Originally Posted by Pilgrim
With all due respect, it seems that you never really studied and/or understood the ACTUAL and historic (confessional) doctrines of Calvinism. [Linked Image] But, if it is of any consolation to you, there are many professing Calvinists who are members of Reformed churches, some even holding offices; pastor, elder or deacon, who neither understand these doctrines. Many do "know" what they teach but simply choose to reject them and substitute something else which they deem more "palatable". igiveup

I'm sure there's no limit to how far one can explore the caverns of Calvinism and it seems from Calvinists I know that there is a jockeying to espouse a form of Calvinism purer than the other's. I see all Calvinists as picking and choosing from what Calvin taught. I have yet to hear a Calvinist agree with Calvin that Mary was an ever-virgin.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
On the positive side, let me offer what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches concerning the sovereignty of God and the will of man, particularly in the matter of salvation.

1. God is absolutely and indisputably sovereign in ALL THINGS and has absolute and indisputable authority over ALL THINGS. In short, God has foreordained ALL THINGS according to His own eternal determinate counsel and according to His good pleasure. The Lord God did not "look down the corridors of time" in order to gain some insight into what uncreated men would do and upon that basis decree what He saw. I could offer myriad and incontrovertible biblical passages which show this to be true, but space and time do not allow me to do so. However, I will provide a document which does this nicely HERE.
I'm familiar with the biblical defenses of Calvinism. Any way that it's explained, I can't help but conclude that the Calvinist's version of God's sovereignty is threatened by the free will of man; as if man cannot act by unhindered volition, even to the point of choosing salvation freely, without trespassing upon God's sovereignty. I also can't help but to think that the sovereignty of God, in the Calvinist's view, is limited and inferior to that which, according to according to the arminian view, can bend the path of people and nations to His perfect will without rail-locking the eternal fate of men.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
2. Concerning the "freedom of the will" of man, the contention which exists between biblical Calvinism and everyone else; Rome, sects, cults and most other Protestants, originates in the doctrine of Original Sin. Put another way and in the form of a question, What were the noetic effects of the Fall? Did God's threat of "death" upon disobedience really happen? And if so, what is the proper understanding of that death? Biblical Calvinism insists that "death" means cessation of that which dies. All others insist that "death" means "transformation", i.e., a different form of life. Calvinism teaches that Adam's spiritual nature with its original predisposition/inclination toward God and all that is good DIED; ceased to exist and thus man's predisposition/inclination was one of hatred toward God and all that is good. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer: 17:9; 13:223; Eccl 9:3; Matt 15:19; Eph 2:1-3; 4:17-19; et al)
Total Depravity as defined here, seems to exclude entirely the choice that man still has in spite of the fall to "choose life, that you might live." Well ensconced in most of Christianity is the notion that nobody can come unto Jesus without an initial act of grace to open the heart to repentence. But TULIP Calvinism makes this an all or nothing proposition. Either the heart is regenerated inevitably and irrevokably to salvation, or it has no chance. I see a different lesson in the parable of the sower whereby some souls are quickened to saving grace, but then fall away, not having the root to sustain their germination. I see free will affirmed here.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
3. Fallen man did not lose his ability to exercise his will, he being a 'free-agent', is thus being wholly responsible for all his thoughts, words and deeds. He always chooses that which he desires most in any given circumstance. Being under the just condemnation of God as a child of Adam, having inherited the corruption of nature as was the promised curse given by God to Adam, the federal head of the human race, man is not "owed a chance" to redeem himself, whether by works or by faith in Christ.
Agreed. God would have been perfectly just to condemn all men and offer no chance at redemption.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
God would be and is perfectly within His holy right to condemn all human beings at conception to eternal hell due to their wicked nature AND the imputation of guilt which is owned by them. (cf. Jh 3:36; Rom 5:12-21; 1Cor 15:21,22) Thus, all men are 'free' to choose according to their nature. A fallen, unregenerate man will most naturally and freely choose that which is sinful and nothing more. He will not and cannot choose that which is contrary to his nature; God, righteousness, holiness, good, etc. What all others who oppose this biblical truth bring forth is a contrived fiction that is nothing less than illogical and contrary to even common sense and nature itself. It is the most hated doctrine of all, far more so than divine predestination, definite atonement, irresistible grace or the preservation/perseverance of the saints. Even God Himself does not possess a "free-will" as held by non-Calvinists, for God cannot choose that which is contrary to His nature either.
But didn't you and I just agree that God does have free will? God would have been just to condemn us all just as he would have been to wipe out the rebellious Israelites and make a new nation out of Moses. But God chose mercy when to withhold mercy would not have impuned upon his righteousness.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
4. Due to the inability of man to seek after God nor even desire salvation, the Holy Spirit must do a sovereign work of regeneration of a sinner's soul; re-creating the will by creating within that soul a new nature with its consequent predisposition/inclination toward God. This is a monergistic work which allows man to hear the truth of the Gospel in mind and heart and thus repents of his sin and flees after Christ with a true faith in order to be reconciled to God and receive the remission of sins. It is the sinner himself/herself who experiences the conviction of sin, who repents, who believes and who yearns after holiness due to the radical change of nature and the power of the Holy Spirit within. Thus, the charge that man has no part whatsoever in salvation is false one. But it is equally false to claim that there is any kind of merit or co-operation between God and man that results in salvation. Salvation is all of God from beginning to end. God has determined the means as well as the end which shall infallibly come to pass. (cf. Ps 33:11; 135:6; Prov 19:21; 21:30; Isa 41:22; 44:7; 45:21; 46:9,10; Dan 4:35; Acts 2:22-24; 4:26-28; 13:48; et al)
But how can a reasonable man conclude otherwise upon hearing Calvinist teaching spelled out? Of course man has no part in salvation because he has no choice. He will either invariably "choose" salvation according to predestinational selection, or he will be consigned irrevokably to perdition being unable to choose anything else. The most absurd claim of Calvinism is to make the case that man retains free will by voting on a ballot with only one candidate.

Cooperation is at the heart of the Incarnation. Mary was not compelled to be the portal of salvation and yet Mary, on behalf of all mankind, received Christ into the world. At every step of the salvation of man, God solicit's man's acquiescence and cooperation. Only in the either/or prescribed view of Calvinism does this violate or diminish the sovereignty of God.

The economy of heaven isn't either/or.

Last edited by via_dolorosa; Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:38 PM.
Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.