Understanding Calvinism

[AndOne]

OK Ill have another go

In a previous posts alluding to Gods saving people. Cyg Writes even the unwilling! troll up some post and see. Are men born willing or unwilling. We are told tht all men are born in sin, totally depraved etc etc. So I am saying yes even the unwilling as Calvinits tell us.

Think this all started with cyanoses claim that God ministers to the reprobate way back and the question as to wht God bothers if God as calvinist tells us creates the reprobates in unbelief in the first place.

Have I got it all wrong.
Are you saying God has not predestined the elect and the reprobate and did all this before the foundation of the world?

I'm still not following - forget I asked - I'll wait till everyone's posts start making sense again...

 

[Philothei]

You really get "2 the point" and stay there hahaha. I'm trying to take an objective look still. I sometimes get confused by some answers and I'm like huh? Oh okay, cause I don't want to sound like I don't understand.

So it is our rejection of Christ that condemns us? That would be because of Christ's already finished work of atonement for our sin no doubt. That atonement is for all who claim it or just the elect?

Christ is not "replacing" our sins He saves us. So this replacement nonsense is inaccurate. We are not saved either because we are "sinless" or because we are exempt from our sins and we can go on sinning since HE died for our sins. That would anolt all the commandments and Christ obviously was very clear when He says:"go and sin no more" if that was impossible then Christ either lied or it is a misquote ...If we cannot live in a state "of sinning no more" we can indeed struggle and try to live according to that commantmnet given to us prarctically by our Our Saviour.
Atonement is the sacrifice of Christ indeed an act of love from our Saviour by dying on the Cross. Man indeed has to go through his own suffering and get encouraged about his own suffering looking up to the Cross. All men suffer and all men have the chance to go to their own Golgotha in life. No one is excluded believer or not a believer. The myth of ONLY the elect go through the golgotha since Christ did is not true.... Elect are the ones who are with the Lord out of their own choice...They have a free will to either want to take the 'road less traveled" or not.

 

[Pinkman]

......They have a free will to either want to take the 'road less traveled" or not.

Welcome Philothei


Please can you expound on what you posted. Especially the snippet on what I copied above. Being a westerner my understanding of Greek Christianity is weak.

It would be good to learn more and get a wider and fresh perspective. Especially one that is not influenced by western ideas.


Regards

PM

 

[Philothei]

Will pm you so I do not derail this Pinkman Will be glad to share!

 

[rturner76]

So the non-elect are ministered to? Is it that God not a sufficient minister or Christ is not a sufficient Savior? I'm confused by that one.

 

[rturner76]

It's the thing that makes Calvinism unpalletable for me. The reprobate I think they are called or non elect? I can't stomache that God would create people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Doesn't jive with me or the Bible from what I've read. All the thing's I've seen posted by the Calvinists are verses that if you read the verse or two before and/or after the one quoted, it means something totally different. I see a tin of verse "cherry-pickin?" From what I understand about Christ, he came to set all men free. If you don't believe it you can go to hell (literally). AM I totally wrong here? Is there a Calvinist that can at least relate to my confusion? I mean without getting all "you're on there side you're wrong" I'm willing to discuss what is truely scriptural. I mean that. John Wesley is not Christ you know? He is fallible. He's not the Pope!

 

[heymikey80]

It's the thing that makes Calvinism unpalletable for me. The reprobate I think they are called or non elect? I can't stomache that God would create people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Doesn't jive with me or the Bible from what I've read. All the thing's I've seen posted by the Calvinists are verses that if you read the verse or two before and/or after the one quoted, it means something totally different. I see a tin of verse "cherry-pickin?" From what I understand about Christ, he came to set all men free. If you don't believe it you can go to hell (literally). AM I totally wrong here? Is there a Calvinist that can at least relate to my confusion? I mean without getting all "you're on there side you're wrong" I'm willing to discuss what is truely scriptural. I mean that. John Wesley is not Christ you know? He is fallible. He's not the Pope!

I dunno, I think the cherry-picked verse tends to affirm the concept ... "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Rom 9:22

I guess the issue is over what the vessels of wrath are?

 

[rturner76]

That's EXACTLY what I mean. If you read that verse by itself it would seem to say. "I picked you to show my wrath for no other reason than because I can, I'm God"

It does still say that and that is God's truth but if you read the stanza after which the verse is preparing us for it is saying more like "don't think that just because you are Jews you will not be judged. You will judged as harsh as the Gentiles and the Gentiles the do right by me will be beloved like the Jews." So where it seemed like it was all for his pleasure there really was a ryme and reason for the wrath wasn't there. This is what I mean by cherry pickin' Taking a verse and ascribing it to a predetermined meaning rather than the context for which it was written.

As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
(Romans 9:25-26 ESV)

 

[drstevej]

It's the thing that makes Calvinism unpalletable for me. The reprobate I think they are called or non elect? I can't stomache that God would create people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Doesn't jive with me or the Bible from what I've read.

Notice the dominance of ME and the tag on of "or the Bible"?

 

[rturner76]

Unless I'm just waay of in my interpretation of the verses. There is always that possibility too. I am most definatly not a PhD, Master, or even a BA in Theology or even world religon. I'm not even a very good Bible thumper so what do I know anyway. I'm just trying to say here's my point of view on why I can't believe that way. I also want to say I've seen this get nasty and I mean my part for the better understanding of God's word for ALL including myself so my I gain better insight into God's will for my life as a result of my participation in this discussion as well. Just wanted to put that out there cause it gets testy sometimes.

 

[heymikey80]

That's EXACTLY what I mean. If you read that verse by itself it would seem to say. "I picked you to show my wrath for no other reason than because I can, I'm God"

It does still say that and that is God's truth but if you read the stanza after which the verse is preparing us for it is saying more like "don't think that just because you are Jews you will not be judged. You will judged as harsh as the Gentiles and the Gentiles the do right by me will be beloved like the Jews."

Where does it say this, "exactly", as you would have it to be found? I read the passage prior to it this way:

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Rom 9

So where it seemed like it was all for his pleasure there really was a ryme and reason for the wrath wasn't there. This is what I mean by cherry pickin' Taking a verse and ascribing it to a predetermined meaning rather than the context for which it was written.

As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
(Romans 9:25-26 ESV)

Okay, so where in this verse does it declare the reason for the wrath?

As Romans 9:16 actually says where the reason comes from, Calvinists tend to accept the explicit statement of Scripture above an implicit attribution of the reason: It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Rom 9:16

 

[rturner76]

Notice the dominance of ME and the tag on of "or the Bible"?

Does that mean I am putting emphasis on myself over the Bible? It could be. I am a selfish creature and I seek to understand these things. I have no defence, what do YOU think that says? Am I lacking in moral character because I structured my question that way?

 

[drstevej]

Nope, I use to think the same way. I became a Calvinist because I found it on the pages of Scripture even though it rubbed me the wrong way. Then I realized HE is sovereign , not I. And clay does not lecture the Potter.

 

[JustAsIam77]

A primer to wit,

Reprobation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't like it but hey, God is a Sovereign God.

 

[rturner76]

I get what you're saying and God is sovereign. I guess it makes me wonder why send a savior, then not offer salvation? I'm not trying to lecture God now, that's a jump. I'm wondering, trying not to do a strawman. I'll say it in a question. Is Christ's atonement sufficient for all mankind? Is it offered to all mankind?

 

[2thePoint]

I get what you're saying and God is sovereign. I guess it makes me wonder why send a savior, then not offer salvation? I'm not trying to lecture God now, that's a jump. I'm wondering, trying not to do a strawman. I'll say it in a question. Is Christ's atonement sufficient for all mankind? Is it offered to all mankind?

One drop of Jesus' blood would be enough for everyone who ever lived. It's the quality that matters, not the quantity. So I see no way for Jesus' blood to be wasted, as Calvinism says in reaction to unlimited atonement. How could Jesus have offered more atonement? It isn't possible; there is no "more" or "less" in something of infinite value.

Also, God is love and his sovereignty cannot operate in a vacuum devoid of love. Neither can God be less moral than his creatures. So it follows that if God tells us to love even our enemies, then he must love them too, just as Paul and John wrote. Calvinism over-emphasizes raw power and merciless law to the entire human race except for a few lucky people who, like victims of Stockholm Syndrome, are made to love their captor who had made them be born in sin. Calvinism thus limits God's love and actually his sovereignty too by saying he cannot allow his creatures free will. Yet love isn't genuine unless it's free to be rejected.

 

[drstevej]

Good question and one where I differ with many Calvinists. I believe the atonement is sufficient for all and offered to all but only the elect respond having been given the gift of faith.

I wrote the following parable as an illustration...

A wealthy man buys ten tickets to Hawaii and has his Son pay cash for them. He sends a letter to ten people with a ticket purchased for them and invites them to join him in Hawaii.

He also sends a Special Courier to deliver three of the tickets to a select group of the ten and has the Courier earnestly persuade them to go {His persuasion is irresistible!} The Courier then escorts them onto the plane insuring they get to Hawaii.

The other seven get the letter and the ticket that has been purchased for them, but because they hate the wealthy man [he makes them feel guilty] they refuse to use the ticket. They each think. If I ever go to Hawaii, I'm going MY way. No one is paying my way, especially not That Guy!

The wealthy man, his son and the courier rejoice with the three in Hawaii. The other seven never make it and their tickets, while paid in full, are never used. While the three are in the beauty of Hawaii with the wealthy man a plague strikes the home towns of the seven and they perish.

NOTE: This is an artificially constructed parable to show how the price can be paid in full for those who refuse to receive the gift. The Father's election and the Spirit's persuasion are limited to the elect, yet a ticket purchased by the Son is legitimately extended to all.

Unlimited Atonement yet Limited Attainment

 

[drstevej]

Yet love isn't genuine unless it's free to be rejected.

So is there free will in Heaven? If not, then by your words there is no love there. So can we sin in Heaven. Can we leave if we want. Can we play video games while others worship the Lamb?

If we are not free to make these choices you have created a love-less Heaven.

======

Freewill In Heaven (apologies to Eric Clapton)

Beyond the door,
There's peace I'm sure,
And I know there's got to be
Free will in heaven.

Would you throw a fit
If He controlled you in heaven?
Would it be the same
If He bound your will in heaven?

You must be strong
And carry on,
'Cause you know there's no free will
Here in heaven.

 

[2thePoint]

So is there free will in Heaven? If not, then by your words there is no love there. So can we sin in Heaven. Can we leave if we want. Can we play video games while others worship the Lamb?

If we are not free to make these choices you have created a love-less Heaven.

Eric Clapton, the Theologian

Let me ask you this: Can Jesus ever stop being the perfect Lamb of God? I await your answer.

 

[rturner76]

Good illustration......I see it more like everybody has been sent an invitation. Not everyone accepts. Some people take a flight somewhere else and some go to the airport, get wasted, miss their flight, and hope to get on standby