Calvinists, why are you Calvinist?

[kangaroodort]

Ohhhh, the dreaded "H" word.

Haha, for real, I have no problem with being called a Hyper Calvinist. I do believe in justification from eternity. Justification in eternity is not the only option and you create a false dilemma by asserting so. The doctrine is explained further here.



You use quotation marks "as if" election isn't a biblical doctrine. Why? The rest of the sentence is a glib display of scriptural doctrine. You seem to be unaware of Hebrews 10 which states emphatically that everyone covered by the offering of Jesus Christ will be made perfect. If the offering was made for all then all will be made perfect. That is an inescapable conclusion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

The article you referred to does not address the problem. You said that the nature of propitiation means removal of wrath. So if God's wrath on the sins of the "elect" are removed at the cross then the "elect" would be born with the wrath of God removed from them since Christ made propitiation for their sins at the cross (which contradicts Scripture, Eph. 2:1-3). The only way to avoid this conclusion is to say that this propitiation is provisional. The article you referred to asserts that the elect are "in Christ" in one way in eternity and "in Christ" in another way when they become believers (and notice that not a single Scripture is referenced for his claims). I would say that is extremely contrived as the Bible never says that, and makes it clear that to be in Christ is to be free from condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and to receive all of the spiritual blessings that reside in Him. Some Calvinists recognize this problem for their view and so concoct the idea that there must be two different types of "union" with Christ. But again, this is not something derived from Scripture, but from...wait for it..."tradition."

For more on the problems with your "propitiation" argument, see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...-dan-phillips-gets-body-slammed-on-1-john-22/

 

[JM]

This interpretation that "Jerusalem" makes reference to the Pharisee's preventing Jesus from gathering the Jews is really weak and severely problematic. James White makes this argument based on John Gill. I haven't seen it anywhere else except where it is repeated by some Calvinists. Here is a post that addresses just a few of the problems with this extremely strained interpretation: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...ll-an-exegetical-vindication-of-matthew-2337/

Ahh, yes. Ignore the context. Nice job.

 

[JM]

I see our posts are being ignored and links are being posted in place of exegetical work. Fine.

Ohhhh, the dreaded "H" word.

Haha, for real, I have no problem with being called a Hyper Calvinist. I do believe in justification from eternity. Justification in eternity is not the only option and you create a false dilemma by asserting so. The doctrine is explained further here.

You use quotation marks "as if" election isn't a biblical doctrine. Why? The rest of the sentence is a glib display of scriptural doctrine. You seem to be unaware of Hebrews 10 which states emphatically that everyone covered by the offering of Jesus Christ will be made perfect. If the offering was made for all then all will be made perfect. That is an inescapable conclusion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[mikedsjr]

Kangaroo, let me ask you your stance to Scripture. I'm not trying to hide context. You can go read it.

Genesis 6:5-6
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Do you think God tried to persuade them to trust in Him, but He couldn't?

Genesis 6:8
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Do you think Noah on his very own chose to serve God in a pelegian way?

Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

Was Noah's righteousness his own righteousness?

Genesis 6:17
For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

Did the people have a choice in their destruction after this point? Did the have free will in their destruction?

2 Peter 2:5
if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Was Noah the worst preacher of all times? Should he had discerned what seeker Arminian driven pursuits could have caused men to repent?

Did they have the capacity to repent?

 

[kangaroodort]

Ahh, yes. Ignore the context. Nice job.

Yup, too bad Gill and White ignore the context and the parallel passage in Luke and the use of personification in the OT, etc., etc.

 

[kangaroodort]

Election isn't salvation it is unto salvation:
(2Th 2:13) But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Actually, chosen "through sanctification and belief in the truth" most naturally indicates that being chosen is the result of "belief in the truth", not the other way around.

 

[kangaroodort]

Kangaroo, let me ask you your stance to Scripture. I'm not trying to hide context. You can go read it.

Genesis 6:5-6
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Do you think God tried to persuade them to trust in Him, but He couldn't?

Genesis 6:8
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Do you think Noah on his very own chose to serve God in a pelegian way?

Genesis 6:9
These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

Was Noah's righteousness his own righteousness?

Genesis 6:17
For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

Did the people have a choice in their destruction after this point? Did the have free will in their destruction?

2 Peter 2:5
if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Was Noah the worst preacher of all times? Should he had discerned what seeker Arminian driven pursuits could have caused men to repent?

Did they have the capacity to repent?

Tell you what, you address Isaiah 5 and then I will return the favor for you here. Thanks.

 

[JM]

98 wrote, "I don't label myself as calvinist, but do have some very calvinist views because after independently reading the whole Bible for myself, coming to understanding attributes of God (that He is the Creator and is Omniscient), that many doctrines of calvinism must be true because they are

a) Supported by Scripture
b) Based on that Scripture, are the only conclusion
c) Encompass Scripture in context
d) Holds Scripture as inerrant
e) Support the view of God that avoids idolatry (that is, choosing bits and pieces of the God of the Bible, but only the parts you like...that's idolatry)


* Agreed.

 

[JM]

twin wrote, "How so? As I see it sovereign election affirms the wondrous love of God and His goodness. Arminian theology is grounded and founded on the idea that God is obliged to give everyone a chance to believe and Calvinism believes God is not obligated to do anything for us. Arminians believe that man is responsible because he is sovereign over his own destiny and must make a choice and Calvinists believe that God is sovereign and determines who He will save not based on anything in man but because of His free and loving nature to save whom He will. Man is responsible because he has rebelled both in Adam and in his own sin and none of us deserve anything from God but His damnation.

* Most side stepped this.

 

[JM]

Andy wrote, "I Just realized this!

The Arminian conception of gospel preaching is weak, because it depends on the preacher's personal ability and strength. - Therefore: People must hear to believe, so that must be contingent upon the preachers personality, ability, strength, voice tone, eloquence etc. - That obviously can not be the case!

The Calvinist, on the other hand, knows that God's Word will never fail to accomplish all that God desires it to accomplish.

"So will My Word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Is. 55:11"

* Good post.

 

[kangaroodort]

Now that's just plain silly. God foresees something that He didn't create, learns what will be, then creates it. That makes God a teeny, tiny God who creates based on the whims of His creation.

First, I did not say that God's election is based on foreseen faith. I do not hold to the election by foreseen faith view. I already addressed the "God learns" canard in response to another poster. This comments seems incoherent: "God foresees something that He didn't create, learns what will be, then creates it." I never claimed anything like that. But you did suggest that God can "not create " someone based on what He foreknows of that existence and choices, which means God can uses His foreknowledge to falsify His foreknowledge.

 

[JM]

Hammy, good post.

"Here's another. "World" has at least 8 different uses in John's writings alone (possibly 12).

But even in that, in your theology you'll have to agree that God loves everyone, but not enough to save everyone. Or, in another way, God loves everyone, but not enough to not punish those who don't love Him back. That's not unconditional love for all."

 

[JM]

Me to. Pretty boy wrote:

"Boy I love this thread. - I used to play an old RPG video game, but Christian Forums has now become my new Hobby!

a) God regenerates the lost person, removing the heart of stone and giving a soft heart that is ready to believe and obey.
b) This immediately results in an eruption of willing faith.
c) This faith immediately results in justification before God"

 

[kangaroodort]

Yes, salvation is based on those "who believe." You are assuming freewill. 1 John 5 places belief after being born again.

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..."

I already addressed this erroneous argument elsewhere. This argument has been soundly refuted by Biblical scholar Dr. Brian Abasciano in the "Evangelical Quarterly 84.4 (2012), 307-322." Unfortunately, while Absaciano wrote the article with the intention of making it available to the public, the Quarterly will not allow him to do so. But he has given me permission to send a PDF to anyone who wants to read the article, on the condition that is not shared or posted publicly (though it could be shared privately). Just go to the following post (below) and leave a comment which will require you to leave your email (though no one will see the email but me). I will then send you the PDF of the article which completely refutes this Calvinist argument based on 1 John 5. To my knowledge, nobody has even attempted a rebuttal. https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...eady-refuted-calvinist-argument-on-1-john-51/

 

[JM]

twin1954, post: 69093329, Was not unbelief one of the sins that Christ died for? If He died for all the sin of all mankind did He not die for their unbelief as well?

 

[JM]

True confession from brother twin:

"I use the name Calvinist for convenience not because I am a follower of John Calvin. Though I have read Calvin's works there is much in them I do not agree with. I hold to what are known as the Doctrines of Grace which are the five points known as TULIP. Calvin didn't come up with them they were developed by the Synod of Dort long after Calvin was dead in answer to the Remonstrants.

Your accusations are groundless to say the least. If you are going to try and argue against these truths it would be more honest of you to actually know and understand what they are instead of just throwing out pointless and groundless accusations that I am sure you are getting from another source.

Now if you want I will answer any passage of Scriptures that you want. I think for myself and all that I say comes from my own study of the Scriptures.

 

[JM]

hammy wrote,

"Let's say it was a straw man. That doesn't mean you get to make one in response.

"Calvinists want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, then we must have earned it. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we must have bought the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, that means we contributed to the gift. They want us to believe that if we receive a gift freely, we gave it to ourselves (which flies in the face of the basic distinction between giver and receiver). They want us to believe that a gift cannot truly be a gift unless it is given in such a way that it cannot possibly be rejected (i.e. given irresistibly). They want us to believe that grace can only be grace if it is given in such a way that it cannot be rejected (i.e. irresistibly). They want us to believe that love can only be love if it is fully affirmed and accepted by the object of that love. What?????"

^^^straw man."

 

[JM]

PrettyboyAndy, post:

"Okay, so Christ saves, we both agree on that. However, I think the differences are:
a) Can mankind come to Christ even though we are slaves to sin, and dead in our transgressions without being regenerated OR the natural man has to be regenerated to accept Christ
b) Is there an elect based not upon human efforts, but based solely on the Will of God Or whatever position you hold to"

That's what they are saying.

 

[JM]

We believe that saving faith, as opposed to historical faith, is an evangelical grace given to us by God. We are saved by grace through faith AND THAT (in the Greek sums up both grace and faith) is a gift of God least the Arminian boasts.

Now that's just plain silly. God foresees something that He didn't create, learns what will be, then creates it. That makes God a teeny, tiny God who creates based on the whims of His creation.

For those who pretend to know Greek...

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. 2.3-4

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." John 5.21

In both passages the word thelo (according to Strong's) means:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure​

Here is another Arminian contradiction that destroys the biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

1) If God the Father wishes every single individual to be saved why doesn't God the Son give them salvation? The Arminian sets the desires of the Father against those of the Son and unity of the godhead is lost.

2) If Christ gifts salvation based on foreseen faith why isn't the Father's resurrection of the dead based on the freewill faith of man? Again, no consistency, no Trinity.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

​

 

[JM]

Yes, salvation is based on those "who believe." You are assuming freewill. 1 John 5 places belief after being born again.

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..."

As Christians we are called to show our love through action. What kind of God has the power to save those He loves but doesn't? The video believe explains.

Yours in the Lord,

jm