Shades of Calvinism vs. the Gospel

Bible Highlighter · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Edwin H. Palmer in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker Books; 1972, 1980). He writes:

"And, the Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish" (p. 85).

I agree.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 18, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day,

Well thanks for sharing...

But if you look at the context from vs 9.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.”

It may benefit you to have a look at Moo's work on the book of Romans (teach the text) to give you a better understanding of the interpretative insights within the book of Romans.

In Him,

Bill

This type of reading is called wooden literalism, which can lead to serious error. Do you believe Jesus is literally a door with hinges? Do you believe Jesus when he said, “ye are gods” in the most strict and literal way? Surely we are not divine like God in any way. Jesus was referring to how the Israelite were referred to as rulers. But if I read Scripture with wooden literalism, I could wrongfully conclude that we are like God in a divine way (Which would simply not be true). I believe you are doing the same with Romans 3:10-12. You are focusing a laser beam on this passage at the expense of not looking at the whole counsel of God's Word.

Remember, the reason why the Bereans were more noble in Scripture.

BBAS 64 · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Edwin H. Palmer in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker Books; 1972, 1980). He writes:

"And, the Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish" (p. 85).

Good Day,

To which Roger Olsen a self-proclaimed Arminian and very consistent one notes:

The Problem of Irrational, Unteachable Christians

Even among Calvinists this is a debate: Does Calvinism require sacrificing logic? Calvinist pastor-theologian Edwin H. Palmer, author of The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker, 1972) thought so. About Calvinist doctrines he wrote “The Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish. … The Calvinist holds two apparently contradictory positions. … He cannot reconcile the two; but seeing that the Bible clearly teaches both, he accepts both.” (85-86) R. C. Sproul and Paul Helm, on the other and, argue that Calvinism is not illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical or foolish. They admit it requires embrace of mysteries, but they adamantly deny it requires irrationality.

What that means is that a non-Calvinist can have reasonable dialogue with Sproul and Helm but not with Palmer and his ilk. The reasonable dialogue assumes the Bible does not communicate and require embrace of sheer irrationality. Early church father Tertullian wrongly said “I believe because it is absurd.” Embrace of mystery is one thing; all theologies do it somewhere (at some points in exposition of their doctrines). But there’s a difference between “mystery” (what cannot be fully explained) and contradiction (two more propositions that are logically incompatible). Mystery is a sign of transcendence; contradiction is a sign of error.

Clearly Palmer is considered fringe (ilk) in his view, also in error and lacks the ability and desire to correctly understand mystery and contradiction.

In Him,

Bill

Bible Highlighter · Jun 18, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day,

To which Roger Olsen a self-proclaimed Arminian and very consistent one notes:

The Problem of Irrational, Unteachable Christians

Even among Calvinists this is a debate: Does Calvinism require sacrificing logic? Calvinist pastor-theologian Edwin H. Palmer, author of The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker, 1972) thought so. About Calvinist doctrines he wrote “The Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish. … The Calvinist holds two apparently contradictory positions. … He cannot reconcile the two; but seeing that the Bible clearly teaches both, he accepts both.” (85-86) R. C. Sproul and Paul Helm, on the other and, argue that Calvinism is not illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical or foolish. They admit it requires embrace of mysteries, but they adamantly deny it requires irrationality.

What that means is that a non-Calvinist can have reasonable dialogue with Sproul and Helm but not with Palmer and his ilk. The reasonable dialogue assumes the Bible does not communicate and require embrace of sheer irrationality. Early church father Tertullian wrongly said “I believe because it is absurd.” Embrace of mystery is one thing; all theologies do it somewhere (at some points in exposition of their doctrines). But there’s a difference between “mystery” (what cannot be fully explained) and contradiction (two more propositions that are logically incompatible). Mystery is a sign of transcendence; contradiction is a sign of error.

Clearly Palmer is considered fringe (ilk) in his view, also in error and lacks the ability and desire to correctly understand mystery and contradiction.

In Him,

Bill

What you said here does not really defend your belief in Calvinism. Your just essentially saying, “I am right, and they are wrong.” You need something that is a little more substantial than that to prove that Calvinism is remotely true. Again, try dealing with 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Please explain to me in a word or two on what each word is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 in the KJV.

Side Note:

This is why I believe your belief here is biblically bankrupt. You cannot explain a simple verse that refutes Calvinism.

nolidad · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
In my experience in discussing and studying Calvinism: All forms of Calvinism promote the idea that it is ultimately God who saves you and it is in nothing that you did. A person is saved by election or by some kind of regeneration before they exercise faith in the gospel. Many Calvinists believe (from my understanding on Calvinism) is that they consider our free will choice to exercise faith as a work, and thus God needs to save us by His grace and change us. God saves us, and we do not make the choice to be saved (in the world of Calvinism). Some in Calvinism say that “Calvinism is the gospel.”

This is not what I believe the Bible teaches. I believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. The gospel is defined for us in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The gospel is believing that Christ died for us, that He was buried, and He was risen three days later on our behalf for salvation. This is the gospel upon which we are saved. This is how we first get saved is by believing the gospel by faith. We are not saved before this point by the grace of God or by Him zapping us or regenerating us to be saved. We exercise faith in the gospel and then we are saved.

Well being a die hard unapologetic "5 point Calvinist", let me speak from my understanding. I cannot speak for all Calvinists.

1. An individual is elected by God from before the foundation of the world.
2. When it comes to choosing or not choosing God, mankind does not have free will. The Bible makes it clear that lost mankind cannot and will not choose God based on their own human nature!
3. God does a drawing work to bring the elect to HImself.
4. Choosing God is a result of God choosing us! It is not a work but a result of a change God does in an individual.
5. We say yes because we are enabled to say yes! Without God doing a work in our lives to change us- we would never accept Christ on our own.
6. The pre-salvific work God does to accept th egospel is called many things. What it actually is, I do not know, but it allows us to accept the gospel and be saved.

helmut · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
We cannot make the Bible say something it doesn't. The gospel is not fully defined in Romans 10:9-13.

It is also not fully defined in 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
As for 1 Timothy 2:3-6 being another definition of the gospel:

Again, I disagree. No words state anything like this:

“The gospel I declare unto you is also this: there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”

So there is a truth from God outside the Gospel? 1.Tim 2,4 states clearly that the following is truth everybody should know because God wants to save every man.

Bible Highlighter said:
Paul never said that, or anything like it here.

Do not just look on the letters, look on the content.

Bible Highlighter said:
Yes, I am aware that the “gospel of the kingdom” is believing in the Messiah as the Savior before the cross.

This is a quite different matter ...

Bible Highlighter said:
But once Paul revealed the full gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, that is now our gospel.

Why 1.Cor 15:1-4?

Why nor Rom 2:16, or Col 1,21-23?

Bible Highlighter said:
The gospel today is believing that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation. That is the gospel.

This does not explain that the Gospel is something we should obey to (2.Ts 1:8!). Paul had a wider concept of Gospel than you.

Bible Highlighter said:
So you believe in Molinism, or something else?

Molinism? What's that?

Bible Highlighter said:
#1. Conditional Election (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#2. Conditional Salvation.

Can't see that God makes any conditions for us to be saved. In the parable of the prodigal son,. the Father does not make any condition, but receives the lost son in his arms.

Bible Highlighter said:
#3. Unrestricted Initial Drawing(s) & Illumination(s)...

Maybe, I hace to think about it.

Bible Highlighter said:
#4. Provisional Majority Atonement (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).

Someone that demands sticking to the wording, as in your arguing that only 1.Cor 15 is the correct description of the Gospel, such a person should not go away from the words of the Bible that God wants to save all men.

Bible Highlighter said:
#5. Partial Depravity.

Definitely not. Thia is not only against Arminianism, it is also against Calvin, Luther etc. It is Pelagianism, simply.

[QUOTE="Bible Highlighter, post: 75092549, member: 356113"Then again, do not take my word for what I have stated. Do your own homework with God's Word and check to see whether these things be so or not.[/QUOTE]
Of course I do. I would be a fool if I take something just because someone on CF I never seen personally says this.

BBAS 64 · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
What you said here does not really defend your belief in Calvinism. Your just essentially saying, “I am right, and they are wrong.” You need something that is a little more substantial than that to prove that Calvinism is remotely true. Again, try dealing with 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Please explain to me in a word or two on what each word is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 in the KJV.

Side Note:

This is why I believe your belief here is biblically bankrupt. You cannot explain a simple verse that refutes Calvinism.

Good Day, BH

We go from discussions about a quote in a book from E. Palmer.. that you posted.

BTW here are some others from him in the same book.

It is even Biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.
[Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 82]

Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He is not sitting on the sidelines wondering and perhaps fearing what is going to happen next. No, He has foreordained everything after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist, even sin.
[Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 24-5]

Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands (His perceptive will), God has included them in His sovereign decree (ordained them, caused them to certainly come to pass).
[Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 95]

To a single verse that starts with "and" that you assert refutes Calvinism

Oh My ^_^

are you for real, you are kidding me right?

In Him,

Bill

Bible Highlighter · Jun 18, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, BH

We go from discussions about a quote in a book from E. Palmer.. that you posted.

BTW here are some others from him in the same book.

It is even Biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.
[Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 82]

Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He is not sitting on the sidelines wondering and perhaps fearing what is going to happen next. No, He has foreordained everything after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist, even sin.
[Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 24-5]

Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands (His perceptive will), God has included them in His sovereign decree (ordained them, caused them to certainly come to pass).
[Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 95]

I honestly cannot believe you hold to such nonsense. First, nobody should be able to break God's commands if they are God's sovereign decree. Everyone would be perfect robots in obedience to God's commands if they are His sovereign decree for all and God wanted that to happen. The fact, that man can disobey God's commands (Which is His will), proves that we are not puppets on a string as Calvinism suggests.

Second, God did not foreordain sin. That is insane. God is good and holy and there is no darkness in God to be able to do that. Yes, God has a permissive will whereby He lets free will agents make their own choice, but that is their choice, and not God's choice. To suggest otherwise, means that you believe God foreordains all evil. That is not possible. God is good.

You said:
To a single verse that starts with "and" that you assert refutes Calvinism

Oh My are you for real, you are kidding me right?

In Him,

Bill

2 Thessalonians 2:10 is just one of MANY verses. But it begins with you examing just one verse in light of what you believe. The fact that you mock or laugh instead of dealing with this verse only shows that you are simply seeing what you want to see vs. what Scripture actually says. Then again, I do like to be proven wrong. If you deal with explaining 2 Thessalonians 2:10, then it will show weight to your belief. But I know and everyone else who reads their Bible plainly knows that you cannot do such a thing. Hence, why you laugh instead of dealing with the text.

zoidar · Jun 18, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Peter

That would make man the primary effective cause in His own salvation.

I don't know what aspects you put in "primary effective cause". If you ask me to give you my car and I choose to give it to you. Are you then the primary effective cause? And if you are, what does it matter?

Seeking forgiveness would be considered a good thing would it not ??

Yes, so?

BBAS 64 · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
I honestly cannot believe you hold to such nonsense. First, nobody should be able to break God's commands if they are God's sovereign decree. Everyone would be perfect robots in obedience to God's commands if they are His sovereign decree for all and God wanted that to happen. The fact, that man can disobey God's commands (Which is His will), proves that we are not puppets on a string as Calvinism suggests.

Second, God did not foreordain sin. That is insane. God is good and holy and there is no darkness in God to be able to do that. Yes, God has a permissive will whereby He lets free will agents make their own choice, but that is their choice, and not God's choice. To suggest otherwise, means that you believe God foreordains all evil. That is not possible. God is good.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 is just one of MANY verses. But it begins with you examing just one verse in light of what you believe. The fact that you mock or laugh instead of dealing with this verse only shows that you are simply seeing what you want to see vs. what Scripture actually says. Then again, I do like to be proven wrong. If you deal with explaining 2 Thessalonians 2:10, then it will show weight to your belief. But I know and everyone else who reads their Bible plainly knows that you cannot do such a thing. Hence, why you laugh instead of dealing with the text.

Good Day, BH

Look at the Book: Piper

He does a much better job than my typing the whole context out...

2 Thessalonians 2:9–12: They Refused to Love the Truth

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Jun 18, 2020

zoidar said:
I don't know what aspects you put in "primary effective cause". If you ask me to give you my car and I choose to give it to you. Are you then the primary effective cause? And if you are, what does it matter?

Yes, so?

Good Day, Peter

God gives us the new heart of flesh His is the reason we have it.

Because of it we walk in His ways and obey His statues He writes His Law upon it no longer does he write His Law on tablets of stone. We seek forgiveness as a result, the New heart understands what Sin really is , and how beautiful the Gospel of Grace is and how badly it is needed. The new Heart desires and informs the will and we act.

He is the reason.. Primary
He can not fail... Effective
He does the work ... Cause

I asked for the Car, because I desired (from the heart) to use it, my desire is what caused me to ask..

Where do you think desires come from?

Can a heart that is on evil continuously desire that which is not evil?
Can a bad tree bare good fruit?

In Him,

Bill

zoidar · Jun 18, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
He is the reason.. Primary
He can not fail... Effective
He does the work ... Cause

How do you fit that (primary effective cause) in a person in my example asking God for forgiveness?

BBAS 64 · Jun 18, 2020

zoidar said:
How do you fit that (primary effective cause) in a person in my example asking God for forgiveness?

Good Day, Peter

The reason someone asks... is based on the desire of the new heart which is a work of God.

Seeking forgiveness is the result of the new heart not the cause of it.

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

In Him,

Bill

zoidar · Jun 18, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Peter

The reason someone asks... is based on the desire of the new heart which is a work of God.

Seeking forgiveness is the result of the new heart not the cause of it.

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

In Him,

Bill

Thanks, but that was not what I meant. Sorry for being unclear. I meant how is the person in my example the primary effective cause if he first asks God for forgiveness and then gets regenerated and saved?

BBAS 64 said:
That would make man the primary effective cause in His own salvation.

How?

Aussie Pete · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
The churches in Revelation were named after their locations to set them apart and or to identify them.

In the dictionary it is defined as:

1. denomination - the act of naming or designating; a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith

Denomination | Definition of Denomination by Webster's Online Dictionary

In Revelation: Most of the churches listed had wrong beliefs, and only two of them were faithful churches. Yet, these churches that were faithful were named. Granted, I have listed myself as non-denominational on the forums because I find most churches today as not following God's Word, but if a believer wanted to start a church (that seeks to build a revival in getting back to the basics of the Bible), a name will in time be attached to what their church is called (Whether they want that to happen or not). I would not even be against a group calling themselves a specific name that helps to distinguish their beliefs in the Bible (if it is something that the Bible teaches of the utmost importance) and gives glory to God.

As for “isms”:

Everyone on planet Earth has an “ism” including you.
The letters “ism” merely expresses a doctrine or belief that you hold to within the Bible or it helps us to identify other beliefs that are unbiblical. To not be fan of their use is to not understand the basics of words and their meaning. For example: “Theism” is defined as the belief in a God. If you look up the word “Theism” in the dictionary this is one of its definitions. Granted, it is not provide a list of a perfect definition, because it should give us a definition as saying the belief in THE one and only true God. The point here is that surely you believe in God, so you would fall under believing in Theism. But I hope you hold to other beliefs that the Bible teaches. If so,... there is an “ism” attached to that belief to help us identify it.

This Calvinist is praying a contradiction. In true Calvinism: God is going to save who is going to save according to His will, and He is going to not save who chooses to not save. Praying to God to save His elect is a contradiction in terms. God has already decreed who will be saved & not saved in Calvinism. So prayer is useless in regards to praying for the elect to be saved because they will be saved according to God's decree in Calvinism. Take for example Matthew 9:38.

Matthew 9:38 says,
“Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.”

This verse does not make sense in light of Unconditional Election or Calvinistic Predestination. There is no purpose to pray that the Lord of the harvest will send forth laborers into his harvest because God has already decreed by election long ago those who will be saved, and those who will not be saved. Our prayers are meaningless to change God's will if we believe in Calvinism. That is why I believe Calvinism is unbiblical. Just reading your Bible plainly and believing all the free will statements within it will automatically refute Calvinism. But most of course would rather follow this odd belief for their own reasons.

"isms" are normally used to put people in a convenient box so that they can be judged. For example, I'm supposedly a right wing conservative because I believe in biblical morality. The other problem I have is how distorted meanings have become. To the left, a fascist is anyone who dares to disagree with them. "Liberal"? Yeah, right up until you disagree, in which case the become most illiberal and want to shut you down. Even some of the forum contributors want to silence those who are not deceived by so called progressives.
Denominations are the result of spiritual pride. Paul warned the Corinthian church against cliques and division within the church. I've seen figures of 30,000 denominations. That is insane.

Putting a name to a fellowship does not make it a denomination. It's when membership (which I reject as a concept anyway) is based on disputable doctrines. I can have fellowship with born again Anglicans who teach infant baptism, even though I don't agree with them. What does it matter? Baptism is important, but unity in the Spirit and the bond of love far more so.

Mark Quayle · Jun 18, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Well, Calvinism does deny that we have a real choice in choosing God because God was the one who regenerated them in order to believe and make a choice. Without this regeneration, or election, they could not be saved before exercising faith, and they could not act outside their depraved state to choose faith in the Lord. But that is not what the Bible teaches. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17), and not by election or regeneration.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 says,
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

There are those who have received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Hence, this is why they perish. This verse does not say that God has elected them to damnation as the reason why they perish. It says that THEY receive not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. MIGHT suggests a possibility. They MIGHT be saved. Means, there was a chance for them. They had hope. The ball was in their court.

I've a bit of a question about your sentence structure: "Well, Calvinism does deny that we have a real choice in choosing God..." Are you saying that Calvinism teaches that we have no real choice, or are you saying that is the logical end of what Calvinism teaches concerning our choice and God's choice? (Calvinism does not teach that we have no choice --that is only a claim concerning Calvinism by those who oppose it).

John 3:18 is very much like your reference: They are already condemned because they have not believed. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 is very Calvinistic concerning WHY they don't believe, but remain opposed to God. I find your use of the language of the verse a bit short of the meaning, particularly your use of the word "might". The KJV is old English.
To bear this out, I will quote here a few other translations/ versions. NIV: "...They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." NLT: "...because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them." ESV: "...because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

A few versions use the phrase, "would have", or the like to show what would have happened. This does not, however, logically imply that it was possible, since they ALWAYS refuse the truth; as it says, if they had loved the truth, they WOULD HAVE been saved, but they will not.

Further, the fact that the verse does not say God has elected them to damnation does not logically imply that he has not. I don't like to say he made them for the purpose of damnation, even though several passages show that he made them PLANNING on their damnation. The first order of his making them was not to damn them, but to show his power, justice, glory and mercy (See Romans 9:23, for example).

Their damnation is part of what it takes to produce the Bride of Christ in her full beauty, I believe. This is what we are created for --for God himself-- and he is specific in who are the members of that Bride, and by default then, he is specific in who is NOT a member of the Bride. God needn't fly by the seat of his pants, salvaging situations gone wrong by his great power and wisdom. He has made his plans, and he will not be thwarted in bringing about every purpose he has set out to accomplish.

There is no pool of possibles from which he chooses those whom he foresees will, somehow, perhaps by mere chance (since nobody is better than anybody else, really, right?) turn to him. They will not turn to him unless he chooses from the foundation of the world and does everything it takes to bring about who/ what they become.

Victor in Christ · Jun 19, 2020

a-lily-in-the-valley said:
I’ve never studied Calvinism but I find genuine comfort in the thought that God chose me before I chose him. I say that, remembering the moment I surrendered to divine will, knowing I entered that covenant freely, and I say that remembering thinking “it’s my choice” to leave behind the past life and be baptised, and I still wonder.

Because I spent years (decades?) having part of myself drawn toward Christianity, thinking this, thinking that, but never acting until that choice was put to me and I said yes, and now experience makes me question if it was at that point that I really couldn’t say no.

I’ve sat now, doing things I know I have to do, crying, sobbing, my heart in pain (of this life) but who does that unless something stronger than them is guiding them?

And what’s the other option? That it’s my own free will, my own willpower, my self being the smart one who makes the right choice (as opposed to my self being the stupid one who made the wrong choice the year prior) and that anyone who hasn’t made that choice is just not as smart as me today who is more stupid (hopefully) than me of tomorrow?

I can’t bear some of the dripping vitriol I hear sometimes in people’s voices preaching against those who refuse God because I am trying to reconcile the way I simultaneously feel like it was my choice but yet a choice made in the face of God actually calling me to choose.

If that person hasn’t yet faced that calling, then how could they choose by their own reason what goes beyond reason?

that's a winner. Even your name brought blessing to my soul. I love that song will all my heart.

Victor in Christ · Jun 19, 2020

Romans 8:15

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

Mark 14:36

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Matthew 26:39

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

....and there's more

SaintCody777 · Jun 19, 2020

There are like 3 shades of Calvinism: 1) Amyraldism (4-Point Calvinism. Removes L from TULIP),
2) classic Calvinism (the Calvinism of John Calvin, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and many others), and
3) Hyper-Calvinism (God has absolutely no love for unbelievers. This shade of Calvinism is held by the Puritans and the notorious Westboro Baptist Church. But also, the most consistent shade of Calvinism).
The other thing I don't get about Calvinism is assurance. A lot of Holiness Movement Christians, Arminians, and Pentecostals like to think that Calvinism gives people assurance that they can deliberately live in sin and they'll be still right with God. I can barely think of one Calvinist who would openly or subtly would say that a deliberately sinning Christian is justified. The truth is, Calvinism gives the LEAST assurance, a Domascle's sword. Even if you're lifestyle is consistent of that of a true believer as outlined in 1 John, there is no telling if whether or not, God actually is deceiving yourself into thinking you're saved, only to find out later, if you cling back to the sinful lifestyle and the ways of Satan's world. That can either be tomorrow, next year, or 10 years from now. Otherwise, the only way you can know you are saved, according to Calvinism, is on your last breath or on your deathbed, when you've been faithful to God from the time you placed your faith in Christ.
It is clearly commanded in the Bible that all people from everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Some Calvinists might say it's "common grace." But this is one of the many clear commands from God for us to do the only conditions to save ourselves. One thing Calvinism does have right is that we, humans, are totally depraved human beings with nothing good to offer. It might sound oxymoron, but John Wesley did describe himself as a "hair's breadth away from Calvinism." The only reason why we have the ability to choose for ourselves whether to repent or not is because of God's previnent grace on humanity. So it must be from the grace of Christ that gives human beings that naturally cling to sin, stay in sin, and fulfill themselves with carnal lusts this ability to repent (John 6:44, John 6:64-65; 2 Peter 3:9; Romans 5:6-12).
It was not until Charles Finney and the later Holiness Movement that Pelagianism, and it's milder offspring, semi-Pelagianism came back with a vengeance and took over most American churches, along with the so-called revivals and evangelicalism, even Methodist and Wesleyan churches themselves. The semi-Pelagian idea of humans having neutral free-will of their own is very popular in our society. I actually grew up with that as a nominal Catholic.

a-lily-of-peace · Jun 19, 2020

Victor in Christ said:
Romans 8:15

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

Mark 14:36

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Matthew 26:39

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

....and there's more

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.

Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

(John 10:1-18, NKJV)

Shades of Calvinism vs. the Gospel

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Contributor

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Member

Contributor

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Contributor

Contributor

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Contributor

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Jehovah Tsidkenu

Jehovah Tsidkenu

The young, curious Berean

Well-Known Member

Similar threads