The "L" in TULIP Means that Jesus is NOT Lord

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's false. You do see the problem. Its been posted many times but never honestly answered.

If man is unable on his own to come to Christ, then the only way man can come to Christ is by God's enabling. That's Calvinism 101. The problem is, how that could be true and God also be just.

Fact: He condemns to the lake of fire those who do not come to Christ. We agree on that.

But if Calvinism is true, the fact that they do not come proves He did not enable them to come; had He, they would, irresistibly. That makes their not coming His choice for them, which makes His condemning them for not coming a lie. That in turn makes the God of Calvinism not the God of the Bible, Who cannot lie.

Yep.

 

[musterion]

A little present for Calvinists.

If man is unable on his own to come to Christ, then the only way man can come to Christ is by God first enabling and drawing him to Christ. That's Calvinism 101. The problem is, how could that be true and God also not lie? Fact: God will condemn to the Lake of Fire those who do not come to Christ. But if Calvinism is true, the fact that they do not come proves He neither enabled nor drew them to come. Even Calvinism's hypothetical Elect must be enabled and drawn before they can come. That means the reason all who do not come is entirely the result of God's not enabling and drawing them. That makes their not coming 100% His doing [aka reprobation]. By virtue of reprobation, their inevitable rejection of Christ (they can do nothing but reject Him) is God's choice for themfrom eternity past, before they sinned, before they ever existed. That makes His condemning them specifically for not coming to Christ a lie. How is it a lie? He lies when He says He's condemning them for refusing do what His reprobative will secretly gave them no chance or ability to do. That means the lying God of Calvinism cannot be the God of the Bible, Who cannot lie. Conclusion: Calvinism's concept of God is false and should be repented of as false.

If you can refute the logic leading to that conclusion, ask Knight - who is fair and objective about these things even if he disagrees with you - to ban me forever. Knight is an honorable man, I'm convinced would do it. I will not contest the banning nor will I ever return to TOL under another name. This is my gift to all Calvinists on TOL.

I will not ask that anyone who Knight agrees fails at refutation abides by the same banning terms, but a real man would. My money...meaning my membership...is now where my mouth is. I'll be surprised if any of you Calvinists can do likewise.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Robert, Same Thread, different title. Calvinist. Give it a break Robert. You have been on this tirade for months now.
I am questioning your own beliefs Robert. Are you ?

You don't make the rules around here pal.

 

[Brother Ducky]

That's false. You do see the problem. Its been posted many times but never honestly answered.

If man is unable on his own to come to Christ, then the only way man can come to Christ is by God's enabling. That's Calvinism 101. The problem is, how that could be true and God also be just.

Fact: He condemns to the lake of fire those who do not come to Christ. We agree on that.

But if Calvinism is true, the fact that they do not come proves He did not enable them to come; had He, they would, irresistibly. That makes their not coming His choice for them, which makes His condemning them for not coming a lie. That in turn makes the God of Calvinism not the God of the Bible, Who cannot lie.

Thanks for calling me a liar. But no, I do not see a problem. The fact that you see a problem does not mean that I see a problem.

If man is unable on his own to come to Christ, then the only way man can come to Christ is by God's enabling. That's Calvinism 101. The problem is, how that could be true and God also be just.

His justice is not affected by this fact at all. He would be just if all were damned.

Fact: He condemns to the lake of fire those who do not come to Christ. We agree on that.

But if Calvinism is true, the fact that they do not come proves He did not enable them to come; had He, they would, irresistibly.

I would agree.

That makes their not coming His choice for them

True, as far as it goes. The question is whether God actively or passively chose their fate. If we agree that are by nature, objects of wrath [Ephesians 2:3] God does not have to do anything to or for those who are damned. All he has to do is to leave them to their fate. That which they deserve. Could God save all. I believe that to be the case. Jesus is sufficient for all. The fact that he did not choose to save all does not make him unjust.

 

[musterion]

His justice is not affected by this fact at all.

This is the key point and your response is wrong. This issue directly impacts His justice. Indeed, the position you defend denies His justice, His honesty, His holiness and righteousness.

If God simply condemned sin generally - even the sin of unbelief - then there'd be no debate here. And in fact that's what the Bible says He does. That's a fact so it's not even under consideration.

The issue here is with what Calvinism says is the reason for the faithlessness of those who do not believe.

They do not believe because they CANNOT. You said so yourself.

They CANNOT because - again, according to your own words - God doesn't draw them. And why should He? According to you, He didn't even spill the blood of His Son for them so there'd be no point in drawing them to Christ. They CANNOT believe so they simply cannot be saved -- not by their own will but by God's will, by not electing them.

Condensed version:

According to Calvinism, does God know that those who never come to Christ CANNOT do so? Yes, of course He knows. It's His will they not come. If He wanted them to come, He'd have elected them.

According to the Bible, does God condemn those who do not come for CHOOSING to refuse Christ? Yes, it does.

A flat contradiction, created by Calvinists, that cannot be reconciled. Either Calvinism's depiction of God is false, or the Bible's is. They can't both be true.

This contradiction refutes Calvinism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Three choices are possible:

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with His blood.

The third statement is what the non-Calvinist would say: Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?

If they say yes, then why is unbelief not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or...

...they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and His grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into His marvelous light.

AMR

 

[Bright Raven]

Three choices are possible:

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with His blood.

The third statement is what the non-Calvinist would say: Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?

If they say yes, then why is unbelief not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or...

...they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and His grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into His marvelous light.

AMR

If He died only for the sins of some men could that not include those who choose call upon the name of the Lord due to free will choice?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A little present for Calvinists.

By virtue of reprobation, their inevitable rejection of Christ (they can do nothing but reject Him) is God's choice for them from eternity past, before they sinned, before they ever existed.

No.

The mass of humanity, that lump of clay was a fallen lump.


Logical Ordering of God's decree:

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect some from this fallen lump of clay, pass over the rest
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

Arminianism, etc. view of the logical ordering of God's decree:

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation for all in this fallen lump of clay
4. Call all to salvation
5. Elect those who believe
[A view with problems, see: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4565100#post4565100]

AMR

 

[Brother Ducky]

This is the key point and your response is wrong. This issue directly impacts His justice. Indeed, the position you defend denies His justice, His honesty, His holiness and righteousness.

If God simply condemned sin generally - even the sin of unbelief - then there'd be no debate here. And in fact that's what the Bible says He does. That's a fact so it's not even under consideration.

The issue here is with what Calvinism says is the reason for the faithlessness of those who do not believe.

They do not believe because they CANNOT. You said so yourself.

They CANNOT because - again, according to your own words - God doesn't draw them. And why should He? According to you, He didn't even spill the blood of His Son for them so there'd be no point in drawing them to Christ. They CANNOT believe so they simply cannot be saved -- not by their own will but by God's will, by not electing them.

Condensed version:

According to Calvinism, does God know that those who never come to Christ CANNOT do so? Yes, of course He knows. It's His will they not come. If He wanted them to come, He'd have elected them.

According to the Bible, does God condemn those who do not come for CHOOSING to refuse Christ? Yes, it does.

A flat contradiction, created by Calvinists, that cannot be reconciled. Either Calvinism's depiction of God is false, or the Bible's is. They can't both be true.

This contradiction refutes Calvinism.

I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I know that this makes perfect sense to you. However I seem to be unable to follow this to your conclusion.

How are you defining "justice?" We may differ in this, since I do not see God being unjust if he elects some and not others.

 

[Bright Raven]

I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I know that this makes perfect sense to you. However I seem to be unable to follow this to your conclusion.

How are you defining "justice?" We may differ in this, since I do not see God being unjust if he elects some and not others.

No problem.

John 6:44 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[Brother Ducky]

BR,

Not sure that this is not a better support for the Calvinist/Reformed position. Sort of eliminates the free-will aspect of salvation.

 

[Bright Raven]

BR,

Not sure that this is not a better support for the Calvinist/Reformed position. Sort of eliminates the free-will aspect of salvation.

He still draws those who have free will.

 

[musterion]

Three choices are possible:

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

Option 3 is true - Paul says it - but God still requires faith for anyone to benefit from it - Paul says that as well. Do I pretend to understand how God made that work? Nope! But it's what Paul said. A holy, just, non-lying God cannot require faith in His Son from those He did not give faith and THEN damn them for not expressing faith in His Son. Period.

Faith - simply believing what God says, without which it has always been impossible to please Him - is the critical factor you omitted from your analysis, and it sinks the whole thing.

The fact that He expects and requires (and deserves!) faith from all men indicates all men DO have the capacity for the faith required to please Him, and justifies the damning of unbelief. Otherwise, He's a liar for damning faithlessness.

 

[musterion]

I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I know that this makes perfect sense to you. However I seem to be unable to follow this to your conclusion.

You're not stupid, you're very intelligent. But you are either lying or you are blind.

Either God can and does lie, or He cannot and doesn't lie. The Bible says He cannot. Calvinism says He damns them for rejecting what He gave them no ability to accept: Christ. For Him to do that, on that basis, would be for Him to lie.

If you can't see that, then you're blind. If you can see it but are just pretending you can't, then you're wicked.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If He died only for the sins of some men could that not include those who choose call upon the name of the Lord due to free will choice?

I believe this as well, BR. We all have free will.

The issue, of course, is what we mean by "free will". For me, free will means choosing according to your greatest inclinations when you so choose. I believe no part of fallen man is free from the crippling corruption and the condemning guilt of sin. Accordingly, no one that has not been born anew possesses any moral ability to choose wisely unless they are first quickened by the Holy Spirit, for the lost...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).


AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Option 3 is true - Paul says it - but God still requires faith for anyone to benefit from it - Paul says that as well. Do I pretend to understand how God made that work? Nope! But it's what Paul said. A holy, just, non-lying God cannot require faith in His Son from those He did not give faith and THEN damn them for not expressing faith in His Son. Period.

You have misunderstood Paul.

You also wave off the discussion related to the decree in my post. Per the commonplace view of the Reformed, the decree encompasses the fall of man and God's provision to save some, but not everyone, so done only according to His own purposes and counsel and not any foreseen merit of man. This fallen lump of clay deserved no universal mercy. You may disagree with this view of the decree, but your argument against this common view is not sustained until you show it to be otherwise.

Further, if Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? You answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?

If you say yes, He died for all men, then why is unbelief not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? Why are the lost then being punished if option three—Christ died for all the sins of all men—is your choice? Apparently, his death was only a potential act of redemption, not an actual one, since all are not saved. So, in reality, you really do not mean option three, but something like "Christ died for all the sins of all men, but only if and only if all men would just have faith".

I prefer to not have flattered impenitent sinners by assuring them that it is in their power, via Arminian and Romanist notions of prevenient grace, to repent and believe, though God cannot make them do it. On the contrary, Christ did not win a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, a mere possibility of salvation for any who might possibly believe, but a real salvation for His own chosen people. His precious blood really does "save us all"; the intended effects of His self–offering do in fact follow, just because the Cross was what it was. Its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it. The Cross secured the full salvation of all for whom Christ died. "God forbid," therefore, "that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

You conflate belief and faith here. All are commanded to believe. Man is not commanded to have faith, for faith is but a gift granted by God, the firstfruits of regenerative re-birth.

Why is Christ's death able to stand in the place of what a sinful man deserves? It is the gracious purpose of God. Considered in itself the death of Christ possesses the virtue to redeem all men (intrinsic merit). Clearly, since not all believe, in God's purpose it is only designed to redeem an elect, specific number of people, that is its extrinsic merit.

Herein this discussion are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God Who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it.

Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the "five points," as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

AMR

 

[Brother Ducky]

You're not stupid, you're very intelligent. But you are either lying or you are blind.

Either God can and does lie, or He cannot and doesn't lie. The Bible says He cannot. Calvinism says He damns them for rejecting what He gave them no ability to accept: Christ. For Him to do that, on that basis, would be for Him to lie.

If you can't see that, then you're blind. If you can see it but are just pretending you can't, then you're wicked.

Compliments and insults all in one post.

Perhaps blind. Let me tell what I think is wrong with your position.
We are dealing with fallen humans. Fallen in such a way as to make it impossible for us to accept Christ. Fallen in such a way as to make it possible for Paul to write [Rom 3:23-24] ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,...

The natural inability of man to accept Christ is not a function of what God does to us as individuals, you>saved, you over there> damned, but rather the consequence of Adam's sin. In the absence of God's gracious redeeming activity there is only one fate for all men, damnation. Justice served. Sin and die. God does nothing for the damned to be damned.

Salvation on the other hand is totally the work of God. He chooses some and not others. Mercy. Mercy does not have shown to all possible recipients for the giver of mercy to be just. It is not unjust to show mercy to one or some and not all.

Your argument might have some merit if God did actively choose those to be damned. To actively choose to not dispense mercy and allow the natural circumstances play out is not unjust. It is not unjust even if there was the possibility that mercy could be given.

Admittedly, there are a couple of people here who would argue for the active choice by God of those to be damned, but most Calvinists/Reformed would hold to the passive nature of reprobation. But if reprobation is passive on the part of God, then he is not unjust for choosing some and not others.

 

[OCTOBER23]

Mustardonit,

GOD CAN LIE BUT CHOOSES NOT TO

OR HOW ELSE WOULD HE KNOW THAT SATAN IS A LIAR.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil,

and the lusts of your father ye will do.

He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,

because there is no truth in him.

 

[nikolai_42]

All do not ask. Why would they?

Why wouldn't they?

 

[dialm]

The Calvinist doctrine of a Limited Atonement is one of the great heresies of the century.

To believe in a "Limited Atonement" is to believe that Jesus did NOT atone for the sins of the whole world and to believe that he only atoned for the sins of some people, but not all people.

There are mutiple things wrong with this false doctrine.

If we are going to be Bible believing Christians we will have reject this false doctrine based upon scripture alone.

"And he is a propitiation for our sins: and not ours only, but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2.

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD" 1 John 4:14.

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED" John 3:17.

"For we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD" John 4:42.

"I came not to judge the world, BUT TO SAVE THE WORLD" John 12:47.

If Jesus had not atoned for all of the sins of the world, then God never would have accepted Jesus back into heaven. Jesus was accepted into heaven because he had victoriously defeated sin, death and the devil, Colossians 2:15.

The resounding message of the New Testament is that "Jesus is Lord". He is Lord because he has put ALL THINGS under him and he is above all things, Colossians 1:20. Because of the doing and the dying of Jesus, Jesus has victoriously reconciled the whole world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:19.

The most serious part of believing in a "Limited Atonement" is to believe that Jesus is NOT Lord. To believe that Jesus is not Lord means that you do not have faith in him. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God in the flesh. Jesus had to be God to save us.

Jesus said, "I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he (Lord) or (God) you will die in your sins" John 8:24.

Of the century? Which century are you talking about granny?