Rick, this is a caricature of Calvinism. You’re not showing, beyond mere assertion, that man’s choice is not his real choice. I know you keep repeating it, brother, but that’s not equivalent to showing it. Until you show it, your claim is just hollow.RickD wrote:Danny, this is getting redundant. Calvinism says this:This says, that Calvinism's interpretation of what the bible calls election, states that" God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation".Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).
That means man's choice plays no part, in election, according to Calvinism. Hence, man has no choice, then, according to Calvinism, those whom God chooses, MUST love Him. That's forced love.
Calvinism stresses God’s sovereignty? As opposed to stressing His non-sovereignty? Or merely remaining neutral on God’s sovereignty or otherwise? What’s your point here, bro?RickD wrote:Danny, what I'm saying, is that Calvinism's view of the nature of God, is where my disagreement lies. Calvinism stresses God's sovereignty. As Bart said earlier, how each of us views God's nature, shows our disagreement, and your agreement, with Calvinism.
And again, Rick, how do I view God’s nature? Forget what Bart said and tell me what my view of God’s nature is, please.
If God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, and if He knows this via a foreseen choice, then who could claim God is attempting to save more than He knows is possible? Is God engaging in futile attempts to change the unchangeable?
Basically, Rick, if God knows who will and will not be saved via a foreseen choice, how can you claim that God is trying to save everyone? Is God engaging in logical absurdities?RickD wrote:Sorry, Danny. You lost me on this. I don't understand what you're saying here.
For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God.
Rick, I thought you agreed with the necessity of God’s prior quickening? You’ve said before that man does not have the ability to come to faith without God working in him first. Have you changed your view?RickD wrote:And, this gets back to the heart of why I disagree with Calvinism. The sentence:” For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God." Will get no disagreement from me. But, when we get into what Calvinism really means by "total depravity", and "prior Quickening", then I disagree with Calvinism.
So let me get this straight. You want me to give you the mechanism used by the Spirit in quickening us? Are you familiar with meaning apart from mechanism, Rick? I’m reminded of a response by Greg Bahnsen to an unbeliever. He is answering something else, but the point aptly applies here:RickD wrote:It means, that if you can show me Calvinism's view, the one you hold to, about total depravity, AND specifically how God quickens man, so he can believe, I think that will be a key to where the disagreement comes. I think Calvinism's views, are, in some cases, very subtle differences, to what I believe. That's why it took me a few times reading the site that August linked, for me to see that I actually disagree, with Calvinism as a whole system. While I can agree with parts of Calvinism, if not taken as part of the whole.
If you want to know the *mechanism* then that would be like asking, "How did God make a cow?", The statement that God made the cow has meaning apart from my being able to explain the mechanics of God making a cow.
Here’s a short synopsis of Total Depravity:
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
You talk about what you “need” from August and myself, Rick, and yet you have singularly failed to answer anything put your way. If that’s not a complete brass neck then I don’t know what is.RickD wrote:Now, this is half of what I need from you or August, so I can show you where I disagree. All I need now, is how Calvinism believes God quickens someone, so he can believe.
The gospel is the means by which God calls His elect to faith. But if you’re looking for the mechanism used by the Holy Spirit then you’re out of luck, since it would take a braver man than me to attempt such an answer.
Rick, I was interpreting these verses thus before I came to Calvinism. Funny, isn’t it? It was my interpreting of these passages in this way which actually led me to Calvinism. This sort of blows your point out of the water, doesn’t it?RickD wrote:Danny, you've said what you believe, according to your Calvinistic view, as your interpretation of the verses you use. So, as I said before, I don't disagree with the bible verses you quote. I just disagree sometimes , with the way the verses are interpreted, under Calvinism.
Calvin didn’t invent John 6:37-39, John 6:44, John 6:64-65, John 8:47, John 10:15, John 10:26 and so on.
No, Rick. To me it is quite obvious that Calvinism interprets these passages consistently and correctly. You are yet to show otherwise, Rick. Christianity isn’t some pluralistic system where everybody’s right and nobody is wrong. Christianity makes exclusive truth claims, Rick. If you want to say that Calvinism is wrong in its interpretation of these and other verses, then you could start by actually showing this. I mean, I’m all for live and let live, and you can go your way and I’ll go mine, but if you want to bring a system into dispute, it seems to me that it would be rewarding if you could actually show the faults in the system.RickD wrote:Exactly, but Calvinism interprets those verses, to fit into Calvinism, as a whole system.
In my view Arminianism is unbiblical, not merely uncalvinist, Rick. That’s the important thing.
It’s funny, brother Rick, that this discussion just moves on to one thing after the other. Assertions are made, they go unproven, flying by without demonstration. Then more assertions are made, and the circus moves on. Just a mental recap:RickD wrote:That's fine, Danny. As I said before, I believe there's a lot in Arminianism that's unbiblical too. Perhaps that's for a different thread, if you want to disprove Arminianism.
1. Calvinism logically leads to a position much like the WBC.
Unsubstantiated and unproven.
2. Calvinism logically leads to an “us” and “them” attitude.
Unsubstantiated and unproven.
3. Now apparently we need the mechanism by which God intervenes to bring the elect to faith.
Astonishing how the unsubstantiated is left to one side and we’ve now moved on to the plain absurd.
I guess Calvinism can live to fight another day if this is all it’s up against