Understanding Calvinism

[billybtennessee]

There were comments made regarding 'faith' and 'works'. Scripture and scriptural points were used in each comment that I commented on. You seemed to say that if one believed those verses, literally, that it was likened to the pharisees, in principle. I disagree. We are allowed to do that.

These pharisees belonged to the party of the pharisees. Plainly says that. We assume they were believers in Christ, somewhat. Not as they should have been, right? They rose up to say that those coming to Jesus Christ had to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Jesus Christ did not command that. In Acts repentance was preached, faith toward Jesus Christ, and those coming were commanded to be baptized. The issue was dealt with, in council at Jerusalem.

We are 'created unto good works', in Jesus Christ. 'Predestinated', even, to do these. The true believer will 'do' them. We know them by their fruits, Jesus said. Those who hear these sayings of mine, Jesus said, 'and doeth them', and He also told what would happen to those who 'doeth not'. It is obvious, scripture shows us, that indeed, 'faith without works, is dead'. This is not teaching of a pharisee, or in principle of one. James was one of those who addressed the issue of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses. It was James who wrote 'faith without works is dead'. We don't need to dispute what James said. It won't change one word of it, or what was meant.

Again, it is in and through Jesus Christ, we are saved. And only in Him. Those who are born again through Him, 'do' these things. Not for salvation, no. Cite where I ever wrote that, or find someone who ever heard me teach or preach such. One truly known to Jesus Christ does all that scripture says, it is how we know they are His disciples. That is not my, or any other person, who has said the same, personal words or teaching, they are very clearly taught in scripture. Canon. It is how we know that it is the truth. No, we do not earn salvation. But one who has been truly saved, will bear the results of it. The power of God will make one Holy. The nature of the Holy Spirit is such that one filled with Him, will show it. And, that is why, faith without works is dead. Just as the body without the spirit, is dead. Hope that clears up what scripture teaches.

I do have a good understanding of calvinism, I believe. It is brought up quite often. Such is the forum I suppose. I admit, I do get a little concerned that it seems to almost take up all the threads here. The debates between calvinist and arminianism. No one seems to be gaining any advantages. Maybe just respect that brothers and sisters have different views regarding some biblical subjects? But, DEFINITELY, ALL, is in, and through JESUS CHRIST. In fact, either, or, is vain without Him. Of all the sects represented here. God Bless brother.

 

[heymikey80]

There were comments made regarding 'faith' and 'works'. Scripture and scriptural points were used in each comment that I commented on. You seemed to say that if one believed those verses, literally, that it was likened to the pharisees, in principle. I disagree. We are allowed to do that.

Sure. But if you're allowed to do that, so am I.

I pointed out those verses made careful distinction: works show faith; lack of works show dead faith. The words of these Scriptures actually say as much.

That's the point. They say what they mean. Citing them to say what they don't mean but "seem to" when used in isolation is termed "prooftexting".

These pharisees belonged to the party of the pharisees. Plainly says that. We assume they were believers in Christ, somewhat.

"Pharisees having believed" is what Luke writes in Acts. Are you saying that's an assumption?

Not as they should have been, right? They rose up to say that those coming to Jesus Christ had to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses.

Yeah, disciples make mistakes pretty often.

Let's note Peter's response: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11

Ar you saying Peter's saying he wasn't circumcised? That circumcision was unbearable? I'm sorry, I don't see it. Peter knew what he was saying: the Law condemned all, morally.

Now where did Peter say acts of obedience or good works are required in order to be saved? Point out the verse.

Jesus Christ did not command that. In Acts repentance was preached, faith toward Jesus Christ, and those coming were commanded to be baptized. The issue was dealt with, in council at Jerusalem.

Scripture attributes to the Law the very best of works (Psalm 119). And Scripture points out that "keep the law of Moses" is indeed the point of the Pharisee's position, circumcision being one of the laws of Moses. This is not a discussion of ceremony alone.

We are 'created unto good works', in Jesus Christ. 'Predestinated', even, to do these. The true believer will 'do' them. We know them by their fruits, Jesus said. Those who hear these sayings of mine, Jesus said, 'and doeth them', and He also told what would happen to those who 'doeth not'.

Jesus has spent a whole lot of time saying what He meant people to do it. List it. It's pretty obvious that no Christian satisfies all of these commands.

It is obvious, scripture shows us, that indeed, 'faith without works, is dead'. This is not teaching of a pharisee, or in principle of one. James was one of those who addressed the issue of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses. It was James who wrote 'faith without works is dead'. We don't need to dispute what James said. It won't change one word of it, or what was meant.

I've not changed what James says. James clearly separates the concept of faith from the concept of works. So's There's no need to change one word of it.

But there's a need to make theology consistent with what James said.

 

[billybtennessee]

Sure. But if you're allowed to do that, so am I.

I pointed out those verses made careful distinction: works show faith; lack of works show dead faith. The words of these Scriptures actually say as much.

That's the point. They say what they mean. Citing them to say what they don't mean but "seem to" when used in isolation is termed "prooftexting".

"Pharisees having believed" is what Luke writes in Acts. Are you saying that's an assumption?

Yeah, disciples make mistakes pretty often.

Let's note Peter's response: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11

Ar you saying Peter's saying he wasn't circumcised? That circumcision was unbearable? I'm sorry, I don't see it. Peter knew what he was saying: the Law condemned all, morally.

Now where did Peter say acts of obedience or good works are required in order to be saved? Point out the verse.

Scripture attributes to the Law the very best of works (Psalm 119). And Scripture points out that "keep the law of Moses" is indeed the point of the Pharisee's position, circumcision being one of the laws of Moses. This is not a discussion of ceremony alone.

Jesus has spent a whole lot of time saying what He meant people to do it. List it. It's pretty obvious that no Christian satisfies all of these commands.

I've not changed what James says. James clearly separates the concept of faith from the concept of works. So's There's no need to change one word of it.

But there's a need to make theology consistent with what James said.

The word "show", is not found in the verse. What is found is: "Faith without works is dead". And also, 'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Real clear what it says. Agreed, no need to change any of it. And further, it would do no good to try.

Those in Christ, are 'doers of the word, and not hearers only'. James 1:22. Jesus Christ said the same. Those who truly love Christ will keep His sayings. Jesus also said that. One can take it up with Him, if they disagree. It was Jesus Christ who said that.

You have asserted that no christian satisfies all these commands Christ gave. That is strictly your presumption. You will not be the judge then, nor are you even now. Only God knows the heart of His. Only God can judge regarding. The natural man will find fault with all of those that scripture calls righteous, perfect, just, holy. It is Gods word they are finding fault with however. The natural man will say one cannot be holy, as Peter also wrote, too. 1st Pet. 1:13-22. As He who called us is Holy, so are we to be. A Holy God can not make His holy? Another presumption. And of course we add to our faith, all of the virtues Peter listed in 2nd Pet. 1:5-11. He that lacketh these things are blind, Peter wrote.

Also, what is NOT an assumption, is that circumcision and keeping the law of Moses was not necessary. The issue was taken to the church at Jerusalem, and settled. Also, as you are well aware, Peter, James, Paul, were all circumcised, as those of jewish faith and practice, but not as a necessary requirement for trusting and obeying, following, Jesus Christ. Again, this was dealt with in Jerusalem, by the church there, written in Acts. You have no point here, and I have no idea why you think you do. These are not any works James wrote about. James was there, well aware, of what was decided in Jerusalem, about the issue you keep bringing up, regarding the pharisees.

Also, 'concept' is a word that has no point. Faith without works is dead. That is what the point is. Really no need to debate, it still is what scripture says. Won't change any at all. You wanna make theology consistent with what James said, then just accept what he wrote. It is that simple. Works mean one will 'do', and that is what scripture teaches. James makes the point clear, and so does Jesus. Matt. 7:24-27. Matt. 25. Luke 6: 44-49. John 14:15,21,23,24. John 15:4-10. And many other scripture. Point is, as I also agreed with in comment a while back, and I will continue to, "Faith without works is dead." Not successfully debatable now, as it was not then. Consistent theology, never disagrees with scripture. It just accepts what scripture says, about this point, and any other.

 

[Pinkman]

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

 

[Shulamite]

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

Okay, so if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying:

1.) preaching God's sovereignty over everything is a lack of love on His part.

2.) Calvinists are regarded no better, in your view, than atheists?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.....

 

[Pinkman]

Okay, so if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying:

1.) preaching God's sovereignty over everything is a lack of love on His part.

2.) Calvinists are regarded no better, in your view, than atheists?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.....

You are wrong.

I keep hearing that God is sovereign. No problem with that. Every Christian believes that whether Calvinist or not.

Then we hear from the Calvinist camp man is responsible for being born a reprobate. Created that way by God. And then God holds them responsible for what God himself did.

If man had no choice being born a reprobate then he had no choice. Then we here that they are preached the word even though we know it will make no difference because they are created that way.

On a previous thread we agreed with

"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Now it seems that does not count any longer. I have posted the words of Calvinist such as Spurgeon, Sproul and others Also Augustine. As many have seen, these guy's do not Go along with puppet theory. They denounce it most strongly.

But the the few main Calvinist posters just twist it all around to make it appear they don't say what they actually said.


I wish all the viewers could vote on what they understand by this whole issue. What they think of all the posts. If Calvinist here keep going around the same loop.

 

[cygnusx1]

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

then you must be misunderstanding the Good News : Salvation is of The Lord .

Election is based upon God's love . Why did God elect a person ? because He loved them.

How do we know He loved them ? because He died for them .

How do we know this death actually saves anyone ? because scripture informs us that if while we were enemies Christ died for us , then how shall He not freely (no conditions) give us all things with Him. God who held not even His only Begotten Son back , shall not hold back any good thing.

The argument of scripture is that God's love cannot be minimised or ineffectual , He will not hold back any lesser blessing seeing He gave the greatest blessing.

 

[heymikey80]

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

Dawkins? Why are we talking about modernistic materialism? It's not Calvinism by any stripe.

That's okay. It's pretty clear the complete void of love is what's held in store for Calvinists, intentionally spreading false assertions about their position and claiming it's about puppetry when Calvinists hold to nothing of the sort.

In fact, the accusation seems to be carted out puppet-like again and again, like an automaton parroting some statement again & again like a skipping CD. It's mindless, this accusation, and it takes no account of what's being said by Calvinists since 1610 -- much less 1558.

 

[Pinkman]

Ezekiel 33:11;

John 3:16;

1 Timothy 2:4;

II Peter 3

 

[Eleiou]

Ezekiel 33:11;

John 3:16;

1 Timothy 2:4;

II Peter 3

So what? These texts have been addressed in several ways from the Reformed view for at least 500 yrs (and on these forums for the last 3 yrs consistently).

 

[Pinkman]

then you must be misunderstanding the Good News : Salvation is of The Lord .

Election is based upon God's love . Why did God elect a person ? because He loved them.

How do we know He loved them ? because He died for them .

How do we know this death actually saves anyone ? because scripture informs us that if while we were enemies Christ died for us , then how shall He not freely (no conditions) give us all things with Him. God who held not even His only Begotten Son back , shall not hold back any good thing.

The argument of scripture is that God's love cannot be minimised or ineffectual , He will not hold back any lesser blessing seeing He gave the greatest blessing.

I hear what you say and like it very much. Even though you use the word 'elect' you are sounding less Calvinistic. I reckon CBHC's vast work is taking root.

 

[cygnusx1]

I hear what you say and like it very much. Even though you use the word 'elect' you are sounding less Calvinistic. I reckon CBHC's vast work is taking root.

you can wake up now , it seems you were just dreaming . sorry you cannot stomach the word "elect" .

 

[Pinkman]

you can wake up now , it seems you were just dreaming . sorry you cannot stomach the word "elect" .

Either you are a vessel of God’s glory or you are a human garbage can. Do you decide which you are? 2nd Timothy 2:21 states: “If anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.

 

[Pinkman]

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it.”

So they choose to remain unbelievers, and hence, fit themselves to destruction. That much is agreed, but can they choose to repent of their sin, by the enablement of divine intervention, so that God may fit them for honor?

Answer: Calvinists do not dispute that God’s mercy can be received by choice, but that man’s choice, due to Total Depravity, will always be the wrong choice. Calvinists insist that in order to make the right choice, it has to be irresistible, in order to overcome man’s sin nature. However, if man cannot choose to repent, then what is God being patient towards? Is God being patient with Himself for the time to implant an Irresistible Grace? So if that is wrong, which it seemingly is, then people can repent and God is patiently waiting for this very thing.

 

[cygnusx1]

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it.”

.

there is one potter and it isn't the pot !

who fits who ? who shapes who ? who designs and creates with purpose ?

if God had nothing to do with it He could not be a potter and Romans 9 would never proclaim God hardens men .

 

[cygnusx1]

Either you are a vessel of God’s glory or you are a human garbage can. Do you decide which you are? 2nd Timothy 2:21 states: “If anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.

sanctification and mortification are not the same as salvation nor is it Justification.

Romans 9 deals with salvation 2 Tim 2 sanctification . try not to mix them up.

 

[Pinkman]

2nd Timothy 2:8-10 (see also Matthew 24:22; 1st Corinthians 9:19)
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

Who are the “chosen” and what is the implication of “they also”?


Calvinists believe that it references an eternal flock of the Father, predetermined and preordained for salvation, called “The Elect.”

 

[Pinkman]

MacDonald - Believer’s Bible Commentary

“No one should quarrel with God over the doctrine of election. This doctrine simply allows God to be God, the Sovereign of the universe, who deals in grace, justice, righteousness, and love. He never does anything unfair or unkind, but He often shows favor that is completely unmerited.”

In other words, God cannot be sovereign if He does not pre-select who He really wants to be saved, and by giving them Irresistible Grace at a foreappointed time, which of course, is a self-defeating argument.


If God is truly Sovereign, then He is not bound by Calvinistic Providence. In other words, if God felt that He received more glory and joy from the familial relationships of independently minded creatures, in spite of the less desirous side of what comes from such freedom, rather than from simply scripting characters, who have no independent thoughts from eternity to eternity, then it is part of God’s sovereign freedom to choose whichever model of Providence that He wishes, whether Calvinist or Arminian.

But to say that God is only sovereign if He is restricted to one option, certainly does seem to be self-defeating.

 

[Pinkman]

Question:

What would be the point of Paul saying that he “endures all things” for the sake of those who are irresistibly “made willing”? How would Paul’s evangelistic efforts facilitate the monergistic work of God in salvation?

 

[Pinkman]

Answer: The Calvinist explanation is that Paul’s endurance is “the means” by which Calvinism’s “elect” experience the salvation from their Irresistible Grace. In other words, if Paul waits them out, and if they receive an Irresistible Grace, then they will come around eventually. Never underestimate a Calvinist’s ability to make sense of non-sense. Can you stop an Irresistible Grace? Can you make an Irresistible Grace come to pass? Then, by the Calvinist model, what do your actions accomplish? The Calvinist answer is that it is “the means,” as if that really provided any form of clarification. That is simply a “hand-waiving” response.