PDA

View Full Version : How to defeat Calvinism



Abiding
Jan 29th 2011, 01:48 AM
Basic training for Arminians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebZJzB7W_c

Vhayes
Jan 29th 2011, 01:55 AM
I have to ask - why does it matter?

I don't believe in John Calvin. I do not believe in Martin Luther. I do not believe in John Wesley. I do not believe in Constantine. I believe in Christ.

RabbiKnife
Jan 29th 2011, 02:09 AM
Why don't we just preach Jesus and let Calvin play with Hobbs?

Abiding
Jan 29th 2011, 02:23 AM
Oh come now, I thought that was a great video.

Realist1981
Jan 29th 2011, 03:30 AM
I have to ask - why does it matter?

I don't believe in John Calvin. I do not believe in Martin Luther. I do not believe in John Wesley. I do not believe in Constantine. I believe in Christ.


:spin:
I could not have said it any better

crossnote
Jan 29th 2011, 05:05 AM
Why fight Calvinism? It is predestined to be whatever God has ordained. :)

Vhayes
Jan 29th 2011, 05:29 AM
Why fight Calvinism? It is predestined to be whatever God has ordained. :)
Unless you have the freewill to reject it :-)

dagar
Jan 29th 2011, 06:39 AM
"How to defeat Calvinism"
give men a pill....
...the gospill

notuptome
Jan 29th 2011, 12:58 PM
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Really we ought to declare the gospel and quit squabbling among one another. Jesus said we are to be witnesses, to declare Him to all the world. How does it show our love for the Lord and one another to beat the sox off one another? Who is our adversary? Our brother or sister in the Lord?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

PilgrimPastor
Jan 29th 2011, 02:57 PM
This guy is really something else. You should look at his other videos. That is a really poor portrayal of any truly Reformed Evangelical Christian that I know. The doctrines of grace don't trump evangelism. They merely root one in the sovereign attributes of God and activities of God in redemption. There is of course a need for preaching and repentance in the reformed "system." The key difference is a high view of God's enabling you to repent and that the purpose of preaching is not to save souls for their sake, but to gather repentant believers into the Kingdom, according to God's decree, so that they might bring honor to Him through expressing His unmatched worth in this world.

crossnote
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:56 AM
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Really we ought to declare the gospel and quit squabbling among one another. Jesus said we are to be witnesses, to declare Him to all the world. How does it show our love for the Lord and one another to beat the sox off one another? Who is our adversary? Our brother or sister in the Lord?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Ok then here is the Gospel...Jesus died only for the elect. (See already there is a difference in the intended scope of the Gospel.) Under this system I can not honestly proclaim that 'Jesus died for all'.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 3rd 2011, 01:07 PM
Basic training for Arminians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebZJzB7W_c

Interesting topic for a thread.... How to squelch other believer's biblical understandings. The purported heresy is what? God's sovereignty in all things?

My contention or loving warning is this... find battles worth fighting over, for I for one would hate to be the one who fought a battle to defend to the death and find in the end, that it didn't matter or worse, were wrong. There should be love between Christians, not hate. I know that there are folks here [withholding naming names] who don't love those here who hold to biblical understandings that are not according to what they personally understand.... because we see it within their writings and/or their lack of writings when directly asked.... do you count me as being a brother or sister in the faith? That should not be!

The more one studies the word, the more humble one should become, for the Gospel changes you, and His grace fills you, and His love matures you.


But if this must continue, please go ahead, just be 100% sure that you know that your words are accountable for what you say and how you say it! For I'd think it be any Christian's goal that when standing before our Lord one day to hear Him say... "Well done, thy good and faithful servant."

For His glory....

RollTide21
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:22 PM
This guy is really something else. You should look at his other videos. That is a really poor portrayal of any truly Reformed Evangelical Christian that I know. The doctrines of grace don't trump evangelism. They merely root one in the sovereign attributes of God and activities of God in redemption. There is of course a need for preaching and repentance in the reformed "system." The key difference is a high view of God's enabling you to repent and that the purpose of preaching is not to save souls for their sake, but to gather repentant believers into the Kingdom, according to God's decree, so that they might bring honor to Him through expressing His unmatched worth in this world.What struck me is that the video apparently seeks not only to discredit Calvinism, but also to chastise anybody who doesn't SAY they subscribe to Arminianism. There is a fictional conversation in there where a Believer basically says they are neither Calvinist or Arminian, but the video attempts to try and prove that the Believer really IS Arminian.

Honestly, I know plenty of people who believe in sustaining Grace and do not believe in individual election. Why is it one or the other?

holyrokker
Feb 4th 2011, 12:59 AM
By preaching the Gospel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvuaH0xD5Z8&feature=related

TrustGzus
Feb 4th 2011, 09:06 PM
It seems pretty evident to me that the creator of this is a Calvinist and is taking shots at non-Calvinistic attempts to refuse Calvinism.

Slug1
Feb 4th 2011, 10:56 PM
It seems pretty evident to me that the creator of this is a Calvinist and is taking shots at non-Calvinistic attempts to refuse Calvinism.I agree. I watched it twice and just assumed that. Now with your post... I guess I wasn't assuming anything.

1 Watchman
Feb 6th 2011, 01:47 AM
It seems to me that it is not a worthy thing to spend time fighting Calvinism or Arminiusism. True believers in Christ should be united in preaching salvation to the whole world, and faithfully following "all the counsel of God", as the Apostle Paul exhorted the believers.

- 1 Watchman

asterisktom
Feb 6th 2011, 11:33 PM
Along with the video of the OP I would like to add this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spR7HFOAG-U&feature=autofb

For those who feel the first one was too pro-Calvinist, perhaps this one, while on the same general subject of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, will even the playing field. Warning: Humor alert!

Tom Riggle
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/

Scruffy Kid
Feb 7th 2011, 12:50 AM
Basic training for Arminians. [URL was included]

It seems pretty evident to me that the creator of this is a Calvinist and is taking shots at non-Calvinistic attempts to refuse Calvinism.

I agree. I watched it twice and just assumed that. Now with your post... I guess I wasn't assuming anything.

Dear Abiding,
I just encountered your OP right now, when the previous commenter bumped the thread, and it appeared in my list for "What's new?"
I read the entire thread.

in the OP you have given a link to a harsh anti-Arminian video, snarky, nasty, derogatory of all who disagree, even slightly, with Calvinism.
(BTW, I have just the same problems with harsh anti-Calvinism of a similar sort.)
You didn't say you were doing that: rather you billed it as "Basic training for Arminianism".

Someone who felt -- as many might -- that their beliefs were traduced and ridiculed in this low-class, stupid, disrespectful video, and who watched it with no idea of what they were getting into might well feel that you deliberately misled those who read your post into watching something that they'd rather not, and which you described in a way which mischaracterized what they were reading.

In so doing, you introduce unnecessary strife, and a spirit of disrespect and general nastiness into the Bible Chat forum.

Isn't what I just said true? If I have misstated what you did, please show me where.

Do you regard doing what you did as helpful, upbuilding conduct?

If your purpose is not to further Calvinist understandings of Scripture, I don't know what legitimate purpose you could have.
But if your purpose is to further Calvinist understandings of Scripture, I can't imagine how this kind of tendentious, snarky, disrespectul nastiness could possibly achieve that. Like all rudeness and irrational expressions of animosity, it will tend to drive people away from your point of view, I should think.

So why post such stuff?

Slug1
Feb 7th 2011, 03:38 AM
[URL was included]



Dear Abiding,
I just encountered your OP right now, when the previous commenter bumped the thread, and it appeared in my list for "What's new?"
I read the entire thread.

in the OP you have given a link to a harsh anti-Arminian video, snarky, nasty, derogatory of all who disagree, even slightly, with Calvinism.
You didn't say you were doing that: rather you billed it as "Basic training for Arminianism".

Someone who felt -- as many might -- that their beliefs were traduced and ridiculed in this low-class, stupid, disrespectful video, and who watched it with no idea of what they were getting into might well feel that you deliberately misled those who read your post into watching something that they'd rather not, and which you described in a way which mischaracterized what they were reading.

In so doing, you introduce unnecessary strife, and a spirit of disrespect and general nastiness into the Bible Chat forum.

Isn't what I just said true? If I have misstated what you did, please show me where.

Do you regard doing what you did as helpful, upbuilding conduct?

If your purpose is not to further Calvinist understandings of Scripture, I don't know what legitimate purpose you could have.
But if your purpose is to further Calvinist understandings of Scripture, I can't imagine how this kind of tendentious, snarky, disrespectul nastiness could possibly achieve that. Like all rudeness and irrational expressions of animosity, it will tend to drive people away from your point of view, I should think.

So why post such stuff?I'll be honest in saying this... true clavinistic fruit stinks and underhanded calvinistic approach pushing the calvinistic doctrine, REALLY stinks!

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 7th 2011, 12:31 PM
I'll be honest in saying this... true clavinistic fruit stinks and underhanded calvinistic approach pushing the calvinistic doctrine, REALLY stinks!

Hi Slug,

That's a very broad brush stroke that you are using... can you be more specific as to what this fruit you see that stinks and what exactly is the underhanded approach to what is ascribed to Calvin's teachings?

I might agree or I might disagree, but I don't know until you specify what stinks and what is underhanded about it.

Slug1
Feb 7th 2011, 02:09 PM
Hi Slug,

That's a very broad brush stroke that you are using... can you be more specific as to what this fruit you see that stinks and what exactly is the underhanded approach to what is ascribed to Calvin's teachings?

I might agree or I might disagree, but I don't know until you specify what stinks and what is underhanded about it.Hooah... the calvinistic MESSAGE from that doctrine... stinks. Then for those who preach such a message feel that they need to make up a video pretending to be against their own message but is actually a way to refute Biblical truths that are against their doctine. So, when you boil it down, the vid is about making fun of the Bible's truths from God that they don't agree with due to the bondage that their doctrine holds over them. That is the stinker of the whole situation and when the message of that doctrine is spread... the stink of that doctrine goes where the message goes.

Nothing against those who are bound by the doctrine, I was bound by two doctrines in my lifetime. The message I spread due to those two doctrines stunk and it took God's truth to free me of that bondage.

Back then, my bondage was great that if anyone spoke truth that was against that doctrine I felt offended, I felt attacked, I felt bad, I felt I needed to DEFEND that doctrine. What I was offended by, what I felt bad about, what I fought against was actually the Word of God and God's truth. I didn't see that back then due to my blindness caused by the doctrines and my desire to follow the doctrines truth rather than God's truth.

Which is why, all we can do who are not bound with that doctrine... present scriptures from the Bible that are counter to the doctrine and ask for them to honestly reconcile such scriptures with the few scriptures allowed within the borders of this doctrine. If they can't honestly reconcile the scripture then they either have to make that choice... accept God's truth and follow God, or accept what the doctrine SAYS is the truth and follow it's truth (which stinks).

Here is what is considered an honest answer to questions and once the answer is given... show the fruit of such bondage to a calvinistic doctrine. To me, basically the answers seem to NOT allow such questions to be answered and the person will be as dishonest as they can be.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism!?p=2614660#post2614660 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism%21?p=2614660#post2614660)

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism!?p=2613419#post2613419 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism%21?p=2613419#post2613419)

Scruffy Kid however approach this a little different and I read this:


you take with those who ask you about your views a rather high-handed approach, and speak as if you were intelligent and others were not. Some of the things you say are, in my opinion, excellent. Your discussion of God and time, for instance, was -- I thought -- very good indeed. (I did not see, however, how it particularly supported your Calvinist views.) But the general tone of many posts greatly takes away from various valid things you have to say. It often sounds as if you regard those who disagree with you as morons, and you often talk down to them, as if to children. I can't imagine that this kind of thing helps convince people of the Calvinist views which, evidently, you think are very important. Trying to get anyone bound by the doctrine of calvinism to see how much of the doctrine doesn't align with, nor that the doctrine can be reconciled with allot of scriptures. However, the bondage causes the person bound to retaliate and this pointed much of the various forms of retaliation out. Scruff's comments were spot on and most excellent.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 7th 2011, 02:58 PM
Hooah... the calvinistic MESSAGE from that doctrine... stinks.

First Thanks for the reply... I want to come back to this part but for now will move forward...




Then for those who preach such a message feel that they need to make up a video pretending to be against their own message but is actually a way to refute Biblical truths that are against their doctine.

I agree, everybody has an agenda these days. That's why my 1st post was to say don't go there to the OP and anyone for that matter, for that's not good service IMO to our Lord.



So, when you boil it down, the vid is about making fun of the Bible's truths from God that they don't agree with due to the bondage that their doctrine holds over them.

I agree... But my caution is not to associate the acts of one to a group, unless the group is actively involved... And I'd say that the opinion of this one person does not reflect the understanding of masses.




That is the stinker of the whole situation and when the message of that doctrine is spread... the stink of that doctrine goes where the message goes.

Again the caution is to label the mass from the actions of one.... It works both ways, actually... so unless there is a specific doctrine that you see as the core that stinks, which go back to the first bullet, what is this doctrine specifically that you find stinking within what you know of 'Calvinism'? Not what this vid displayed, but what is the doctrine in general?





Nothing against those who are bound by the doctrine,

But if I may, I think there is... meaning you do have something against those who see scripture being described as some of the tenets that some describe as 'Calvinism'. I see it; I also feel it. I for one don't present Calvinism, for I've never studied Calvin, but study the word and there are those here who buttonhole that as being John Calvin and thus - I and others are accursed here.... Not to go further, but just to say I do see a misunderstanding of that doctrine and of those who believe the bible as such and have been labeled as such




I was bound by two doctrines in my lifetime. The message I spread due to those two doctrines stunk and it took God's truth to free me of that bondage.

Back then, my bondage was great that if anyone spoke truth that was against that doctrine I felt offended, I felt attacked, I felt bad, I felt I needed to DEFEND that doctrine. What I was offended by, what I felt bad about, what I fought against was actually the Word of God and God's truth. I didn't see that back then due to my blindness caused by the doctrines and my desire to follow the doctrines truth rather than God's truth.

I can relate, but we don't fight between brothers - we all need to preach the Gospel of Salvation. These boards are no different that the secular boards, whereas each person speaks their mind, usually against the person and not the position and thus it becomes an attack. Oh how much different if each would respect one another in reply instead of calling them names, so to speak.



Which is why, all we can do who are not bound with that doctrine... present scriptures from the Bible that are counter to the doctrine and ask for them to honestly reconcile such scriptures with the few scriptures allowed within the borders of this doctrine.

Again, this positions one doctrine over another - and hear it being your doctrines, and if I may add, that offensive doctrine hasn't been spelled out yet as being the best correct doctrine with brothers and sisters of the faith. Now, if you do this thinking those folks are not saved, then that's a bigger issue between the Body of Christ, and one that positions either side in judging the salvation of another. Thus the safest bet is that it just doesn't matter, and thus both sides just chill.



If they can't honestly reconcile the scripture then they either have to make that choice... accept God's truth and follow God, or accept what the doctrine SAYS is the truth and follow it's truth (which stinks).

Again... I sense a misunderstanding along with a stereotype and even a bit of lacking love here.



Here is what is considered an honest answer to questions and once the answer is given... show the fruit of such bondage to a calvinistic doctrine. To me, basically the answers seem to NOT allow such questions to be answered and the person will be as dishonest as they can be.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism!?p=2614660#post2614660 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism%21?p=2614660#post2614660)

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism!?p=2613419#post2613419 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220310-Arminians-may-have-refuted-Calvinism%21?p=2613419#post2613419)

Scruffy Kid however approach this a little different and I read this:

Trying to get anyone bound by the doctrine of calvinism to see how much of the doctrine doesn't align with, nor that the doctrine can be reconciled with allot of scriptures. However, the bondage causes the person bound to retaliate and this pointed much of the various forms of retaliation out. Scruff's comments were spot on and most excellent.

I appreciate the comments, and certainly understand your concerns. If you are not threatened by theses 'Calvinistic doctrines' that you've seen over the years, then it shouldn't be an issue for you when you come across them now, right?

My involvement is not to promote or defend these doctrines, but to see if your argument against them hold you back from seeing me and maybe others here as brothers and sisters in Christ.

And I will probably know better if and when you reply.

Blessings

Slug1
Feb 7th 2011, 07:13 PM
First Thanks for the reply... I want to come back to this part but for now will move forward...




I agree, everybody has an agenda these days. That's why my 1st post was to say don't go there to the OP and anyone for that matter, for that's not good service IMO to our Lord.



I agree... But my caution is not to associate the acts of one to a group, unless the group is actively involved... And I'd say that the opinion of this one person does not reflect the understanding of masses.




Again the caution is to label the mass from the actions of one.... It works both ways, actually... so unless there is a specific doctrine that you see as the core that stinks, which go back to the first bullet, what is this doctrine specifically that you find stinking within what you know of 'Calvinism'? Not what this vid displayed, but what is the doctrine in general?





But if I may, I think there is... meaning you do have something against those who see scripture being described as some of the tenets that some describe as 'Calvinism'. I see it; I also feel it. I for one don't present Calvinism, for I've never studied Calvin, but study the word and there are those here who buttonhole that as being John Calvin and thus - I and others are accursed here.... Not to go further, but just to say I do see a misunderstanding of that doctrine and of those who believe the bible as such and have been labeled as such




I can relate, but we don't fight between brothers - we all need to preach the Gospel of Salvation. These boards are no different that the secular boards, whereas each person speaks their mind, usually against the person and not the position and thus it becomes an attack. Oh how much different if each would respect one another in reply instead of calling them names, so to speak.



Again, this positions one doctrine over another - and hear it being your doctrines, and if I may add, that offensive doctrine hasn't been spelled out yet as being the best correct doctrine with brothers and sisters of the faith. Now, if you do this thinking those folks are not saved, then that's a bigger issue between the Body of Christ, and one that positions either side in judging the salvation of another. Thus the safest bet is that it just doesn't matter, and thus both sides just chill.



Again... I sense a misunderstanding along with a stereotype and even a bit of lacking love here.



I appreciate the comments, and certainly understand your concerns. If you are not threatened by theses 'Calvinistic doctrines' that you've seen over the years, then it shouldn't be an issue for you when you come across them now, right?

My involvement is not to promote or defend these doctrines, but to see if your argument against them hold you back from seeing me and maybe others here as brothers and sisters in Christ.

And I will probably know better if and when you reply.

BlessingsFirst of all we have to get past a hurdle. All I do is post scripture according to the context of the Bible. When a person posts scripture according to what is and what is not allowed in their doctrine, then all they are doing is speaking from the doctrine. Read through any thread dealing with doctrines. One side is only posting and only listening to those scriptures OF THEIR doctrine. Others are saying they understand but since they are not held by any doctrine, all they do is post scriptures from the Bible, both those allowed in the doctrine and ALSO those not allowed in the doctrine. One is a message according to the context of the doctrine (usually out of Biblical context) and the other message is in the context of the Word of God.

So once we can get passed that... then your attitude about "my" doctrine can end... I don't have any doctrine... I made it VERY clear that God has freed me of my bondage to two specific doctrines and all I use is the Bible. By this, I am not limited in discussion of doctrine bound by the confines of only the scriptures allowed to be discussed according to a doctrine.

OK... had to run to town and now I'm back... what was I saying :lol:

I don't remember what I was gonna say... oh yeah, as to doctrine not enabling me to see others as brothers and sisters? No, this is far from my thought process and honestly I'm surprised it's brought up. When I was bound in doctrine(s), it was only because of brothers and sisters and specifically ONE sister in Christ who just kept posting scripture that wasn't allowed in the doctrines but in context to the Bible, was fully all about refuting the doctrine. So, all I can do by that example is the same and pray that those in the discussion will one day open their hearts for one second to REALLY face the context of the Word of God in opposition to their doctrine and in so doing... begin the process of freedom from the doctrine as the Holy Spirit guides them and illuminates for them, the truth of God's meaning. Took me a year of surrender and it wasn't easy. The bondage to doctrine was as real spiritually as a ball and chain is, physically.

Look out across this entire message board concerning all the threads dealing with doctrinal issues. Like I said... there are those held by the doctrines and ONLY the few and limited amount of scriptures involved in that specific doctrine are allowed to be discussed. All others are ignored. Any questions that IF ANSWERED HONESTLY would mean anything counter to the doctrine, they are not answered or if answered, it's not an honest answer but instead something that is completely off the subject, spun in such a way that no sense is made and even admits to the fact the answer will not be understood, answered with their own questions instead and NO attempt to address the question is offered, or worse of all... answered straight from the doctrine instead of from themselves. This shows ONE THING... they don't have an answer and will ONLY use answers dictated by the doctrine or they WON'T answer.

Thus, fruit of bondage to a doctrine.

Which stinks.

Oh, this ignoring of scripture... those bound feel that everyone else is ignoring the scripture of their doctrine!!! Not true... others are using OTHER scriptures in context of the topic of the doctrine to bring God's truth and what He means and expose man's truth and what they WANT it all to mean FOR/TO them.

BrckBrln
Feb 7th 2011, 08:15 PM
I just saw that I once posted this video on here before. I thought it was funny and I thought Arminians would find it funny as well. I guess I was wrong.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 7th 2011, 08:25 PM
First of all we have to get past a hurdle. All I do is post scripture according to the context of the Bible. When a person posts scripture according to what is and what is not allowed in their doctrine, then all they are doing is speaking from the doctrine. Read through any thread dealing with doctrines. One side is only posting and only listening to those scriptures OF THEIR doctrine. Others are saying they understand but since they are not held by any doctrine, all they do is post scriptures from the Bible, both those allowed in the doctrine and ALSO those not allowed in the doctrine. One is a message according to the context of the doctrine (usually out of Biblical context) and the other message is in the context of the Word of God.

But which is correct then? They way I see you defining this is you post scriptures, others post doctrines... or if others comment to the scriptures, it's outside of biblical context???? I'm smiling slug because in a way it says you don't post doctrines, but when you post, it's within the context of the Word of God.

So OK, we would probably agree that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for our sins, and on the third day He arose from the grave. But it's to those pesky little doctrines of Arminism and Calvinism that division comes and to my question, why?




So once we can get passed that... then your attitude about "my" doctrine can end... I don't have any doctrine... I made it VERY clear that God has freed me of my bondage to two specific doctrines and all I use is the Bible. By this, I am not limited in discussion of doctrine bound by the confines of only the scriptures allowed to be discussed according to a doctrine.

Again, you can ignore it or address it, when you campaign against something, it's a defense of your understandings.... your doctrines that you use to measure with. You can't just say "I don't have any doctrine..." it's just not so, for you do.


OK... had to run to town and now I'm back... what was I saying :lol:

NP



I don't remember what I was gonna say... oh yeah, as to doctrine not enabling me to see others as brothers and sisters? No, this is far from my thought process and honestly I'm surprised it's brought up. When I was bound in doctrine(s), it was only because of brothers and sisters and specifically ONE sister in Christ who just kept posting scripture that wasn't allowed in the doctrines but in context to the Bible, was fully all about refuting the doctrine. So, all I can do by that example is the same and pray that those in the discussion with one day open their hearts for one second to REALLY face the context of the Word of God in opposition to their doctrine and in so doing... begin the process of freedom from the doctrine. Took me a year of surrender and it wasn't easy. The bondage to doctrine was as real spiritually as a ball and chain is, physically.

So let's net this out then... knowing my testimony of Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and knowing yours as well, are we then brothers in Christ?



Look out across this entire message board concerning all the threads dealing with doctrinal issues. Like I said... there are those held by the doctrines and ONLY the few and limited amount of scriptures involved in that specific doctrine are allowed to be discussed. All others are ignored. Any questions that IF ANSWERED HONESTLY would mean anything counter to the doctrine, they are not answered or if answered, it's an an honest answer but instead something that is completely off the subject, spun in such a way that no sense is made and even admits to the fact the answer will not be understood, answered with their own questions instead and NO attempt to address the question is offered, or worse of all... answered straight from the doctrine instead of from themselves. This shows me ONE THING... they don't have an answer and will ONLY use answers dictated by the doctrine or they WON'T answer.

Would you agree that love is an earmark of the faith? So forget the position of free will or not for a moment, would not love cover it all, if Christ is our love?



Thus, fruit of bondage to a doctrine.

Is not love also a doctrine?



Which stinks.

Oh, this ignoring of scripture... those bound feel that everyone else is ignoring the scripture of their doctrine!!! Not true... others are using OTHER scriptures in context of the topic of the doctrine to bring God's truth and what He means and expose man's truth and what they WANT it all to mean FOR/TO them.

But isn't this the excitement of growing in the faith.... who here knows all sound doctrines... I guess I go back again and ask, which doctrines are worth the battle? To me there are non-negotiable positions that detail if one understands the gospel or not. And I never would connotate either the Arminian or Calvin positions as one that separates salvation from damnation. For these are ones among others that make little or no difference to once position of faith. Would you agree or disagree with me that whether one is understanding an Arminian nature of faith or one of John Calvin, does one mean saved and the other lost, or could they both not be worthy to separate a brother from enjoying the gift of salvation to each?

Slug1
Feb 7th 2011, 09:51 PM
Would you agree or disagree with me that whether one is understanding an Arminian nature of faith or one of John Calvin, does one mean saved and the other lost, or could they both not be worthy to separate a brother from enjoying the gift of salvation to each?Both deviate from God's ONE meaning. For me, it's not about salvation... I was a saved man when I was bound in the doctrines that I was bound in. Now that I am free of those doctrine I am the same "saved" man... except now I don't push these doctrines and the bad fruit of those doctrines.

So... lets get past this hurdle also, OK.

Any other things bothering you about the fact that a person can be free of the bondage to a doctrine?

Lay them out because I had to lay out all that I was offended by when I wanted to be free of those I was bound with.

Quickened
Feb 7th 2011, 10:50 PM
The discussion of these doctrines rarely ends in something that edifies believers. People should focus on other things instead of squabbling over whether God predestined people or not which seems to be the biggest issue.

But I can't help but wonder.... did God choose Israel or vise versa? It's interesting to me to read the bible in light of this debate and ask "Who chooses who here?" Did Moses first seek out God? Every where i look I see that God has a plan in motion and He selects people to do various tasks. Just as He selected Israel to be His people. There were other people on the planet at that time but people always seem to over look that when discussing election. Israel in the OT was God's people whom he elected/chose.

It was the Lord whom first spoke to Abram and then chose to make him into a great nation and bless him. Nothing Abram did prompted God to act this way.

For me its rather clear. I wasn't seeking God when i was Quickened.

But that's just how my mind works. I don't expect everyone to hold the same opinion but I don't judge anyone's salvation on the issue either. We are saved by faith through Grace in Christ Jesus. Not by our understanding of a theological matter. God chooses to show people various things at various points in their lives. We are always learning and growing. Its too bad that this issue is a dividing wall between believers in Christ.

RollTide21
Feb 7th 2011, 11:11 PM
The discussion of these doctrines rarely ends in something that edifies believers. People should focus on other things instead of squabbling over whether God predestined people or not which seems to be the biggest issue.

But I can't help but wonder.... did God choose Israel or vise versa? It's interesting to me to read the bible in light of this debate and ask "Who chooses who here?" Did Moses first seek out God? Every where i look I see that God has a plan in motion and He selects people to do various tasks. Just as He selected Israel to be His people. There were other people on the planet at that time but people always seem to over look that when discussing election. Israel in the OT was God's people whom he elected/chose.

It was the Lord whom first spoke to Abram and then chose to make him into a great nation and bless him. Nothing Abram did prompted God to act this way.

For me its rather clear. I wasn't seeking God when i was Quickened.

But that's just how my mind works. I don't expect everyone to hold the same opinion but I don't judge anyone's salvation on the issue either. We are saved by faith through Grace in Christ Jesus. Not by our understanding of a theological matter. God chooses to show people various things at various points in their lives. We are always learning and growing. Its too bad that this issue is a dividing wall between believers in Christ.I agree, in general. I do think, however, that the discussion can have merit among believers. If a person, for example, believes in limited atonement and individual election, what does that person believe in terms of the Church's role in evangelism? How can one believe that God predestines specific people to be saved and also be an advocate of any kind of community outreach?

ProjectPeter
Feb 7th 2011, 11:20 PM
I gotta be honest here... it was stupid. For one... Seemed more pro Calvinism to me than con and I think it was a spoof put on by a Calvinist etc. But even that was stupid. I agree with a couple of guys in here already... why? I mean seriously... what the crap was that?

You guys know what... forget some goofball (whatever they were) on YouTube. Open thy Bible and refute or defend. Anything else is just... well... lest another use of the word "crap" offends someone... dung.

I do hope the point is taken. ;)

Quickened
Feb 8th 2011, 12:40 AM
I agree, in general. I do think, however, that the discussion can have merit among believers. If a person, for example, believes in limited atonement and individual election, what does that person believe in terms of the Church's role in evangelism? How can one believe that God predestines specific people to be saved and also be an advocate of any kind of community outreach?

Remember when people were saying "I'm of Paul" and "I'm of Apollos". This discussion really reminds me of that. I've followed closely over the years and perhaps that's why i have a bit of a negitive view point of the discussion. I've been here since 04. I can't remember a time where this discussion ever went well. Its usually a post by one person that balloons into a 17 page thread before a Mod closes it.

Not even on this board though. Reformed believers or Calvinistic believers can be harsh (I've seen it) towards Non calvinists. Likewise Non Calvinists often are the same towards Calvinists. It seems that people get the idea that they are refuting this grave heresy and are therefore champions of Christ. But when they lack the fruits of the spirit in their discussions i really wonder.

I get the argument and for the topic to come up within bible study is surely going to happen... but people often need to approach the topic more gingerly instead of being fueled by their emotions. This rarely occurs. The discussions are fueled with snarky jabs, logical fallacies and talking past each other.

I really feel that its a waste of time for Christians. When we could be learning so much more, witnessing to others, praying, discipling others, etc. Some armchair theologians do nothing but enter these threads and generate strife and distain. I really think of Galatians chapter 5 and how the fruit of the Spirit rarely ends up displaying itself in these types of threads.

Maybe its just me.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 8th 2011, 01:50 AM
Both deviate from God's ONE meaning. For me, it's not about salvation... I was a saved man when I was bound in the doctrines that I was bound in. Now that I am free of those doctrine I am the same "saved" man... except now I don't push these doctrines and the bad fruit of those doctrines.

So... lets get past this hurdle also, OK.

Sure, just waiting for you to define what that bad fruit is, for that really hasn't been stated by you yet...




Any other things bothering you about the fact that a person can be free of the bondage to a doctrine?

Personally, I think you got this backwards... Doctrines are an outcome and thus come 2nd. You don't read the bible with your doctrines in toe... You read the bible and it shapes your doctrines. A doctor doesn't operate on a patient and then when done, goes and reads the medical book.... no no no, for he studies the medical book and then operates.



Lay them out because I had to lay out all that I was offended by when I wanted to be free of those I was bound with.

Thank you, so again here they are....




Hi Slug,

That's a very broad brush stroke that you are using... can you be more specific as to what this fruit you see that stinks and what exactly is the underhanded approach to what is ascribed to Calvin's teachings?

I might agree or I might disagree, but I don't know until you specify what stinks and what is underhanded about it.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 02:41 AM
Basic training for Arminians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebZJzB7W_c

I always have been arminian. I must admit I am very slowly becoming much more receptive of Calvinism. I am gradually moving toward it.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 02:53 AM
Sure, just waiting for you to define what that bad fruit is, for that really hasn't been stated by you yet... Believing that God CHOSE some to be eternally separated from Him even after the Bible is CLEARLY clear, that He sent His Son for the WORLD.

Not only do they believe that but they do something much worse... they teach it to others and then get those others all BOUND UP in the doctrine that has them bound. This is fruit COUNTER to the very character and nature of Jesus. Nor is bondage of Jesus either so anything that binds you, is bad fruit.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 02:56 AM
Believing that God CHOSE some to be eternally separated from Him even after the Bible is CLEARLY clear, that He sent His Son for the WORLD.

Not only do they believe that but they do something much worse... they teach it to others and then get those others all BOUND UP in the doctrine that has them bound. This is fruit COUNTER to the very character and nature of Jesus.

My opinion of Calvinism greatly changed when I found that D. James Kennedy was a Calvinist and I listened to and studied his extensive teaching on Calvin.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 03:04 AM
My opinion of Calvinism greatly changed when I found that D. James Kennedy was a Calvinist and I listened to and studied his extensive teaching on Calvin.Really, better to have a relationship with God, through Jesus, led by a doctrine not only created by man but also followed by a man you listen to!?

Imagine dropping the man part of the equation and being only led by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God instead of man and their interpretation of the Word of God.

Imagine if he does a study and extensive teaching of the Word of God instead?!

That's what bound people do... they perfect the study of and teaching of the doctrine so more get bound up into it.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 03:33 AM
Really, better to have a relationship with God, through Jesus, led by a doctrine not only created by man but also followed by a man you listen to!?

Imagine dropping the man part of the equation and being only led by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God instead of man and their interpretation of the Word of God.

Imagine if he does a study and extensive teaching of the Word of God instead?!

That's what bound people do... they perfect the study of and teaching of the doctrine so more get bound up into it.

Slug, I extensively Study The Word of God. I had come to the conclusion years ago that according to The Word, both Calvinism and Arminianism have problems.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 03:36 AM
Slug, I extensively Study The Word of God. I had come to the conclusion years ago that according to The Word, both Calvinism and Arminianism have problems.Hooah... thus the reason to consider following neither... right? Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God, it has NO problems... right?

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 03:39 AM
Hooah... thus the reason to consider following neither... right? Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God, it has NO problems... right?

Totally agree. I build my doctrine from The Word. I also enjoy studying the historic opinions of the Church fathers.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 03:43 AM
Totally agree. I build my doctrine from The Word. I also enjoy studying the historic opinions of the Church fathers.A necessity... so help can be offered to those falling into the opinionated ERROR of church fathers.

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 03:56 AM
Hooah... thus the reason to consider following neither... right? Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God, it has NO problems... right?

You speak as though you don't do the very thing you accuse others of. Calvin studied the Word extensively. Luther studied the Word extensively. In fact they probably studied the Word longer, and with more intensity, than anyone on this board. You say, "Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God...." Does this mean these men didn't?....or perhaps that you have understood the Word better than they? There is a difference between Word and Word-interpreted. We all interpret, but some interpretations are probably better than others. And history tends to hold onto the better interpretations, which then form the basis for others like you and me coming to an understanding of the Word. None of us does it by ourselves.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2011, 04:05 AM
You speak as though you don't do the very thing you accuse others of. Calvin studied the Word extensively. Luther studied the Word extensively. In fact they probably studied the Word longer, and with more intensity, than anyone on this board. You say, "Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God...." Does this mean these men didn't?....or perhaps that you have understood the Word better than they? There is a difference between Word and Word-interpreted. We all interpret, but some interpretations are probably better than others. And history tends to hold onto the better interpretations, which then form the basis for others like you and me coming to an understanding of the Word. None of us does it by ourselves.Frankly... we don't know how much time they spent studying although safe to say they studied a bunch. I assure you that there are folks on this board that are just as likely studied up as much. As well... their personal study certainly was lacking so don't stick them too high up on the pedestal. Neither of them were very nice guys. :)

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:08 AM
You speak as though you don't do the very thing you accuse others of. Calvin studied the Word extensively. Luther study the Word extensively. In fact they probably studied the Word longer, and with more intensity, than anyone on this board. You say, "Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God...." Does this mean these men didn't?....or perhaps that you have understood the Word better than they? There is a difference between Word and Word-interpreted. We all interpret, but some interpretations are probably better than others. And history tends to hold onto the better interpretations, which then form the basis for others like you and me coming to an understanding of the Word. None of us does it by ourselves.When the fruit of a persons study goes counter to the Word of God... then I don't care if they read the Bible a 1000 times more than I ever can read the Bible in my studies.

Look... only a select group follow Calvin, doesn't that make you go, HMMMMMMM?? Oh, wait... only those selected by God for salvation as if they all KNOW or DON'T KNOW :rolleyes: who they are, are the one's going to heaven to be with God while all those God doesn't want, can be eternally Bye-Bye from God.

Now does that REALLY portray a merciful God? Does this portray a God who sent His Son who died for ALL in the world? Does that align with scripture that is clear that all one must do is BELIEVE and they are saved?

No it don't...

Anyway... sure they followed the Word of God until their interpretation(s) of the Word of God got more important. Then they got others to follow their interpretations, then those who began to follow their interpretation of the Word of God got others to follow that interpretation. Till today, where we have you and others trying to get others to follow an interpretation of the Word of God.

The whole while... people are now having a relationship with God, through Jesus, led by some other dudes interpretation of the Word of God.

The equation should be, relationship with God, through Jesus, led by the Holy Spirit.

BrckBrln
Feb 8th 2011, 04:13 AM
Frankly... we don't know how much time they spent studying although safe to say they studied a bunch. I assure you that there are folks on this board that are just as likely studied up as much. As well... their personal study certainly was lacking so don't stick them too high up on the pedestal. Neither of them were very nice guys. :)

I think it's safe to say that Luther and Calvin did spend more time studying the Bible than anybody on this board. They didn't have TV, Internet, and secular jobs to distract them like we do. This is not to say they were perfect in their understanding or anything like that. I just don't think we should sell them short or ignore them like so many do. And Calvin was a very nice person to those he liked. Those he didn't, well, not so much.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:15 AM
And Calvin was a very nice person to those he liked. Those he didn't, well, not so much.I guess love your enemies isn't in his doctrine? :P

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 04:20 AM
I think it's safe to say that Luther and Calvin did spend more time studying the Bible than anybody on this board. They didn't have TV, Internet, and secular jobs to distract them like we do. This is not to say they were perfect in their understanding or anything like that. I just don't think we should sell them short or ignore them like so many do. And Calvin was a very nice person to those he liked. Those he didn't, well, not so much.

Well said! And I think it's generally true for most of us as well.

BrckBrln
Feb 8th 2011, 04:21 AM
I guess love your enemies isn't in his doctrine? :P

Can I assume you are the model we all are to follow in this regard?

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:21 AM
Well said! And I think it's generally true for most of us as well."Generally" true? I'd say it's a FACT about ALL of us.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:22 AM
Can I assume you are the model we all are to follow in this regard?Hardly and I don't claim to be.

BrckBrln
Feb 8th 2011, 04:23 AM
Hardly and I don't claim to be.

Calvin wouldn't claim to be perfect either. There. Common ground. :)

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:25 AM
Calvin wouldn't claim to be perfect either. There. Common ground. :)We have much, I'm sure. We'd be drinking buds as we debated :lol:

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 04:29 AM
I think it's safe to say that Luther and Calvin did spend more time studying the Bible than anybody on this board. They didn't have TV, Internet, and secular jobs to distract them like we do. This is not to say they were perfect in their understanding or anything like that. I just don't think we should sell them short or ignore them like so many do. And Calvin was a very nice person to those he liked. Those he didn't, well, not so much.

Well said, and probably true for most of us nice people.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:30 AM
Well said, and probably true for most of us nice people.:lol: unlike the rest of us who aren't selected by God?

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 04:36 AM
:lol: unlike the rest of us who aren't selected by God?

I would never presume to say who's selected and who isn't. No Calvinist would. It's the free-willers who tend to point out when and how often others aren't choosing rightly, and therefore in danger of losing salvation. Free will busy bodies! :lol:

Athanasius
Feb 8th 2011, 04:49 AM
I would never presume to say who's selected and who isn't. No Calvinist would. It's the free-willers who tend to point out when and how often others aren't choosing rightly, and therefore in danger of losing salvation. Free will busy bodies! :lol:

Incidentally, every 'Calvinist' must presume they are selected, and I think that is one of the issues with Calvinism. (Although I must be very honest, I wouldn't spend my time trying to 'defeat' it.)

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:51 AM
I would never presume to say who's selected and who isn't. No Calvinist would. It's the free-willers who tend to point out when and how often others aren't choosing rightly, and therefore in danger of losing salvation. Free will busy bodies! :lol:Based on your answers in that other thread, you yourself exercised your free will as well :P

Besides... I'd rather heed the warnings in the Bible that one can loose their salvation, than follow any doctrine that says they can't. Warnings are there for a reason and to be told not to listen to them... another bad fruit from a doctrine.

Volt
Feb 8th 2011, 05:44 AM
Basic training for Arminians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebZJzB7W_c

I, for one, find division in the Church to be disgusting. This is not a laughing matter.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 8th 2011, 01:40 PM
Believing that God CHOSE some to be eternally separated from Him even after the Bible is CLEARLY clear, that He sent His Son for the WORLD.
Morning Slug,

I see… So if I may, I think this tenet is not as big as you might think it is. In fact it might even be the same view, just from a different perspective once understood. Not trying to persuade but hopefully explain.

Both see that the gospel requires a response. So when one hears the Gospel, believing and changing are needed to be effective. So far so good?

So that’s it… Now the issue of who? Well as you quoted, the gospel is wide open, so all that hear and believe will be saved. So still the same position, are you with still with me?

So let's recap, the Gospel is wide open. The Gospel demands a response. All who believe will be saved. So we agree? OK.

So to the term ‘elect’. It is a term [Matt 24; Mark 13; Romans 8], along with chosen [Matt 22; John 13; Rom 11; 1 Peter 2; Rev 17], that is found in the bible that describes those who believe. So, these terms are not limiters or with restrictions, but is a describer… meaning when used, it doesn’t limit salvation to only those who where elect or chosen, but instead, when one is saved, is now a descriptor of who they are in Christ. Like you can’t call yourself a Christian before you believe, but after.

The big issue is that many see these terms as limiters and not descriptors. By example, take a standard mystery novel. Now don’t think the gospel is like a mystery novel, but like the mechanics in how it is written.

Think that the novel introduces each character within the mystery and that it sets the stage all throughout the book that every character could have been the murderer - which is typically the reason for the book. It’s quite feasible that as the author writes, that each character could be the guilty one, however, if you leaped to the end of the book, it’s almost always found on the last page that who the murderer is…. Yea it’s the butler. But the point is that all throughout the book, everyone has suspicions as to who does what, but it’s not until the end that it’s revealed.

This is the same with the term elect and chosen… One isn’t labeled that is a condition to believe, but once you believe, God gives you that name. So I say by your profession of faith, God calls you chosen… the last page of the book so to speak. Does that mean that only the elect are saved… as scripture states, well yes. And thus who are the elect? And scripture again states, “all who believe”… Again, the term is not a limiter but a descriptor…. So all my Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ are also chosen and elect in Him… based on the back pages. It’s God’s term, not mine not man’s. I now hope this helps show that this is not a big issue. For again, the Gospel is wide open. The Gospel demands a response. All who believe will be saved. Now adding all who believe are labeled by God collectively His elect, His chosen. We agree?

And then to those who die without Christ… We both should agree that not all men will be saved. For when the Gospel is preached and is rejected, then the outcome from both camps is the same… Men will go to hell for their unbelief. So if a man chose not to believe or it was God, it really doesn’t matter, for they still will dwell in Hell and the outcome is the same, agree?



Not only do they believe that but they do something much worse... they teach it to others and then get those others all BOUND UP in the doctrine that has them bound. This is fruit COUNTER to the very character and nature of Jesus. Nor is bondage of Jesus either so anything that binds you, is bad fruit.

Hopefully you are now seeing that the term elect is not a limiter or qualifier to believe, but is a descriptor to those who do, that it’s not so much a doctrine as it is a name. So you and I, when we name the name of Jesus as our Lord and Savior, are His elect, His chosen, where you see scriptures as only your choice and I now see it as a choice guided in my life. We are both saved, right? So what’s the issue then?

Have a great morning!

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 01:52 PM
I gotta be honest here... it was stupid. For one... Seemed more pro Calvinism to me than con and I think it was a spoof put on by a Calvinist etc. But even that was stupid. I agree with a couple of guys in here already... why? I mean seriously... what the crap was that?

You guys know what... forget some goofball (whatever they were) on YouTube. Open thy Bible and refute or defend. Anything else is just... well... lest another use of the word "crap" offends someone... dung.

I do hope the point is taken. ;)

I find that "skubalon" and "coprian" are more appropriate words. After all, Paul and Jesus used them, respectively.

:D

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 01:55 PM
Morning Slug,

I see… So if I may, I think this tenet is not as big as you might think it is. In fact it might even be the same view, just from a different perspective once understood. Not trying to persuade but hopefully explain.

Both see that the gospel requires a response. So when one hears the Gospel, believing and changing are needed to be effective. So far so good?

So that’s it… Now the issue of who? Well as you quoted, the gospel is wide open, so all that hear and believe will be saved. So still the same position, are you with still with me?

So let's recap, the Gospel is wide open. The Gospel demands a response. All who believe will be saved. So we agree? OK.

So to the term ‘elect’. It is a term [Matt 24; Mark 13; Romans 8], along with chosen [Matt 22; John 13; Rom 11; 1 Peter 2; Rev 17], that is found in the bible that describes those who believe. So, these terms are not limiters or with restrictions, but is a describer… meaning when used, it doesn’t limit salvation to only those who where elect or chosen, but instead, when one is saved, is now a descriptor of who they are in Christ. Like you can’t call yourself a Christian before you believe, but after.

The big issue is that many see these terms as limiters and not descriptors. By example, take a standard mystery novel. Now don’t think the gospel is like a mystery novel, but like the mechanics in how it is written.

Think that the novel introduces each character within the mystery and that it sets the stage all throughout the book that every character could have been the murderer - which is typically the reason for the book. It’s quite feasible that as the author writes, that each character could be the guilty one, however, if you leaped to the end of the book, it’s almost always found on the last page that who the murderer is…. Yea it’s the butler. But the point is that all throughout the book, everyone has suspicions as to who does what, but it’s not until the end that it’s revealed.

This is the same with the term elect and chosen… One isn’t labeled that is a condition to believe, but once you believe, God gives you that name. So I say by your profession of faith, God calls you chosen… the last page of the book so to speak. Does that mean that only the elect are saved… as scripture states, well yes. And thus who are the elect? And scripture again states, “all who believe”… Again, the term is not a limiter but a descriptor…. So all my Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ are also chosen and elect in Him… based on the back pages. It’s God’s term, not mine not man’s. I now hope this helps show that this is not a big issue. For again, the Gospel is wide open. The Gospel demands a response. All who believe will be saved. Now adding all who believe are labeled by God collectively His elect, His chosen. We agree?

And then to those who die without Christ… We both should agree that not all men will be saved. For when the Gospel is preached and is rejected, then the outcome from both camps is the same… Men will go to hell for their unbelief. So if a man chose not to believe or it was God, it really doesn’t matter, for they still will dwell in Hell and the outcome is the same, agree?



Hopefully you are now seeing that the term elect is not a limiter or qualifier to believe, but is a descriptor to those who do, that it’s not so much a doctrine as it is a name. So you and I, when we name the name of Jesus as our Lord and Savior, are His elect, His chosen, where you see scriptures as only your choice and I now see it as a choice guided in my life. We are both saved, right? So what’s the issue then?

Have a great morning!


Redeemed by Grace, that was Very Good!

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 01:59 PM
Incidentally, every 'Calvinist' must presume they are selected, and I think that is one of the issues with Calvinism. (Although I must be very honest, I wouldn't spend my time trying to 'defeat' it.)

I notice you won't spend any time explaining your own position on Paul's use of the word "predestined." You say you don't think it has anything to do with salvation, but you won't say what it does deal with?

Quickened
Feb 8th 2011, 02:00 PM
Hooah... thus the reason to consider following neither... right? Can't go wrong with JUST following the Word of God, it has NO problems... right?

How does one follow neither? If one says "God chooses" and one says "Man chooses" then your options are rather limited. You would choose to believe one or the other based on study.

Its not merely limited to "God choosing" or "Man choosing" either. There are other areas of disagreements where one is on one side or another. It seems to me the only way to choose neither is to be indecisive.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 02:03 PM
How does one follow neither? If one says "God chooses" and one says "Man chooses" then your options are rather limited. You would choose to believe one or the other based on study.

Its not merely limited to "God choosing" or "Man choosing" either. There are other areas of disagreements where one is on one side or another. It seems to me the only way to choose neither is to be indecisive.

I think that many Christians do what is right in their own eyes...either that or whatever their favorite preacher told them to do last week.

RollTide21
Feb 8th 2011, 03:07 PM
Remember when people were saying "I'm of Paul" and "I'm of Apollos". This discussion really reminds me of that. I've followed closely over the years and perhaps that's why i have a bit of a negitive view point of the discussion. I've been here since 04. I can't remember a time where this discussion ever went well. Its usually a post by one person that balloons into a 17 page thread before a Mod closes it.

Not even on this board though. Reformed believers or Calvinistic believers can be harsh (I've seen it) towards Non calvinists. Likewise Non Calvinists often are the same towards Calvinists. It seems that people get the idea that they are refuting this grave heresy and are therefore champions of Christ. But when they lack the fruits of the spirit in their discussions i really wonder.

I get the argument and for the topic to come up within bible study is surely going to happen... but people often need to approach the topic more gingerly instead of being fueled by their emotions. This rarely occurs. The discussions are fueled with snarky jabs, logical fallacies and talking past each other.

I really feel that its a waste of time for Christians. When we could be learning so much more, witnessing to others, praying, discipling others, etc. Some armchair theologians do nothing but enter these threads and generate strife and distain. I really think of Galatians chapter 5 and how the fruit of the Spirit rarely ends up displaying itself in these types of threads.

Maybe its just me.No, it's not just you. In my personal opinion, Scripture wasn't intended to be reconciled as a single "doctrine". The word (logos) becomes the Word (rhema) when it is spoken via the Spirit in application of our individual circumstances. We are called to live by the Spirit. Scripture guides us in our life in the Spirit. It doesn't make sense that it is God's Will for us to "figure out" the Scriptures as a whole, single entity. That would render "Truth" only available to the learned.

RollTide21
Feb 8th 2011, 03:10 PM
Really, better to have a relationship with God, through Jesus, led by a doctrine not only created by man but also followed by a man you listen to!?

Imagine dropping the man part of the equation and being only led by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God instead of man and their interpretation of the Word of God.

Imagine if he does a study and extensive teaching of the Word of God instead?!

That's what bound people do... they perfect the study of and teaching of the doctrine so more get bound up into it.The Holy Spirit has led you into a perfect understanding of His Plan not only for you, but for the entire world?

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 03:12 PM
I think that many Christians do what is right in their own eyes...either that or whatever their favorite preacher told them to do last week.

If Calvinism is totally off base, why can it not be soundly defeated in debate? D. James Kennedy chewed up and spit out the best Arminians who attempted to debate him on the topic. I actually hold a compromise positon that leans toward arminianism, but I must admit Calvin's points have their merrits. I fullly agree with points 1-3, half way agree with point 5, and disagree with point 4.

Athanasius
Feb 8th 2011, 03:20 PM
I notice you won't spend any time explaining your own position on Paul's use of the word "predestined." You say you don't think it has anything to do with salvation, but you won't say what it does deal with?

If you have a problem with what I've said, or have not said, in another thread, say so in that other thread. As for this thread, I merely pointed out that Calvinists do presume to know who is part of the 'elect,' and that is themselves.


D. James Kennedy chewed up and spit out the best Arminians who attempted to debate him on the topic.

Who 'wins' a debate tends to be a matter of perspective. That said, I haven't seen or heard D. James Kennedy, so that gives me something to do this afternoon.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 03:25 PM
If you have a problem with what I've said, or have not said, in another thread, say so in that other thread. As for this thread, I merely pointed out that Calvinists do presume to know who is part of the 'elect,' and that is themselves.



Who 'wins' a debate tends to be a matter of perspective. That said, I haven't seen or heard D. James Kennedy, so that gives me something to do this afternoon.

D. James Kennedy was the most respected theologian of the 20th century. He was ultra conservative, yet respected by even the most liberal. Harvard named him to their list of most intellectual men to ever live. Even the liberals put him right up there with Newton.
I viewed the debates from an arminian perspective because at the time I firmly adhered to all 5 points. The Calvinist still won.

RollTide21
Feb 8th 2011, 03:27 PM
D. James Kennedy was the most respected theologian of the 20th century. He was ultra conservative, yet respected by even the most liberal. Harvard named him to their list of most intellectual men to ever live. Even the liberals put him right up there with Newton.
I viewed the debates from an arminian perspective because at the time I firmly adhered to all 5 points. The Calvinist still won.Sounds HUGELY interesting. Where did you see these debates?

BrckBrln
Feb 8th 2011, 03:51 PM
If Calvinism is totally off base, why can it not be soundly defeated in debate? D. James Kennedy chewed up and spit out the best Arminians who attempted to debate him on the topic. I actually hold a compromise positon that leans toward arminianism, but I must admit Calvin's points have their merrits. I fullly agree with points 1-3, half way agree with point 5, and disagree with point 4.

I just want to point out that the 'five points' are not Calvin's points. The Synod of Dort (1618-1619), responding to the five articles of Remonstrance (the Arminian five points), formulated the five points of Calvinism.


D. James Kennedy was the most respected theologian of the 20th century. He was ultra conservative, yet respected by even the most liberal. Harvard named him to their list of most intellectual men to ever live. Even the liberals put him right up there with Newton.
I viewed the debates from an arminian perspective because at the time I firmly adhered to all 5 points. The Calvinist still won.

That might be a bit much, don't you think?

WSGAC
Feb 8th 2011, 03:56 PM
[QUOTE]D. James Kennedy was the most respected theologian of the 20th century. He was ultra conservative, yet respected by even the most liberal. Harvard named him to their list of most intellectual men to ever live. Even the liberals put him right up there with Newton.
I viewed the debates from an arminian perspective because at the time I firmly adhered to all 5 points. The Calvinist still won.



That might be a bit much, don't you think?


No, that's a huge stretch. I think it was Barth who was given that title. Kennedy was no Barth!

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 04:04 PM
I just want to point out that the 'five points' are not Calvin's points. The Synod of Dort (1618-1619), responding to the five articles of Remonstrance (the Arminian five points), formulated the five points of Calvinism.



That might be a bit much, don't you think?

Well aware of the history of the five points of both. Do not think my statement of Kennedy is in the least bit an overstatement.
Can you show me any other Christian scholar who was as highly respected by both conservatives and liberals as Kennedy?

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 04:12 PM
Well aware of the history of the five points of both. Do not think my statement of Kennedy is in the least bit an overstatement.
Can you show me any other Christian scholar who was as highly respected by both conservatives and liberals as Kennedy?

Kennedy was a great man, a great preacher, and a great pastor; but he was not a scholar that the academic world would quote as an expert on anything.

BrckBrln
Feb 8th 2011, 04:22 PM
Well aware of the history of the five points of both. Do not think my statement of Kennedy is in the least bit an overstatement.
Can you show me any other Christian scholar who was as highly respected by both conservatives and liberals as Kennedy?

J. Gresham Machen, for one.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 04:35 PM
Sounds HUGELY interesting. Where did you see these debates?

I saw them on video tape at someones house I went to church with years ago.

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 04:35 PM
Kennedy was a great man, a great preacher, and a great pastor; but he was not a scholar that the academic world would quote as an expert on anything.

I guess Harvard screwed up then.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 04:38 PM
The Holy Spirit has led you into a perfect understanding of His Plan not only for you, but for the entire world?No... I have no idea what His plan is for the world except for what we read in scripture. Summed up to... Created world, populated the world with people who He wants to have a loving relationship with, we sinned, He sent His Son so we can be redeemed from sin, oh... ALL are included in ALL the above. I'm sure there are other details we all know about, like MERCY, GRACE, BELIEF, FAITH, HOPE... etc.

Seems some feel that God limits His mercy, grace, some can't ever believe, nor have faith, or HOPE. Some believe this falsness and even push it onto others.

No, I don't have perfect understanding, I never will have perfect understanding, I have never suggested I come near perfect understanding and I never plan to suggest I can ever have perfect understanding. Quite frankly, even if God ever did bless me with a deeper understanding I feel this understanding would be slammed when any Holy Spirit revelation(s)/illumination(s) of scripture and of wisdom... came against a person's doctrine that they hold higher than the Word of God and we'd still be right were we all are right now :P

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 05:00 PM
So to the term ‘elect’. It is a term [Matt 24; Mark 13; Romans 8], along with chosen [Matt 22; John 13; Rom 11; 1 Peter 2; Rev 17], that is found in the bible that describes those who believe. So, these terms are not limiters or with restrictions, but is a describer… meaning when used, it doesn’t limit salvation to only those who where elect or chosen, but instead, when one is saved, is now a descriptor of who they are in Christ. Like you can’t call yourself a Christian before you believe, but after.
Reconcile this (what you wrote) with this scripture:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Please don't take me in and out of the term TIME and how God can step in and out of time as a form of reconciliation. My hair still hurts from reading something like this to reconcile that scripture with doctrine.

I know it's only one scripture but it sums up many other scriptures about how God and Jesus is all about saving the World, all in the World. Not limited to a specific group who find themselves called something besides "saved" once they believe.

RabbiKnife
Feb 8th 2011, 05:01 PM
I guess Harvard screwed up then.

On numerous occasions.

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2011, 05:12 PM
I think it's safe to say that Luther and Calvin did spend more time studying the Bible than anybody on this board. They didn't have TV, Internet, and secular jobs to distract them like we do. This is not to say they were perfect in their understanding or anything like that. I just don't think we should sell them short or ignore them like so many do. And Calvin was a very nice person to those he liked. Those he didn't, well, not so much.Being a nice person to those he liked... as Jesus said... so what? Even heathens act like that. ;)

ProjectPeter
Feb 8th 2011, 05:12 PM
I find that "skubalon" and "coprian" are more appropriate words. After all, Paul and Jesus used them, respectively.

:DThose certainly do work well!

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 8th 2011, 05:45 PM
Reconcile this (what you wrote) with this scripture:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Please don't take me in and out of the term TIME and how God can step in and out of time as a form of reconciliation. My hair still hurts from reading something like this to reconcile that scripture with doctrine.

I know it's only one scripture but it sums up many other scriptures about how God and Jesus is all about saving the World, all in the World. Not limited to a specific group who find themselves called something besides "saved" once they believe.


Naw, no problem regarding the term time, because that's not the subject matter. Before I do exegesis the passage, are you looking to say that all men will be saved one day or can you agree that this does not say that all men will be saved?

RollTide21
Feb 8th 2011, 05:55 PM
No... I have no idea what His plan is for the world except for what we read in scripture. Summed up to... Created world, populated the world with people who He wants to have a loving relationship with, we sinned, He sent His Son so we can be redeemed from sin, oh... ALL are included in ALL the above. I'm sure there are other details we all know about, like MERCY, GRACE, BELIEF, FAITH, HOPE... etc.

Seems some feel that God limits His mercy, grace, some can't ever believe, nor have faith, or HOPE. Some believe this falsness and even push it onto others.

No, I don't have perfect understanding, I never will have perfect understanding, I have never suggested I come near perfect understanding and I never plan to suggest I can ever have perfect understanding. Quite frankly, even if God ever did bless me with a deeper understanding I feel this understanding would be slammed when any Holy Spirit revelation(s)/illumination(s) of scripture and of wisdom... came against a person's doctrine that they hold higher than the Word of God and we'd still be right were we all are right now :PHere's what I'm driving at:

If you proclaim that you understand the WORD of God and that those with doctrinal bias are "bound" or are in error, then what is it that you are saying? You are saying that you understand God's Truth (His SINGULAR truth) and they don't. That you are "right" and they are "wrong". The one who subscribes to Calvinism would say the same thing to you. That YOU are missing the "Truth". To presume this is to presume that God intended Scripture to be interpreted ONE way and reconciled in ONE Truth. It is in this false idea that we are called to understand God's single Truth that we miss what He intended through Scripture, I think.

The Spirit confirms the bare Gospel of Jesus Christ. That our salvation lies within Him. Scripture is our guide in the Spirit. I think it is obvious that you agree with this. Where you and I differ is that the Spirit calls us take 1st Timothy...which is a letter from Paul to a single fellow Believer and reconcile this to Paul's letter to the Romans. Each book may have a Spirit-led Word from God for each of us. But...does the Spirit call us to understand a SINGLE Truth from God, aside from the salvation obtained through Christ? Or, does the Spirit call us to abide in Him and seek God's purpose for our lives, using the Scriptures as our lantern in this Walk? As I've said countless times, if God's intention was for us to take all of Scripture and roll it up into one, single, correct doctrine, how can the majority of us even HOPE to get it right?

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 06:28 PM
Here's what I'm driving at:

If you proclaim that you understand the WORD of God and that those with doctrinal bias are "bound" or are in error, then what is it that you are saying? You are saying that you understand God's Truth (His SINGULAR truth) and they don't. That you are "right" and they are "wrong". The one who subscribes to Calvinism would say the same thing to you. That YOU are missing the "Truth". To presume this is to presume that God intended Scripture to be interpreted ONE way and reconciled in ONE Truth. It is in this false idea that we are called to understand God's single Truth that we miss what He intended through Scripture, I think.

The Spirit confirms the bare Gospel of Jesus Christ. That our salvation lies within Him. Scripture is our guide in the Spirit. I think it is obvious that you agree with this. Where you and I differ is that the Spirit calls us take 1st Timothy...which is a letter from Paul to a single fellow Believer and reconcile this to Paul's letter to the Romans. Each book may have a Spirit-led Word from God for each of us. But...does the Spirit call us to understand a SINGLE Truth from God, aside from the salvation obtained through Christ? Or, does the Spirit call us to abide in Him and seek God's purpose for our lives, using the Scriptures as our lantern in this Walk? As I've said countless times, if God's intention was for us to take all of Scripture and roll it up into one, single, correct doctrine, how can the majority of us even HOPE to get it right?All I'm saying is that when a person follows another mans "interpretation" of the Word of God and follows that doctrine even when even a small portion of that doctrine doesn't align with the Word of God 100%... then such a person isn't following God and His Word. They would rather follow another man and his understanding of scripture and not follow God and His MEANING of scripture.

Puts a new meaning to double mindedness in my opinion.

Do I have all the answers, no. Did this Calvin have all the answers no. Do I have some answers, I feel I do. Did Calvin have some answers, I feel he did. It's when I put my answers or he puts his answers ABOVE any meaning of the Word of God when I don't have all the correct answers the problems are all at.

I read through many of these threads and those who call themselves "Calvinists" clearly put that man's answers and HIS understanding of scripture ABOVE the full Word of God. I used to do the same with two very specific doctrines not to long ago. When a person would rather hold onto a doctrine instead of the full Word of God then there is a problem. Sometimes this problem is to the point of a bondage and no matter what scripture(s) from the Word of God is presented, if it's not a part of the doctrine, then the scripture is either ignored or explained away in a fashion where the interpretation within the confines of the doctrine OUTWEIGH the truth and context of the Word of God.

I'm not proclaiming anything. All I do is present scripture. Some is ignored and some is explained away in ways that make people's head spin because the person doing the ignoring or doing the explaining away would rather hold to the doctrine and ITS meaning of scripture.


The one who subscribes to Calvinism would say the same thing to you. That YOU are missing the "Truth".Really? A person who subscribes to another man's doctrine would tell anyone who doesn't subscribe to that man's doctrine and only subscribes to the Word of God, that they are right because that other man's doctrine is right and that person who only subscribes to the Word of God is wrong because they don't subscribe to that other man's doctrine??

Is that the long winded way to say what you just said? :P

I've been freed of two doctrine developed by man, anyone can be freed of their bondage to any doctrine that they are held by also. It begins however with seeking God and His meaning, not by defending the doctrine when God's truth is presented in opposition to the doctrine.

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 06:48 PM
Naw, no problem regarding the term time, because that's not the subject matter. Before I do exegesis the passage, are you looking to say that all men will be saved one day or can you agree that this does not say that all men will be saved?I know not all will be saved because many will choose not to believe in God. Jesus even says that any who deny Him, He will deny to the Father.

Matthew 7 v32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

I smile because once again is a word such as "whoever". Not those I know, or those picked, or those I chose... clearly "whoever". We understand that whoever makes the wrong choice, Jesus will react the way He does. Not like He's already got the list of those who will be presented in denial before God the Father.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 8th 2011, 07:20 PM
All I'm saying is that when a person follows another mans "interpretation" of the Word of God and follows that doctrine even when even a small portion of that doctrine doesn't align with the Word of God 100%... then such a person isn't following God and His Word. They would rather follow another man and his understanding of scripture and not follow God and His MEANING of scripture.

But wait a minute Slug.... God uses teachers and preachers to convey that truth, does he not? I can turn to Acts and point to Steven and the Ethiopian, and then show Peter and Paul preaching to the masses - as clear examples that they 'interpreted' the word of God for others to understand and respond. Hope you can now see this. Just because the text book is written doesn't mean that just be reading it - it becomes understood...



Puts a new meaning to double mindedness in my opinion.

Do I have all the answers, no. Did this Calvin have all the answers no. Do I have some answers, I feel I do. Did Calvin have some answers, I feel he did. It's when I put my answers or he puts his answers ABOVE any meaning of the Word of God when I don't have all the correct answers the problems are all at.

See... your comments here do agree that one does need guidance to understand the deeper things of God... That old proverb of iron sharpening iron is right and true, for not all have been given to know all things, that's why God gives the preacher and the teacher. Of course, examine everything, but hold fast to that which is good.



I read through many of these threads and those who call themselves "Calvinists" clearly put that man's answers and HIS understanding of scripture ABOVE the full Word of God. I used to do the same with two very specific doctrines not to long ago. When a person would rather hold onto a doctrine instead of the full Word of God then there is a problem. Sometimes this problem is to the point of a bondage and no matter what scripture(s) from the Word of God is presented, if it's not a part of the doctrine, then the scripture is either ignored or explained away in a fashion where the interpretation within the confines of the doctrine OUTWEIGH the truth and context of the Word of God.

I'm not proclaiming anything.

Well sure you are... every reply proclaims something by default. But you are also judging and again, we all need to discern, no doubt. But again, I'm asking are we not debating things that are insignificant when it comes to what some call Armenian and Calvinism? If we both say Jesus is our Lord and Savior, is one right and the other wrong? Naw... we are both in the body of our Lord.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 8th 2011, 07:22 PM
I know not all will be saved because many will choose not to believe in God. Jesus even says that any who deny Him, He will deny to the Father.

Matthew 7 v32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

I smile because once again is a word such as "whoever". Not those I know, or those picked, or those I chose... clearly "whoever". We understand that whoever makes the wrong choice, Jesus will react the way He does. Not like He's already got the list of those who will be presented in denial before God the Father.

So are you having a problem with the word whoever?

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 09:30 PM
See... your comments here do agree that one does need guidance to understand the deeper things of God... That old proverb of iron sharpening iron is right and true, for not all have been given to know all things, that's why God gives the preacher and the teacher. Of course, examine everything, but hold fast to that which is good. Seems you cant get past something and I can't figure out how to say what I mean... for you to understand.

When a man's interpretation isn't aligned 100% with the Word of God, then it's faulty. Even Reynolds said (if I recall correctly) points 1-3 are OK, 5 is partially ok and 4, he don't agree with. Then WHY would a person follow a doctrine that isn't aligned with the Word of God as they understand the Word of God?

Now... to have iron that sharpens iron, than BOTH must be sharp... right? If one is dull and the other duller, then nothing is gonna get sharpened... right?

This dull and duller used to sharpen our understanding of the Word of God isn't very edifying now is it?

Slug1
Feb 8th 2011, 09:35 PM
So are you having a problem with the word whoever?Me? Not at all... it's anyone who keeps saying that God has only a specific group that He's selected are having trouble. Whenever I present scritpture that isn't in the doctrine with words like whoever, they begin to explain the meaning away.

Whoever means, whoever! Not only who, or those few who, or those I choose who. Whoever chooses God, so it can be ANYBODY. Not limited to those God selected as anyone who follows a man's doctrine and this limitation is defined in that doctrine as to only the elect. Scripture says "whoever", not "who"!

Reynolds357
Feb 8th 2011, 11:04 PM
The Word no doubt says whosoever shall call upon the name of The Lord shall be saved. This presents no problem to a Calvinist. His answer is only the elect whosoevers WILL call on Him.

Quickened
Feb 8th 2011, 11:52 PM
Slug you never addressed my post #62 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220388-How-to-defeat-Calvinism?p=2615644#post2615644)

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 9th 2011, 12:14 AM
Seems you cant get past something and I can't figure out how to say what I mean... for you to understand.

When a man's interpretation isn't aligned 100% with the Word of God, then it's faulty. Even Reynolds said (if I recall correctly) points 1-3 are OK, 5 is partially ok and 4, he don't agree with. Then WHY would a person follow a doctrine that isn't aligned with the Word of God as they understand the Word of God?


Bingo! every man is different, every man has variance... hey... this is right up the free will mantra.... so.... not each man will see everything the same. The red traffic light has one meaning that to be consistent, has to be taught and thus has to be enforced, or chaos happens. Thus God gives teachers to show what is true. each time you present scriptures, whether you think so or not, you are presenting your understandings, and every time I present my understandings, you measure it. Against not scriptures.... but what you say scriptures say... your interpretation. And thus the opportunity for agreement or disagreement, based on the traffic light understandings. And back to the point of Armenian or Calvin, is it black and white or gray areas of disagreement, and I say with understandings presented, it's more gray than black and white.



Now... to have iron that sharpens iron, than BOTH must be sharp... right?

No, not at all... Both can be dull, but are of the same metal... thus they can work each other to form an edge or a point. Two stones being of the same metal, one being flat, the other being round, depending on how they are worked can give itself to the other for outcome... The round stone on the flat can be honed to form a point. while the flat stands as the sharpener. Or the round stone can be the stationary unit and the flat stone can be worked to that stone and sharpen it's edge.... the point is both are of the same type, and each type can hone one or the other...





If one is dull and the other duller, then nothing is gonna get sharpened... right?

Not at all.... Because they both can be 'dull', they both are of the same metal, thus one can yield and be formed by the other. Go try it and see for yourself. Take a flat stone and work it against another stone, and you should see that you can make a sharp stone from two dull stones... and the point again is not smart or dull, but of the same metal.




This dull and duller used to sharpen our understanding of the Word of God isn't very edifying now is it?

I think you are definitely missing the point of our discourse... I'm suggesting commonality between camps and you are stretching to make sure there are differences. By another illustration, like can work with like, for what can cut a diamond.... but another diamond, that is the same with two brothers in the Lord, they can sharpen each other.... like to like, not dull to duller.

Again, my goal is to see if you see how much we have in common, and not how far apart you say we are.

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 12:24 AM
The Word no doubt says whosoever shall call upon the name of The Lord shall be saved. This presents no problem to a Calvinist. His answer is only the elect whosoevers WILL call on Him.

I can already imagine the conversation:

God (prior to creation): I'm going to save Joe.
*God creates Joe*
Joe: "What do you know, it says here in this bible that if I call on the name of the Lord, I'll be saved"
*Joe calls upon the name of the Lord*
Stat increase: +1 salvation / +5 Holy Spirit Indwelling.
God: Brilliant.

Jeremy: Wait a second... You said, "whosoever". Doesn't that mean anyone?
God: What I meant was, "only the elect I decided to save before creation".
Jeremy: Then why say "whosoever?"
God: For the Lulz.
Jeremy: Wait a second, you're...
John Calvin: John Calvin, *puts on shades*, YEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

But in all seriousness, it's sadistic, isn't it? Scripture promises that "whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved", BUT only if you're part of the elect (according to the Calvinist). It just seems to me that God could have been a lot clearer, and a lot more consistent (Open Theism has this problem as well - they claim a God that doesn't know the future, and yet God, as presented in Scripture, acts as if He does), when dealing with salvation. Romans 10:13 could have said, "Only the elect shall be saved"... Yet it doesn't.

Quickened
Feb 9th 2011, 12:37 AM
I smile because once again is a word such as "whoever". Not those I know, or those picked, or those I chose... clearly "whoever". We understand that whoever makes the wrong choice, Jesus will react the way He does. Not like He's already got the list of those who will be presented in denial before God the Father.

Where i have the problem is that people focus so much on man making the choice that they ignore where God has clearly chosen people. In acts 16 verse 14 how was Lydia saved? God opened her heart. In Acts 8:26 what prompted Phillip to even consider going to the Ethiopan? And for what purpose?

As i said earlier in this thread. God's chosen people in the OT was israel. Not based on anything they did. The egyptians were not His people. Nor were other peoples. We see in the OT that God selected a people for himself. Is it so hard to imagine that he would again choose individuals according to His good pleasure? I ask this honestly. Why did God choose Moses? Did moses seek out God prior to walking with Him? What about Abram?

Its easy to take Ephesians at face value when Paul says


Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.


Its not that this concept is only one verse. Its not that the concept originated with Calvin. Its all over the bible. From Genesis with the people that God chose for his purposes all the way to Revelation when we read about names written in the book of life which was before the foundation of the world (rev13:8, 17:8, 20:15 21:27)

Things like that.

Quickened
Feb 9th 2011, 12:51 AM
I can already imagine the conversation:

God (prior to creation): I'm going to save Joe.
*God creates Joe*
Joe: "What do you know, it says here in this bible that if I call on the name of the Lord, I'll be saved"
*Joe calls upon the name of the Lord*
Stat increase: +1 salvation / +5 Holy Spirit Indwelling.
God: Brilliant.

This is honestly an LOL occurance if there has ever been one! :lol:

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 12:55 AM
This is honestly an LOL occurance if there has ever been one! :lol:

The thread needed some humor :} And I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I don't think 'Arminians' (or at least non-Calvinists) have a problem with God choosing people (well, speaking for myself). The difficulty lies in the teaching that such a choice necessarily damns those who aren't chosen. I'm fine with God choosing, so long as everyone has a choice (as well as the ability to choose).

BrckBrln
Feb 9th 2011, 01:02 AM
And I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I don't think 'Arminians' (or at least non-Calvinists) have a problem with God choosing people (well, speaking for myself).

What do you mean by God choosing people?

Quickened
Feb 9th 2011, 01:03 AM
The thread needed some humor :} And I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I don't think 'Arminians' (or at least non-Calvinists) have a problem with God choosing people (well, speaking for myself). The difficulty lies in the teaching that such a choice necessarily damns those who aren't chosen. I'm fine with God choosing, so long as everyone has a choice (as well as the ability to choose).

Brother it is much appreciated!
+5 joy
-10 stress
Quickened gains a level
Quickened learns Laugh 2

Reynolds357
Feb 9th 2011, 01:05 AM
But in all seriousness, it's sadistic, isn't it? Scripture promises that "whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved", BUT only if you're part of the elect (according to the Calvinist). It just seems to me that God could have been a lot clearer, and a lot more consistent (Open Theism has this problem as well - they claim a God that doesn't know the future, and yet God, as presented in Scripture, acts as if He does), when dealing with salvation. Romans 10:13 could have said, "Only the elect shall be saved"... Yet it doesn't.

As I have stated in the past, I am Arminian. Now the accurate statement is I fall somewhere in the middle. I am going to be honest, Romans 9 has been giving my arminianism some real problems lately. I can not reconcile Romans 9 with five point arminianism.

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 01:23 AM
What do you mean by God choosing people?

By this I mean that I'm not bothered with a God who predestines someone to salvation, regardless of the kicking and screaming they might do - eventually, God's going to get them. My only 'problem' with Calvinism, as I've tended to hear it explained, is that this seems to involve (1) a violation of the will and (2) the exclusion of choice for all others. If the will is not violated, and if all people truly have the option and ability to choose God (which I believe they do), then I'm 'cool' with things.


Brother it is much appreciated!
+5 joy
-10 stress
Quickened gains a level
Quickened learns Laugh 2

;}


As I have stated in the past, I am Arminian. Now the accurate statement is I fall somewhere in the middle. I am going to be honest, Romans 9 has been giving my arminianism some real problems lately. I can not reconcile Romans 9 with five point arminianism.

I've never heard of 5 point Arminianism (or maybe I have, just not under that monicker). That is why I prefer a form of Molinism.

WSGAC
Feb 9th 2011, 01:31 AM
But in all seriousness, it's sadistic, isn't it? Scripture promises that "whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved", BUT only if you're part of the elect (according to the Calvinist). It just seems to me that God could have been a lot clearer, and a lot more consistent (Open Theism has this problem as well - they claim a God that doesn't know the future, and yet God, as presented in Scripture, acts as if He does), when dealing with salvation. Romans 10:13 could have said, "Only the elect shall be saved"... Yet it doesn't.

Oh I don't know. It's just so unfair that God chose the Hebrews when He could have chosen the mighty Egyptians. It's just so sadistic that God picked an insigificant motley crew, when he could have chosen the Babylonians. Sadistic that he overlooked those wise Greeks, and picked the lowly Jews. Sadistic that he picked the runt of the litter and let all those others go by the wayside. Sadistic still, that he allowed all those folks to die before ever bringing His Son into the world, where at least they could then have had a choice on the matter, choosing for or against Christ. But no, God in His sadism swept all those folk away before ever giving them a choice at all. Alas, even his own people chose against Him. Now they'll get what they deserve for making that choice. What a sadistic God he must be for the choices He makes.

Reynolds357
Feb 9th 2011, 01:39 AM
I've never heard of 5 point Arminianism (or maybe I have, just not under that monicker). That is why I prefer a form of Molinism.

It has 5 points. People who do not adhere to all 5 are not truly arminians.

Quickened
Feb 9th 2011, 01:46 AM
My only 'problem' with Calvinism, as I've tended to hear it explained, is that this seems to involve (1) a violation of the will and (2) the exclusion of choice for all others. If the will is not violated, and if all people truly have the option and ability to choose God (which I believe they do), then I'm 'cool' with things.

Are there not times when God's soverign will trumps man's? Jonah's will was to flee to Tarshish so as not to preach repentence to the ninevites.

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 01:56 AM
Oh I don't know. It's just so unfair that God chose the Hebrews when He could have chosen the mighty Egyptians. It's just so sadistic that God picked an insigificant motley crew, when he could have chosen the Babylonians. Sadistic that he overlooked those wise Greeks, and picked the lowly Jews. Sadistic that he picked the runt of the litter and let all those others go by the wayside. Sadistic still, that he allowed all those folks to die before ever bringing His Son into the world, where at least they could then have had a choice on the matter, choosing for or against Christ. But no, God in His sadism swept all those folk away before ever giving them a choice at all. Alas, even his own people chose against Him. Now they'll get what they deserve for making that choice. What a sadistic God he must be for the choices He makes.

I'm going to reply to this in a bit, but firstly, the dishes need doing, and secondly, it seems to have evoked emotions...


Are there not times when God's soverign will trumps man's? Jonah's will was to flee to Tarshish so as not to preach repentence to the ninevites.

Yes, see post #100 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220388-How-to-defeat-Calvinism?p=2616234#post2616234). But to clarify, what I mean by 'violated will' is a predetermining of their will as it pertains to their salvific choice. Meaning I only really have a problem when it involves God determining (or changing), ultimately, how one will react to the 'gospel message' such that they cannot deviate from that determination.

BrckBrln
Feb 9th 2011, 02:10 AM
By this I mean that I'm not bothered with a God who predestines someone to salvation, regardless of the kicking and screaming they might do - eventually, God's going to get them. My only 'problem' with Calvinism, as I've tended to hear it explained, is that this seems to involve (1) a violation of the will and (2) the exclusion of choice for all others. If the will is not violated, and if all people truly have the option and ability to choose God (which I believe they do), then I'm 'cool' with things.

Calvinism does not involve a violation of the will. I don't know of any Calvinist that would put things in those terms. The Calvinist would say that God changes us and regenerates us resulting in genuine faith, not a forcing of God's will on us (your favorite phrase 'Cosmic Rapist'). You have to think of this in terms of the Creator/creature distinction.

God elects a person for salvation.

--------------------------------

In the course of time and through secondary causes, that person comes to Christ.

So God chooses the elect and the elect freely choose God.

As to your second point, I think that's where the problem lies. I think it's a question of whether we let God be God or whether we say God must do something we think he should do.

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 02:18 AM
Calvinism does not involve a violation of the will. I don't know of any Calvinist that would put things in those terms. The Calvinist would say that God changes us and regenerates us resulting in genuine faith, not a forcing of God's will on us (your favorite phrase 'Cosmic Rapist'). You have to think of this in terms of the Creator/creature distinction.

God elects a person for salvation.

--------------------------------

In the course of time and through secondary causes, that person comes to Christ.

So God chooses the elect and the elect freely choose God.

As to your second point, I think that's where the problem lies. I think it's a question of whether we let God be God or whether we say God must do something we think he should do.

Sure, and save quibbles over the second point, I'm fine with that.

Quickened
Feb 9th 2011, 02:18 AM
By this I mean that I'm not bothered with a God who predestines someone to salvation, regardless of the kicking and screaming they might do - eventually, God's going to get them. My only 'problem' with Calvinism, as I've tended to hear it explained, is that this seems to involve (1) a violation of the will and (2) the exclusion of choice for all others. If the will is not violated, and if all people truly have the option and ability to choose God (which I believe they do), then I'm 'cool' with things.


If you don't mind I would like to ask some questions to better understand your position. :)

1) Can you give me an example of a violation of the will in terms of Salvation?

Just to help i would like to explain. Its easy for me to understand God quickening someone because it was my experience. I was raised in a sense where i heard all the things of the bible and was raised in that setting but i wasn't saved. One day when i was laying around watching TV i stopped on a Creation program. It caught my interest and nothing else was on. The guy talked about this and that and it held my short attention span until the end.

At the end he gave a very simple Gospel message. The best way i can describe it was that God flipped a switch. Everything came to life for me. It was immedately real. I fell to my knees and called out to God. I had never had such an awareness of my own sinful nature and awareness of exactly the importance of the cross.

When i think back to this experience... I can't imagine God showing me this and then with tears in my eyes (because of my understanding) saying "no". This to me really amplifies irresistable grace. I saw grace for what it was. I saw myself for what i was. I saw the work on the cross for what it was. There was no possibility of turning it down. Its akin to me winning the lottery (a big one) and just saying "nah".

I can't imagine anyone coming to this understanding and getting that far only to deny God. To experience all those emotions. I struggle with the concept.

2) You said
the exclusion of choice for all others

I am not yet intimately familiar with the OT as with the NT... but God had that specific people. Israel. He also chose specific individuals where as there were other peoples that weren't his people.

When you see this brought up... what comes to mind? That's not a bait question. I really have no follow up....:cool:

I would be curious to know!

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 02:36 AM
If you don't mind I would like to ask some questions to better understand your position. :)

Sure - it not only helps you understand my position, but it helps me to understand it as well.


1) Can you give me an example of a violation of the will in terms of Salvation?

Incidentally, I could probably be accused of holding a double-standard: I don't have a problem when 'predestination' means salvation, but do when it means 'damnation'. There may be more than one sense of violation that I'm talking about, so this might be confusing. In the first sense, I may mean God changing someone's will so that they reject Him, even though it may have been entirely possible for this person to come to Christ, or at least wasn't opposed to Christ in a conscious way. I may also mean God determining someone's will, such that they don't have a choice - either in accepting or rejecting. I'm not aware of Calvinism promoting either of these views (although I'm opposed to both of them, if it matters). Then there is a view of election, wherein God chooses some and not others for no known reason (at least not known to us). I think this is really where my objection lies. I would not view God as morally praiseworthy if, for arbitrary reasons, he decided to elect Joe but not Sam, and as a result, Sam is, well, damned.


Just to help i would like to explain. Its easy for me to understand God quickening someone because it was my experience. I was raised in a sense where i heard all the things of the bible and was raised in that setting but i wasn't saved. One day when i was laying around watching TV i stopped on a Creation program. It caught my interest and nothing else was on. The guy talked about this and that and it held my short attention span until the end.

At the end he gave a very simple Gospel message. The best way i can describe it was that God flipped a switch. Everything came to life for me. It was immedately real. I fell to my knees and called out to God. I had never had such an awareness of my own sinful nature and awareness of exactly the importance of the cross.

When i think back to this experience... I can't imagine God showing me this and then with tears in my eyes (because of my understanding) saying "no". This to me really amplifies irresistable grace. I saw grace for what it was. I saw myself for what i was. I saw the work on the cross for what it was. There was no possibility of turning it down. Its akin to me winning the lottery (a big one) and just saying "nah".

That deserves a 'Amen!' And moreover, this isn't something I would object to. I don't see how one could experience God and reject Him, and I think that is how I would understand 'irresistable grace'. It is a sort of revelation that leads to a realization - God 'working' with a particular person to lead that particular to person to him. But, I don't leave out the possibilty of rebellion, because I've seen it happen.


I can't imagine anyone coming to this understanding and getting that far only to deny God. To experience all those emotions. I struggle with the concept.

I agree.


2) You said

I am not yet intimately familiar with the OT as with the NT... but God had that specific people. Israel. He also chose specific individuals where as there were other peoples that weren't his people.

When you see this brought up... what comes to mind? That's not a bait question. I really have no follow up....:cool:

I would be curious to know!

I don't have a problem with Israel as God's chosen people, because they weren't chosen to the exclusion of everyone else's salvation. If Israel was to be the nation through which God would redeem the world, so be it. If, however, Israel was to be the only nation which God would redeem... That's where I have to draw the line and object.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 9th 2011, 03:05 AM
The thread needed some humor :} And I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I don't think 'Arminians' (or at least non-Calvinists) have a problem with God choosing people (well, speaking for myself). The difficulty lies in the teaching that such a choice necessarily damns those who aren't chosen. I'm fine with God choosing, so long as everyone has a choice (as well as the ability to choose).

Howdy Athanasius... Nice humor.. thanks! I'm going to step aside from speaking with Slug in asking for common ground between the A and C doctrines and want to ask a question to you about your last sentence....

"I'm fine with God choosing, so long as everyone has a choice (as well as the ability to choose)"....

So are you giving God your permission that's it OK that He chooses - so as long as God follows your condition that He gives every one the same choices in life?

I don't think you meant it in the way you wrote it, but it does beg to be asked.... Then does God give every man, woman and child - and including all who were and will be created --- equal choices in life? And if so, where is that in the bible? And then... Not only for salvation, but for anything else, or can/does God set boundaries and limits per individual?

Now again, I see the A and C debate as a no debate between brothers in Christ, for the beauty of the Gospel that it's an open call and a response is required. What does it matter if two both believe in Jesus, and one see it as his choice and the other comes to see it as his choice guided by God? But to your statement, but what about those who don't hear the Gospel, does that nullify their choice?

Quickened
Feb 9th 2011, 03:15 AM
Athanasius,

It pains me to say that i have been distracted 4-5 times while attempting to respond to your post. I had bits and pieces constructed but kept losing my train of thought. I might try having another go tonight or perhaps tomorrow.

I would like to keep the dialogue going and i appreciate your willingness to discuss!

Athanasius
Feb 9th 2011, 03:25 AM
"I'm fine with God choosing, so long as everyone has a choice (as well as the ability to choose)"....

So are you giving God your permission that's it OK that He chooses - so as long as God follows your condition that He gives every one the same choices in life?

I don't mean the same choices, no. By 'so long as everyone has a choice' I mean only that everyone has a choice in whether or not they saved. That may involve God hitting someone over the head a few times, and I'm fine with that. But what I'm not comfortable with - and don't ever see myself being comfortable with - is the idea that God would choose damnation for someone (i.e. they aren't part of the 'elect'). If, for instance, God foreknew everyone (in history) who would accept Him, and made those people 'the elect', while leaving out everyone else, I don't have a problem with that. But to not give someone the option, that's my 'problem'.


But to your statement, but what about those who don't hear the Gospel, does that nullify their choice?

(I've cut out the rest only because I believe my above response answers your question.)

In terms of those who don't hear the Gospel... I would like to think that God judges them on the decisions they make, in accordance with the 'things' they were given. In the far-off world of (perhaps heretical) speculation, I'd probably be of the view that if someone (1) Grew up believing in a 'god', (2) lived their life as truthfully and lovingly as they could but (3) had never heard of Jesus, or the gospel, or... (fill in the blank), then I think that person would be on the side of salvation, rather than not. Otherwise, I don't know; I leave that up to God.


Athanasius,

It pains me to say that i have been distracted 4-5 times while attempting to respond to your post. I had bits and pieces constructed but kept losing my train of thought. I might try having another go tonight or perhaps tomorrow.

I would like to keep the dialogue going and i appreciate your willingness to discuss!

That's alright :) I haven't slept in a week, so I'm finding reading / writing just as difficult.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 9th 2011, 04:46 AM
I don't mean the same choices, no. By 'so long as everyone has a choice' I mean only that everyone has a choice in whether or not they saved. That may involve God hitting someone over the head a few times, and I'm fine with that.

Ok... but of the 6 billion or so currently living folks of all ages and all walks of life living on this earth today, not each and every one will be presented the Gospel for them to hear and respond to before they die. What about these folks? To 'not hearing the Gospel', do they die and go to hell? [And I'll address your works based comments next] For does not the word state that Salvation comes through the hearing and responding to the Gospel?



But what I'm not comfortable with - and don't ever see myself being comfortable with - is the idea that God would choose damnation for someone (i.e. they aren't part of the 'elect'). If, for instance, God foreknew everyone (in history) who would accept Him, and made those people 'the elect', while leaving out everyone else, I don't have a problem with that.

So how is this different then? How does this give comfort if as you say that God foreknew everyone's decision, and sweet little Sally said no way. Why would that be OK? Again, the elect is a title given to all who would believe and not a qualifier
that makes one believe. So if little Sally say's I don't believe, why would this be different and OK if God gave everyone the same and equal choices in life?



But to not give someone the option, that's my 'problem'.

Not to be pushy, but did you have options in being born, from the parents you have, the date, the gender, the characteristics of where you grew up? There are just some things we have to accept in life. And the best thing to accept is that you know Jesus as Savior, Amen?!? And thus as such, live for Him with all your heart and strength and pray that you He'd use you for His glory and that your life and action would cause those little Sally's you know to respond to the Gospel as you did.




(I've cut out the rest only because I believe my above response answers your question.)

In terms of those who don't hear the Gospel... I would like to think that God judges them on the decisions they make, in accordance with the 'things' they were given. In the far-off world of (perhaps heretical) speculation, I'd probably be of the view that if someone (1) Grew up believing in a 'god', (2) lived their life as truthfully and lovingly as they could but (3) had never heard of Jesus, or the gospel, or... (fill in the blank), then I think that person would be on the side of salvation, rather than not. Otherwise, I don't know; I leave that up to God.

Nice thoughts, but is that biblical. Both the A and C position would agree that a man's work doesn't save him. Only Jesus can save a man.

And thus there is great wisdom about another man's salvation within your last statement... "I leave that up to God." Amen. We all get so caught up with another man's salvation, when we are to self-examine just our own walk. And if you know you are saved, rejoice, for you have been given or chosen [C or A] the right things to walk in. And as you say as for others we testify to God's goodness through the Gospel and leave the rest to God. Amen!

RollTide21
Feb 9th 2011, 06:04 PM
If you don't mind I would like to ask some questions to better understand your position. :)

1) Can you give me an example of a violation of the will in terms of Salvation?

Just to help i would like to explain. Its easy for me to understand God quickening someone because it was my experience. I was raised in a sense where i heard all the things of the bible and was raised in that setting but i wasn't saved. One day when i was laying around watching TV i stopped on a Creation program. It caught my interest and nothing else was on. The guy talked about this and that and it held my short attention span until the end.

At the end he gave a very simple Gospel message. The best way i can describe it was that God flipped a switch. Everything came to life for me. It was immedately real. I fell to my knees and called out to God. I had never had such an awareness of my own sinful nature and awareness of exactly the importance of the cross.

When i think back to this experience... I can't imagine God showing me this and then with tears in my eyes (because of my understanding) saying "no". This to me really amplifies irresistable grace. I saw grace for what it was. I saw myself for what i was. I saw the work on the cross for what it was. There was no possibility of turning it down. Its akin to me winning the lottery (a big one) and just saying "nah".

I can't imagine anyone coming to this understanding and getting that far only to deny God. To experience all those emotions. I struggle with the concept.Quickened, my experience and outlook on this is EXACTLY the same. My choice to surrender myself to God didn't seem like a weighing of options. I was engulfed by the Spirit and made the only choice that could be made. Furthermore, and you may or may not agree, this Spiritual experience is what has led me to not be able to reconcile in my heart that I could LOSE my salvation. Not only did my acceptance of Christ fall in line with your own experience, my RESTORATION TO Christ was much the same...after YEARS of floundering in rebellion and doubt. Nothing in me prompted God's restoring me to Him. He came upon me unawares one night while watching a Gospel music commercial. The Spirit came to me and the choice was clear.

All the same, I am hesitant to subscribe to a strict view that God has a predestined elect of individuals. Rather, I tend to believe that God quickens those with a heart that is ripe for His intervention. In other words, those who, deep down, seek to know Him and are willing to be laid bare before Him. It's one of the reasons that Pride so dangerous before God. I believe He requires utter humility.

Reynolds357
Feb 9th 2011, 08:45 PM
What I see odd here is that if my memory serves me correctly, some one here who believe in "once saved always saved" also seem to be arminians. You can't believe O.S.A.S. and be an Arminian.

RollTide21
Feb 9th 2011, 08:48 PM
What I see odd here is that if my memory serves me correctly, some one here who believe in "once saved always saved" also seem to be arminians. You can't believe O.S.A.S. and be an Arminian.You mean what you describe as "5 point Arminian"?

What are those 5 points, by the way? I know the Calvinist 5 points, but not the Arminian.

Reynolds357
Feb 9th 2011, 08:51 PM
You mean what you describe as "5 point Arminian"?

What are those 5 points, by the way? I know the Calvinist 5 points, but not the Arminian.

1. Free Will or Human Ability
2. Conditional Election
3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement
4. The Holy Spirit Can be Effectually Resisted
5. Falling from Grace

RollTide21
Feb 9th 2011, 09:02 PM
As for 5 point Calvinism...

I don't believe in Total Depravity (as I understand it), Unconditional Election, or Limited Atonement. I'm not 100% sure on Irresistible Grace. My own personal experience is one that would support that, but I can't say what God's plan is for all. I do believe in Preservation of the Saints. I believe that once a surrender to the Spirit occurs, we are kept by Him.

RollTide21
Feb 9th 2011, 09:03 PM
1. Free Will or Human Ability
2. Conditional Election
3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement
4. The Holy Spirit Can be Effectually Resisted
5. Falling from GraceOK. That's kind of what I thought. Basically the opposite of T.U.L.I.P.

Reynolds357
Feb 9th 2011, 09:50 PM
OK. That's kind of what I thought. Basically the opposite of T.U.L.I.P.

Yeah, pretty much the exact opposite. Arminius did not write his 5 points. His theology was boiled down to this to make it easier to contrast to Calvinism. Who actually wrote point 1-5 I have no idea.

Quickened
Feb 10th 2011, 12:24 AM
You mean what you describe as "5 point Arminian"?

What are those 5 points, by the way? I know the Calvinist 5 points, but not the Arminian.

They are the Five Articles of Remonstrants


Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also. [2]

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” [3]

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.” [4]

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can nei*ther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inas*much as it is written con*cerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else*where in many places. [5]

Article 5

That those who are in*corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un*derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv*ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be*coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, be*fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind. [6]


To my understanding the 5 articles were objections to the Belgic Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html).

It has come to my attention that while i have read some confessions... i have not read this one.

Athanasius
Feb 10th 2011, 12:55 AM
Ok... but of the 6 billion or so currently living folks of all ages and all walks of life living on this earth today, not each and every one will be presented the Gospel for them to hear and respond to before they die. What about these folks? To 'not hearing the Gospel', do they die and go to hell? [And I'll address your works based comments next] For does not the word state that Salvation comes through the hearing and responding to the Gospel?

I get the impression that you feel this is a major objection to something I've stated, such that it demonstrates an inconsistency. I don't believe it does. In any case, I have two replies. The first is the same as my last: I leave 'those people' in God's hands. Secondly, I'm optimistic. What does it mean to 'hear and respond to the Gospel'? How was Abraham saved, or Isaac, or Jacob? Or anyone before the 'Jews', really? Who is to say that God is not speaking to those we can't reach; or that God hasn't already spoken to them? I'm not advocating a 'many roads' to salvation, rather, many 'explanations' of the Gospel message.


So how is this different then?

Example 'A': God chooses who He will elect and condemn based on His will, irrespective of what an individual person would have done if given the choice.
Example 'B': God chooses who He will elect based on his foreknowledge, in which He knows who will and who will not reject Him.

Do you see the difference?


How does this give comfort if as you say that God foreknew everyone's decision, and sweet little Sally said no way. Why would that be OK? Again, the elect is a title given to all who would believe and not a qualifier that makes one believe. So if little Sally say's I don't believe, why would this be different and OK if God gave everyone the same and equal choices in life?

Again, I'm not talking about 'same and equal choices,' and if you believe God 'elects' those who would come to Him of their own accord, with the 'prodding' of the Spirit (meaning that I believe everyone is 'invited,' but as the ability to say no), then we have no disagreement.


Not to be pushy, but did you have options in being born, from the parents you have, the date, the gender, the characteristics of where you grew up? There are just some things we have to accept in life. And the best thing to accept is that you know Jesus as Savior, Amen?!? And thus as such, live for Him with all your heart and strength and pray that you He'd use you for His glory and that your life and action would cause those little Sally's you know to respond to the Gospel as you did.

I'm not grasping how, as a salvific issue, this is relevant? (Keep in mind I've been at hospital for 12 hours) - are you implying that God has the right to do whatever with whomever, and I should accept that because - I believe - I'm one of the 'lucky' ones?


Nice thoughts, but is that biblical. Both the A and C position would agree that a man's work doesn't save him. Only Jesus can save a man.

That's why I made sure to label it speculation (potentially heretical).


And thus there is great wisdom about another man's salvation within your last statement... "I leave that up to God." Amen. We all get so caught up with another man's salvation, when we are to self-examine just our own walk. And if you know you are saved, rejoice, for you have been given or chosen [C or A] the right things to walk in. And as you say as for others we testify to God's goodness through the Gospel and leave the rest to God. Amen!

The problem is that I have a 'heart' for people. There are many times where I lose my mind and think to myself, 'I'd give up my salvation if it meant saving my neighbours, or my family, or...' I have to have hope when it comes to others, and a God that says, 'I've already decided' doesn't give me much hope.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 10th 2011, 04:30 AM
I get the impression that you feel this is a major objection to something I've stated, such that it demonstrates an inconsistency. I don't believe it does. In any case, I have two replies. The first is the same as my last: I leave 'those people' in God's hands. Secondly, I'm optimistic. What does it mean to 'hear and respond to the Gospel'? How was Abraham saved, or Isaac, or Jacob? Or anyone before the 'Jews', really? Who is to say that God is not speaking to those we can't reach; or that God hasn't already spoken to them? I'm not advocating a 'many roads' to salvation, rather, many 'explanations' of the Gospel message.



Example 'A': God chooses who He will elect and condemn based on His will, irrespective of what an individual person would have done if given the choice.
Example 'B': God chooses who He will elect based on his foreknowledge, in which He knows who will and who will not reject Him.

Do you see the difference?


Lumping a couple thoughts together to keep the reply short: 1st My passion as well is to preach the Gospel and for those who hear respond. No different. As to those who do not hear or do not 'favorably' respond, it's the outcome that is the same and in view, not the process... so in either case the question should arise, whether a man chooses not to believe in hearing the Gospel; or a man never hears the gospel before he dies, both die not saved and destined for hell. So, if God doesn't intercede in either case, doesn't that also break His heart, so to speak? So both the A and C position have to deal with that men will die and go to hell... the C position asserts that all men will, and God intervenes for those who will believe and the A position asserts that God will not intervene in those who reject or never hear to make a choice. So the judgment of man of who God is thus, Does God intervene or does God depend upon man in doubt and hope until each man makes the choice to believe?



Again, I'm not talking about 'same and equal choices,' and if you believe God 'elects' those who would come to Him of their own accord, with the 'prodding' of the Spirit (meaning that I believe everyone is 'invited,' but as the ability to say no), then we have no disagreement.


Again, election is a title given to those who believe and not a pre-qualifier or condition a man does to become elect. No one comes to salvation saying I'm of the elect. Each man comes though humility, a need and sin agreement with God for a personal need of His Savior... It's after study that one find that God's sovienty in all things prodded him to faith. Look at Paul, for example, he was blinded on the way to kill more Christians, thinking he was a good Jew, yet Jesus showed him his error and he came to salvation. And then in Galatians, he declares that he was chosen for this role before he was even born. So he never declared he was of the elect or chosen before he became a christian, only afterwords.



I'm not grasping how, as a salvific issue, this is relevant? (Keep in mind I've been at hospital for 12 hours) - are you implying that God has the right to do whatever with whomever, and I should accept that because - I believe - I'm one of the 'lucky' ones?

Sorry to hear about your being at the hospital, for I've been traveling and was not aware. I hope nothing serious... I'm praying for you now.

Salvation is a personal call, yet most folks want to judge everyone else except themselves... My comment are thus: We are to thank God for our salvation and pray for the salvation of those around us, trust that God's will be done. Nothing more, nothing less




That's why I made sure to label it speculation (potentially heretical).



The problem is that I have a 'heart' for people. There are many times where I lose my mind and think to myself, 'I'd give up my salvation if it meant saving my neighbours, or my family, or...' I have to have hope when it comes to others, and a God that says, 'I've already decided' doesn't give me much hope.

Amen... I'm there with you.

Have a great night

Athanasius
Feb 10th 2011, 05:13 AM
Thanks for the reply, Redeemed. Unfortunately, I'm having a bit of a 'Quickened' moment... So, will get back to you tomorrow.

Quickened
Feb 13th 2011, 03:09 PM
Incidentally, I could probably be accused of holding a double-standard: I don't have a problem when 'predestination' means salvation, but do when it means 'damnation'. There may be more than one sense of violation that I'm talking about, so this might be confusing. In the first sense, I may mean God changing someone's will so that they reject Him, even though it may have been entirely possible for this person to come to Christ, or at least wasn't opposed to Christ in a conscious way. I may also mean God determining someone's will, such that they don't have a choice - either in accepting or rejecting.
Ok bear with me. If this gets overly lengthy forgive me. I have a hard time wording things at times.

If we are dead in sins and trespasses then how do we ultimately choose God? From the fall it is my understanding that because of Adam's sin and how it corrupted the world there was nothing we could do regarding our own salvation

Ephesians 2 comes to mind. It seems to describe the man who is spiritually dead.


Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.


When i think of being dead in sin in trespasses and sins i can't see how i would then desire the things of God in order to choose Him.

After all who is it that comes to Christ?


Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."


All that the father according to His will gives to Christ will be His.


Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--
Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

Now if i remember correctly 6:44 becomes an area of huge discussion (not that i actually remember) but its a verse worth noting.

God doesn't draw all people to Him.

But maybe that's where the issue of total depravity comes in? I see man as affected by sin to the point that nothing a man can do will result in salvation. (Gal 3) Since salvation is a gift from God that we don't earn and it has to be given then it makes sense (to me at least) that only those who God draws are saved and those would be termed "elect".

There is something that is more then just knowing who Christ is and trying to do things that one would think is acceptable in the eyes of God. Matthew 7 comes to mind. Those people relied on the works they did in His name. They prophesied in His name. They cast out demons in His name. They did miracles in His name. Yet they were not saved.

Which is an interesting contrast when you think of people of God's that didn't live by his standards but were still saved. Example... the Corinthians despite their attitudes and poor sinful actions are still considered God's church and Saints.

Its faith in Christ that the subjects in Matthew 7 seemed to not have. They had enough head knowledge to know who Christ was but not enough to know its by Faith through grace they are saved. Which they never mention as they stand before the Lord.

On the other hand Corinth may not be walking the best but they never cease to be saints. Which underscores the "whomever comes to me i will never cast out" of John 6:37.

So i guess
Dead in sin>drawn by God>Faith in Christ through Grace given by God>saved



I'm not aware of Calvinism promoting either of these views (although I'm opposed to both of them, if it matters). Then there is a view of election, wherein God chooses some and not others for no known reason (at least not known to us). I think this is really where my objection lies. I would not view God as morally praiseworthy if, for arbitrary reasons, he decided to elect Joe but not Sam, and as a result, Sam is, well, damned.

I'm not sure if that's hypercalvinism (haven't studied in a while) or just a something that a non Calvinist projects on the Calvinist.




That deserves a 'Amen!' And moreover, this isn't something I would object to. I don't see how one could experience God and reject Him, and I think that is how I would understand 'irresistable grace'. It is a sort of revelation that leads to a realization - God 'working' with a particular person to lead that particular to person to him. But, I don't leave out the possibilty of rebellion, because I've seen it happen.

That transformation really reminds me of Paul's conversion. He was a certain way then BOOM he does a 180 and starts walking according to God's will.

By "possibility of rebellion" do you mean backsliding and such? If so I think we see that throughout the course of the NT. Not only just with Corinth but anytime Paul says "do this and not this" we see it is a possibility.

Kind of like the prodigal son. Though one may act in gross error they don't cease being a son.



I don't have a problem with Israel as God's chosen people, because they weren't chosen to the exclusion of everyone else's salvation. If Israel was to be the nation through which God would redeem the world, so be it. If, however, Israel was to be the only nation which God would redeem... That's where I have to draw the line and object.

I guess its hard to say.

The first thing i thought was "Wasn't Israel God's only people chosen for salvation in the Old Testament?"

If not it would be cool if you pointed out some areas that i could go back to and look over.