Calvinism, explained.

ToBeLoved · Jun 14, 2016

I hope the above post helps the Calvinist understand what we do not believe about their theories of the unBiblical TWO wills of God.

Aldebaran · Jun 14, 2016

tulipbee said:
If God is not willing that all unsaved sinners perish and they still perish that presents a problem. Ephesians 1:11 teaches us that God works all things after the counsel of His own will. So then, if God's will is for something to come to pass (in this case, the salvation of everyone) and it doesn't come to pass then something stopped God from bringing His will to pass. If that could happen we have another problem because Isaiah 14:24,27- teaches us that when God purposes to do something it will come to pass. So, the text shows no one who God purposes to save will ever perish (see Matthew 1:21 also - He shall save His people -not all people - from their sins)

Perhaps John 3:16 sums it up pretty well. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

THAT is what God purposed to do, and He did accomplish this. He gave His only begotten Son who became the gateway to salvation for any who would choose to accept that path. In other words, His purpose was to provide the option of salvation. But that doesn't violate OUR will because He still allows us to make the decision as to whether or not to enter.

Marvin Knox · Jun 14, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
I hope the above post helps the Calvinist understand what we do not believe about their theories of the unBiblical TWO wills of God.

Good job of cutting and pasting I suppose.

But even if that article is correct and Calvinism is incorrect or whatever happens to be true about anything doctrinally - the fact remains that what you portrayed to me that you desired from me in post #2215 in so far as desiring open dialog was, in the eyes of God as well as mine, nothing less than lying to me.

I'd put all of the discussion of doctrine on hold until you learn not to lie to a brother in Christ.

Again - shame on you.

ToBeLoved · Jun 14, 2016

Marvin Knox said:
Good job of cutting and pasting I suppose.

But even if that article is correct and Calvinism is incorrect or whatever happens to be true about anything doctrinally - the fact remains that what you portrayed to me that you desired from me in post #2215 in so far as desiring open dialog was, in the eyes of God as well as mine, nothing less than lying to me.

I'd put all of the discussion of doctrine on hold until you learn not to lie to a brother in Christ.

Again - shame on you.

I was not lying to you, but I also made it clear several pages back that I wanted to hear from a Calvinist.
They start these threads and then do not live up to answering hard questions. Not focsused on you, but rather why they do not speak for themselves instead of hiding behind there one liners and one sentences.

If you still feel the above, then I am sorry you feel that way and if I mislead you, it was not intentional. I do not know why they start threads, the only reason I can see is to get their doctrine out there in posts.

So instead of them saying what they believe, I wanted to say what I believe and let them refute it, if they can. But I know they do not care too. It's all about writing about how 'elect' they are and 'chosen' pride in their status in the Lord.

All kinds of pride.

piritual pride is an insidious enemy that we all continually must guard against and fight. It was one of the main sins of the Pharisees. They thought that they were a notch above their fellow Jews (John 9:28-34) and far above the despised Gentile dogs. To confront such pride, Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the publican who went up to the temple to pray (Luke 18:9-14). The Pharisee thanked God that he wasn’t like the publican. But how many times have you read that story and thought, “Thank God that I’m not like that Pharisee!”

The apostle Paul apparently knew from some of his contacts in Rome that there was a problem with creeping spiritual pride on the part of the Gentile Christians against their fellow Jewish believers (he deals with this more in chapters 14 & 15) and also against unbelieving Jews. Left unchecked, this attitude would lead to division in the church, to anti-Semitism that would choke out witness to the Jews, and to the spiritual ruin of those who continued down that path.

In our text, Paul counters this problem with an illustration of an olive tree and its branches. He shows the Gentiles that they are not the root, but rather are branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted into the cultivated tree, supported by the root. Three times (11:18, 20, 25) Paul directly warns Gentile believers against spiritual pride. They were no better than the Jews, but were grafted into the tree by God’s grace alone. And if the Gentiles do not curb their pride, they could be broken off as the unbelieving Jews were. He also encourages evangelism toward unbelieving Jews by showing that in God’s sovereign plan, the branches that were broken off because of their unbelief will be grafted back in when they believe (11:23). In fact, God is moving salvation history toward that end (11:25-26). Applied to us, Paul’s message is:

Guard against spiritual pride by remembering that salvation is by grace alone and by maintaining faith and fear before the God of kindness and severity.

Marvin Knox · Jun 14, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
If you still feel the above, then I am sorry you feel that way and if I mislead you, it was not intentional. ............I was not lying to you, but I also made it clear several pages back that I wanted to hear from a Calvinist.

Ok - so in your view you were not lying to me. That, hopefully, truly being the case - I'll try this one more time.

I'm sure that you would like to hear from a full on Calvinist. The only trouble is that you burned most of those bridges long ago as I have noticed while reading along here.

As with me - you feigned wanting to understand something and then when it was explained to you, rather than dialog about it, you just launched into one of your anti-Calvinistic rants.

That's the way it's been since you first entered this conversation a long time ago as I look back on it.

ToBeLoved said:
They start these threads and then do not live up to answering hard questions.

Actually - I have heard many of them at least try to dialog with you. But it always ends up the same way.

If you would just tone it down a little and quit with the rants you may get somewhere (If you ever get another chance with them).

If your attitude really isn't as I took it to be - perhaps you could practice thoughtful dialog with me and be ready if the chance comes along again with someone more full blown 5-pointish.

What about the things I said in post #2216?

In all likelihood my way of expressing these truths is a bit more mild than a full blown Calvinist would do. But that's probably a good thing - if you really want understanding without a bunch of heat being generated.

Whether I am a full on 5-pointer or not -- it is still true that the points I addressed there, in reply to your post to me, are absolutely essential to an understanding of the most basic difference between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist world views.

Would you care to dialog about what I said point by point?

If not then fine.

nobdysfool · Jun 14, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
Think what you want to think. Free country, but no free will. Maybe it's the nature God created me with.

What I will do is stop waiting for any Calvinist to explain their theory Biblically and I'll just get my answers from Google about them and their beliefs. Much quicker with less foundless theories, hopefully.

Perhaps you are not taking into account the way you're asking, the conclusions you draw prematurely, and that simple fact that in a forum such as this, there are many self-important people who will generate enough noise to sidetrack discussions that they have decided they cannot abide people having. IF you really want to know, a one-on-one conversation will be much more productive and enlightening.

Getting your info from Google is about the worst way to get what you say you want.

GillDouglas · Jun 14, 2016

Marvin Knox said:
No you don't "gots it".

What I get though is that there is no difference between you and all the rest of the argumentative types here.

You pretend in one post to be seeking understanding of the other side's points and intelligent dialog - when all you really want is an open avenue to vent your spleen.

You are no more worthy of a serious reply like the one I gave to you than the vilest participant in this forum.

I've made the mistake of taking you to be a good person before only to be disappointed. It won't happen again.

You seem to be a little lacking in the skills it takes to express yourself. Many here have noticed that before of course and told you so.

I've blamed that lack of ability for my misunderstanding your intent in the past and did it again here.

As I say - I won't be making the same mistake again.

Shame on you.

You should see @ToBeLoved at work in the LDS threads. You definitely seem to have nailed what I've thought in regards to his/her contributions in this thread.

Marvin Knox · Jun 14, 2016

GillDouglas said:
You should see @ToBeLoved at work in the LDS threads. You definitely seem to have nailed what I've thought in regards to his/her contributions in this thread.

Interestingly I actually received a personal request from her a while back to come over to that L.D.S. thread to help her out when she was getting nowhere with her own methods . And - that after the two of us had locked horns here and elsewhere a few times before.

I did so and I participated for some time - until I finally realized that I was the only one from either side who approached the subject matter from a rational position.

If a person is going to discuss doctrine with someone with whom they have profound differences - it only makes sense to do so in a rather subdued manner (of course dropping a few extremely difficult nuggets on a few well chosen occasions). Otherwise - the discussion goes nowhere. Why bother pretending that dialog is what you are intending when all you want is confrontation?

That's what I learned while discussing Mormonism and J.W. beliefs with my outlaw relatives over the years.

If you just want a slug fest with someone with no chance of a conversion of the other party, then why not just punch them in the nose to start with? Why even pretend that you want to understand them (or even care about them)?

The absolute truth of a matter (Biblical doctrine in particular) is arrived at for two divergent parties only by both parties being willing to give an inch to gain an inch (and hopefully, from each particular standpoint, to gain two inches along the way).

sdowney717 · Jun 14, 2016

Marvin Knox said:
I seems that you are in conflict with every systematic theology book ever written in this. There are two wills of God and everyone says so no matter be they Calvinist, Arminian, Mormon or Catholic. It is a doctrine that cannot be denied if you believe the scriptures.

Theologians refer to half of the doctrine of two wills as "permissive will". On the other hand - many "non-theologians" just talk in a very general way about God "allowing" things to take place that He would rather not have happen. (Certainly either way of expressing the dilema is an accurate way of saying it.)

But the theologian is attempting to explain how this condition (the presence of evil) could have ever happened with a good and all powerful God on the throne.

The difference, it seems to me, between Reformed and non-Reformed people is that Reformed people would say that God planned all along to "allow" evil to take place as part of a perfect plan -- and non-Reformed people, on the other hand, would say that God just had evil thrust into His creation without His seeing it coming (or at the least certainly not planning for it to come along), as it were.

Non-Reformed believe that God is "reacting" to sin's occurrence and working toward an end to this awful situation as best He can.

The Reformed believe that God is "proactive" concerning sin rather than "reactive". That is to say that He has always and from the beginning planned that the "end" result will come about "through" the use of sin which He would allow.

His just and perfect decree that there be a perfect world in eternity future where sin will not and indeed cannot exist is decreed to be brought to fruition through evil being allowed to run it's course in this present age.

In the ages to come, He wishes to not only display His grace through salvation. He wishes also (and has always planned) to display His justice and wrath in the ages to come.

How a just and good God could plan to use evil and sin in the process of bringing about a good end and not be, Himself, accused of being evil - is the $64,000 question. Reformed people struggle with the question all the time. How could any compassionate Christian not?

We do know that He does that sort of thing all the time as we read through the scriptures. What men and demons mean for evil - God means for good. I'm sure you know the many prominent examples of this principle from your study of the Word of God.

But it is a question that it seems is only asked and agonized over by Reformed and not the non-Reformed.

The reason that that is true is that, it seems to me, only the Reformed considers ALL of the scriptures in his theology rather than just rejecting part of it because it causes him agony of soul.

The bottom line though, as I have said many times, is that the non-Reformed still are faced, when all is said and done, with the same thorny issues as the Reformed. It's just that they put off dealing with them or try to drown them out by whistling through the graveyard by repeating a sort of "free will" mantra over and over again. .

I hope that helps to see the issues. I went to this trouble because you stressed to me that you were being altogether serious in your questions and not just looking to argue.

I sure hope that that's the case and that I won't be disappointed.

Yes there is God's will that all repent and believe the gospel, God commands men everywhere to repent and believe as it says in Acts 17.
Their refusal to believe regardless even as a sin done in ignorance, is still a sin. And not believing is still a sin even if they have never heard.
Sins done ignorantly still required a sacrifice in the OT and were forgivable.
For wilful sins there was no sacrifice, they were to be cut off forever from the congregation of the Lord.

Then there is what God by His decretive will brings to pass, the salvation of His elect that He has decided to be merciful towards.
This way is fair to all people who hear the gospel message. But God does not have to be fair, God shows mercy and compassion only to whomever He chooses, and His choice to leave others as they are. Entire nations of people have gone on to destruction and still are today without hearing the Truth in Christ. But we do have God's promise the gospel will be preached to all nations before the end.
God's only promise is that some from every nation, tribe, kindred, tongue will be saved.

Marvin Knox · Jun 14, 2016

sdowney717 said:
Yes there is God's will that all repent and believe the gospel, God commands men everywhere to repent and believe as it says in Acts 17.
Their refusal to believe regardless even as a sin done in ignorance, is still a sin. And not believing is still a sin even if they have never heard.
Sins done ignorantly still required a sacrifice in the OT and were forgivable.
For wilful sins there was no sacrifice, they were to be cut off forever from the congregation of the Lord.

Then there is what God by His decretive will brings to pass, the salvation of His elect that He has decided to be merciful towards.
This way is fair to all people who hear the gospel message. But God does not have to be fair, God shows mercy and compassion only to whomever He chooses, and His choice to leave others as they are. Entire nations of people have gone on to destruction and still are today without hearing the Truth in Christ. But we do have God's promise the gospel will be preached to all nations before the end.
God's only promise is that some from every nation, tribe, kindred, tongue will be saved.

Although I agree with much of what you say - I doubt that a full throttled 5-point Calvinist presentation will do anything to reach someone like "tobeloved".

It seems to me that a bite at a time would be a better approach to discussing the differences between Calvinist and non-Calvinist doctrine with her or someone like her.

sdowney717 · Jun 14, 2016

Marvin Knox said:
Although I agree with much of what you say - I doubt that a full throttled 5-point Calvinist presentation will do anything to reach someone like "tobeloved".

It seems to me that a bite at a time would be a better approach to discussing the differences between Calvinist and non-Calvinist doctrine with her or someone like her.

I have found it is impossible to teach anyone to know the Lord and know the truth. We are simply His witnesses to truth and God is the one giving the revelation that changes people's minds. God withholds from some, certain parts of the truth. The promise is we shall know the truth, but that promise seems for the many won't be realized until the 'perfect comes'. Recall it is the Holy Spirit Jesus says that guides us into all truth.

sdowney717 · Jun 14, 2016

John 16:13New King James Version (NKJV)
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

However, the Holy Spirit is not an open book that you can read, He is the one who reports to you what He hears from God to tell to you.

Guide into truth, means lead to truth, so there is an ongoing revelatory process.
Since we are still imperfect, none of us have the whole truth yet. We just know in part.
1 Cor 13
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Marvin Knox · Jun 14, 2016

sdowney717 said:
I have found it is impossible to teach anyone to know the Lord and know the truth. We are simply His witnesses to truth and God is the one giving the revelation that changes people's minds. God withholds from some, certain parts of the truth. The promise is we shall know the truth, but that promise seems for the many won't be realized until the 'perfect comes'. Recall it is the Holy Spirit Jesus says that guides us into all truth.

I certainly agree with you in that. God is the one who gives the increase. It is not our debating skills.

I also believe that it is sometimes wise to moderate our arguments a bite at a time - a little along the lines of what Paul did at Mars Hill in Athens and Peter did before the Sanhedrin - or even what Stephen did in Jerusalem at his stoning.

But in the end we can only try to do our best according to our own personalities.

I hope that she'll engage you again and that you will be productive in your approach.

sdowney717 · Jun 14, 2016

Marvin Knox said:
I certainly agree with you in that. God is the one who gives the increase. It is not our debating skills.

I also believe that it is sometimes wise to moderate our arguments a bite at a time - a little along the lines of what Paul did at Mars Hill in Athens and Peter did before the Sanhedrin - or even what Stephen did in Jerusalem at his stoning.

But in the end we can only try to do our best according to our own personalities.

I hope that she'll engage you again and that you will be productive in your approach.

HaHa, well, it is not really our job to change anyone's minds. Like I said, people seem to be hardened as stone into their philosophies, I take that as being ordained of God.

tulipbee · Jun 14, 2016

Aldebaran said:
Perhaps John 3:16 sums it up pretty well. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

THAT is what God purposed to do, and He did accomplish this. He gave His only begotten Son who became the gateway to salvation for any who would choose to accept that path. In other words, His purpose was to provide the option of salvation. But that doesn't violate OUR will because He still allows us to make the decision as to whether or not to enter.

The Bible plainly teaches that no one seeks God, and they never will in their total depravity, it is against thier nature. Only the ones predestined and called will come [Romans 8:30]. The question is now easy for me to answer, only the Elect need to hear the gospel and evey single one will, this make Christ's atonement 100% effecient.

Rick Otto · Jun 15, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
So then satan and 1/3 of the angels rebellion is God's will? As well as Adam coming to sin, God's will?

Then we would be adding 'sin' to the perfect, just will of God. So God condones sin now?

So allowing is now condoning? (matching tone)
"Adding sin to the perfect just will" sounds hyperbolic compared to what the actual scriptures say He was doing:

[22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

...if you want to interpret that as He willed sin to happen rather than He allowed it, that's your business, not mine..

Rick Otto · Jun 15, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
So, instead of wasting my own time typing out what I believe and have problems with, I'll just share someone else's post that sums it up and saves me some time and new Calvinist theories, seemingly copied from the 5th century.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/

Basic to Arminianism is God’s love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not sovereignty but God’s character. If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell. That is to say, if Calvinism is true God is not all-loving and perfectly good. John 3:16 says “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” “God so loved the world.” Calvinists must explain this as meaning that God loves “all kinds of people,” not everyone. Or that “God loves all people in some ways but only some people [the elect] in all ways.” Arminians believe these interpretations distort the clear message of the Bible about God’s love. If Calvinism is true, John Wesley said, God’s love is “such a love as makes the blood run cold.” It is indistinguishable from hate—for a large portion of humanity created in his own likeness and image.

Let me repeat. The most basic issue is not providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is God’s character.

Calvinists commonly argue that God’s love and goodness are somehow “different” than ours. How different can they be and still be meaningful concepts? If God’s love and goodness are compatible with predestining people to hell, then the words mean something other than they say. And if God is not perfectly good, then he is not trustworthy. If he can hate, then he can lie. Why trust Scripture to be a true revelation and guide if God is not good in some way analogous to our best ideas of goodness? If God’s goodness is consistent with predetermining large portions of people to hell, then why might it not be consistent with deceiving us? Our very trust in the Bible as God’s true revelation depends on God being good, trustworthy, one who cannot deceive.

The Calvinist, like the Arminian, approaches Scripture with the assumption that God cannot lie. He or she can trust the Bible to be a true revelation of God if it is inspired by God. The moment the Calvinist says “But God’s goodness is different from ours,” he or she undermines reason to trust the Bible. Of course God’s goodness is different from ours in that it is greater, but that’s not what Calvinists faced with passages such as John 3:16 mean. They mean that God’s goodness, God’s love, is wholly different from our highest and best concepts of them—even as revealed through Jesus Christ.

Another difference between Calvinism and Arminianism lies in Arminians’ view of God’s sovereignty in providence. According to Arminianism, God is now, before the coming of his Kingdom of perfect righteousness, sovereign de jure but not de facto. Jesus and Paul both referred to Satan as the “prince” of this world. According to Calvinism, Satan is God’s instrument; according to Arminianism he is a true enemy of God and presently resisting God’s will. Why God is allowing that is not revealed to us; we are only told that God is being patient. So, according to Arminianism, God limits himself, restrains his power, holds back from controlling everything. Why? For the sake of free will. God wants our freely offered and given love, not love that he has instilled in us without our consent. If Calvinism is true, salvation is a condition, not a relationship. A relationship requires free consent. So, in the interim, between the fall in the garden and the return of Christ in judgment, God is sovereign by right but not exercising that sovereignty over everything. He could but he doesn’t. Thus, sin, evil and innocent suffering, and especially hell, are not God’s antecedent will but God’s consequent will. God’s antecedent will is what he perfectly wanted to happen—including our willing obedience out of love and everlasting fellowship with us. God’s consequent will is what God permits to happen that is contrary to his perfect will. It is consequent to our free choice to rebel against God and push him out of our lives and our world. It is consequent to our free choice to obey Satan and make him “god of this world” rather than obey God.

So, according to Arminianism, God is in charge but not yet in control. God is like the king of an enemy occupied territory and we Christians are like resistance fighters who look forward to the day when our hero, God, will return and take back his full sovereignty over our country. Of course, this is only an analogy. Our God is not banished from this world, but neither is he controlling everything that happens, rendering it certain according to his blueprint. If that were the case, our prayers could make no real difference. If Calvinism is true, God’s will is already being done “on earth” and yet Jesus taught us to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Calvinism flatly contradicts that prayer.

Of course, Calvinists have their answers to all these objections, but I do not find any of them convincing. They sound forced to me. They say, for example, that our prayers for God’s will to be done are God’s “foreordained means to a foreordained end.” In other words, our prayers are also foreordained and rendered certain by God as a means of having his will done on earth as in heaven. But, at the end of the day, that means our prayers never really change anything.

Calvinists also say that not everything is “God’s will” in the same way. For example, they say that God wishes none had to perish in hell. That’s their interpretation of the verses cited earlier that God is not willing that any should perish but that everyone be saved. God wishes hell were not necessary, but it is—for his full glory. God wills what he wishes he did not have to will.

Perhaps the most troubling answer of Calvinists is the two wills of God—not “antecedent” and “consequent” but “prescriptive” and “decretive.” If Calvinism is true, God decrees that people do what he forbids. God decrees things that violate his prescriptions—commands. God commands “Thou shalt not murder,” but decrees “Thou shalt murder.” Calvin explained in Institutes, and most Calvinists agree, that God does not sin in decreeing that someone sin because God’s intention is good whereas the murderer’s intention is evil. God intends the murder he decrees and renders certain for his glory. The murderer, who could not do otherwise than God decrees, is guilty because his intention is hateful. Not only is this hairsplitting; it also raises the question of the origin of the murderer’s evil intention. If every twist and turn of every thought and intention is under the direct control of God, then even the murderer’s intention cannot escape the all-determining sovereignty of Calvinism’s God. This is why Arminius stated that if Calvinism is true, not only is sin not really sin, but God is the only sinner.

Now let’s turn to Arminianism’s alternative view of God’s predestination. Here I return to the TULIP scheme. Arminians agree that fallen humans are totally depraved in the sense Calvinism means—helpless to do anything truly good, pleasing to God, apart from grace. Arminians, however, believe in prevenient grace—that grace of God that heals the deadly wound of sin and frees the fallen sinner from the bondage of the will to sin and gives him or her ability to exercise a good will toward God. We do not know all the means of prevenient grace, but the preaching of the gospel is one. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” The gospel read or heard imparts prevenient grace so that the person is for the first time freed to repent and trust in God. In other words, Arminians do not believe in “free will” but in “freed will.”

Where is prevenient grace in the Bible? Where is it not in the Bible? It is everywhere assumed, taken for granted, presupposed by Scripture. No one seeks after God and yet many do seek after God. That pattern of “don’t” but “do” is found everywhere in Scripture. It is explained by the concept of prevenient grace. Left to ourselves, apart from a special impartation of grace that convicts and calls, illumines and enables, we would never exercise a good will toward God. But with prevenient grace, we can and some of us do.

Arminians also believe in unconditional election, but we believe it is corporate election—God’s unconditional plan to have a people for himself: Israel and the church. Individual election is conditional. It requires faith which is both a gift of God and a response of the individual. Philippians 2:12-13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for God is at work in you….” (The text and subject of my sermon tomorrow morning) God provides all the ability, the seed of faith, and we freely accept it and use it to repent and trust in God alone. But once we do repent and trust, we see that it was God who made it possible in every way, so we cannot boast. And God foreknew that we would (or wouldn’t) repent and believe. That’s another dimension of God’s election in Arminian theology. Individual election, predestination, is conditional in that we must accept it. If we do, it turns out that God foreknew that we would (Romans 8:29: “Those whom he foreknew he did predestine….”)

One of Calvinism’s main arguments against Arminianism is that if Arminianism is true, God’s salvation is not all of grace. We earn it. Only if election to salvation is absolutely unconditional and grace irresistible, they argue, can it truly be the case that “by grace we are saved through faith.” Only then is salvation a sheer gift. This is, of course, untrue. Think of this analogy. If someone gives you a check for a thousand dollars that saves you from bankruptcy, and all you have to do is endorse the check and deposit it, did you earn part of the money? Was it any less a gift? Absolutely not. What if someone who received such a check that saved him or her from bankruptcy then boasted of having earned part of the gift? People would think him mad or ungrateful or both! A gift that must be freely received is no less a gift.

Now let’s look at Calvinism’s idea of unconditional election. If God is good and could save everyone because election to salvation is absolutely unconditional, why doesn’t he? How can he be truly good if he could but doesn’t? Again, we are back at the fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism—God’s character.

Arminianism believes that the atonement of Jesus Christ is unlimited in every way. Christ died for everyone; he took the punishment for the sins of all. Does Scripture teach it? Absolutely. 1 Timothy 2:6 says that Christ gave himself as a ransom for everyone. The Greek is clear: it says “all people.” There is no room to interpret this as meaning “all kinds of people.” John Piper, noting the conflict between this verse and limited atonement, which he espouses, claims that Christ did die for even the non-elect. His death affords them many blessings in this life even if not escape from hell in the next. Christ did not die to save them but only to offer them temporal blessings. This is the same as saying he gives the non-elect a little bit of heaven to go to hell in. Piper’s “explanation” is clearly contrary to the plain sense of this Scripture passage which is why many Calvinists cannot accept limited atonement. And yet they cannot explain why Christ would die for those God planned not to save.

But there are other passages that completely undermine limited atonement: Romans 14:15 and 1 Corinthians 8:11. Both passages warn believers against flaunting their freedom in Christ in front of brothers and sisters of weaker conscience because this might cause one for whom Christ died to be “destroyed.” The Greek word translated “destroyed” always only means utterly destroyed; it cannot mean “damaged.” But if Calvinism is correct, a person for whom Christ died cannot be “destroyed” because he or she is one of the elect.

It is ridiculous to think God loved the world in the sense that He loved every unrepentant sinner, even by your own Arminian standards. It makes perfect sense to interpret it in the way it was used in the first century, not the 20th century.
The world was another way of saying gentiles.
It was a controversy to claim salvation was for anyone beside what was then under good to be God's chosen people.
You should just agree to disagree if you can't except basic facts.

Rick Otto · Jun 15, 2016

tulipbee said:
The Bible plainly teaches that no one seeks God, and they never will in their total depravity, it is against thier nature. Only the ones predestined and called will come [Romans 8:30]. The question is now easy for me to answer, only the Elect need to hear the gospel and evey single one will, this make Christ's atonement 100% effecient.

That's how it worked on me.
I was 3& 1/2 yrs old. I will never forget the moment I first believed. I heard a Catholic priest say "God made everything because He loves you." And it hit me like a ton of feathers.
Everything in my life suddenly made perfect sense. It was my first epiphany. I was pretty excited, but I had to contain myself because I was "in church". lol

ToBeLoved · Jun 15, 2016

I'll leave now after being falsely accused and spit on. Starting a thread not to Explain Calvinism that doesn't answer questions, but is just for 'good ol' boys' club fodder with believers who believe like you do.

You never wanted to 'discuss' it, only push your own beliefs. I asked too hard of questions. I know.

tulipbee · Jun 15, 2016

Calvinism, explained.

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Reformed Christian

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Worker of the Hive

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Worker of the Hive

Similar threads