Calvinists: Accepting a free gift is not a “work”

Emotionally invested Calvinists should consider that a free gift is not “earned” by a man in sin. Sin is what we do or actively think that gets us death, as the “wages of sin is death”. There comes a moment in a child’s life when he decides to do the wrong thing, the equivalent of “eat the forbidden fruit” of disobedience to the laws of nature‘s God we are also born with. The child has the innocence of Eden, for which “Unless ye be converted and become as a little child, ye shall in now wise inherit the kingdom of God“.

—Little children go to heaven, Jesus said so, and we must become like them to inherit the kingdom. Accepting the gift of salvation from death and hell.

—“Whosoever will” is a cruel depraved joke itself if it means “Whosoever God will”, that is a big whopping missing word there. If strong Calvinism is true then God is all the monster many atheists accuse him of being.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Calvinists: Accepting a free gift is not a “work””

  1. David Geminden Says:

    I believe the “whosoever will” is only a small portion of the majority of Scripture that imply mankind has an inherent free will. I refer to myself as an inherent free-willer.

    Studying the Bible as a new believer years ago, I came across a few verses (less than 0.5%) when isolated from the rest of Scripture could syllogisticly be used to build an implied theology of “no inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call (which is through the Scripture and drawing of the Holy Spirit)” if a person ignored the implication of the majority of the Bible and the implication of the style of communication used by God in the Bible. I did not have any problems understanding and interpreting them in light of “the inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call” perspective or precedence. During those early years of my Christian life I had not heard of Calvinism.

    Later, as I learned of the Calvinist TULIP theology, it seemed very strange to me; however, their teaching and teaching method of using less than 0.5% of the Bible had a scholarly aura about it because they did a very good job of doing an academic syllogistic development using those few verses. It seemed strange to me that Calvinists would let the implication of approximately less than 0.5% of the Scripture set the precedence when the implication of approximately 99.5% of the Scripture contradicted their conclusion. My experience indicates to me that a lot of people that get saved, intuitively/logically see this implied understood “inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject God’s call” in the majority of the Bible without even being fully cognizant of it; and therefore, like I was at first, are unable to rationally explain it at first. I have found those Calvinist 0.5%, or less, Scripture verses are easily understood from the “inherent ability of man to believe or reject God’s call” perspective.

    When I ask strict Calvinists to interpret the 99.5%, or greater, of the Scripture, that reeks with the implication “that man has the inherent ability to believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God” from their “no inherent ability of man to believe or reject” perspective, the answer I usually get is along this line, “Yes, God communicates with man in a style that implies that man has the inherent ability to believe or reject what is being communicated to them from Him, but God knows that man does not have that inherent ability.” That response seems to imply that God has been deceiving mankind on this theological issue for millennia, implying that God is a deceiver. When I tell them that implies that God is a deceiver, they usually respond by saying, “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9”. When I ask them why the majority of the time they preach in a communication style that implies “that man has the inherent ability to believe or reject”, their usual reply is, “that is the way God does it in the Bible”. That answer seems to imply “If God is deceiving man on this issue in the Bible, then so can I”.

    A significant number of Calvinists I mentally like to think of as baffled-Calvinists because they are mentally confounded between the highly intellectual, academic syllogistic chain reasoning argument presented by strict Calvinists and their own common sense logical reasoning ability that sees that the “majority (great than 99.5%) of the Bible and the communication style of God in the Bible” reeks with an obvious implication of the inherent ability of man to believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God; they see the obvious contradiction. In an effort to resolve this contradiction, these Baffled-Calvinists will say that both are true and that we can not understand it because “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9”. To me, their answer seems to imply that God is justifying their internally contradictory theology. Worse yet, their answer seems to imply that God is just in being a God that contradicts Himself. I do not believe it is logically proper to use Isa. 55:9 to justify internally contradictory theology. Isa. 55:9 can be used to explain some hard to understand theology (such as the Trinity), but not internally contradictory theology. In the case of man’s free will and God electing people for salvation before He created the world, it is wise to apply the mystery of “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9” to the question of “How can God foreknow those whom He can convince to make a free will decision to accept God’s call, that is, to repent and accept Christ as their savior?” than to justify God being a God that is just in contradicting Himself.

    David C. Geminden

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: