Thx, no worries. He's far from alone imho. Origen, Tertullian, Iranaeus, Polycarp, and a ton of church fathers had diverse views about salvation/sovereignty. Even older/oldest, Paul himself clearly expected the end times to be…near for the saved/his flock, probably why he had such a temper toward heretics. Heck, this stuff is what led to the whole debates about the Trinity/Christ's nature/Filioque/Council of Nicea etc.

The radical division post-1054 belies really the complexity of the early/deep-history of the faith which lies behind it.

F. John Strickland is one of my favorite christian theologians/historians today (not to say I agree with him about all views of course). He breaks down basic/'mere' Christianity as 4 factors post-Pentecost that transformed the world, through to the modern day. Doctrinal integrity he lists first (and laments it's collapse).

Full disclosure, as I've indicated to Dermdoc before, I don't consider myself a Calvinist at this point, but I respect the theology and consider it very cogent/coherent and easy to respect, in itself. Sorry for derail, I'll stop here.

nortex97 said:

---

The classical answer is that God wishes to save all/both as classes, not individuals. (Usually this is in reference to 1 Tim. 2-4). Calvin:

Quote:

---

In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life. Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the: will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man. But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations.

---

Luther:

Quote:

---

"God desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc.39 These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Tim. 2:10 "everything for the sake of the elect." For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: "This is My blood which is poured out for you" and "for many"He does not say: for all"for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 14:24, Matt 26:28) (Luther's Works Volume 25.376)

---

Personally, I find it incredibly (to say the least, but uninterested in a long derail/debate) unlikely 1 Timothy was actually written by Paul, and largely dismiss the letter in any case, but that's the standard reformed view, as I have understood it.

---

I know what the Reformed interpretation of those verses are. And disagree with their interpretation. The plain reading is very clear.
Calvin and Luther are using eisegesis to interpret Scripture so that it will become compatible with their view of election and predestination.

Now you could say I am doing the same with my thoughts. But I am not saying election and predestination are not Scriptural. I am saying that to be compatible with other Scripture, the terms are not talking about exactly who will be saved and who will be damned. I do not think the terms apply to individuals.

And I see how Calvin came to his conclusions. I disagree with them when you look at the whole of Scripture. It is like he came to his conclusion on predestination and election then interprets all Scripture through that lens.

Calvin also seems to be a very miserable, petty, and mean spirited person. Ask poor Servatus. Don't see that in the fruits of the Spirit.

nortex97 said:

---

Thx, no worries. He's far from alone imho. Origen, Tertullian, Iranaeus, Polycarp, and a ton of church fathers had diverse views about salvation/sovereignty. Even older/oldest, Paul himself clearly expected the end times to be…near for the saved/his flock, probably why he had such a temper toward heretics. Heck, this stuff is what led to the whole debates about the Trinity/Christ's nature/Filioque/Council of Nicea etc.

The radical division post-1054 belies really the complexity of the early/deep-history of the faith which lies behind it.

F. John Strickland is one of my favorite christian theologians/historians today (not to say I agree with him about all views of course). He breaks down basic/'mere' Christianity as 4 factors post-Pentecost that transformed the world, through to the modern day. Doctrinal integrity he lists first (and laments it's collapse).

Full disclosure, as I've indicated to Dermdoc before, I don't consider myself a Calvinist at this point, but I respect the theology and consider it very cogent/coherent and easy to respect, in itself. Sorry for derail, I'll stop here.

---

As I have stated before, I respect and admire Calvinists for their faith. Also as I have stated before, I can not go there. I could not have kids if I was a Calvinist believing they could be preordained to ECT hell. With no chance.

I understand how TULIP developed and how it is based, in my opinion, by emphasizing some Scripture over others.To me, it is a dark, gloomy, depressing theology.

I could be wrong in my take, but hope I am not.

The Banned said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

This is close to an unhealthy response imho as now you are essentially positing I am dishonest here. I appreciate Dermdoc's curiosity (long running) as to the Calvinist perspective and don't mean to give a treatise as to the Arminian/Wesleyan views. The longer form answer as I understand it I provided second.

The debate centers as it always has around whether God is to blame for some being 'damned' ("God is mean") or if man is more sovereign in his ability to resist God's grace (by whatever definition), or God's reaching out. It's that simple. Then come the debates as to who wrote what books, when, and what they meant.

This is why the Sovereignty of God is often considered the greater topic among high Calvinists in particular. I also disagree as to your assertion that the Arminian views represent a universally accepted/traditional view of Christians everywhere prior to the protestant reformation. I think that's just historically absurd, but whatever.

Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy long predates the Reformation, which to some degree represented a course correction from the RCC post-schism. If anyone is interested, James white and William Lane Craig had a decent debate on the "Unbelievable?" Podcast back in Dec 2021 about Calvinism vs. Molinism. I think most Arminians want to focus on the problem of evil, so might find it entertaining.

---

Sorry if I sounded accusatory. I don't think you're trying to be dishonest. I was pointing out, from my perspective, the second way you worded it was more accurate than the first. Apologies.

The ability for man to resist God's grace, either prior to belief or after, is pretty universal. Augustine is as close as you can get to Calvin's view, but it's not the same at all, and his quasi- double predestination beliefs were rejected at the second council of Orange. So maybe I can't say "universally" but we only find one guy writing on it, and that aspect of his teachings were rejected, so it's as close to "universally" as I think we can get.

I don't know why the freedom of choice has to trample on the sovereignty of God. God is 100% in control. If He deigns to let us participate and have a choice in the matter, He's still 100% in control because He chose to let us do that. We didn't wrestle control away from Him and leave Him with 95% sovereignty.

---

Agree.

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

The fruits of the spirit are certainly debatable, to the present very day. Should Roman Catholicism be cast aside on the basis of Pope Leo endorsing whatever it is he is endorsing in Lebanon (which has dropped to 1/3 christian now)? No, of course not.

Similarly, imputing moral judgment to the events of antiquity is difficult if not impossible, especially when mixed with religion. Ideas and faith only survive over time when/because they have merit.

I doubt you, nor I would waste our time typing out thoughts as to meritless/stupid ideas and beliefs. There really are no 'new' heresies, and no new ideas, just different phrasing/depictions. Calvinism survives despite the frank depravity of modern Protestantism because it warrants serious/deep consideration among those who value their christian faith deeply, imho.

You can solve the tension by removing one letter.

If we are truly and totally depraved, how would anyone "find" salvation?
If it is man's choice that dictates his eternal destiny, then he can surely lose it, so no preservation of the saints.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

You can solve the tension by removing one letter.

If we are truly and totally depraved, how would anyone "find" salvation?
If it is man's choice that dictates his eternal destiny, then he can surely lose it, so no preservation of the saints.

---

It is possible to choose salvation in the same way that it is possible to avoid sin entirely. Though no one has made this choice and no one will ever make this choice.

On the other hand, If it is impossible to avoid sin or impossible to choose salvation, then God created us to sin and to be damned, which would make God the author of evil and that's unbiblical.

Though this is a classic philosophical dilemma. If no one can choose not to sin, is sin really a choice? I think this issue goes beyond Calvinism.

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

When God as an omnipotent sovereign so decides something, He conquers any ability to resist.

Similarly, striking limited atonement can sound appealing but really undercuts the entire theology, imho. It is a temptation to empower man to resist God's will. This is commonly preached I think in many Protestant churches, unfortunately today.

Quote:

---

At best, according to Arminianism, God can only expect some sort of cooperation between His grace and man's choice. The result of this is to view man and God on an equal basis. We are on very false and dangerous ground anytime the Creator and the creature are seen as equals. Even worse, if the creature can halt the will of the Creator by his stubbornness, then man is god and is his own idol.

It is said by some that God will never coerce or never force you to do His will. This is also a false and dangerous statement. As we have seen, the method that God employs to carry out his will is to change the will of man that it surrenders to His. While He does not force His will on man in a human sense, He does cause the mind of man to accept His will. In the conversion of the Apostle Paul, it certainly does appear obvious that God overpowered him. Certainly, there is no indication in Paul that he was "softening up" to the message of the gospel prior to Christ confronting him on the road to Damascus.

It is dangerous to say that God can do no more than present you an offer. This makes Him no more than a salesman trying to convince mankind to buy His product. We see this attitude displayed in the methodologies employed by some to market the gospel in today's churches.

Arminianism says, 'There is one area of your life that God will never touch your will. He will never cause you to believe. That's your job. Only you can do it.' This is simply contrary to the Bible. Lydia knew the efficacious grace of God: "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 16:14). Jesus express this in John 6:65: "And He said, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

Quote:

---

At best, according to Arminianism, God can only expect some sort of cooperation between His grace and man's choice. The result of this is to view man and God on an equal basis. We are on very false and dangerous ground anytime the Creator and the creature are seen as equals. Even worse, if the creature can halt the will of the Creator by his stubbornness, then man is god and is his own idol.

---

Again, I really have to disagree with this characterization of the Arminian/synergist view of salvation. Not a single individual that ascribes to the view would define it this way or say that we are in any way equal to God, or capable of "halting His will". We simply believe that God wills us to use our own will to follow Him after He gives us the grace that allows us to participate with Him. We could do nothing if He didn't act first. But we don't believe He forces us to believe. We can see this in the writings of those 4 church fathers you mentioned earlier, as they all mention the possibility of falling away, and call on people to follow God. Why are we wasting our time encouraging people to follow God and not fall away if we don't play any role in the process whatsoever.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

---

Exactly. To say that God forced his hand is saying more than the Bible says. All we can say is that God showed up in an incredible way and had a profound impact on Paul

Any of you guys read Boethius, "The Consolation of Philosophy", say chapter 5?

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

At best, according to Arminianism, God can only expect some sort of cooperation between His grace and man's choice. The result of this is to view man and God on an equal basis. We are on very false and dangerous ground anytime the Creator and the creature are seen as equals. Even worse, if the creature can halt the will of the Creator by his stubbornness, then man is god and is his own idol.

---

Again, I really have to disagree with this characterization of the Arminian/synergist view of salvation. Not a single individual that ascribes to the view would define it this way or say that we are in any way equal to God, or capable of "halting His will". We simply believe that God wills us to use our own will to follow Him after He gives us the grace that allows us to participate with Him. We could do nothing if He didn't act first. But we don't believe He forces us to believe. We can see this in the writings of those 4 church fathers you mentioned earlier, as they all mention the possibility of falling away, and call on people to follow God. Why are we wasting our time encouraging people to follow God and not fall away if we don't play any role in the process whatsoever.

---

I apologize if that came across as mischaracterizing others beliefs, and it was a quote from the Heidelberg Seminary, not my own words, fwiw.

We play a role, to be clear, but the nature of Gods' irresistible will is something we probably disagree on. Backsliding/'preservation of the saints' can also be found here.

Telling people the Good News (preaching the Gospel) is an imperative that is fairly simple, for Christians of all denominations/dogmas imho. I think Calvinists see their role in the 'saving of souls' as less important than some traditions, but it's not that big a deal.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

---

Exactly. To say that God forced his hand is saying more than the Bible says. All we can say is that God showed up in an incredible way and had a profound impact on Paul

---

What I am unaware of is any indicia in the Bible of a person refusing God, when God intervened and told them they were chosen to do something on His behalf etc. I enjoy the story/mystery of Paul's 'conversion' on the road to Damascus, but admit it is late that, a bit of a mystery.

The point remains; he never talked then of resisting God/Jesus from that moment. There's also no reason to think he cherished that as an 'option.'

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

---

Exactly. To say that God forced his hand is saying more than the Bible says. All we can say is that God showed up in an incredible way and had a profound impact on Paul

---

So, now we are taking a strict line in the sand approach on scripture, eh? If scripture is silent, so shall I be, says the tradition loving Catholic

Even if I indulge this idea that it was POSSIBLE for Paul to say no thanks and continue on to Damascus, there still must be an acknowledgement of God's obvious intervention in the life of this very specific person. Do we all have this same opportunity and intervention from God, so that we are all on a level playing field and have the ability to accept Christ as Savior? If not, how is that fair? Is God unjust for giving someone like Paul a major life-altering experience versus not others?

That is a good/clever turn on the argument from the non-Calvinist perspective which I've not read/heard before. Well done.

The issue raised is whether God 'should' then provide the same amount of effort/communication to all (not just the elect) to save them, as he afforded to the prophets/New Testament witnesses. I hadn't thought about it that way.

The devaluation of God's sovereignty is a slippery slope, indeed. I don't claim to have insight into what He should/must do to be 'just' (or anything else).

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

---

Exactly. To say that God forced his hand is saying more than the Bible says. All we can say is that God showed up in an incredible way and had a profound impact on Paul

---

So, now we are taking a strict line in the sand approach on scripture, eh? If scripture is silent, so shall I be, says the tradition loving Catholic

Even if I indulge this idea that it was POSSIBLE for Paul to say no thanks and continue on to Damascus, there still must be an acknowledgement of God's obvious intervention in the life of this very specific person. Do we all have this same opportunity and intervention from God, so that we are all on a level playing field and have the ability to accept Christ as Savior? If not, how is that fair? Is God unjust for giving someone like Paul a major life-altering experience versus not others?

---

Sure God has always picked certain people for specific roles. That does not mean the one He does not pick He pre ordains to ECT hell. That would be evil by any definition and God is good.

I am certainly not as knowledgeable as many on here and I tend to just lurk and read; however I think Dermdoc said my position very well…

"Or Scripture says God desires to save all men.
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, God allows man free will to reject Him

Both of those retain God's character as a loving Father and His Sovereignty. If some are lost, it is their choice, not God's."

A loving God would not force someone to love Him back and will allow them to reject his gift of grace, even to their detriment.

nortex97 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

---

Exactly. To say that God forced his hand is saying more than the Bible says. All we can say is that God showed up in an incredible way and had a profound impact on Paul

---

What I am unaware of is any indicia in the Bible of a person refusing God, when God intervened and told them they were chosen to do something on His behalf etc. I enjoy the story/mystery of Paul's 'conversion' on the road to Damascus, but admit it is late that, a bit of a mystery.

The point remains; he never talked then of resisting God/Jesus from that moment. There's also no reason to think he cherished that as an 'option.'

---

Paul says in Corinthians that he disciplines his own body so that he will not be disqualified himself, even after all of his preaching. He acknowledges that falling away is a possibility. Not to mention he says he doesn't do the good he wants to do, and still does the bad he doesn't want to do. I would say he definitely resisted God from that moment, but continued to try and form his will to God's will for him

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

---

I think this can be easily resolved with 4 point Calvinism (TUIP).

From this perspective, God desires that all choose salvation through common grace. Christ died for everyone, and while it is possible to choose Christ, no one is righteous enough to make this choice through common grace alone. This lack of righteousness is the fault of man and not God. Thus, only saving grace given can bring someone to faith.

---

But if God desires all to be saved, why do you think some are not? Who can thwart God's desires?

---

He desires that people choose him without making them choose, but no one chooses him and so he forces the elect to.

---

I disagree. I do not think God forces anyone to choose Him.

---

How do you characterize Paul's conversion then?

---

Could Paul have refused? Scripture does not say.

---

Exactly. To say that God forced his hand is saying more than the Bible says. All we can say is that God showed up in an incredible way and had a profound impact on Paul

---

So, now we are taking a strict line in the sand approach on scripture, eh? If scripture is silent, so shall I be, says the tradition loving Catholic

Even if I indulge this idea that it was POSSIBLE for Paul to say no thanks and continue on to Damascus, there still must be an acknowledgement of God's obvious intervention in the life of this very specific person. Do we all have this same opportunity and intervention from God, so that we are all on a level playing field and have the ability to accept Christ as Savior? If not, how is that fair? Is God unjust for giving someone like Paul a major life-altering experience versus not others?

---

To whom much was given, much is to be expected. How much worse will the fate be for Judas, King Saul and all of the others that were given special revelation and turned away? How much harsher was He to the Israelites who had seen His might compared to the way He suffered the later generations for much longer before sending them into exile? Sending killer snakes for some bickering, but letting generation after generation worship false gods without doing much of any punishing? Or how about teachers being warned about how they will face stricter punishment?

Again, sufficient grace to be save. Not necessarily equal grace. We may not all be given equal revelation, but we're also not expected to have equal responsibilities.

mbrooking said:

---

A loving God would not force someone to love Him back and will allow them to reject his gift of grace, even to their detriment.

---

Say you are given a winning lottery ticket with no strings attached. You have the freedom to rip it up and throw it in the trash, but would you? Would anyone in their right mind make that choice?

Election isn't God controlling Christians with strings. God's saving grace reveals a deal too good to refuse, and no one who receives this deal refuses it. It's why they call it irresistible grace.

I'm not familiar with the term "irresistible grace" in the Bible. Can you enlighten me?

Pretty sure Paul maintained that we are all sinners, yes. No real point of disagreement with your post.

mbrooking said:

---

I'm not familiar with the term "irresistible grace" in the Bible. Can you enlighten me?

---

Likewise, where in the Bible does a person defeat the will of God?

No where can a person defeat the direct will of God. He limits his power by giving us free will. He does not force his will on someone to make them love him. He wants our love and worship of him to be our choice and of our free will that he has graciously given us.

nortex97 said:

---

mbrooking said:

---

I'm not familiar with the term "irresistible grace" in the Bible. Can you enlighten me?

---

Likewise, where in the Bible does a person defeat the will of God?

---

Exactly. And Scripture says God desires all men to be saved.

It doesn't say that, but it does answer that exact question.
Romans 9:19-21
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

and Job 42:2-3 (Job replying to God)
"I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked, "Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?" Surely I spoke of things I didn't understand, things too wonderful for me to know.

God is a loving and just God who will work out his plans in his own way, and while his desire is to have a loving relationship with all, in his love he is not going to force that relationship on anyone.

dermdoc said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

mbrooking said:

---

I'm not familiar with the term "irresistible grace" in the Bible. Can you enlighten me?

---

Likewise, where in the Bible does a person defeat the will of God?

---

Exactly. And Scripture says God desires all men to be saved.

---

Yes, but it does not say that God wills that they all be saved. The 'two wills of God' are a topic folks from Calvin to Edwards to Piper have discussed extensively. "Whosoever will" certainly implies human agency (to respond to God's grace) or perhaps mystery, but is not determinative to God's will, is the non-Arminian position. Too clever by half? Maybe, I admit it's still a stumbling block for me.

Quote:

---

These criticisms are not new. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another."

But in spite of these criticisms the distinction stands, not because of a logical or theological deduction, but because it is inescapable in the Scriptures. The most careful exegete writing in Pinnock's Case for Arminianism concedes the existence of two wills in God. I. Howard Marshall applies his exegetical gift to the Pastoral Epistles.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 he says,
To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will. The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.

In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall's point that "we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." Perhaps the most effective way to do this is to begin by drawing attention to the way Scripture portrays God willing something in one sense which he disapproves in another sense. Then, after seeing some of the biblical evidence, we can step back and ponder how to understand this in relation to God's saving purposes.

---

More at the link, which is a bit long-winded, sorry.

mbrooking said:

---

It doesn't say that, but it does answer that exact question.
Romans 9:19-21
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

and Job 42:2-3 (Job replying to God)
"I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. You asked, "Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?" Surely I spoke of things I didn't understand, things too wonderful for me to know.

God is a loving and just God who will work out his plans in his own way, and while his desire is to have a loving relationship with all, in his love he is not going to force that relationship on anyone.

---

Job surely did not resist God, and the book, while a masterpiece imho doesn't represent such a message to me.

Romans 9 is one of my favorites, thx. Here Paul is taking approbation as only he could write/dictate, at those questioning God's sovereign decisions/judgment of Israel as a group. From "An Introduction to the New Testament, Abridged Version, Anchor Bible…":

Quote:

---

Paul explains that the word of God has not failed. God cannot be asked to account for the choices made. Israel failed because it sought righteousness by deeds, not by faith; and to compound the error, despite its zeal, it has not recognized that God has manifested righteousness to those who believe in Christ and that, in fact, Christ is the end of the Law (9:3010:4). "If you profess with your lips that 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). In this "you" (singular) there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (10:12). In 10:1421 Paul offers Israel little excuse. "Has God then rejected His people?" (11:1). In an indignant negative response to the question rhetorically posed, Paul speaks as an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, who has been chosen by grace.

He cites an example from Israel's history where the majority failed, but God preserved a remnant (11:210). In fact, Paul foresees that everything will work out well (11:1132). Israel's stumbling and partial hardening of heart have been providential in allowing salvation to come to the Gentiles. Then because of the Gentile experience of salvation Israel will become jealous, and all Israel will be saved. Gentile believers should not boast; they earlier and Israel now have been disobedient, and God is showing mercy to all.

Paul explains that the word of God has not failed. God cannot be asked to account for the choices made. Israel failed because it sought righteousness by deeds, not by faith; and to compound the error, despite its zeal, it has not recognized that God has manifested righteousness to those who believe in Christ and that, in fact, Christ is the end of the Law (9:3010:4). "If you profess with your lips that 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). In this "you" (singular) there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (10:12). In 10:1421 Paul offers Israel little excuse. "Has God then rejected His people?" (11:1). In an indignant negative response to the question rhetorically posed, Paul speaks as an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, who has been chosen by grace.

He cites an example from Israel's history where the majority failed, but God preserved a remnant (11:210). In fact, Paul foresees that everything will work out well (11:1132). Israel's stumbling and partial hardening of heart have been providential in allowing salvation to come to the Gentiles. Then because of the Gentile experience of salvation Israel will become jealous, and all Israel will be saved. Gentile believers should not boast; they earlier and Israel now have been disobedient, and God is showing mercy to all.

---

God's will is not subverted by Israel's (collective) stubbornness, but will work as He desires, is what Paul says. Very appropriate and not really in contravention of Calvinism/Arminianism either way, imho. This is one of those Pauline letters that really makes me chuckle wondering what he'd have to say if around today to various people/churches/countries etc. He's certainly not endorsing a universalist salvation message, but it also does not show a person resisting what God wills him/her to do, however.

nortex97 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

mbrooking said:

---

I'm not familiar with the term "irresistible grace" in the Bible. Can you enlighten me?

---

Likewise, where in the Bible does a person defeat the will of God?

---

Exactly. And Scripture says God desires all men to be saved.

---

Yes, but it does not say that God wills that they all be saved. The 'two wills of God' are a topic folks from Calvin to Edwards to Piper have discussed extensively. "Whosoever will" certainly implies human agency (to respond to God's grace) or perhaps mystery, but is not determinative to God's will, is the non-Arminian position. Too clever by half? Maybe, I admit it's still a stumbling block for me.

Quote:

---

These criticisms are not new. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another."

But in spite of these criticisms the distinction stands, not because of a logical or theological deduction, but because it is inescapable in the Scriptures. The most careful exegete writing in Pinnock's Case for Arminianism concedes the existence of two wills in God. I. Howard Marshall applies his exegetical gift to the Pastoral Epistles.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 he says,
To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will. The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.

In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall's point that "we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." Perhaps the most effective way to do this is to begin by drawing attention to the way Scripture portrays God willing something in one sense which he disapproves in another sense. Then, after seeing some of the biblical evidence, we can step back and ponder how to understand this in relation to God's saving purposes.

---

More at the link, which is a bit long-winded, sorry.

---

I have read Piper's view on this before. To me, it seems like he starts with TULIP and ECT hell for most and interprets other Scripture through that lens. He can not even entertain the thought that all could be saved. And fights like "hell" against any such thoughts. I believe it is eisegesis. He simply can not comprehend the idea that God is omnipotent and desires to save all men.