Calvinism is Gospel !
- Thread starter brightfame52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
but does God know all of those who will believe? do you believe God knows the future exhaustively? if He does, then you already believe everything has been predestined from the day God chose to create knowing all this would happen. if you say foreknowledge is not causation, it kind of is if you created everything and know exactly how it will go. by choosing to create God has effectively decreed all that comes to pass.
this is where i say this isnt a calvinist problem. everyone who believes God has exhaustive foreknowledge can have the same accusation thrown at them. the answer is secondary causes
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The context is very clearly in reference to the experience of believers.
Cherry picking verses is a very bad way to handle even a person's writings let alone the message of God to the world.
Btw...neither does it make any case for babies hating God.
No those verses are not about believers, its about they which are unregenerate in the flesh among believers. Believers have the Spirit in them and consequently they are not in the flesh says Vs 9
9 But ye[believers] are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Paul is talking about them who dont have the Spirit and are not of God !
God tried to reason with Cain...
Would God do that if it were impossible to become wiling?
You did not prove that my statement was false. You simply misunderstood what Paul said. You should learn to follow Paul's argument as he builds it. In his language, the carnal mind is not a type of mind, i.e. one MADE of flesh. A carnal mind is a mind SET ON the flesh. He doesn't argue that the faculty of human thought is deficient. The carnal mind is fully capable of reading and understanding the Bible. Instead, he argues that the carnal mind is set on the flesh and is not subject to the Law of God. In other words, Paul is not arguing for the privation of the mind; he is arguing that the mind set on the flesh is not a mind set on the Spirit.
If man is unable to decide to do good, then he is not culpable for doing wrong. If he is constitutionally unable to choose to have faith in Jesus Christ, then no one can blame them. No one can blame a lion for eating the gazelle. That's just what lions do. That is who they are. If man is unable, by nature, to believe in Jesus, then no one can blame him because that's just what unregenerate people do. That is who they are.
Do you want to argue that God will judge people based on what they are?
I did to them that have understanding. Man by nature has enmity against God, the True God that is Rom 8:7-8
Well, I understand. I showed you from the passage that it was not. So how am I to understand your insistence that it was based on TULIP when I showed that it wasn't? Seems like you are forcing me into a box.
I agree that God loves the world, desires all to be saved, and shows no favoritism. But the passages you cite speak about all kinds of people, not a denial of God’s electing work. Election does not contradict God’s love; it expresses His gracious initiative in salvation. The Bible teaches both God’s universal love and God’s sovereign choice, and we should affirm both without forcing one to cancel the other.
The doctrine of God’s sovereignty actually magnifies His love, because it shows that salvation is not a transaction but an act of sheer mercy. If salvation rests on human free will—I give God the belief He wants, and He gives me eternal life—then salvation becomes a matter of justice and human contribution. But the New Testament consistently frames salvation as mercy, grace, and forgiveness—gifts given to people who do not deserve them. God’s sovereign election highlights this truth: He blesses the elect with eternal life contrary to what they deserve. We are not receiving justice; we are receiving what justice would never grant. Sovereignty protects the gospel from becoming a human bargain and preserves it as a divine rescue grounded entirely in God’s gracious initiative.
Apart from God’s grace, no one would be saved. That’s the starting point of the entire New Testament. Human beings do not climb their way to God; God descends in mercy to rescue people who would never and could never save themselves. This is why sovereignty is not a cold doctrine—it is the warm, beating heart of divine love. If salvation were grounded in human free will, it would become a transaction: I supply the belief, and God supplies eternal life. But Scripture frames salvation as grace, mercy, and forgiveness—gifts given to people who deserve judgment, not life. Sovereignty protects this truth by insisting that salvation begins with God’s initiative, not human contribution. We are not saved because we chose well; we are saved because God was merciful. We are not receiving what we deserve; we are receiving what only grace can give.
Isn't loving the light a miracle of God?
John 3 verses 19-20 and from Psalm 10 verse 4 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of Light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. The wicked reviles the Lord
So you have a secret club with your special language that only you understand? You expect me to believe that?
Your objection completely fails to understand the difference between natural ability and moral inability, and your lion analogy actually completely destroys your own position. Let’s look at the text and basic logic:
1. The Contradiction of Your Definition
You claim that a "carnal mind" is simply a mind set on the flesh, and that the faculty of human thought is not deficient. High Calvinism agrees!
- We do not teach that a fallen sinner loses his brain cells or his capacity to read the text of the Bible.
- But look at the text you are trying to dodge. Paul does not merely say the carnal mind refuses to be subject to God; he explicitly declares that it "NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" (Romans 8:7).
- That is the literal definition of absolute moral inability. If a mind cannot be subject to the law of God, then it cannot perform the spiritual good of choosing, loving, or submitting to Christ. You are claiming that a mind which "cannot please God" (Romans 8:8) can somehow perform the ultimate god-pleasing act of generating saving faith on its own. That is a flat-out logical contradiction.
2. The Lion Analogy Destroys Your Position
You write: "No one can blame a lion for eating the gazelle. That's just what lions do... If man is unable, by nature, to believe in Jesus, then no one can blame him."
You have perfectly illustrated the Calvinist view of nature while completely missing the point of moral accountability.
- Why does a lion eat a gazelle? Because it has a lion nature and it desires meat. It is physically able to eat grass, but it morally cannot choose to eat grass because eating grass goes entirely against its nature.
- Fallen man has a corrupt, sinful nature in Adam. He is physically capable of reading the Bible and walking into a church, but he morally cannot choose Christ because his carnal mind hates the light and loves the darkness (John 3:19).
3. Do You Want to Argue That God Will Judge People Based on What They Are?
You ask this question as if it’s a trap. The answer is an absolute, resounding YES! God absolutely judges people based on what they are!
- God does not judge based on an arbitrary checklist; He judges out of the absolute holiness of His own character.
- If a person is, by nature, a rebel, a hater of God, and an enemy in their mind (Colossians 1:21), God judges them for being exactly that!
- Jesus explicitly states in Matthew 7:17-18 that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. God doesn't look at a corrupt tree and say, "Well, it's a corrupt tree by nature, so I guess I can't blame it for producing bad fruit." No! Jesus says, "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).
4. Inability Does Not Equal Innocence
Your claim that "if man is unable to decide to do good, then he is not culpable" is humanistic philosophy, not the Bible.
- If a man borrows a million dollars and spends it all on wild living until he is completely bankrupt, his inability to pay back the debt does not cancel his legal liability to the bank. He is still fully blamed and fully debt-ridden because he is the one who wasted the money!
- Humanity was given a perfect standing in Adam, and we fell into total moral bankruptcy. Our inability to pay our legal debt to God’s justice does not absolve us of our guilt.
No. I agree with you. God wouldn't warn Cain if it was impossible for him to heed the warning.
At the same time, I believe that God could have given Cain the born-again experience such that he would see and love the light and that his new insight would guide him away from jealousy.
Rom 8:7-8 is right there. The carnal mind is enmity against God, hatred against God.
No that is not what I argued and neither did Paul. He is not arguing metaphysical inability in Romans 8; he is describing a mindset. When he says those “in the flesh” cannot submit to God, he explains the reason in the surrounding verses: their minds are set on the flesh, meaning they are oriented toward external, ethnic, and ritual markers—circumcision, lineage, food laws, sacrifices—not toward the things of the Spirit. The issue is not that they lack the metaphysical capacity to respond to God, but that their religious posture is misdirected. They don’t submit because they won’t submit; their confidence is invested in the wrong things. Paul’s contrast between flesh and Spirit is not about ontological inability but about covenantal orientation. Those who cling to the fleshly markers of the old age cannot please God as long as they persist in that mindset. The moment they turn to Christ, they move from flesh to Spirit. In other words, Paul is diagnosing misplaced trust, not asserting total inability.
Your analogy actually proves too much, because it tries to have it both ways. You shift from innate inability to moral inability as though that solves the problem, but it doesn’t. If a person “cannot choose Christ” because his nature fixes his desires, then his choices are not really choices—they are simply the mechanical outworking of his nature. That’s exactly the trap Edwards fell into: once you say a person always and only chooses according to his nature, you eliminate genuine agency. The lion analogy exposes the contradiction. You say the lion is “physically able” to eat grass but “morally unable” because of its nature. But if its nature determines its desires and its desires determine its choices, then the lion is not choosing at all—it is merely behaving according to internal programming. The same would be true of the sinner. If his “carnal mind” makes choosing Christ impossible, then he is not morally responsible for rejecting Christ; he is simply acting out what he is. In other words, your argument collapses human responsibility into determinism. You can’t claim that sinners are responsible for their choices while also claiming their nature makes any other choice impossible. If my choices do not reflect who I could be, only who I must be, then they are not my choices.
Right.
And I told you that the carnal mind is not a type of mind; it is a mindset.
Good question. Here is what I have come to believe is the answer:
As truthseekers, whenever we encounter someone who has a contradictory understanding, we want to learn which is the better belief, to admit when we are wrong, and to change our opinion. As people-lovers we want to share our knowledge with other truthseekers, so that we may fellowship (2Tim. 4:3-4, 1John 1:3).
According to the Bible, God created everything else that exists (Gen. 1:1, Jer. 10:16, John 1:1-3), including the ability by volitional beings (souls) to choose to rebel against His Lordship (Gen. 2:16, Deut. 30:19). Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (Isa. 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (John 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence or Spirit of God created and pervades the physical universe, including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (Rom. 5:6-8, Matt. 27:30)! (What God was doing before the creation of time/space is as inconceivable as nothing/atheism.)
As Immanuel Kant indicated: humans do not have the mental categories or ability to imagine alternative or supernatural reality, which may be why the NT does not describe immortality and hell in detail (cf. 1Cor. 15:35-44 and Matt. 24:51, 25:30, 41&46.) However, I will share my understanding of the NT concept of God, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1Tim. 1:17), in terms of seven words. Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (Rom. 1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (Heb. 9:27-28, 1Cor. 15:12-26).
If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25). God desires communion.
1. God’s omnipotence means that He can do everything except “disown Himself” or not be God (2Tim. 2:13). It does NOT mean that God can perform logical absurdities, such as creating a rock too large for Him to move. Omnipotence or sovereignty also means that human MFW has limits with regard to how it can contradict God’s will. God provides morally competent humans the ability to resist His intentional will and plan of salvation (POS) within limits, such as the time limit that will end with death, resurrection (the last miracle) and judgment (per Heb. 9:27)–called His permissive will.
2. God’s power is equivalent to His omniscience. Jeremiah wrote that “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom.” (Jer. 10:12) Many NT passages refer to God as the source of true wisdom (e.g., Acts 6:3, 1Cor. 1:25, Col. 2:2-3, Jam. 1:5). God’s infinitely superior knowledge is extolled in Rom. 11:33-34 (echoing Isa. 40:13-14) and Dan. 2:20-23.
Omniscience includes knowledge of people’s thoughts (Psa. 94:11, Matt. 12:25) and the foreknowledge of events (Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29, 11:2, 1Pet. 1:2). Some people think that God even knows what a person will be/do before that person exists (Jer. 1:5). If this view is correct (which I find incomprehensible a la Kant), it must be maintained that God’s fore-knowledge does not predetermine a person’s spiritual choice regarding the satisfaction of God’s requirement for salvation or else moral responsibility would be abrogated. I find it simpler to think that God merely tweaks the river of history occasionally to keep if flowing in the direction He intends but allows the fish to swim as they wish. (Surely this universe is not a replay of a history that has already happened!) God allows eddies in the river of salvation.
3. Omnipotence is connected with omnitemporality (in Rev. 1:18): “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Rom. 1:20 refers to God’s “eternal power”, and Jer. 10:10&16 names God “the Lord Almighty”, who is true, living and eternal.
4. God’s infinite power implies omnipresence (per Psa. 139:7-8). God transcends spatial existence while being immanent in all points of space. (Other scriptural support for this view includes 1Kings 8:27, Isa. 66:1, Jer. 23:33, Acts 17:27-28 and Eph. 4:6.) God’s superiority over His creation must be viewed as a matter of degree or quantitatively in order to preserve the continuity between God and humanity that would be requisite for communication (like the need for a common language and culture cited in Part I). However, the Bible teaches that God also differs from creatures in kind or qualitatively, so that attaining equality with Deity is impossible (Isa. 55:9, Eph. 3:19). We can be like God (Gen. 3:3), and we can become one with the Son of God (John 17:21-23), but we cannot become God (cf. Humanism).
Hope this helps answer the question.
My post explained why/how your view is tulip, but you did say one new thing I think might carry the discussion forward:
"The Bible teaches both God’s universal love and God’s sovereign choice, and we should affirm both without forcing one to cancel the other."
This is true and what MFW does but TULIP does not. If you refuse to see this, I don't know how to fix your logical/semantic box.
All I can do is sympathize with the frustration Jesus and Paul must have felt as they cited Isa. 6:9-10 in Matt. 13:14-15 and in Acts 28:26-27, respectively, because I have already pointed out that it is wrong/sinful to think that satisfying God's condition of faith (indicated by IF in John 8) is meritorious. If you think it is just for God to favor only some with the possibility of salvation, you fall into the category of those who reverse logic/morality (Isa. 5:20). I hope you don't treat your children that way.
He does indeed:
(Joh 5:39-40 NKJV) You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
- Status