If 5 points of calvinsms is true

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why the early church fathers don't put scripture in a systematic way? I don't believe they pick books or passage by random.

Hence I think calvinisms or arminianims is both system of error. I try to take what the scripture said at face value, put my logic below what the scripture says although it seems inconsistent.

For example when the scripture says salvation is of the Lord, nothing we can do about it, it's all Christ's merit. But Paul says work of our salvation, I also accept it, I won't abuse God's grace by doing evils. Another example, when the scripture says God so loved the world I see it as the whole world, Christ is the savior of all I accept it. But when scripture says christ die for his sheep and church I amen also.

If we accept either arminianims or calvininsms I have to accept the church fathers are dumb and failed to put the scripture in a consistent way. If a calvinist come to me and show his system I can easily point him to another great thinker who's arminian to argue with him..
 

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Why the early church fathers don't put scripture in a systematic way? I don't believe they pick books or passage by random.

Hence I think calvinisms or arminianims is both system of error. I try to take what the scripture said at face value, put my logic below what the scripture says although it seems inconsistent.

For example when the scripture says salvation is of the Lord, nothing we can do about it, it's all Christ's merit. But Paul says work of our salvation, I also accept it, I won't abuse God's grace by doing evils. Another example, when the scripture says God so loved the world I see it as the whole world, Christ is the savior of all I accept it. But when scripture says christ die for his sheep and church I amen also.

If we accept either arminianims or calvininsms I have to accept the church fathers are dumb and failed to put the scripture in a consistent way. If a calvinist come to me and show his system I can easily point him to another great thinker who's arminian to argue with him..
God did not dictate a systematic theology book. I've never found the need to read any systematic theology type books. I've more been drawn to books that expound the Bible in a way that inspires and edifies me spiritually, not just intellectually. Watchman Nee is my favourite writer. He had a matchless knowledge of the Bible and a deep perception of the spiritual implications - what it means, not just what it says.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
God did not dictate a systematic theology book. I've never found the need to read any systematic theology type books. I've more been drawn to books that expound the Bible in a way that inspires and edifies me spiritually, not just intellectually. Watchman Nee is my favourite writer. He had a matchless knowledge of the Bible and a deep perception of the spiritual implications - what it means, not just what it says.
I find his anthropology of man - spirit, soul and body is false.
 
Upvote 0

All Glory To God

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2020
915
308
U. K.
✟69,537.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Private
The bible came around 4th century, are you saying the first 300 Christian are stupid didn't see this issue when they're compiling the bible?


They did talk about it but not in great detail, they did have systematic theologies but not the type we are used to seeing today.

The early Christians had all the Holy scriptures at their disposal. My point is an issue like particle atonement would not have been an issue for a person like Irenaues in the early second century, who's task was to define Christs nature against those who denied the deity or humanity of Jesus. Hence they were dealing with the issues that arose in their era.

As far as systematic theology goes, Origin with ''De Principiis'' could be considered the first Christian theologian to write a systematic theology and I think it's telling from Origens works, being from the second century what topics were prominent. That is why the five points of Reformed are not Hot issues back in the day.

It should be mentioned that Origen does talk (De Principiis) on subject of predestination (book 2 Cp.9) and preservation of the saints (book 1 Cp.4) but not in great detail.

The idea that Reformed doctrines were absent is a lie from the enemies of Gods sovereign Grace.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They did talk about it but not in great detail, they did have systematic theologies but not the type we are used to seeing today.

The early Christians had all the Holy scriptures at their disposal. My point is an issue like particle atonement would not have been an issue for a person like Irenaues in the early second century, who's task was to define Christs nature against those who denied the deity or humanity of Jesus. Hence they were dealing with the issues that arose in their era.

As far as systematic theology goes, Origin with ''De Principiis'' could be considered the first Christian theologian to write a systematic theology and I think it's telling from Origens works, being from the second century what topics were prominent. That is why the five points of Reformed are not Hot issues back in the day.

It should be mentioned that Origen does talk (De Principiis) on subject of predestination (book 2 Cp.9) and preservation of the saints (book 1 Cp.4) but not in great detail.

The idea that Reformed doctrines were absent is a lie from the enemies of Gods sovereign Grace.
It's absent in a sense it's not as fully expanded in the pastristic era. Do you think most of the Christian believes in the doctrine of the reformed refomers? Small percentage of Christian did. Another group like the lutheran could also look back the pastristic source and make their conclusions, but they are no way close end up with the 5 points of calvinsms.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Philippians 2:12–13

Thank you.

So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12–13

Now, what do you think it means when Paul says “work out your own salvation” in that?
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you.

So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12–13

Now, what do you think it means when Paul says “work out your own salvation” in that?
Walk according to the commands of the Lord, live a holy life..

1 Thessalonians 2:12, ESV: "we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory."
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
For example when the scripture says salvation is of the Lord, nothing we can do about it, it's all Christ's merit. But Paul says work of our salvation, I also accept it,

1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD"
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD"
2 Peter 3 "God is not WILLING that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance"
John 16 "The Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"
John 3:16 "God so loved the WORLD that He gave"

Is 5:4 "What MORE was there to do than that which I have already done?"

AND YET

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"
So then because of free will it is "The FEW" of Matt 7 that are saved and not the many.

Is it any wonder that Paul says "WE BEG you on behalf of Christ BE reconciled to God"

Rom 10:9-10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. ”

==================

So then in 1Cor 6 Paul says to the saints "be not deceived"
7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather suffer the wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves do wrong and defraud. And this to your brothers and sisters!
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

And in Matt 18 Jesus describes "forgiveness revoked"
32 Then summoning him, his master *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his master, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

What should the saints - who stand only by their faith "fear" according to Paul?
Rom 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.

All of this - -- is why there are Arminians. (not all 5 points in Calvinism are correct)
 
Upvote 0

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why the early church fathers don't put scripture in a systematic way? I don't believe they pick books or passage by random.

Hence I think calvinisms or arminianims is both system of error. I try to take what the scripture said at face value, put my logic below what the scripture says although it seems inconsistent.

For example when the scripture says salvation is of the Lord, nothing we can do about it, it's all Christ's merit. But Paul says work of our salvation, I also accept it, I won't abuse God's grace by doing evils. Another example, when the scripture says God so loved the world I see it as the whole world, Christ is the savior of all I accept it. But when scripture says christ die for his sheep and church I amen also.

If we accept either arminianims or calvininsms I have to accept the church fathers are dumb and failed to put the scripture in a consistent way. If a calvinist come to me and show his system I can easily point him to another great thinker who's arminian to argue with him..

It appears to me the problems to which you speak is the ever, constant problem of cherry picking verses or a "one verse" theology. Many, many people approach the Bible with a preconceived idea therefore attempt to 'conform' or 'reform' the Bible to force the Bible to fit that preconceived notion. And "cherry picking" or "one verse" theology is used to do so. I don't see there was much the so called 'church fathers' could do to stop this.

Cherry picking: "the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available: "it is an exaggeration based on the cherry-picking of facts" Oxford Dictionary.

Paul said of own preaching "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Acts 20:27. It is rare that just one verse exhausts all their is to know about a particular subject. When it comes to salvation there are dozens and dozens of verses that deal with this subject. Proper interpretation, proper exegesis therefore requires ALL those salvific verses to be examined and considered before one can even attempt to reach a conclusion about salvation. Therefore cherry picking one verse, a "one verse theology" will certainly lead to the wrong conclusions. John 3:16 is probably the most well know verse but this verse isolated from all other verses does not come close to exhausting all there is to know about salvation.

An example of what I am referring to, many adhere to Luther's faith only philosophy. Therefore to "prove" that Bible teaches such, I have seen them cherry pick one verse as John 3:16, declare this verse teaches "belief only" (they add the word "only") while ignoring the literally dosens and dozens of other verses that deal with salvation as Luke 13:3 where Christ made repenting just as essential to 'not perishing" as He did with believing in Jn 3:16. Confession (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10) and baptism (Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38) get ignored or get conformed/rewitten. Just cherry picking various verses that mention "belief" while ignoring verses that require repentance, confession and baptism is 'shunning to declare all the counsel of God".

In your OP you speak of verses that teach Christ died for the world and verses that say Christ died for His church. If one takes into consideration "all the counsel" of God we see Christ died for all, those that beleive and those that do not. Those who approach the Bible with a limited atonement bias would cherry pick the verse that speaks to Christ dying for His church and claim that is the only people He died for while ignoring other verses or trying to conform them to fit that bias as "all" does not mean all but really means 'some'.

People will cherry pick one verse as Romans 4:5, take the one phrase "worketh not" and lift that oneverse/phrase from all other Bible contexts and claim this verse teaches ALL works of ALL kind are eliminated from salvation. Yet contextually, the only work Paul eliminated from justifing one is the strick flawless perfect law keeping the OT law required to be justified. All the while verses as Philippians 2:12; Romans 6:16-18; Acts 2:38; Heb 5:9 etc that require obedience to God's will to be saved get ignored of rewritten to make them conform to the "no work at all is necessary to be saved' theological bias.

Of course, all will be accused of cherry picking verses but God has set up a day of judgment where there will be a permanent, eternal separation of those who correctly understood the Bible from those who thought they had a correct understanding of it.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It appears to me the problems to which you speak is the ever, constant problem of cherry picking verses or a "one verse" theology. Many, many people approach the Bible with a preconceived idea therefore attempt to 'conform' or 'reform' the Bible to force the Bible to fit that preconceived notion. And "cherry picking" or "one verse" theology is used to do so. I don't see there was much the so called 'church fathers' could do to stop this.

Cherry picking: "the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available: "it is an exaggeration based on the cherry-picking of facts" Oxford Dictionary.

Paul said of own preaching "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Acts 20:27. It is rare that just one verse exhausts all their is to know about a particular subject. When it comes to salvation there are dozens and dozens of verses that deal with this subject. Proper interpretation, proper exegesis therefore requires ALL those salvific verses to be examined and considered before one can even attempt to reach a conclusion about salvation. Therefore cherry picking one verse, a "one verse theology" will certainly lead to the wrong conclusions. John 3:16 is probably the most well know verse but this verse isolated from all other verses does not come close to exhausting all there is to know about salvation.

An example of what I am referring to, many adhere to Luther's faith only philosophy. Therefore to "prove" that Bible teaches such, I have seen them cherry pick one verse as John 3:16, declare this verse teaches "belief only" (they add the word "only") while ignoring the literally dosens and dozens of other verses that deal with salvation as Luke 13:3 where Christ made repenting just as essential to 'not perishing" as He did with believing in Jn 3:16. Confession (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10) and baptism (Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38) get ignored or get conformed/rewitten. Just cherry picking various verses that mention "belief" while ignoring verses that require repentance, confession and baptism is 'shunning to declare all the counsel of God".

In your OP you speak of verses that teach Christ died for the world and verses that say Christ died for His church. If one takes into consideration "all the counsel" of God we see Christ died for all, those that beleive and those that do not. Those who approach the Bible with a limited atonement bias would cherry pick the verse that speaks to Christ dying for His church and claim that is the only people He died for while ignoring other verses or trying to conform them to fit that bias as "all" does not mean all but really means 'some'.

People will cherry pick one verse as Romans 4:5, take the one phrase "worketh not" and lift that oneverse/phrase from all other Bible contexts and claim this verse teaches ALL works of ALL kind are eliminated from salvation. Yet contextually, the only work Paul eliminated from justifing one is the strick flawless perfect law keeping the OT law required to be justified. All the while verses as Philippians 2:12; Romans 6:16-18; Acts 2:38; Heb 5:9 etc that require obedience to God's will to be saved get ignored of rewritten to make them conform to the "no work at all is necessary to be saved' theological bias.

Of course, all will be accused of cherry picking verses but God has set up a day of judgment where there will be a permanent, eternal separation of those who correctly understood the Bible from those who thought they had a correct understanding of it.
Excellent post. Not only because cherry picking is one of the most abused methods of theology building, but it reminds us of the dangers of falling into the trap ourselves. Your mention of Luther's "faith only" position demonstrates the need for a historical understanding rather than allowing our current perceptions to dominate since the passages that speak of belief imply obedience as prior to Luther there was an implicit connection between belief and obedience as many verses contrast faith with disobedience, Hebrews 3 being a prime example.
 
Upvote 0