Calvinists, why are you Calvinist?

[kangaroodort]

Sorry about that first part. It was an earlier reply I never finished.

As to your question, scripture doesn't say. That happens a lot in narratives. All I can do is speculate.

That's a good point. So it does not work as a Calvinist prooftext for irresistible grace. But it does give us a case of the Lord opening up the heart to respond to Him. It is not describing a "state" but an enabling. And I would say that we should assume that this is not some new regenerated heart that is being opened, as that is to read massively into the text. The natural reading would suggest the opposite. I am out of time for today. God bless.

 

[Hammster]

That's a good point. So it does not work as a Calvinist prooftext for irresistible grace. But it does give us a case of the Lord opening up the heart to respond to Him. It is not describing a "state" but an enabling. And I would say that we should assume that this is not some new regenerated heart that is being opened, as that is to read massively into the text. The natural reading would suggest the opposite. I am out of time for today. God bless.

So we can't assume one thing it doesn't say, but we can assume something else it doesn't say?

I don't think that's how it works.

 

[JM]

The only way to escape this conclusion (which is eternal justification and is typically considered a feature of hyper-Calvinism) is to admit to a provisional aspect to the atonement. If there is a provisional aspect to the atonement, then this argument does not work against Arminianism.

Ohhhh, the dreaded "H" word.

Haha, for real, I have no problem with being called a Hyper Calvinist. I do believe in justification from eternity. Justification in eternity is not the only option and you create a false dilemma by asserting so. The doctrine is explained further here.

Then in Calvinism the "elect" would be born forgiven and saved since God's wrath was removed from them at the atonement.

You use quotation marks "as if" election isn't a biblical doctrine. Why? The rest of the sentence is a glib display of scriptural doctrine. You seem to be unaware of Hebrews 10 which states emphatically that everyone covered by the offering of Jesus Christ will be made perfect. If the offering was made for all then all will be made perfect. That is an inescapable conclusion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[98cwitr]

hyper just means not "luke warm," I'd take it as a compliment!

 

[kangaroodort]

So we can't assume one thing it doesn't say, but we can assume something else it doesn't say?

I don't think that's how it works.

Yes, because the natural reading of the text say only "heart" which would be normally understood as, well, the "heart." If this were to mean a new regenerated heart, we should expect to see some indication of that in the text. Since there is not, it makes more sense to understand it as one normally would- that the Lord opened simply opened her heart to believe. It can't be used to prove either view, but I do think think it weighs in favor of the view that this is not a newly regenerated heart.

 

[kangaroodort]

Ohhhh, the dreaded "H" word.

Haha, for real, I have no problem with being called a Hyper Calvinist. I do believe in justification from eternity. Justification in eternity is not the only option and you create a false dilemma by asserting so. The doctrine is explained further here.



You use quotation marks "as if" election isn't a biblical doctrine. Why? The rest of the sentence is a glib display of scriptural doctrine. You seem to be unaware of Hebrews 10 which states emphatically that everyone covered by the offering of Jesus Christ will be made perfect. If the offering was made for all then all will be made perfect. That is an inescapable conclusion.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

The reason I put elect in quotes is to indicate that I am referring to the Calvinist conception of "elect" which posits that sinners are elect prior to faith. Of course I hold to election as a Biblical doctrine, just not the Calvinist unconditional (God chooses sinners from eternity to become believers) view. I don't have time to address the rest tonight, but look forward to addressing it sometime soon. God Bless.

 

[Leevo]

Leevo, you avoided the point I was making. You quoted 1 John 2.2 which reads, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I'm not trying to be rude or sarcastic but do you know what propitiation means?

"Propitiation (from Latin propitiāre, "to appease;" from propitius, "gracious") is the act of appeasing or making well-disposed a deity, thus incurring divine favor or avoiding divine retribution."

If you use 1 John 2.2 to mean every single person who has ever lived than you are saying you are a universalist. That is the only conclusion one can make. Are you a universalist?



This is a very unscriptural idea. Christ is called Christ, "for he shall save his people from their sins." Not to mention that Christ is praying for all those the Father gives Him and He will lose none. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." John 17

You would have to deny the unity of the Most Holy Trinity if you believe the Father does not hear the prayers of the Son.



This is very, very sad for it calls into question the sinfulness of sin. It's not "too bad" sinners are punished. That idea calls into questions God's righteous judgement against sin. You have the wrong idea about man, you must presuppose mankind is essentially good or at the very least neutral but scripture disagrees with you. We are natural born sinners, sinners by nature and choice and we always choose to sin. God doesn't have to choose anyone but He doesn't.

You say that isn't fair? You demand God bends His will to yours? Here is what Paul wrote to that argument,

"But who are you, O (Leevo) man, to answer back to God?

Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" Romans 9

That is Paul's warning to all the freewill works religionists...who are YOU to answer back to God!

God has spoken, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Romans 9

Yours in the Lord,

jm

John 3:16 puts it best: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

"Whoever believes in him shall not perish."

I often find Romans 9 quoted by Calvinists but you come to a different interpretation when you read Romans 9 in line with the rest of scripture and especially the rest of Romans.

 

[Leevo]

Either Jesus paid for the individuals sin or he didn't, If he did they are justified before the father. If he didn't their name wasn't in the book of life, and they will be held accountable and judged accordingly. You can't say he died for everyone, then why isn't everyone's name written in the book of life? -

Regardless either way, he could not have possibly died for everyone, when it says World, it means Jews and Gentiles alike. Be mindful, that Jews were the chosen people of God since Abraham approximately 2,000 B.C, so when Jesus arrives, and he says he loves the world, it was a shock to the Jews, because they were the chosen people of God! Not the rest of the World.
a) they received the law from God,
b) they had the arc of the covenant,
c) they had the tabernacle and temple, God's spirit even resided in the temple and the tabernacle,
d) the Shekinah glory led them through the Wilderness,
e) God opened the Red sea for them
f) God fed them Mana from heaven
g) God sent them 17 prophets, Major and Minor
h) The aforementioned 17 prophets does not include elisha and elijah, -
i) Elisha heals a leaper, defies gravity, multiplies bread, and raises a child from the dead
j) 10 plagues of Israel, culminating with the Exodus

All this and so much more this was for GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE ONLY, if Jesus were to one day come and offer salvation to the gentiles, the pagan, that would be shocking, so when he says World, he means, his Chosen people, the Jews + Gentiles.

What's amazing is most of us are Gentiles! We didn't receive the above referenced miracles and signs. How lucky are we to be grafted in?

If Salvation was only to God's chosen people, then maybe we could argue that, because unless we were a child of Abraham, we could not be saved, But he offered it to even the Gentiles! It's more then fair

Why try to twist the simple meaning of the word world? It seems that you are trying to over complicate and bend things to fit Calvinism...

 

[Leevo]

It's good that you posted 1 John 2:2. It says that God's wrath is satisfied against sin. So is it the whole world in the way you think? Let's see.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:36‬ ‭ESV‬‬


It would appear from this text that God's wrath remains on some. In other words, it never left. But you are correct that Christ died for everyone who puts their faith in Him. That does not go against Calvinism.

Indeed. We are in agreement with what it means here. Where we differ is whether or not God offers it to everyone or only some...

 

[Leevo]

 

[Leevo]

Arminianism is what one poster on here called shake and bake salvation: Jesus saved me and I helped.

This idea comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of true Arminian theology...

 

[Leevo]

Your straw man of what you think Calvinists want you to believe is certainly false.

How is this straw man? Several Calvinists here have said exactly that. That somehow we contribute if we accept a gift...

 

[Leevo]

Simple logic dictates the opposite. If man is responsible, by his faith, in his own salvation it is obviously a works salvation. Man obviously, according to your theology, co-operates with God in the salvation of his soul. Arminians may deny it in order to comply with the clear Scriptures but it cannot be denied and remain true.

Faith is not a work...

 

[JM]

How is this straw man? Several Calvinists here have said exactly that. That somehow we contribute if we accept a gift...

We believe that saving faith, as opposed to historical faith, is an evangelical grace given to us by God. We are saved by grace through faith AND THAT (in the Greek sums up both grace and faith) is a gift of God least the Arminian boasts.

Of course I hold to election as a Biblical doctrine, just not the Calvinist unconditional (God chooses sinners from eternity to become believers) view.

Now that's just plain silly. God foresees something that He didn't create, learns what will be, then creates it. That makes God a teeny, tiny God who creates based on the whims of His creation.

For those who pretend to know Greek...

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. 2.3-4

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." John 5.21

In both passages the word thelo (according to Strong's) means:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure​

Here is another Arminian contradiction that destroys the biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

1) If God the Father wishes every single individual to be saved why doesn't God the Son give them salvation? The Arminian sets the desires of the Father against those of the Son and unity of the godhead is lost.

2) If Christ gifts salvation based on foreseen faith why isn't the Father's resurrection of the dead based on the freewill faith of man? Again, no consistency, no Trinity.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

​

 

[Leevo]

Here is another Arminian contradiction that destroys the biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

1) If God the Father wishes every single individual to be saved why doesn't God the Son give them salvation? The Arminian sets the desires of the Father against those of the Son and unity of the godhead is lost.

2) If Christ gifts salvation based on foreseen faith why isn't the Father's resurrection of the dead based on the freewill faith of man? Again, no consistency, no Trinity.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

 

[JM]

John 3:16 puts it best: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

"Whoever believes in him shall not perish."

Yes, salvation is based on those "who believe." You are assuming freewill. 1 John 5 places belief after being born again.

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..."

As Christians we are called to show our love through action. What kind of God has the power to save those He loves but doesn't? The video believe explains.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing."

Who is ‘Jerusalem’ in the context of this passage? The Arminian believes Jerusalem to be in reference to individual Jews, but this can’t be. Starting at the beginning of Matthew 23 we find our Lord speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Pharisee, those who killed the prophets:

v. 2 “…Pharisees sit in Moses sit…”
v. 6 “…chief seats in the synagogues…”
v. 7 “…Rabbi, Rabbi…”
v. 13 “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees…”
v. 14 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees…”
v. 15 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees…”
v. 16 “Woe unto you, ye blind guides…”
etc, etc. I think you get the picture.

Another look at both passages.

Matt. 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus isn’t calling the leaders to gather He is calling the ‘children’ or believers. ‘Jerusalem’ represents the leaders and rulers of Jerusalem. The leaders wouldn’t allow the faithful of God (thy chicks) to come to Him, God wasn’t offering salvation to all men and He sure wasn't seeking to bring together those who ‘killest the prophets’ only the faithful.

Those Christ would gather (the elect) are not represented as being unwilling but hindered by the ruling class. James White in “Potter’s Freedom” does a good job with this passage as it’s one of the big three Arminian passages.

“O, Arminian, Arminian, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told your children the plain truth . . . and ye would not let them understand!” (quoting Clarke)

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Leevo]

Yes, salvation is based on those "who believe." You are assuming freewill. 1 John 5 places belief after being born again.

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..."

From an article on examiningcalvinism.com:

Question: If a person is already Born Again, before believing in Christ, then what does believing in Christ actually accomplish? Wouldn’t he already be saved?
Answer: Calvinists, aside from the quotes by Kennedy and Spurgeon, must admit that their theology requires that a person who is Born Again is not yet “saved.”

Question: How can a person who is Born Again, not be saved?
Answer: A person who is Born Again must be saved, just as suredly as those who in Christ are saved. Recall from 2nd Corinthians 5:17 that those who are in Christ, arenew creatures, which speaks of the new birth. Therefore, to hold a position that beingBorn Again doesn’t necessarily equate to salvation, also requires that beingin Christdoesn’t automatically equate to salvation.

Question: How can a person who is in Christ, not be saved?
Answer: If faith in Christ results in salvation, then anyone in Christ, must be saved, because according to Ephesians 1:13, the only way to become sealed in Christ is by hearing and believing the Gospel, and that’s where the Calvinist argument unravels. Besides, there’s no such thing as an elect unbeliever. (Compare Romans 8:33)

 

[Leevo]

Who is ‘Jerusalem’ in the context of this passage? The Arminian believes Jerusalem to be in reference to individual Jews, but this can’t be. Starting at the beginning of Matthew 23 we find our Lord speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Pharisee, those who killed the prophets:

v. 2 “…Pharisees sit in Moses sit…”
v. 6 “…chief seats in the synagogues…”
v. 7 “…Rabbi, Rabbi…”
v. 13 “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees…”
v. 14 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees…”
v. 15 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees…”
v. 16 “Woe unto you, ye blind guides…”
etc, etc. I think you get the picture.

Another look at both passages.

Matt. 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus isn’t calling the leaders to gather He is calling the ‘children’ or believers. ‘Jerusalem’ represents the leaders and rulers of Jerusalem. The leaders wouldn’t allow the faithful of God (thy chicks) to come to Him, God wasn’t offering salvation to all men and He sure wasn't seeking to bring together those who ‘killest the prophets’ only the faithful.

Those Christ would gather (the elect) are not represented as being unwilling but hindered by the ruling class. James White in “Potter’s Freedom” does a good job with this passage as it’s one of the big three Arminian passages.

“O, Arminian, Arminian, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told your children the plain truth . . . and ye would not let them understand!” (quoting Clarke)

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I think this is twisting what is plain to fit your theology...

 

[JM]

I think this is twisting what is plain to fit your theology...

I demonstrated using scripture and you respond with one line? Happy with your tradition?