Calvinists' Dilemma

[Lon]

I decided to address the long answer, since we've talked about this subject before.

2 points:
1. If it takes a serpent to introduce sin to man, where did the serpent get the adversarial nature. At some point someone has to introduce the idea of sin without it being God's fault.

I agree, but not being told the story of that particular, we can't even speculate well. I guess "None of your business" is the frustrating answer. I cannot account for that particular with what I believe, only can go as far as scripture allows at that point. So, the short answer is I have no idea, nor can easily think of how that scenario would or could play out. I do think however, that it has to play out with God not authoring sin, at least as far as you and I are concerned for this discussion and where our systematic theologies agree. That is to say, both yours and mine have fallen angels and Satan as one of them.

2. The computer analogy breaks down when you talk of a perfect programmer, with perfect equipment, with perfect knowledge, that applies perfectly to all that he does. Thus, if a good creation can become bad, it can't do so at the intent of the programmer, but only at the intent of one of his creations--you can pick Satan, or you can pick Adam, but the resulting conclusion is the same--someone had to have a free will that allows them to follow a different code than God's, or God had to code the sin directly .

Yes to the first part, but wasn't the serpent's introduction of lies and half-truths the actual rewriting of the code (not that I'm disagreeing on the second part, just asking)?

Personally, I think you've missed the boat on thinking that freewill is the bad thing (I think you've heard that from me before). I tried to describe it to a non-virtual friend of mine this way:

Imagine that I built a bunch of robots and coded them to stand around me all day, saying "Derf is the greatest!" or "Derf knows everything!" or "Holy, holy, holy!" or whatever statement of praise you want to think of. Remember that these robots are not really thinking of these things by themselves, but they are just programmed to say these things, and, if I were a perfect programmer, they would never fail to do so. What would you think of me? (My friend said, "That would be creepy.")

Didn't I do that with my kids, though? I didn't create, but procreated them, and taught them to say "I love you" and "Ma ma/Da da." Is it then creepy when they say "I love you" or my name? :nono:

But instead, if I were able to make an entity that could think and act on its own, and it, seeing the wondrous works that Derf did and was doing for it, decided to say those things (well, maybe not the Holy, holy, holy), it would not be creepy, but somewhat expected.

Realize too, we are unworthy of praise. Some of the creepy and unworthy comes from the fact that we are not, in fact, "The Worlds Best Dad" like my T-shirt says (I took them to Disneyland that year, of course they thought that, and I seldom wear it so as not to wear it out and remind them often). I think too, you are describing mindlessly repeating something rather than freewill per say.

The only way that those statements of praise really mean something to me is if my little entity can NOT say those things--that it has the power to say whatever it wants to, and it still chooses to say those things--of its own accord. Then they mean something.

Naw, I've taught my dog to say "I luv u." Now it is really not that, because dogs can't vocalize, but it is fairly evident before this that she loves living with us. My son and daughters didn't choose to live with me. They really don't have a freewill, per say, to live somewhere else or choose another set of parents. It is actually my 'loving them' that elicits the same response. Thus, it is pavlovian and so programmed to a degree. For this, Love begets love, even if it is programmed, there is nothing wrong with that, because of the 'way' we are programmed. The very thing that enables it, is the thing that it is, so I do not have a problem, but I did at one time, like you, and I even think 'creepy' was part of it until I thought through it some more and came to these conclusions.

You can try this (the first scenario) for yourself. Pick up any programming instruction manual and find the "Hello, World!" program. Replace the words "Hello, World!" with "Lon is the greatest!" and make sure you include an infinite loop. Start the program and sit back to bask in the glow of praise from your monitor. Aaaaaaaaaah! How good that feels to be praised by your creation! Now do that on every computer you have and maybe borrow some of your friends. Then ask them to ask their friends to put your program on their computers and smart phones and tablets, etc, etc. Soon you will have billions of computers shouting your praises.

Creepy, huh?

I've had to do this in Fortran, Basic, and C++
I haven't written a program heralding my praises. Yet another reason it is creepy is simply because we are not to be worshipped. Praised is okay, "you did good" and I'd be okay with the programmed accolades. "I am a nice shark. Fish are friends, not food."

 

[Samie]

Seems like the Calvinists have hung up in their attempt to resolve their dilemma.

 

[Samie]

I have plenty to disagree with in Samie's posts.

That's fine with me, brother. Can you point out some, please?

 

[Derf]

Just so you know Lon, you present a problem with your responses. You go into such detail that the responses to your responses quickly exceed reasonable size. It's a good problem, however, because you deal directly with what I write, and I appreciate that.

I agree, but not being told the story of that particular, we can't even speculate well. I guess "None of your business" is the frustrating answer. I cannot account for that particular with what I believe, only can go as far as scripture allows at that point. So, the short answer is I have no idea, nor can easily think of how that scenario would or could play out. I do think however, that it has to play out with God not authoring sin, at least as far as you and I are concerned for this discussion and where our systematic theologies agree. That is to say, both yours and mine have fallen angels and Satan as one of them.

But you DO speculate. (I'll leave it to you to judge how well .) You say that freewill wasn't available until Satan introduced a choice. I say that's speculative. I'd also say choices were there already. God presented animals to Adam to see what he would name them--Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish and subdue the earth. Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam didn't do it at first--why not? He had no reason to believe anything but what God told him, just like our children have no reason to believe other things at first than what we tell them. Satan didn't introduce freewill, he just introduced the idea to disobey God. Does an idea make us sin or able to sin?

And regarding fallen angels--they had to fall from something; their "first estate" as Jude puts it. I don't think it's much speculation to say they were not programmed to "fall" or it wouldn't be a "fall".

Yes to the first part, but wasn't the serpent's introduction of lies and half-truths the actual rewriting of the code (not that I'm disagreeing on the second part, just asking)?

I don't think so. If you are talking about the rewriting of the code that made us have a sin nature, or become as good as dead, that could not have happened until they actually did the deed (or contemplated it to the point of lusting after the fruit, perhaps). Else when Jesus was tempted by Satan, the same damage would have been applied to Jesus. The fact that he was able to resist says the re-writing was due to the actual sin being the problem, not the temptation.

Didn't I do that with my kids, though? I didn't create, but procreated them, and taught them to say "I love you" and "Ma ma/Da da." Is it then creepy when they say "I love you" or my name? :nono:

It would be creepy if they said "I love your" without meaning it. Their understanding may not be full at the beginning, or even after 10 or 20 or 30 years, but they mean it. But our love to them is expressed by hugs and talking to them and feeding them and giving them some capability to do more and more according to their own freewill (like Adam naming the animals) as they get old enough to handle it. We teach them way more than to just say "I love you." We, hopefully, teach them how to love us. I don't think it's a proper comparison with computer programs, despite some similarities. It is a decent comparison with Adam and Eve in the garden, though. And according to what you are saying, our kids are moving from a state of not having freewill to a state of having freewill as they grow. Is that Satan doing that, too?

Realize too, we are unworthy of praise. Some of the creepy and unworthy comes from the fact that we are not, in fact, "The Worlds Best Dad" like my T-shirt says (I took them to Disneyland that year, of course they thought that, and I seldom wear it so as not to wear it out and remind them often). I think too, you are describing mindlessly repeating something rather than freewill per say.

The robots mindlessly repeat--yes. That's the very point. "Mindless" suggests the opposite of "willfulness".

As far as being unworthy of praise, I beg to differ. "if there be anything praiseworthy..." (Phil 4:8) is not just talking about God, but about people doing things that God likes. Your raising your kids in the fear and admonition of God is praiseworthy. And we should constantly think about how to do those kinds of things rather the the opposite. That doesn't mean we boast in our abilities apart from Christ, but Christ teaches us to do praiseworthy things.

Naw, I've taught my dog to say "I luv u." Now it is really not that, because dogs can't vocalize, but it is fairly evident before this that she loves living with us. My son and daughters didn't choose to live with me. They really don't have a freewill, per say, to live somewhere else or choose another set of parents. It is actually my 'loving them' that elicits the same response. Thus, it is pavlovian and so programmed to a degree. For this, Love begets love, even if it is programmed, there is nothing wrong with that, because of the 'way' we are programmed. The very thing that enables it, is the thing that it is, so I do not have a problem, but I did at one time, like you, and I even think 'creepy' was part of it until I thought through it some more and came to these conclusions.

I'm not sure which part you think "creepy" in your description, but I think it would be creepy for God to make a bunch of robots that stand around and say Holy, Holy, Holy all day long. The puppet analogy is stronger in this instance, but illustrates the same thing. Imagine God sticking His hand in a puppet and saying (to Himself) "You are holy" every 3 seconds for eternity. The creep-factor is definitely in the relationship-less action rather than in our unworthiness, imho.

I've had to do this in Fortran, Basic, and C++
I haven't written a program heralding my praises. Yet another reason it is creepy is simply because we are not to be worshipped. Praised is okay, "you did good" and I'd be okay with the programmed accolades. "I am a nice shark. Fish are friends, not food."

But we ARE worshiped by our children when they say "I love you." That may bother some folks, but it's true. Later on they find out that we aren't really so worthy of some of that worship. "Worship" is defined as "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration." (Dictionaries like to add "to a deity", but it wasn't always used so.) That's exactly what transpires between a child and his father. And that's what Jesus said we are supposed to be like in our coming to Him.

In fact, if you wrote a program to herald your own achievements, the only good I think it would provide is when OTHER people see it and notice it--so it still requires another person in the loop==more relationship requirement. You wouldn't derive any benefit from seeing the praise from computers. But relationships are two-way.

One more way of thinking about this, and i'll stop. If the person is coded a certain way, and God is the perfect programmer, remember that God programmed the whole system, not just the person. You have to step back to see the bigger picture, which has the same problem. If the whole system is messed up by sin, and God programmed everything that is in the system, then God is either not a very good programmer, or He is and He programmed sin into the program.

 

[Derf]

That's fine with me, brother. Can you point out some, please?

Hi Samie,

The first is that by requiring a response from someone that isn't willing or ready to respond, you think that you've somehow won an argument.

But besides that, I don't think you've presented a dilemma at all. If the Elect in Calvinism are those that are called to repentance, and actually repent, which they are, then there's no confusing them with those that are called to repentance, don't repent, and "likewise perish".

Which, coupled with the first, makes the whole OP hard to answer, not because of difficulty in refuting, but in difficulty understanding what you are getting at.

Just my opinion...
Derf

 

[Samie]

Hi Samie,

The first is that by requiring a response from someone that isn't willing or ready to respond, you think that you've somehow won an argument.

But besides that, I don't think you've presented a dilemma at all. If the Elect in Calvinism are those that are called to repentance, and actually repent, which they are, then there's no confusing them with those that are called to repentance, don't repent, and "likewise perish".

Which, coupled with the first, makes the whole OP hard to answer, not because of difficulty in refuting, but in difficulty understanding what you are getting at.

Just my opinion...
Derf

I was thinking I have made my points clear in the OP.

I believe ALL in Adam's race comprise the Elect. For the Calvinists, not everyone.

From the Calvinists' perspective, the audience of Jesus in Luke 13 could well be composed of the Calvinism's elect and the non-elect. And Jesus was telling them that unless they repent, they will ALL likewise perish. Hence, those who repent, among His audience, won't perish, while those who refuse to repent will perish, elect or not. And that's against Calvinism.

I don't think that's difficult to understand, is it?

Calvinism teaches the elect are for whom Christ died, and hence they are the only ones in Christ and are spiritually alive. While on the other hand, the non-elect are NOT part of the Body of Christ, and are therefore spiritually dead. Christ told His disciples that apart from Him they can do NOTHING. If the disciples can do NOTHING, can the non-elect do SOMETHING, like repenting?

Scriptures say that God commands all people everywhere to repent. And that command applies both to Calvinism's elect and the non-elect. So why would God command the non-elect to repent knowing that they are NOT capable of repenting?

Did you for even one moment think of asking your dog to sing?

And that's half the Calvinists' dilemma. The other half next post.

 

[Lon]

Seems like the Calvinists have hung up in their attempt to resolve their dilemma.

You even have nonCalvinists telling you it isn't a dilemma. Declaring victory? It is pointless, Samie. Why? Because "it doesn't bother Calvinists" only you :noway: I was going to use a "Don't confuse me with facts" meme, but you'd not think I meant you by it.

 

[Derf]

Did you for even one moment think of asking your dog to sing?

Apparently Lon does, as he said he taught his dog to say "I wuv u."

I should probably wait until you post the other half of the dilemma, but let me explain. I don't think there is no dilemma, I just think Calvinism is fairly consistent on this point. When they say Christ only died for the elect, then say that only the elect can repent, that doesn't mean one can't "call" other than the elect to repentance.

To me, and I suppose to you, it seems ludicrous for God to "call" someone to repentance that can't respond, won't respond, and then get angry when they don't respond. Goes back to that programming thing Lon and I were talking about. If God programmed them to work a certain way, then they became broken through new programming (leaving aside how that happened), then expecting them to work a different way--getting angry that they don't--is an exercise in futility, seems to me.

But if they have some kind of capability to repent, then don't, I can see why God would be wrathful.

And I think I agree with your illustration about the dog--if God gave the dog no capacity for song, yet gets mad when he doesn't sing, is God a wise, all-knowing, God? seems like He's not to me.

But I also don't think your "repent or you will likewise perish" verses are talking about salvific repentance or eternal-life perishing, if I can describe it that way.

 

[Crucible]

...

 

[Lon]

Just so you know Lon, you present a problem with your responses. You go into such detail that the responses to your responses quickly exceed reasonable size. It's a good problem, however, because you deal directly with what I write, and I appreciate that.
But you DO speculate. (I'll leave it to you to judge how well .) You say that freewill wasn't available until Satan introduced a choice. I say that's speculative. I'd also say choices were there already. God presented animals to Adam to see what he would name them--Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish and subdue the earth. Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam didn't do it at first--why not? He had no reason to believe anything but what God told him, just like our children have no reason to believe other things at first than what we tell them. Satan didn't introduce freewill, he just introduced the idea to disobey God. Does an idea make us sin or able to sin?

One more way of thinking about this... If the person is coded a certain way, and God is the perfect programmer, remember that God programmed the whole system, not just the person. You have to step back to see the bigger picture, which has the same problem. If the whole system is messed up by sin, and God programmed everything that is in the system, then God is either not a very good programmer, or He is and He programmed sin into the program.

My scriptural understanding leaves the inception of sin, or rather passes it along. The serpent entering the Garden, and crafty, is the Genesis introduction. I can go that far, as it is scripture. After that, I would be speculating. I would admit to drawn conclusion, but only insofar as I think I came to it through scripture reading.

JAnd regarding fallen angels--they had to fall from something; their "first estate" as Jude puts it. I don't think it's much speculation to say they were not programmed to "fall" or it wouldn't be a "fall".

True. "How" is the question I that I'd speculate, not the fact. We both agree (again) that God is not the author of sin (in case this was missed the first time).

JI don't think so. If you are talking about the rewriting of the code that made us have a sin nature, or become as good as dead, that could not have happened until they actually did the deed (or contemplated it to the point of lusting after the fruit, perhaps). Else when Jesus was tempted by Satan, the same damage would have been applied to Jesus. The fact that he was able to resist says the re-writing was due to the actual sin being the problem, not the temptation.

It has to fit our systematic scripture conceptions. At the least, you and I are reading scriptures and showing that, whether there is disagreement. In this case 'Now the serpent was more crafty than any other..." drives that summation.

JIt would be creepy if they said "I love your" without meaning it. Their understanding may not be full at the beginning, or even after 10 or 20 or 30 years, but they mean it. But our love to them is expressed by hugs and talking to them and feeding them and giving them some capability to do more and more according to their own freewill (like Adam naming the animals) as they get old enough to handle it. We teach them way more than to just say "I love you." We, hopefully, teach them how to love us. I don't think it's a proper comparison with computer programs, despite some similarities. It is a decent comparison with Adam and Eve in the garden, though. And according to what you are saying, our kids are moving from a state of not having freewill to a state of having freewill as they grow. Is that Satan doing that, too?

We both recognize the phenomena of meaning behind the words. I also am not disagreeing that we have a will, just the way we got it. The 'meaning' behind what drives this is how it has to work, given we certainly do have to choose. I'd suggest, however, that prior it would only be a choice of how best to convey love, not to choose not to do it. That we choose to do it, against a sin nature does provide a meaningfulness to the expression of love in contrast to it, because it is truly against the sin nature. In that, the contrast does indeed explain and contrast love. Further, God did allow the Fall, but for me, it is yet sin that causes the contrast and meaning.

The robots mindlessly repeat--yes. That's the very point. "Mindless" suggests the opposite of "willfulness".

I think it a response of 'how' love will be returned is the better than 'if' love will be returned.

As far as being unworthy of praise, I beg to differ. "if there be anything praiseworthy..." (Phil 4:8) is not just talking about God, but about people doing things that God likes. Your raising your kids in the fear and admonition of God is praiseworthy. And we should constantly think about how to do those kinds of things rather the the opposite. That doesn't mean we boast in our abilities apart from Christ, but Christ teaches us to do praiseworthy things.

I'm not sure which part you think "creepy" in your description, but I think it would be creepy for God to make a bunch of robots that stand around and say Holy, Holy, Holy all day long. The puppet analogy is stronger in this instance, but illustrates the same thing. Imagine God sticking His hand in a puppet and saying (to Himself) "You are holy" every 3 seconds for eternity. The creep-factor is definitely in the relationship-less action rather than in our unworthiness, imho.

:nono: I've seen a few interacting robot movies. Though completely programmed, they do not creep me out. Algorithms allow for branching responses. I think we acknowledge each other's creep factor, not sure we can do much about it.

But we ARE worshiped by our children when they say "I love you." That may bother some folks, but it's true. Later on they find out that we aren't really so worthy of some of that worship. "Worship" is defined as "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration." (Dictionaries like to add "to a deity", but it wasn't always used so.) That's exactly what transpires between a child and his father. And that's what Jesus said we are supposed to be like in our coming to Him.

I haven't had my kids bow to me yet...

In fact, if you wrote a program to herald your own achievements, the only good I think it would provide is when OTHER people see it and notice it--so it still requires another person in the loop==more relationship requirement. You wouldn't derive any benefit from seeing the praise from computers. But relationships are two-way.

Revelation 4:8;19:4

 

[Epoisses]

Calvinists like Lon believe that God is the author of sin thru the serpent. Anyone who can't see that their doctrine is antichrist and not worthy. Everything that God created was perfect at inception. Sin is a violation of the Divine will, a violation of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is presented by the Calvinist as an impenetrable wall of the Almighty but the reality of the situation on the ground is that it has been breached. Sin refutes God's sovereignty.

 

[Derf]

I haven't had my kids bow to me yet...

But adore you? I would guess at some point they did. If the "worship" is only bowing, the muslims do that well.

Revelation 4:8;19:4

Yes, but not robotic or puppetic (new word!) These are sentient beings who can fall that are recognizing the glories of their creator and giving un-forced praise and adoration.

 

[Derf]

Calvinists like Lon believe that God is the author of sin thru the serpent. Anyone who can't see that their doctrine is antichrist and not worthy. Everything that God created was perfect at inception. Sin is a violation of the Divine will, a violation of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is presented by the Calvinist as an impenetrable wall of the Almighty but the reality of the situation on the ground is that it has been breached. Sin refutes God's sovereignty.

I assume you mean that sin refutes the Calvinist's definition of sovereignty. I think I agree, but most Calvinists turn the meanings around to something they can stomach a little better, using the "God is not the author of sin", excuse.

I think the better definition of sovereignty allows for something out of God's direct desires, but ending with God's desires. And Calvinists would claim some agreement here (but with different wording, no doubt), calling it decreed vs revealed will.

 

[Lon]

But adore you? I would guess at some point they did. If the "worship" is only bowing, the muslims do that well.
Yes, but not robotic or puppetic (new word!) These are sentient beings who can fall that are recognizing the glories of their creator and giving un-forced praise and adoration.

What of the angels in those verses? "Can" they do otherwise? Aren't they doing what they were made/created to do???

 

[Samie]

You even have nonCalvinists telling you it isn't a dilemma. Declaring victory? It is pointless, Samie. Why? Because "it doesn't bother Calvinists" only you :noway: I was going to use a "Don't confuse me with facts" meme, but you'd not think I meant you by it.

Are you NOT a Calvinist, Lon?

Not declaring victory. Simply declaring what I perceive is happening since you were not able to resolve the dilemma. Or should I say you failed?

Knowing they couldn't, why would God command the non-elect to repent and then punish them if they don't? And that's among the Calvinists' dilemma. Yet you close your eyes and say there's no dilemma.

Not very much unlike ostrich-burying-its-head-in-the-sand defense, isn't it?

 

[Samie]

Apparently Lon does, as he said he taught his dog to say "I wuv u."

And when his dog can't, did Lon get mad and threw his dog inside a burning furnace?

I should probably wait until you post the other half of the dilemma, ...

It's coming soon.

. . . but let me explain. I don't think there is no dilemma, . . .

So Lon has no more non-Calvinist left saying there is no dilemma?

I just think Calvinism is fairly consistent on this point. When they say Christ only died for the elect, then say that only the elect can repent, that doesn't mean one can't "call" other than the elect to repentance.

Consistently wrong?

To me, and I suppose to you, it seems ludicrous for God to "call" someone to repentance that can't respond, won't respond, and then get angry when they don't respond. Goes back to that programming thing Lon and I were talking about. If God programmed them to work a certain way, then they became broken through new programming (leaving aside how that happened), then expecting them to work a different way--getting angry that they don't--is an exercise in futility, seems to me.

But if they have some kind of capability to repent, then don't, I can see why God would be wrathful.

And I think I agree with your illustration about the dog--if God gave the dog no capacity for song, yet gets mad when he doesn't sing, is God a wise, all-knowing, God? seems like He's not to me.

But still the Calvinists can't see their dilemma. Or shall I say REFUSE to see?

But I also don't think your "repent or you will likewise perish" verses are talking about salvific repentance or eternal-life perishing, if I can describe it that way.

If the gospel is God's power to save, and the call to repent is embodied in the gospel that Christ preached, I don't see why the call can not be salvific since Jesus said he came to call sinners to repentance. And the "repent or you will likewise perish" verses talk about sinners.

 

[Lon]

Are you NOT a Calvinist, Lon?

Not declaring victory. Simply declaring what I perceive is happening since you were not able to resolve the dilemma. Or should I say you failed?

I think you are still failing to see the problem here. 1) Calvinists do not hold to a universal atonement, you do. 2) A universal atonement is the only way your dilemma would/could work and we don't believe or hold to it. 3) No dilemma, except for one who holds to a universal atonement, which is not a Calvinist, therefore ONLY your dilemma. 4) /thread

Knowing they couldn't, why would God command the non-elect to repent and then punish them if they don't? And that's among the Calvinists' dilemma. Yet you close your eyes and say there's no dilemma.

1) in the parable, is the wheat apart from the tares are they all mixed together? Matthew 13:24-30
2) If mixed together, though in the hearing of weeds, who is the farmer concerned with? If he talks to the field, who is he talking to? While growing, do the wheat know they aren't tares, or must they be told? Is a 'calling' part of their election?

Not very much unlike ostrich-burying-its-head-in-the-sand defense, isn't it?

It could be, but simply repeating a one-liner that your dilemma hasn't satisfactorily been met, 1) doesn't make it mine, just yours that you have with Calvinism and 2) nothing that matters unless you can compel a Calvinist to be bothered by the dilemma, and to do that, you have to show it is actually part of their belief system. A coach calling "in order to be on this team, you must be able to throw a ball" may already know who is able and be providing fair warning for those kids who can't. Is the coach talking to kids that can throw a ball at that point? If so, such also assures that kid he will be on the team. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." I'd suggest a call to repent provides the believer with assurance and provides the unrepentant unbeliever with fair warning. Isn't that also the Arminian take, to some degree?

 

[Samie]

As promised, here's part of the other half of the Calvinists' Dilemma:

While Calvinists teach that Christ did not die for every man in Adam's race, but only for some specific persons they call the elect who they say cannot perish but is sure of life everlasting, God in Scriptures doesn't seem to agree and instead tells us through prophet Jeremiah:

NKJ Ezekiel 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.

And judgment comes after a person dies:

NKJ Hebrews 9:27 ... it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment

When Christ comes again, He will reward every man according to what each has done (Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12; Rom 2:5-11).

Even Christ Himself speaks of the children of the kingdom perishing:

KJV Matthew 8:11-12 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And Paul tells of branches being broken off:

NKJ Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Looks like Scriptures don't teach no elect can't perish. And that's part of the Calvinists' Dilemma.

There's more to come.

 

[Samie]

I think you are still failing to see the problem here. 1) Calvinists do not hold to a universal atonement, you do. 2) A universal atonement is the only way your dilemma would/could work and we don't believe or hold to it. 3) No dilemma, except for one who holds to a universal atonement, which is not a Calvinist, therefore ONLY your dilemma. 4) /thread

1) in the parable, is the wheat apart from the tares are they all mixed together? Matthew 13:24-30
2) If mixed together, though in the hearing of weeds, who is the farmer concerned with? If he talks to the field, who is he talking to? While growing, do the wheat know they aren't tares, or must they be told? Is a 'calling' part of their election?

It looks like you are saying that Jesus was addressing the elect in His audience. Granting that I understood you correctly, so Jesus was saying to the elect: "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". If Jesus tells that to Calvinists now, Lon, won't they sort of remind Him, Hey, Lord, the elect cannot perish! Seems like the Lord will be obliged to point out Matt 8:11 - 12.

It could be, but simply repeating a one-liner that your dilemma hasn't satisfactorily been met, 1) doesn't make it mine, just yours that you have with Calvinism and 2) nothing that matters unless you can compel a Calvinist to be bothered by the dilemma, and to do that, you have to show it is actually part of their belief system. A coach calling "in order to be on this team, you must be able to throw a ball" may already know who is able and be providing fair warning for those kids who can't. Is the coach talking to kids that can throw a ball at that point? If so, such also assures that kid he will be on the team. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." I'd suggest a call to repent provides the believer with assurance and provides the unrepentant unbeliever with fair warning.

What if those able kids REFUSE to throw the ball? Will the coach, knowing they simply refused, admit them to the team? My answer is Yes, IF the coach is a Calvinist, like you, Lon. But I don't think Jesus, Who said that even children of the kingdom could be thrown out, is a Calvinist.

Isn't that also the Arminian take, to some degree?

You can ask an Arminian, I'm not. Arminians believe in a universal BUT conditional atonement. I believe in a universal, unconditional atonement. Unlike Calvinism's limited atonement, I believe in unlimited atonement that Christ died for all of Adam's race. Hence every man is among the Elect. But just like what Jesus said, Unless the elect repent, they will all likewise perish.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What I'm saying is that while repentance is inextricably intertwined with salvation, there is also a repentance that doesn't include salvation. Would you disagree with that?

Well, of course I would agree. Repentance is a word that applies to many things. My quibble is with the presumption that calls for repentance prior to the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially Samie's argument.

"Repentance" doesn't always mean "repentance unto salvation".

I agree.

AMR