No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

Theo1689

Well-known member
Hyper is the only logically consistent Calvinism.

That's simply not true.

What is a compatibilistic "free will" that has no real power of choice on its own but is in one way or another completely determined,

Here is your error.

You conflate "choice" with "determination" (they are not the same thing).
And you conflate "choice" (a noun) with "choose" (a verb).

We have wills.
Because we have wills, we "choose" things (based on our wills).
We don't DETERMINE our wills, but we "choose" based on our wills.

Men are not "dragged, kicking and screaming against their will", wanting to be saved, and being condemned instead. No, they CHOOSE hell.

Men are not "dragged, kicking and screaming against their will", to be saved if they don't want to be. No, they CHOOSE to be saved.

If you agree that men have wills, you CANNOT deny that we "choose", based on those wills.

no matter how convolutely you phrase it like a snake oil salesman or something

Insulting ad hominem duly noted.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I like this explanation about the will and choice. Thank you Theo1689.

Well, here's the thing.
That poster believes in "autonomous free will".
So he simply ASSUMES (based on nothing) that we "determine" our own "choices".

So when he says, Calvinism is not possible, what he is ACTUALLY saying is, "Calvinism does not fit my personal free will paradigm", and nobody said it did. But as long as he can't prove that humans have "autonomous free will", he can't logically use it to condemn Calvinism.

Thank you for the kind words...
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
However, the decision toe Surrender, and REPENT remains with the person so effected; unless you're a Calvinist, in which case nobody has any choice about anything.
Nothing you can do if you dead. If they are alive, the choice was made for them. Lazarus didn't make a choice to become alive from the dead, That was Jesus choice to save him from death.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Are you saying Bobs experience was not real and that did not happen in his life ?

If you're referring to his claim of "being drawn many times, and rejected it", I don't don't his experience, I simply disagree with his perception that it was GOD "drawing him" all those times.

I see it similarly to the Mormon who claims they have a "burning in the bosom" (from the Holy Spirit) testifying that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I don't doubt that they experienced some feeling (for many, it was simply an adrenaline rush), I simply doubt that the Holy Spirit said, "Hi, I'm the Holy Spirit, and I'm giving this to you".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes I do not believe a person can go in and out of salvation but I do believe like the prodigal son they can turn away from God to serve self and come back by the Holy Spirit convicting them if their rebellion . Do you believe that ? I think some people in certain circle call that being a carnal Christian.

I'm glad you asked that, and I believe many Christians misinterpret the parable, and twist it to try to argue "free will". That is a mistake.

Most people take the a parable on its own, out of context. In reality, Jesus told these as a collection of THREE parables:

1) The lost sheep; (Luke 15:4-7);
2) The lost coin; (Luke 15:8-10);
3) The lost son; (Luke 15:11-32);

In all three parables, the owner ALREADY owned the possessions. The Shepherd wasn't looking for "new" sheep, he already had the allotted sheep in His fold, and was simply rounding up those given to him by his master. In the parable fo the lost coin, the woman wasn't simply looking for ANY coins she might find (as some look in couches, or in the coin return of pay phones). She had her OWN coins, and she lost one, and she wanted it back, and she wasn't going to stop looking until she found the coin that was rightly hers.

These teach the doctrine of "perseverance/preservation of the saints".

The third parable isn't going to teach something which is the opposite of what the other two teach. The important thing is that the two sons were ALREADY the sons of their father. The prodigal son was a son before he left, he continued to be a son, and he was received as a son when he returned. The Father wasn't going to receive "anyone", he only received those who were TRULY sons (this touches on the doctrine of election).

What the third parable expands on, and I think many people miss, is that the "meat" of the parable comes from the older son's reaction in vv. 25-32. This isn't explicit, but I think it's justified that the older son represents the Jews, even the Pharisees, and the prodigal son represents Gentile believers. Just as the Pharisees were offended by Jesus accepting Gentile believers, when the Jews were the "faithful" ones, living according to the law their whole lives, and being resentful of those who (to them) lived in "lawlessness", and only came to faith later, the older son was jealous of the younger son because the father chose to give a feast, and cook the fatted calf. The older son felt himself more faithful, but didn't get such a feast. So in a sense, this part of the parable seems to be a rebuke of the Jews who were reluctant to accept Gentile believers, or felt "superior" to them.

I believe John MacArthur's book, "A Tale of Two Sons" goes into more detail regarding this.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Are you saying Bobs experience was not real and that did not happen in his life ?
OF course he is!!! Nothing can be allowed that casts any question on Calvinism's Dogmas!! He'll claim that I was only "Drawn once" (the time I Surrendered, and Repented) and the other times (even though they were exactly the same) weren't "real"!!! (I've played this game before)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So you utterly FAILED to do what I asked.
"Irresistability" sounds pretty "Forceful" to me, y'all.

Explain to me why "Irresistable" isn't "Irresistable".

<Chuckle>

Thank you for demonstrating a logical fallacy.

You simply ASSUME that "irresistible" means "forceful".
You don't PROVE it.

But you seem to think I have some insane obligation to "disprove" your ASSUMPTION?
Sorry, that's not how it works.

None of the elect resist, because none of the elect CHOOSE to resist.
So there you go, no "force" needed.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
What about the carnal christian idea ?

I don't know what you're asking.
I believe a "carnal Christian" is a false convert to Christianity who has never been regenerated. On the forums, they tend to be "bullies" who continue to argue their previous worldview from within a "Christian" paradigm.

I'm not sure what they have to do with "irresistible grace", since they were never drawn in the first place (or at least they haven't been drawn yet).
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
<Chuckle>

Thank you for demonstrating a logical fallacy.

You simply ASSUME that "irresistible" means "forceful".
You don't PROVE it.

But you seem to think I have some insane obligation to "disprove" your ASSUMPTION?
Sorry, that's not how it works.

None of the elect resist, because none of the elect CHOOSE to resist.
So there you go, no "force" needed.
I didn't think your could (or would) answer substantively.

I chose to resist several times until the last time (I might well have done it then too, except that I was afraid there might not be a "NEXT TIME").

Since I was Born again eventually, then I'm by definition "Elect". I could have saved myself a great amount of personal PAIN, by surrendering earlier.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I chose to resist several times until the last time (I might well have done it then too, except that I was afraid there might not be a "NEXT TIME").

When God tells me that He drew you, but you resisted, only then will I accept your perception.

Since I was Born again eventually, then I'm by definition "Elect". I could have saved myself a great amount of personal PAIN, by surrendering earlier.

Not my problem.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
@ReverendRV do you have one of your tracts on the carnal Christian I can read ?
VIP’s ~ by ReverendRV

Hebrews 10:25 NIV; not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

This Gospel Tract is for the ‘Unchurched Church’. When we read a verse like the one above, you should expect a Christian to invite you back to Church; even expect them to compel you. The Day being spoken of is the Last Day; and it is approaching! There’s a group of unreached people and it may shock the Christian to realize this, but they're people who were raised in Church but got old enough to choose to stop attending. ~ One prominent thing we used to hear from people was "do not Judge lest you be judged"; now what we hear most is that "You don’t have to go to Church to be a Christian". It's not easy to answer a verse which tells the Christian to not Judge; though there is a book in the Bible called Judges. It’s also not easy to answer someone when they say they don’t have to go to Church to be Saved; because they are right. ~ Perhaps this admission is enough to cause you to relax; and listen. You ask, “Why then do you feel that you have to write a Gospel Tract to the Unchurched Church?”

There are a few reasons. First, the Bible says we know that we’ve passed from death to life because we love the brethren; anyone who does not love remains in death. People tell me that it is the Bible thumping Christians that turn them off and we are starting to make them hate Church; but shouldn’t you expect us to be into our Bibles? Okay, let me stop talking about you and use myself as an example; can I have your opinion on something? When I was a child I got ‘Saved’ at AWANA’s but after I grew up I decided to stop going to Church. I would sing that song “Shout! Shout! Shout at the Devil!” and do drugs. Long story short, around the age of 37 I got ‘Saved’. Here’s the question; at which time in my life did I really get Saved? ~ I wouldn't risk my soul by betting on which day I was Saved, but the Bible leads me to believe that I was Saved later; when I truly understood my Sin. Have you ever accepted Christ as your Savior but never go to Church because of 'those hypocrites'? The Bible tells us that the Church is the 'one' Bride of Christ; if you are Saved then you are his Bride. The Scriptures also ask us, ‘What person doesn’t love and care for themselves?’ If you are the Bride of Christ and I’m also the Bride of Christ; how could you almost start to hate me? What Bride could ever hate herself?? The Church and the Bride are synonymous…

Perhaps you went to a Church that didn't preach the Law and the Gospel? Lying, Stealing, Adultery and Hatred are Sins, to name a few; and Sinners go to Hell for all eternity. But we are Saved by the Grace of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ as our Risen ‘Lord’ and Savior; apart from any good deeds we could do to earn this. ~ If you only listen to one thing I say, hear this; The Bible says that those who left ‘us’ (the Church) were never of 'us' (the Bride). This should send chills down your spine! What if you were like I was and not Saved when I quit? You’ve stopped going to Church and live like Hell; we are known by our fruit. ~ Jesus Christ is our first Love; but that means we have a Second Love; right? Come back home…

2nd Corinthians 13:5 NIV; Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
What about the carnal christian idea ?

Yes, I believe Bob is a great example of a "carnal Christian".
Notice how he refuses to end an argument, he refuses to agree to disagree, he continues to argue over and over, and does so by MISREPRESENTING what we believe, refusing to accept correction.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
SO then "I" means absolutely nothing. Most of us agree about that.
'Irresistible' is a poor term in this case. 'Inevitable' is better. You may resist for a while or for a long time, but you will inevitably surrender--and of your own free will. Most Calvinists think in terms of necessity, traditionally following the philosophical error of Edwards in thinking that there's no difference between necessity and certainty. Necessity leaves no real alternative possibilities in this world. Every fork in the road is merely apparent, as the course is infallibly set. Calvinists affirm it and Arminians reject it. But the Biblical truth is that God determines men’s destinies through certainty alone and not by necessity. Certainty does not remove from possibility all alternative courses of action, like necessity does. With certainty, a world of innumerable alternative possibilities exists, but it remains utterly certain which of the many possible courses of action will be chosen. With a scheme of necessity, men must be forcibly regenerated or they will perish, without any real choosing on their part. But certainty recognizes that men do have a choice of which they are indeed capable of making, and it recognizes both the warrant to offer salvation through Christ to all (even the nonelect) and the need for divine influence to “woo” and pursue and persuade free sinners to believe.

A side note: the "&" between 'Arminianism & Calvinism' stands for a whole spectrum of views that span the difference between the two extremes. As a Middler or Centrist, it is my conviction that the Biblical truth is shared in part by both ends and is found in whole in the middle. God did unconditionally choose His elect from eternity past, and saves them without fail as he meticulously carries out His plan; but in this temporal world, God calls all men to repent, salvation is contingent only on men freely choosing to believe in Christ, with every such surrender due only to God's gracious influences.
 
Top