Why I dislike Calvinism

[DeaconDean]

How does that make Him a respecter of persons.

Just like I said earlier:

"...he person who rejects God is not elected for that very reason.

On the other hand, God knows "in advance" that John X, will accept and believe, therefore he is elected.

God shows respect for one person because He knows "in advance" what he will do, and likewise God has no respect for the other because He knows "in advance" he will reject."

Something that has not even been considered as far as I can see.
Why did God give the law. It was to show man his sinful state.

Agreed, no-one has argued against that. Duh...

Without the law people would not have known that they sinned against a Holy God.

No, without the Law, the Hebrews would haven't known.

But in Calvinism there is no no need for the law. No need for a person to know that if he continues on his path he is going to die.

The Law was fulfilled in/around AD 33.

Once you come to faith in Christ, Paul said there was no need for the Law. (cf. Gal.3:24-25)

God is going to save him regardless or let him go to hell.

I don't know where you got that, but it certainly wasn't Calvinism.

And why did God tell us to preach the Gospel. If God is going to do what He is going to do.

To reach the elect. (cf. Acts 13:48)

With Calvinism the law and preaching the gospel are pointless.

Again, I don't know where you learned this or got that notion, but it certainly wasn't Calvinism.

Whether or not Arminius believes as I do or not makes no difference to me.
I don't even know the rest of what he believes and don't really care to.
I believe what I believe because God has revealed it to me.

Whether you accept it or not, I could give a rats butt less. But the fact is, you are spouting Arminian theology.

The "I" theology! Synergism!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

It upholds the Calvinist viewpoint right up till you look at the Scripture in context. It is a quote from Malach1 1

Alright, lets suppose for one minute, that you are correct and it was meant to address "Israel and Edom."

Who in Romans 9 is Edom?

The Jews again? (Edom were/are desendants of Esau, who was a desendant of Iaasc)

No, it is a picture of "election" in the Old Testament.

Election was as much a reality in the OT era as it is today.

Why did God choose Israel?

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." -Deut. 6:6-8 (KJV)

God did not "foresee" anything that Israel would or would not do. Simply because He chose to, because He loved them, and to fulfill His promise to Abraham.

"I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob," -Mal. 1:2 (KJV)

"I have loved you, saith the Lord,.... Which appeared of old, by choosing them, above all people upon the face of the earth, to be his special and peculiar people; by bestowing peculiar favours and blessings upon them, both temporal and spiritual; by continuing them a people, through a variety of changes and revolutions; and by lately bringing them out of the Babylonish captivity, restoring their land unto them, and the pure worship of God among them:

Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? the Targum renders it, "and if ye should say"; and so Kimchi and Ben Melech; which intimates, that though they might not have expressed themselves in so many words, yet they seemed disposed to say so; they thought it, if they said it not; and therefore, to prevent such an objection, as well as to show their ingratitude, it is put in this form; and an instance of his love is demanded, which is very surprising, when they had so many; and shows great stupidity and unthankfulness. Abarbinel renders the words, "wherefore hast thou loved us?" that is, is there not a reason to be given for loving us? which he supposes was the love of Abraham to God; and therefore his love to them was not free, but by way of reward to Abraham's love; and consequently they were not so much obliged to him for it: to which is replied, was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord; Jacob and Esau were brethren; they had one and the same father and mother, Isaac and Rebekah, and equally descended from Abraham; so that if one was loved for the sake of Abraham, as suggested, according to Abarbinel's sense, the other had an equal claim to it; they lay in the same womb together; they were twins; and if any could be thought to have the advantage by birth, Esau had it, being born first: but before they were born, and before they had done good or evil, what is afterwards said of them was in the heart of God towards them; which shows that the love of God to his people is free, sovereign, and distinguishing, Genesis 25:23, yet I loved Jacob; personally considered; not only by giving him the temporal birthright and blessing, and the advantages arising from thence; but by choosing him to everlasting life, bestowing his grace upon him, revealing Christ unto him, and making him a partaker of eternal happiness; and also his posterity, as appears by the above instances mentioned; and likewise mystically considered, for all the elect, redeemed, and called, go by the name of Jacob and Israel in Scripture frequently; for what is here said of Jacob is true of all the individuals of God's people; for which purpose the apostle refers to this passage in Romans 9:13, to prove the sovereignty and distinction of the love of God in their election and salvation: and this is indeed a clear proof that the love of God to his people is entirely free from all motives and conditions in them, being before they had done either good or evil; and therefore did not arise from any goodness in them, nor from their love to him nor from any good works done by them: the choice of persons to everlasting life, the fruit of this love, is denied to be of works, and is ascribed to grace; it passed before any were wrought; and what are done by the best of men are the effects of it; and the persons chosen or passed by were in an equal state when both were done; which appears by this instance: and by which also it is manifest that the love of God to men is distinguishing; it is not alike to all men; there is a peculiar favour he bears to own people; which is evident by the choice of some, and not others; by the redemption of them out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; by the effectual calling of them out of the world; by the application of the blessings of grace unto them; and by bestowing eternal life on them: and it may be further observed, that the objects of God's love have not always the knowledge of it; indeed they have no knowledge of it before conversion, which is the open time of love; and after conversion they have not always distinct and appropriating views of it; only when God is pleased to come and manifest it unto them."

Source

Election in the Old Testament, is the same "election" in the New Testament.

And it certainly was not based upon, or was conditional on anything any individual, or class of people would or would not do.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And I would also suggest that you go back research some on this subject: i.e.: election and predestination.

Near the end of his life, when another theology started to rear its head (Semi-pelaginism), one Bishop wrote:

“Ye have not chosen me,” He says, “but I have chosen you.” Grace such as that is ineffable. For what were we so long as Christ had not yet chosen us, and we were therefore still destitute of love? For he who hath chosen Him, how can he love Him? Were we, think you, in that condition which is sung of in the psalm: “I had rather be an abject in the house of the Lord, than dwell in the tents of wickedness”? Certainly not. What were we then, but sinful and lost? We had not yet come to believe on Him, in order to lead to His choosing us; for if it were those who already believed that He chose, then was He chosen Himself, prior to His choosing. But how could He say, “Ye have not chosen me,” save only because His mercy anticipated us?

Here surely is at fault the vain reasoning of those who defend the foreknowledge of God in opposition to His grace, and with this view declare that we were chosen before the foundation of the world, because God foreknew that we should be good, but not that He Himself would make us good. So says not He, who declares, “Ye have not chosen me.” For had He chosen us on the ground that He foreknew that we should be good, then would He also have foreknown that we would not be the first to make choice of Him. For in no other way could we possibly be good: unless, forsooth, one could be called good who has never made good his choice.

What was it then that He chose in those who were not good? For they were not chosen because of their goodness, inasmuch as they could not be good without being chosen. Otherwise grace is no more grace, if we maintain the priority of merit. Such, certainly, is the election of grace, whereof the apostle says: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.” To which he adds: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.”

Listen, thou ungrateful one, listen: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Not that thou mayest say, I am chosen because I already believed. For if thou wert believing in Him, then hadst thou already chosen Him. But listen: “Ye have not chosen me.” Not that thou mayest say, Before I believed I was already doing good works, and therefore was I chosen. For what good work can be prior to faith, when the apostle says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”? What, then, are we to say on hearing such words, “Ye have not chosen me,” but that we were evil, and were chosen in order that we might be good through the grace of Him who chose us? For it is not by grace, if merit preceded: but it is of grace: and therefore that grace did not find, but effected the merit."

Augustine of Hippo. “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John.” St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies. Ed. Philip Schaff. Trans. John Gibb and James Innes. Vol. 7. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888. 353.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

Let's go a step further.

When this same Bishop wrote "On the Predestination of the Saints", he admits he was wrong on a good many things.

Why is this important?

Because you mentioned Mal. 1, so does this Bishop.

Augustine admits, that as far as "grace" was concerned, and that takes in quite a few items, he was mistaken.

1. "And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves." He admits, that as far as the faith to believe was not a gift of God. But he corrects that by saying: "I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will,.. I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Eph. vi. 23. And what I said a little after, ‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,"
2. He admits he was wrong in in his beliefs on "election" (cf. Jacob and Esau): " I say, ‘what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13. I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ In fact, he admits that in reality, he was completely wrong and admitted that "calling" was for the "elect": "But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect."
3. Augustine also admits he was wrong as far as merits prior to grace saying: "is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given." In this statement alone, Augustine denies that heaven is given to the justified believer based upon merit.
4. Augustine did in fact, hold to a "form" of "double predestination" (as most Catholics define it) saying: "Therefore what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works’—I spoke most truly."

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)

Some of what Augustine believed, he came to the realization that he was wrong. DEAD WRONG!

In the above, I show by Augustine's own words, what he formerly believed, the bolded the portion where he said he was wrong.

As many prior to him believed there was something in man that merited grace, Augustine came to believe that was wrong. He was in error about the grace of God.

Augustine realized that man had to be taken out of the equation.

Also of note here, while he did not give his opinion or any reason for it, Augustine was among the first to admit a belief in "reprobation". (cf. point #4, what some call "Double Predestination")

And here is the kicker above all else.

While you and most here hate Calvinism, none of you admit that at least a whole millennia before Martin Luther, before John Calvin, before Ulrich Zwingli, a millennia before any of the Reformers taught, here a "Catholic Bishop" was teaching "Reformed Theology"!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hidden In Him said: ↑
I do likewise view OSAS as an evil and deceptive doctrine, given the number of souls that may end up in Hell because of it.

Hello Hidden!

In my humble opinion, those who argue against OSAS or 'eternal security' as I prefer to refer to it are making one mistake. They attack the always saved part when they should be bringing up the once saved part.

Judging others is a mistake, but I have met many church members I would not describe as ever having been saved, judgement not required, it's obvious in conversation. As indeed the Lord Jesus mentions in once place saying to some 'I never knew you'.

I believe in eternal security but also believe the greatest need for the gospel is in the church.

God's Blessing to you.

The glaring hole in those who reject eternal security is what Jesus said in John 10:28.
"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand."

v.27 is NOT a condition for "never perishing" in v.28. The sole condition for never perishing is that Jesus gives them eternal life.

Therefore, recipients of eternal life shall never perish. That's what Jesus meant.

Never perishing is not based on how one lives their life, no matter how appealing that idea may be.

Never perishing is based on being a recipient of eternal life.

Jesus also taught when one does receive (have) eternal life. When they believe.

John 5:24, 6:47, 1 John 5:13

So, from the moment of faith in Christ, one possesses eternal life, and therefore, shall never perish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And there is my proof, my "bone-fide".

It's all about what you will or will not do at some point in time.

God, the respecter of persons.

That's not the God of the scriptures, I can tell you that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

What did the jailer ask Paul? "What MUST I DO to be saved?" Was he an Arminian? Not hardly. He was under conviction and wanted to know how to be saved.

What did Paul tell the jailer what he MUST DO to be saved?

The flaw in Calvinism is that God did everything, leaving man out of the equation completely. But that's not what the Bible teaches. The Bible says we must believe the gospel to be saved. Eph 2:8

Don't misunderstand; I'm not an Arminian and I'm not defending their theology. I have just as much disagreement with Arminians as I do with Calvinists: just different points.

The only way to be saved is to receive eternal life. The only way to receive eternal life is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

That's what I must do to be saved. And you. And everyone else.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And I would also suggest that you go back research some on this subject: i.e.: election and predestination.

I wonder why none of the Calvinists have even attempted to refute this: The purpose of Election

 

[Mountainmanbob]

That is why I call Arminian Theology the "I" theology.

It's all about what I will do, or have done.

Not about what God has done for you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Exactly, I think it would tarnish my salvation if I thought that I had much to do with it.

So for the man who thinks he did it all yes I made the right choice for God I'm a little smarter than my neighbor who is a non-believer. Good thing ((I)) know what's going on and ((I)) can choose to go to heaven.

Sounds pretty puffed up to me.

M-Bob

 

[tulipbee]

how could elects dislike Calvinism when Calvinism is the gospel?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

◄ John 15:16 ►
New International Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

New Living Translation
You didn't choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name.

English Standard Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

**************************************

Seems plain as day. Makes one all the more humble knowing that God did the work and not my dirty sinful self.

If my good works are as "dirty rags" how could I pick and be responsible for my Salvation?

M-Bob

 

[sdowney717]

◄ John 15:16 ►
New International Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

New Living Translation
You didn't choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name.

English Standard Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

**************************************

Seems plain as day. Makes one all the more humble knowing that God did the work and not my dirty sinful self.

If my good works are as "dirty rags" how could I pick and be responsible for my Salvation?

M-Bob

To the church who are in God the Father and Son, Paul wrote his greeting telling them they had an election by God, meaning determined by God that they would serve and obey Him alone.
Which at that time was witnessed by the various manifestations and miracles of the power of God at work in them. So we can see that those in the church, who are the saved are those whom God elected to their place in Him. And they can understand this truth by witnessing God's power at work in them.
God needs no assurance He has saved us, but God is willing to make His power known in and toward His people for their good that He has elected to be of His church to obtain eternal comfort and consolations, salvation by Christ. God's elect will have assurance of their salvation, this is God's will.

1 Thessalonians 1New King James Version (NKJV)
Greeting
1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Their Good Example
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, 3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

 

[Doug Melven]

Just like I said earlier:

"...he person who rejects God is not elected for that very reason.

On the other hand, God knows "in advance" that John X, will accept and believe, therefore he is elected.

God shows respect for one person because He knows "in advance" what he will do, and likewise God has no respect for the other because He knows "in advance" he will reject."



Agreed, no-one has argued against that. Duh...



No, without the Law, the Hebrews would haven't known.



The Law was fulfilled in/around AD 33.

Once you come to faith in Christ, Paul said there was no need for the Law. (cf. Gal.3:24-25)



I don't know where you got that, but it certainly wasn't Calvinism.



To reach the elect. (cf. Acts 13:48)



Again, I don't know where you learned this or got that notion, but it certainly wasn't Calvinism.



Whether you accept it or not, I could give a rats butt less. But the fact is, you are spouting Arminian theology.

The "I" theology! Synergism!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Total Depravity = We are so utterly depraved we can't make a decision for Christ.
Unconditional Election= It is all up to God whether or not we get saved or go to hell.
Limited Atonement = Jesus Christ only died for the elect.
Irresistible Grace = When God decides to save someone, that person cannot stop God, he is going to be saved.
Perseverance of the saints = Saints will persevere and go to Heaven/New Earth

Do I have that right?

how could elects dislike Calvinism when Calvinism is the gospel?

This is just arrogant.
Gospel = Jesus Christ paid for our sins by His death, He was buried and rose again on the 3rd day.
I don't see Calvinism anywhere in there.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Exactly, I think it would tarnish my salvation if I thought that I had much to do with it.]/QUOTE]
Right. All man can do is receive it by faith.

So for the man who thinks he did it all yes I made the right choice for God I'm a little smarter than my neighbor who is a non-believer.

That's the Pharisees for you.

Good thing ((I)) know what's going on and ((I)) can choose to go to heaven.

Actually, God does give man the choice. Jesus said this: "For God so loved the world that He gave His uniquely born Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

So all humans do have a choice. Perish or not perish.

The problem is whether humans believe what God says.

 

[FreeGrace2]

◄ John 15:16 ►
New International Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

New Living Translation
You didn't choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name.

English Standard Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Jesus also said this to 12 disciples, one of which never believed, nor was saved:
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) John 6

Seems plain as day. Makes one all the more humble knowing that God did the work and not my dirty sinful self.

Who believes that they saved themselves?

If my good works are as "dirty rags" how could I pick and be responsible for my Salvation?

You weren't. No one is. God did all the work. All man can do is receive salvation.

By faith in Christ.

The Calvinist claim that God elects to salvation unconditionally removes faith from the equation, yet Paul clearly kept faith IN the equation in Eph 2:8, which I'm sure you are aware of.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Total Depravity = We are so utterly depraved we can't make a decision for Christ.

Not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that man refuses to believe: Acts 14:2, 19:9.

Unconditional Election= It is all up to God whether or not we get saved or go to hell.

Of course it is. But that's not the Calvinist point for election. Which is; God elects who will ultimately believe. Which is again not taught in the Bible.

Limited Atonement = Jesus Christ only died for the elect.

The Bible says clearly that Christ died for all. Heb 2:9, 2 Cor 5:14,15 and 1 Jn 2:2.

Irresistible Grace = When God decides to save someone, that person cannot stop God, he is going to be saved.

Not really what Calvinism claims. Which is that no one can resist God's grace. Yet the Bible teaches that many resist the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51

Perseverance of the saints = Saints will persevere and go to Heaven/New Earth

The Bible teaches that some will abandon the faith. 1 Tim 4:1 Jesus taught that some will "believe for a while and then fall away". Luke 8:13

Do I have that right?

Nope.

This is just arrogant.

It is, in fact, incorrect.

Gospel = Jesus Christ paid for our sins by His death, He was buried and rose again on the 3rd day.
I don't see Calvinism anywhere in there.

Because it isn't there. As I've shown.

 

[ToBeLoved]

earlier:

"...he person who rejects God is not elected for that very reason.

On the other hand, God knows "in advance" that John X, will accept and believe, therefore he is elected.

t certainly wasn't Calvinism.

The Holy Spirit must not be irresistible anymore then.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The Calvinist claim that God elects to salvation unconditionally removes faith from the equation,

Think not and no calvinist believes that.
M-Bob

 

[MDC]

how could elects dislike Calvinism when Calvinism is the gospel?

Yes and will quote Spurgeon “ I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else..” and as Luther said “ If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright..”

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The Bible says clearly that Christ died for all. Heb 2:9, 2 Cor 5:14,15 and 1 Jn 2:2.

Did he die for the one's he said that He never knew?
I would think not.

Did he die for the one's who's father is the devil -- I would think not.

Did He die for the one's in hell?

M-Bob

 

[Doug Melven]

Did he die for the one's he said that He never knew?
I would think not.

Did he die for the one's who's father is the devil -- I would think not.

Did He die for the one's in hell?

Could you show some Scripture to show that He didn't die for everybody.