Why I dislike Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

Exactly I had nothing to do with it.
Keeps one in their humble place.

Are most alter calls secure?
Probably not.
Just another man made thing.

M-Bob

I agree. Altar calls aren't biblical. No one gets saved by walking down an aisle, or repeating a prayer.

The ONLY WAY someone can be saved is by doing what Paul told the jailer: They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:31

There is no other way.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well Galatians 4:4 says He came to redeem them that were under the law.
It doesn't say Gentiles or elect. According to that verse only Jews can get saved.
So when we see He died for many there is no contradiction with saying He died for everybody in the world.

Again, to whom was the "Law"/"Torah" given to?

The Gospel said: "He came to His own, and His own received Him not".

What did Jesus tell the Samaritan woman?

As long as Mk. 10:14 says what it does, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, just because I can't understand how God could get the Gospel to him doesn't mean God didn't die for him.

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."-Rom. 10:14-17 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

You know, John 5:40 takes the wind out of the Arminian argument?

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

Had God not took the "active" part in our salvation, we'd still be lost.

You just cannot all of a sudden stop doing evil and say "I think I'll start living for Christ". Yet that is the essence of what Arminianism teaches. Contrary to scripture:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well Galatians 4:4 says He came to redeem them that were under the law.
It doesn't say Gentiles or elect. According to that verse only Jews can get saved.
So when we see He died for many there is no contradiction with saying He died for everybody in the world.

Several years back, I did an "in depth" study on the "nomos".

I suggest you do the same.

"6.5d. Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-7

Paul describes the Law as having a temporary function in God's plan of salvation; the Law was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham (see 3:17). During this period of time the Law functioned metaphorically as a “paidagwgoV” (guardian or disciplinarian) to bring "us" to Christ, in order that "we" may be declared righteous by faith, and adds that now that faith has come, "we" are no longer under the “paidagwgoV”, the Law (3:24-25). The Law did not have the purpose of being the means of obtaining salvation. Paul likens being under the Law to being in custody, until the possibility of being declared righteous by faith becomes possible (3:23). The role of a “paidagwgoV” was typically filled by a slave who was assigned to accompany a child to and from school and ensure that he was safe from harm and well-mannered (see Plato, Lysis, 208 C-D); they had a reputation for harshness.[21]

Thus, to compare the Law to a “paidagwgoV” would carry with it certain negative connotations. In his use of the metaphor of the “paidagwgoV”, Paul seems to make two points. First, for him to be under the Law is to exist under the authority and guardianship of the Law; possibly he has the external restrictiveness of the Law in view. Even though elsewhere in his writings Paul explains that the Law has the negative result of inciting sin, in Gal 3:19 the Law has a more positive role of imposing discipline on those under it, just as a “paidagwgoV” imposes discipline on his young charge. Paul explains that the ultimate purpose of being under the discipline of the Law is "in order that we might be declared righteous by faith" (3:24). This implies that the Law as “paidagwgoV” serves to lead a Jew to the realization of his inherent inability to obtain righteousness by doing the Law. Second, Paul uses the metaphor of the “paidagwgoV” to communicate that the state of existence characterized as being under the Law was intended to be temporary and preparatory for faith in Christ.[22] By the phrase "until the coming faith was revealed" “eiV thn uellousan pistin apokalujqhnai” means until faith in Christ became possible historically (see the parallel construction in Rom 8:18). Paul's analogy implies that, with the possibility of faith in Christ, the “paidagwgoV” function performed by the Law is complete, and its validity has ceased: the person who is no longer a minor is longer under the authority of his“paidagwgoV”.[23]

In Gal 4:1-7, Paul explains that to be under the Law is to be like a minor, who with respect to his freedom is no better than a slave, even though he is an heir.[24] Paul's point is that anyone who submits to the Law is living without freedom and so is slave-like. He describes the Jewish experience of being under the Law as being enslaved to "the elements of the cosmos" “upo ta stoiceia tou kosmou” (4:3). What he means by the phrase "the elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 is the Law viewed as a salvation-historically elemental and preliminary teaching. (The term ta stoiceia tou kosmou occurs in Gal 4:9; Col 2:8, 20; 2 Pet 3:10-12.)[25]

To be "under the elements of the cosmos" (4:3) is synonymous with being "under the Law" (4:5).[26] In Paul's interpretation, the Law was intended to lead to Christ and be superseded once "the fullness of time" had come (4:4). Paul says that for Jew to be under the Law was to be in a state of bondage, a lack of freedom, which is undesirable. This state was necessary but still intended to be temporary. This is why he chose the metaphor of a minor under the authority of "guardians and managers until the date set by the father" in order to describe the Jewish experience under the Law (4:2). In his view, the Galatians do not recognize that salvation-historically the Law has been superseded: "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (4:6). To have the Spirit of Christ in one's heart makes the Law unnecessary and obsolete."

[21] Bertram, TDNT 5.596-625.

[22] On this topic, see R. N. Longenecker, "The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3.19-4.7," JETS 25 (1982); L. Belleville, "’Under the Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11," JSNT 26 (1986) 53-78; D. J. Lull, "’The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19-25," JBL 105 (1986) 481-98; N. H. Young, "Paidagôgos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," NovT 29 (1987) 150-76; A. T. Hanson, "The Origin of Paul’s Use of Paidagôgos for the Law," JSNT 34 (1988) 71-76.

[23] See Betz, Galatians, 175-80; E. Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921) 198-201.

[24] See G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956); A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) 57-67; George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 66-71; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 293-304.

[25] According to Bandstra, Paul means the same thing by the terms "elements of the cosmos" in 4:3 and "elements" in 4:8 (The Law and the Elements of the World, 57-67). He identifies them as "those elements that are operative within the whole sphere of human activity which is temporary and passing away, beggarly and incompetent in bringing salvation, weak and both open to an defenseless before sin" (55). These operative elements are Law and flesh, the fundamental forces operative in the world.

[26] See Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, 215-16; 510-18; R. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1990) 164-66; R. Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 181, 188-92; A. Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 151-65.

"The Law and the Christian, A Modern Day Look at Legalism", By: DeaconDean, Part V, VI. Various Usages of “nomoV” in the Pauline Writings, Section 6.5. Statements that Appear to Indicate Paul rejects the Law as a Moral Standard, 6.5d. Gal 3:23-25; 4:1-7

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Law and The Christian, A Modern Day Look at Legalism:

"From an Old Testament perspective, William Gulbrod gives the following definition of the Hebrew “Law”:

“The Laws are in the strictest sense, the requirements of the God to whom Israel belongs because he has revealed himself in the exodus from Egypt and because in all future wars He will show Himself to be the God of His people. Thus the motive for keeping the law is simply that of obedience in so far as there is any conscious reflection on the question of motivation.”[1]

Arthur W. Pink defines the “Law” thusly:

“The law was given to Israel not that they might be redeemed, but because they had been redeemed. The notion had been brought out of Egypt by the power of God under the blood of the slain lamb, itself the symbol and token of His grace. The Law added at Sinai as the necessary standard life for a ransomed people, a people now belonged to the Lord…The Law was given that they now stood to God, of a salvation which was already theirs. The covenant of the Law did not supersede the covenant of promise, but set forth the kind of life which those who were redeemed by the covenant of promise were expected to live.”[2]

Then we can say that the “Law” are divine commandments, statements, principles of ethics given by God as contained in the first five books of the Christian Bible most commonly known as the “Law of Moses: as found in the Pentateuch or the Torah.

A. The Law in the Old Testament

(1) The Law in the Ancient Israel

A word of note before discussion in this area begins. In researching this subject one could not avoid articles and theories put forth from the early part of the twentieth century called the “J, E, P, and D”.[3] Even though these theories have been largely disproved, in some respects, it does shed some light on the law from another perspective. Although these theories are not being advocated, some aspects will be included just for discussions sake.

Two other considerations should be taken into account also when looking at the Law within the Old Testament are the locus and the theological setting. So far as this discussion is concerned, since the locus, the actual giving of the Law did not happen until Sinai, we shall only be addressing the Law from that point onwards only.

Even though the Law was handed down from God to Moses, Moses is often referred to as the author which can be seen in the numerous references in the scriptures to the “Law of Moses.” However:

“The historical locality of these laws was either in the act of reading the laws regularly that took place inside the sanctuary, or perhaps in the act of worshipping that took place in the sanctuary near the Ark where the Laws of the covenant were kept.”[4]

What we have said about the probable locus of these laws corresponds to, and is illuminated by, the theological setting of these laws in Israel’s belief in God. The laws have their place in the doctrine of the covenant. Yahweh has chosen Israel as His people, and Israel has acknowledged Yahweh as its God. This fundamental Old Testament principle is the direct basis of these laws. They express the claim of Yahweh to dominion over the whole life of these people which belongs to Him in virtue of His election. The first commandment of the Decalogue expresses this with full clarity.

And the doctrine of election can be seen in the Law beginning with Ex. 20:2. Even though it wasn’t developed until later as a theological feature, nevertheless, it is God who said:

“I am Jehovah your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.”

In this verse, God says “your” and “you”. This is of particular interest because here God is addressing Israel/the Hebrews exclusively. Thus, the Laws are in the strictest sense the requirements of the God to Israel of whom they belong."

[1] W. Golbrod, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Translator, Erdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964.

[2] Arthur W. Pink, The Law and the Spirit, [article on-line] accessed 11/18/2007, found on the world wide web at http://www.thehighway.com/Law_Pink.html.

[3] J, E, P, and D refers to the theory called Jehovah, Eloheim, Priestly, and Deuteronomic Laws.

[4] P. Volz., mose und sein Werd, 1932, 100ff., and Die Religion in Geshichte, 1909ff., 1927ff.

Ibid, Part I, I. Meaning of the Term Law, A. The Law in the Old Testament. (as a whole, TDNT, Vol. V, nomos, p. 596)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

So when Paul wrote, said to the Galatians:

"To redeem them that were under the law," -Gal. 4:5 (KJV)

The reference is to the Jews.

Matter of fact, Galatians records the problem that plagued Paul. Gnosticism!

There were certain Jews who came behind Paul preaching that the Gentiles had to be circumcised also.

It was because of these Gnostics, that the First Apostolic Council was called and is recorded in Acts 15.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Doug Melven]

As long as Mk. 10:14 says what it does, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I went and looked at Mark 10:14 and saw in verse 13 that children wanted to come to Jesus but the disciples rebuked the children, and Jesus said to not rebuke them but to let them come to Him, in verse 15 we see Jesus saying Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. So we must have childlike faith.
You ever take notice of how trusting children are?
God gives us this faith when we hear His Word.
Only by "proper" exegesis can these verse be made to say something they are not saying.

You know, John 5:40 takes the wind out of the Arminian argument?

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

Had God not took the "active" part in our salvation, we'd still be lost.

You just cannot all of a sudden stop doing evil and say "I think I'll start living for Christ". Yet that is the essence of what Arminianism teaches. Contrary to scripture:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

I am glad I am not an Arminian.
Yes He did take the active part, He holds out His hand for us to take.
And once we reach out to take His hand He takes us and we are in His hand.
Only God can change us.
In Jeremiah 13 the people made a choice against God's will. Verse 11 says that the LORD caused the people to cleave unto Him, but they would not have it. Then you see them doing all kinds of evil and because they were deep into sin they could no longer do anything good.
But it was there choice despite God causing them to cleave unto Him.

Calling someone something they are not is just insulting and definitely not done with grace.
Kind of like if somebody told a mechanic that all wheel drive and four wheel drive were the same because a car only has four wheels, therefore they are the same.
And then the mechanic explains to that person why they are not, yet that person persists in saying they are, the mechanic is going to consider that person a fool.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I agree. Altar calls aren't biblical. No one gets saved by walking down an aisle, or repeating a prayer.

The ONLY WAY someone can be saved is by doing what Paul told the jailer: They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:31

There is no other way.

I don't agree with the way people beat up on alter calls.

Now I'm not saying they are overly great, but the other side of the coin is to not have someone to pray to Christ for salvation.

So I'm not sure that not having no one pray with someone is better.

And I also don't agree that no one gets saved by them. I've seen quite a few people saved during an alter call.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't agree with the way people beat up on alter calls.

I didn't beat up on them.

Now I'm not saying they are overly great, but the other side of the coin is to not have someone to pray to Christ for salvation.

There are no examples of anyone in Scripture praying for salvation.

And no invitations to pray for salvation. The only way to be saved is to believe the gospel. Praying isn't necessarily believing.

So I'm not sure that not having no one pray with someone is better.

And I also don't agree that no one gets saved by them. I've seen quite a few people saved during an alter call.

The only way to get saved is to believe the gospel. Repeating words after someone doesn't guarantee that the person repeating the words actually believes them.

Consider that the repeater may think somehow the words are "magic" and just saying them will save them. We must emphasize what the person is believing, not just what they are repeating.

There are those who think that walking down an aisle actually saved them. Or raising a hand. Or praying. None of these things saves. Only believing the gospel saves.

 

[ToBeLoved]

There are no examples of anyone in Scripture praying for salvation.

Praying for salvation, the word 'salvation' is probably a bad word choice I made.

So you never prayed when you acknowledged your belief in God.

I had someone pray with me when I was 12 yo and I acknowledged my faith to God in prayer. And I am and was saved.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Praying for salvation, the word 'salvation' is probably a bad word choice I made.

So you never prayed when you acknowledged your belief in God.

My prayers began after I believed the gospel message of what Christ did for me.

Are there any verses in the Bible about "praying to receive Christ"? There are verses about believing to receive Christ.
John 1:12 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

I had someone pray with me when I was 12 yo and I acknowledged my faith to God in prayer. And I am and was saved.

Yes, and praise God! It's always right to acknowledge one's faith in Christ by means of prayer.

The problem is how we phrase things. We don't receive Christ by prayer, but by faith.

 

[ToBeLoved]

My prayers began after I believed the gospel message of what Christ did for me.

Are there any verses in the Bible about "praying to receive Christ"? There are verses about believing to receive Christ.
John 1:12 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—


Yes, and praise God! It's always right to acknowledge one's faith in Christ by means of prayer.

The problem is how we phrase things. We don't receive Christ by prayer, but by faith.

Why would we think people who come forward in an alter call about Christ would not believe or have faith in the gospel message?

Wouldn’t they have some faith if they were coming forward to pray?

I don’t understand the complication. The apostles prayed and laid hands on people.

I don’t see this complication with faith here. Someone was listening to some message about Christ to be in the situation of even having an alter call available.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why would we think people who come forward in an alter call about Christ would not believe or have faith in the gospel message?

If they think that walking that aisle saves them. I've had believers tell me they were saved when they walked an aisle.

They surely may have put their faith in Christ when they walked the aisle, but the action of walking an aisle does not save. Only the action of believing in Christ will save. That's my point.

Wouldn’t they have some faith if they were coming forward to pray?

I don't know. And not if they thought the action of walking the aisle is what will save them. They're trusting in their own action to save them.

I don’t understand the complication. The apostles prayed and laid hands on people.

Not to save anyone.

I don’t see this complication with faith here.

There is no complicaiton with faith. The complication comes when one thinks that raising a hand, or walking down an aisle will save them. Unfortunately, that's how some well meaning pastors have phrased it. I think that's sloppy.

We always need to be crystal clear when the gospel is presented and we invite people to believe.

I had one former pastor invite people in the congregation to pray along with him as he recited a form of the "sinner's prayer". But in it, he always added "as best as I know how", which frustrated me to no end.

That one unbiblical phrase could easily plant the seed that "just maybe the person's best wasn't enough" if things weren't working out as they thought.

Leading to a loss of assurance.

We're never saved by anything we do "to the best of our ability". Trusting in Christ doesn't take ability, but just trust. Even child-like faith, as Jesus pointed out in Matt 18:3.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If they think that walking that aisle saves them. I've had believers tell me they were saved when they walked an aisle.

They surely may have put their faith in Christ when they walked the aisle, but the action of walking an aisle does not save. Only the action of believing in Christ will save. That's my point.

What about if they believed in Christ as they were walking down the aisle?

Did you ask them if they had faith in Christ or not when doing so?

 

[ToBeLoved]

If they think that walking that aisle saves them. I've had believers tell me they were saved when they walked an aisle.

They surely may have put their faith in Christ when they walked the aisle, but the action of walking an aisle does not save. Only the action of believing in Christ will save. That's my point.


I don't know. And not if they thought the action of walking the aisle is what will save them. They're trusting in their own action to save them.


Not to save anyone.


There is no complicaiton with faith. The complication comes when one thinks that raising a hand, or walking down an aisle will save them. Unfortunately, that's how some well meaning pastors have phrased it. I think that's sloppy.

We always need to be crystal clear when the gospel is presented and we invite people to believe.

I had one former pastor invite people in the congregation to pray along with him as he recited a form of the "sinner's prayer". But in it, he always added "as best as I know how", which frustrated me to no end.

That one unbiblical phrase could easily plant the seed that "just maybe the person's best wasn't enough" if things weren't working out as they thought.

Leading to a loss of assurance.

We're never saved by anything we do "to the best of our ability". Trusting in Christ doesn't take ability, but just trust. Even child-like faith, as Jesus pointed out in Matt 18:3.

I admit many churches can get very sloppy with alter calls.

That is why I usually don't respond on this subject. But it is the churches responsibility, IMHO to make sure people understand. Many do not and it is very bad.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What about if they believed in Christ as they were walking down the aisle?

Did you ask them if they had faith in Christ or not when doing so?

The believing is what saves, not walking an aisle.