Ask a Calvinist!

[BT]

BROTHER!

Hey BT, Calvin defined Grace according to the Bible. I think I may have mentioned this before in a pm to you, after I was saved (by GRACE) I could see the Bible drip with these doctrines. Every page, every word called to me...I didn't know I was a 'calvinist' until I started talking with others about my faith and they gave me the name. I was so upset I even tried not to believe, the name Calvinist causes many Christians to avoid and shun you. A very close (saved) friend of mine still calls me 'John Calvin' to this day, he means it as a knock, but it doesn't bother me anymore. My point, I think I have one, oh ya, I couldn't help but believe in what was called 'Calvinism' it's in the Bible.

SP

Hello Brother!

Your reasoning I find is very sound. Could you show limited atonement from the Bible for me? I've never been able to find it. Likewise could you show the term "election" as referring to salvation? I'm talking Biblically of course... (who's the guy who calls you John Calvin... I think that's funny!!! ). I have some friends who are Calvinists of which you are one.. but I never thought of that. I call them other things (which I can't post), in jest.

 

[BT]

I don't agree or disagree with that statment, Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God. For me, it doesn't affect my understanding at all. Some call Mary the mother of God...I don't, but I'm not sure we should disreguard a persons theology based on the above.

If I'm cornered I'd have to say Mary is the mother of the human side of Jesus.

Ack!

This is the falsehood of the syllogism when it's inserted or used on the Bible. Mary couldn't be the "Mother of God" it's quite impossible. You have it right Mary is the mother of the human side of Jesus in that she birthed him, but it ends there. Mary calls herself the "handmaiden". The idea of Mary as the Mother of God is, as I said, a great heresy. So if a persons theology is based on something false (not this point only but several, I speak of Augustine) then you seriously have to consider how much of his other work is tainted. I mean the reformers wanted to reform the Catholic Church right... they saw much wrong with it, but they saw much right with it as well. The things that they saw as correct are also...(from the point of modern day Christianity) wrong. Regardless it's not the man who I focus on it's the teaching...

 

[Ryft]

God is love, I deny that all will be universally saved. ...[snip]... I dont see how that would "turn around to bite you also" as you say.

Then let me show you.

If you "define God as pure Love," then why wouldn't he "choose (as pure love would) to save everybody not just a few or even a large number, but all"? This question must be answered by you every bit as much as by the Calvinist; or as I put it, the question haunts both equally — it presents a problem to both of you or neither of you.

But maybe your answer would suggest that God does indeed choose to save all. As Arthur W. Pink once put it, to insist that God is "trying his best" to save all mankind but that the majority of mankind "will not let him save them" is to insist that the will of the Lord God Almighty is frustrated by the will of the sinner, the tacit rejection of God's sovereignty. You may insist that God, as pure love, wants to save all men, and you may insist that not all men will let God save them, but think carefully about the consequences of what you would be thereby insisting (i.e. if the will of God can be frustrated by the will of another, then the will of God is subject to the will of that other and he is neither sovereign nor omnipotent). But as A. W. Pink so aptly stated the case elsewhere: in the final analysis, if it is to be at all meaningful, "the exercise of God's love must be traced back to his sovereignty."

http://www.btinternet.com/~gracegospel/godssovereignty.htm

[FROM YOUR PREVIOUS POST] "Likewise, if my three children were lost, would I, out of our limited human love only try to find (save) one and not the others. Of course not, my children are equals in my heart and I would save them all. Isnt Gods love far more pure and complete than mine??"

[IN YOUR RECENT POST] Do my references to love make me seem to be above the Lord and greater? I believe you know that I am saying Gods love is always far greater than any love I can express or do.

Yes, your references to your love suggest it is greater than the love of the Lord because you insist that God in his love does not choose to save all mankind whereas you in your love — however more limited than God's love you believe it to be — would endeavor to save all [of your children]. If God in his love does not choose to save all mankind (since we both agree that at least some men are damned) but you in your love so choose, then you are implicitly suggesting that your love is greater.

But again, as above, perhaps you are suggesting that God does choose to save all mankind and is "trying his best" to do so, but in the end will meet with failure because the will of God is not sovereign over the will of the sinner and, consequently, God fails to accomplish what he willed to do.

As an aside, your analogy fails both the test of relevancy and sound reasoning at any rate since it is inapplicable to the issue at hand. Firstly, the analogy attempts to pit the love of God regarding all mankind against your love regarding your children, which is a categorical fallacy. Secondly, God does in fact choose to save all his children, but not all mankind are his children; only the elect are (see scriptures regarding 'adoption' and 'heirs').

If you want your analogy to be more fitting, describe your love for someone who consistently abuses and hurts you and those you hold dear. You offer someone a warm meal, and he beats you to within an inch of your life. You offer him a shower and clean clothes, and he rapes your wife. You give him his own room and a warm bed with clean sheets, and he tortures your three children to death while forcing you to watch... et cetera. Tell me all about your overwhelming love for this man, and explain that love to your emotionally destroyed wife. Does this seem a little harsh? It shouldn't, because even this doesn't come close to illustrating the nature of mankind as contrasted against the holiness of God.

 

[Qoheleth]

But again, as above, perhaps you are suggesting that God does choose to save all mankind and is "trying his best" to do so, but in the end will meet with failure because the will of God is not sovereign over the will of the sinner and, consequently, God fails to accomplish what he willed to do.

Interesting point. Does God fail if he only (by and in his sovereignty) elects and predestines only one soul to salvation? "Many are called, but few are chosen" So lets say 3 souls (few). Does it matter the number he saves due to the fact none of us deserve it. If only 3 souls are saved, how can we argue. Well, not much glory in only 3 souls to show forth glory. So maybe its 300 million, what is enough glory to satisfy the Almighty that prefers glory over glorious relationships of love.

God does in fact choose to save all his children, but not all mankind are his children;

Another interesting point. Where in scripture can I find God, catagorical saying that within his greatest (that he said was "good"-Genesis) creation-mankind, only some of them were his children.

your analogy fails

Im sure it ultimately does, as do all analogies. Was only meant to say that I feel Gods love is greater than mine and its difficult to understand how the concept of Love and the gradations due to position, that I would be greater than he, of which we both know I am not suggesting that in any way. But you already knew this and trying to make me or my statements tell otherwise is a bit harsh. In no way can I approach the glory that is the Lords.

 

[Ryft]

But again, as above, perhaps you are suggesting that God does choose to save all mankind and is "trying his best" to do so, but in the end will meet with failure because the will of God is not sovereign over the will of the sinner and, consequently, God fails to accomplish what he willed to do.

Interesting point. Does God fail if he only (by and in his sovereignty) elects and predestines only one soul to salvation? "Many are called, but few are chosen" So lets say 3 souls (few). Does it matter the number he saves due to the fact none of us deserve it. If only 3 souls are saved, how can we argue. Well, not much glory in only 3 souls to show forth glory. So maybe its 300 million, what is enough glory to satisfy the Almighty that prefers glory over glorious relationships of love.

On this point, then, we would be in rather stark disagreement, for I contend that even if only one soul was elect and predestined (a number that scriptures preclude) it would "show forth glory" — tremendous, profound, praise-worthy glory... and so much more, then, if three souls or greater. I cannot and I will not cheapen God's grace and mercy; that any soul at all is elected unto salvation is a testament to God's glory, mercy, and grace, and any number greater than one that God adds to the company of the elect only serves to increase this, whether three or three million.

"Does God fail if he [sovereignly] elects and predestines only one soul to salvation?" Hardly. In fact, I cannot fathom how the question could even be typed. If God wills to save only one person and, in the end, that person is thus saved, that would mean God succeeded.

God does in fact choose to save all his children, but not all mankind are his children;

Another interesting point. Where in scripture can I find God, catagorical saying that within his greatest (that he said was "good"-Genesis) creation-mankind, only some of them were his children.

You can find it throughout scriptures. As I had said in my previous post, simply do a biblical study on 'adoption' and 'heirs'. While all of mankind is God's creation, only the elect are adopted as God's sons and heirs according to the promise through the work of his Son.

Im sure [the analogy] ultimately does [fail], as do all analogies. Was only meant to say that I feel Gods love is greater than mine and its difficult to understand how the concept of Love and the gradations due to position, that I would be greater than he, of which we both know I am not suggesting that in any way. But you already knew this and trying to make me or my statements tell otherwise is a bit harsh. In no way can I approach the glory that is the Lords.

Again, if you assert that God is love and that he does not choose to save all mankind, then you are exactly asserting your love is greater because you asserted that you, in your love, would choose to save all. This is unpalatable to you, and for good reason. So if you reject both that notion as well as the Calvinist position, then it seems you are left asserting that God does choose to save all mankind but ultimately fails — which is a tacit rejection of God's sovereignty and omnipotence (as well as those scriptures which affirm and testify to both). This ought to be likewise unpalatable.

Sir, my wife was murdered. I can not stand the thought of the man that took her from our children and me. Would I ever offer him a single thing...No. I pray for and desire his salvation. If he were saved before, I would have my wife still and my children their mother.

I am deeply sorry to hear of your profound loss.

Your painful experience, however, serves as an effective illustration. On the view of God's love and holiness, all of mankind is that murderer. You are deeply familiar with that experience and those feelings, so it would seem you are in a better position than I to appreciate the phenomenology of the gap left between the murderer and the victims that are left to survive it — or more relevantly, the gap between fallen mankind and a holy God. This is why I said, if God had elect and predestined only one soul, it would demonstrate tremendous, profound, praise-worthy glory.

 

[Qoheleth]

which is a tacit rejection of God's sovereignty and omnipotence

I am shackled at this point to understand the positions of sovereignty and love. I believe Gods will be done, he is sovereign, and he loves with extreme prejudice. I see him as a shepard looking for all lost sheep. I feel great joy and blessings to be secure in the Lord, I cant seem to believe that all would not have the glorious opportunity availed to me.

I am deeply sorry to hear of your profound loss.

Please keep my children in your prayers, they were old enough to understand, not yet old enough to begin to cope.

 

[Ryft]

I believe Gods will be done, he is sovereign, and he loves with extreme prejudice. I see him as a shepard looking for all lost sheep. I feel great joy and blessings to be secure in the Lord, I cant seem to believe that all would not have the glorious opportunity availed to me.

It is scriptures, then, that you are coming up against, it is scriptures that you need to read and study on this issue of sovereignty and its relationship to salvation. For example, scriptures confirm your above sentiment, that he is "a shepherd looking for all lost sheep", but again not all of mankind are his sheep.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me — just as the Father knows me and I know the Father — and I lay down my life for the sheep" . . . "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand." (John 10:11-28).​

All his sheep will ultimately be saved, but not all mankind are his sheep, as can be seen from just the above passage alone.

Again, you have to ask yourself a serious question: Does God choose to save all mankind? The answer must be 'no' because to answer 'yes' is to affirm that God is neither sovereign nor omnipotent — not sovereign because the will of God is subject to the will of the sinner, and not omnipotent because he will have failed to accomplish what he set out to do. An answer of 'yes' is likewise a tacit rejection of those portions of scripture that affirm God's sovereignty and omnipotence.

 

[BBAS 64]

It is scriptures, then, that you are coming up against, it is scriptures that you need to read and study on this issue of sovereignty and its relationship to salvation. For example, scriptures confirm your above sentiment, that he is "a shepherd looking for all lost sheep", but again not all of mankind are his sheep.

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me — just as the Father knows me and I know the Father — and I lay down my life for the sheep" . . . "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand." (John 10:11-28).​

All his sheep will ultimately be saved, but not all mankind are his sheep, as can be seen from just the above passage alone.


Again, you have to ask yourself a serious question: Does God choose to save all mankind? The answer must be 'no' because to answer 'yes' is to affirm that God is neither sovereign nor omnipotent — not sovereign because the will of God is subject to the will of the sinner, and not omnipotent because he will have failed to accomplish what he set out to do. An answer of 'yes' is likewise a tacit rejection of those portions of scripture that affirm God's sovereignty and omnipotence.

Amen!

Bill

 

[Qoheleth]

Then if all do not at least have the possibility of being saved, how do others including you (or myself) know that they are part of the elect?

 

[Ryft]

Then if all do not at least have the possibility of being saved, how do others including you (or myself) know that they are part of the elect?

We do have the possibility of being saved; however, it is by God's grace, which is in accordance with his purpose and will, to his glory.

 

[Qoheleth]

We do have the possibility of being saved; however, it is by God's grace, which is in accordance with his purpose and will, to his glory.

Well, do all have this opportunity. Again, how do you, others , or myself know that we are part of the elect. Your answer didnt seem to answer my question directly, thats why I asked again. I dont mean to be thick.

 

[rnmomof7]

Mod hat on.

Non Calvinists are not allowed to debate on this forum

2) Reformed/Calvinist, as we Only Reformed/Calvinist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations as long as they are within our rules.

I ask that any debate by non Calvinists cease now, the posts will be removed from this point on

 

[rnmomof7]

Okay, but I think our question is more of why does God want the Gospel proclaimed if it doesn't matter in regards to people's salvation or lack thereof?

But it does matter in peoples salvation.

No man is saved until he repents and believes the gospel .

God has ordained the means and method of salvation for His sheep.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

God graciously allows man to be a part of the salvation plan.

A great preacher Spurgeon once noted "if the elect had yellow striped down their back we would run around lifting shirts."

When the gospel is presented we do not know who of the listeners is elect and who is not.

 

[rnmomof7]

I'm not saying he does things for anothers glory, but i'm saying if he creates us so he can glorify himself, it seems self centered/point less. What i am saying is, what I believe is God created us so that we could share in his glory, because god is generous and loving.

God was not lonely and he says in scripture he does not share His glory
Isa 48:11
For mine own sake, [even] for mine own sake, will I do [it]: for how should [my name] be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Men are made to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
Creation is about God not men

 

[rnmomof7]

I am searching Calvinist doctrine to correspond to the nature and attributes of God and Love. Who else am I supposed to get clarity from on the Calvinist position if not Calvinist's. It seems that all questions, if not answered comprehensively right-away naturally turn into a question then anwer scenario.

I am not saying that I do or do not believe in TULIP, or Calvinism. Im on a path to try and study and understand the scriptures fully, as we are ask to do.

There is a difference between asking A question and arguing a point.

May I suggest that you move the discussion to the General Theology or the soteriology forums.

Then let the Calvinists know that it is started and they will come and answer it

 

[Qoheleth]

Well, do all have this opportunity. Again, how do you, others , or myself know that we are part of the elect.

Your answer didnt seem to answer my question directly, thats why I asked again. I dont mean to be thick.

 

[rnmomof7]

Well, do all have this opportunity. Again, how do you, others , or myself know that we are part of the elect.

Your answer didnt seem to answer my question directly, thats why I asked again. I dont mean to be thick.

If you have repented and believed you are among the elect.

You are not elect BECAUSE you repented and believed. You repented and believed because you were elect..


Rom 9:16
So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Jhn 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Now take the debate to another forum as you were asked.

Last warning

 

[Qoheleth]

Now take the debate to another forum as you were asked.

Last warning

Well, Thankyou. Im wondering if I have any questions concerning reformed theolgy if I shouldnt just look up a reformed pastor. Or do you think if I bring up (challenging, confusing) questions and topics, he will warn me not to come back.

If I wanted a debate, I would have been direct in telling whoever, that they were mistaken or wrong (and showed them their error emphatically), instead I only asked for clarification on points of conflict to clear up my misunderstanding or not. Think what you will, it was not my intention to upset anyone.

 

[rnmomof7]

Well, Thankyou. Im wondering if I have any questions concerning reformed theolgy if I shouldnt just look up a reformed pastor. Or do you think if I bring up (challenging, confusing) questions and topics, he will warn me not to come back.

If I wanted a debate, I would have been direct in telling whoever, that they were mistaken or wrong (and showed them their error emphatically), instead I only asked for clarification on points of conflict to clear up my misunderstanding or not. Think what you will, it was not my intention to upset anyone.

Calvinists love to talk about their doctrine . This is just not the right place for a give and take on it.

I am serious about just starting a thread in soteriology , some of us will come and talk about them with you

 

[Qoheleth]

Calvinists love to talk about their doctrine . This is just not the right place for a give and take on it.

I am serious about just starting a thread in soteriology , some of us will come and talk about them with you

I understand, Gods peace and blessings to you all.

Quick judgement and unkind or implying (negative) words do not befit these forums as they may be a stumbling block to others.