in all things, including salvation. Many teachers have taught it, going way, way back, even into the Old Testament. I see God’s Almighty Sovereignty on practically every page of scripture, and I love to discuss it. I want other Christians to see it too.

Can you blame me?
____________________________________________________________________

*Certainly, we can agree that Augustine was a pretty decent fellow, right? Can we use him? I’m going to coin a term right now, and we’ll see if it catches on…

“Hippoismâ€, adherents to which are known as “Hippoistsâ€, who’s beliefs are summarized by the following acrostic:

R………. Really bad, people are.

O……… Omnipotent, God is.

S………. Sheep, He lays down His life for.

E………. Everybody, He calls He justifies.

Y….….. You, can do nothing without Him

How’s that? Can we agree on that?

-HisSheep

 

[Gazelle]

Don't confuse me! lol Are we discussing the insecurity of Calvinism, or the insecurity of Calvin himself?

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Grubal, I’m beginning to sense that you don't care much for this man, John Calvin. While I can separate the man from the teaching, perhaps you cannot and that’s okay with me. I have already agreed that Calvin was a scum bag, so let’s take him off the table entirely, shall we? It is unfortunate that what I would prefer to call “the sovereignty of God†has come to bear Calvin’s name. But it is what it is, ya know? I live with the term.

I have tried very earnestly to submit Jesus, Paul, Peter, Augustine, and Spurgeon as teachers of Gods sovereignty, but all of these submissions went unnoticed. Why is that? I’m beginning to suspect that you want conflict. What else explains exclusion of my citation of Augustine, and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares? They were the bulk of my post which you were replying to, and are much more productive sources to use for discussion anyway, if Calvin cannot be mutually agreed upon by us for inclusion. Instead, you reply to only three of my sentences, and they are the ones about Calvin. Even in those sentences, I twice disparage Calvin myself, yet you are not at all placated. I have been too lenient on him for you, and that’s the one issue you simply must take up?

How do you feel about the wheat and Tares? How do you feel about Augustine’s “Treatise on the Predestination of the Saintsâ€, Do you think God has power/will to bring a spouse into a person’s life? To what extent do you feel God can/does control things? What do you make of these verses and how have “Hippoistsâ€* misused/misunderstood them:

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (John 10:26)

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. (John 8:47)

All of these questions you have left unaddressed in this thread so that you may convict Calvin instead. In that last screed of yours, you seem like a shark to meat, to the avoidance of more salient points.

I am interested only in proclaiming the absolute sovereignty of God in all things, including salvation. Many teachers have taught it, going way, way back, even into the Old Testament. I see God’s Almighty Sovereignty on practically every page of scripture, and I love to discuss it. I want other Christians to see it too.

Can you blame me?
____________________________________________________________________

*Certainly, we can agree that Augustine was a pretty decent fellow, right? Can we use him? I’m going to coin a term right now, and we’ll see if it catches on…

“Hippoismâ€, adherents to which are known as “Hippoistsâ€, who’s beliefs are summarized by the following acrostic:

R………. Really bad, people are.

O……… Omnipotent, God is.

S………. Sheep, He lays down His life for.

E………. Everybody, He calls He justifies.

Y….….. You, can do nothing without Him

How’s that? Can we agree on that?

-HisSheep

In the end analyses, God's Grace IS a free gift offered to a world of lost sinners, who could not otherwise have a relationship with their Creator. We, (ALL that will respond by faith) have access to God's, mercy and forgiveness through The Atonement of Jesus Christ (The Son of God.) Apart from our own works and efforts. We are ALL sold unto sin and unable to please a God who expects "sinless perfection."

Only by the shed blood of Christ do we (ALL) have access to this Grace. God's Salvation message of hope is extended to ALL those who will place their faith in Christ and Him alone. That covers both Jew and Gentile alike. No scholarly exhortations, false doctrine, imaginative parabolic false meanings and personal interpretations, etc. can cover up and hide the "simplicity" of God's offer to mankind, of reconciliation, mercy, forgiveness, and eternal life.

This is a simple message, that even a child can understand, and yet man wants to intellectualize and misrepresent/misinterpret it. The religious scholars of Christ's time, the Pharisees, were the "higher Echelon of religious intelligentsia," and yet Christ had "clashes" with them and chose to be among the lowly sinners.

 

[HisSheep]

Hanks Grubal for that reply.

It’s nice to agree with so much of a post of yours!

This view does leave out one big thing though… Not everyone is offered God’s grace.

This very day, in Syria and North Korea for example, people are dying who the gospel never reached.

I can only explain that situation by concluding that God brings the gospel into the lives of only the elect, rescuing them from the fate they deserve (grace).

One must be willing to accept that all men deserve Hell to accept this view, because God is not only sovereign, He is also just. He cannot, therefore, damn someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Any other explanation I have considered, makes God out to be a loser who fails to save so many of the souls He wants.

Do you acknowledge the conundrum? If so, how do you logically reconcile things?

-HisSheep

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Hanks Grubal for that reply.

It’s nice to agree with so much of a post of yours!

This view does leave out one big thing though… Not everyone is offered God’s grace.

This very day, in Syria and North Korea for example, people are dying who the gospel never reached.

I can only explain that situation by concluding that God brings the gospel into the lives of only the elect, rescuing them from the fate they deserve (grace).

One must be willing to accept that all men deserve Hell to accept this view, because God is not only sovereign, He is also just. He cannot, therefore, damn someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Any other explanation I have considered, makes God out to be a loser who fails to save so many of the souls He wants.

Do you acknowledge the conundrum? If so, how do you logically reconcile things?

-HisSheep

Thanks for the compliment (that was nice) However, I do profoundly disagree with your assessment that God ONLY offers His Grace to a few "chosen" people,that is, unacceptable with regards to logical sense. Time and time again the Bible speaks about how God's mercy and forgiveness is offered to a world of lost sinners. Men have (had the free will) since he was first created. Look at the Jews in the wilderness how they rebelled and disobeyed God, and how each time He forgave them. Those (the chosen people) had free will to obey or not and choose to disobey God many times. God doesn't make any of us, sin, and then turn around and judge and blame us for sinning. That's not logical and God is a logical Creator and NOT the author of confusion...

 

[Gazelle]

Doesn't Scripture itself declare that the Word of Christ went throughout the land? The "whole world" was much smaller then, and news of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was known "everywhere". The apostles and disciples then went out to them.

Right now, we have satellites that cover every part of the earth, beaming signals of Christian preachers and programming. We see third world countries that don't have paved roads or indoor toilets, yet they have cell phones and satellite dishes.

For those who do not reject Christ by the time of the rapture, I believe the Bible gives them a chance to accept Him during the tribulation, hearing through the 144 thousand sealed Jewish witnesses left to proclaim the gospel.

Matthew 9:35 Rev 7:3-4 Rev 14:6,7

 

[ivdavid]

Those (the chosen people) had free will to obey or not and choose to disobey God many times. God doesn't make any of us, sin, and then turn around and judge and blame us for sinning. That's not logical and God is a logical Creator and NOT the author of confusion...

Of course this isn't logical - but if you have mistaken this for what the reformed view puts forth, then you need to read up more on some facts. Nobody says God makes anyone sin - each one chooses to do so of himself. And when I use the word "choose", I do not qualify it with the word "freely", because such a man in the flesh is enslaved by sin in him and is not "free". You could refer to Rom 7 : 8,11,17,20,23.

God does not cause any man to sin. He rather works everything that is good in man. Hope your confusion is now clarified.

 

[Eventide]

.. and I hope that your confusion about claiming that men choose God on their own effort/power/goodness has been cleared up..

 

[ivdavid]

.. and I hope that your confusion about claiming that men choose God on their own effort/power/goodness has been cleared up..

It could have been cleared up if some of my queries got answered satisfactorily - but I'll do just fine even if they aren't. I've myself accidentally overlooked some posts in the past and anyway, nobody is obligated to post a reply.

 

[Eventide]

It could have been cleared up if some of my queries got answered satisfactorily - but I'll do just fine even if they aren't. I've myself accidentally overlooked some posts in the past and anyway, nobody is obligated to post a reply.

Yes, you never did tell us who actually believes that they choose God on their own effort/power/goodness... although even if you don't answer that, I'll be fine.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Of course this isn't logical - but if you have mistaken this for what the reformed view puts forth, then you need to read up more on some facts. Nobody says God makes anyone sin - each one chooses to do so of himself. And when I use the word "choose", I do not qualify it with the word "freely", because such a man in the flesh is enslaved by sin in him and is not "free". You could refer to Rom 7 : 8,11,17,20,23.

God does not cause any man to sin. He rather works everything that is good in man. Hope your confusion is now clarified.

You say,"God does not cause any man to sin. He rather works everything that is good in man. Hope your confusion is now clarified." There is no "Spiritual" good in a man, before regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

 

[ivdavid]

There is no "Spiritual" good in a man, before regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

What exactly do you mean by that qualification? Is there some "Fleshly" good in man before regeneration?