• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Canons of Dort No-Straw-Man Challenge

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by Hammster, Nov 24, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    This is what I said:
    "Now, would you please address posts 31 and 32?"

    Are you going to cooperate or not. At present, you are merely trying to change the issue by your irrelevant comment.

    You have now admitted that "election is to salvation". So deal with that. That statement MEANS that salvation is by election.

    So, what words games will be used to try to make it mean something else.

    Here's the facts. Those elected to savlation will surely be saved. So wherre does faith fit in that? It doesn't, other than as a side effect or by product of election.

    That is the point that I'm making. So, IF IF IF election is to salvation, WHERE are the verses that actually SAY SO?

    And IF IF FI election is to salvation, we ARE saved by election. Faith is a mere by product or side effect of election.

    So you've got a lot of explaining to do.
     
  2. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I said:
    "God chooses who He will save, and that choice (election) is unconditional. So faith doesn't play any part of salvation. it's reduced to a mere side effect or by product of being chosen."
    I really don't care what Dort thinks. This isn't about him. It's about the Calvinist doctrine of election, which I say removes faith being THE condition for salvation, and replaces it with election.

    This, like most if not all of the Canons, is just a big old word salad.

    I asked for verses that support the claim that "election is to salvation", which you have noted. I didn't see any in the Dort. So, where are they? Don't you have some tucked away under your hat?

    Word salads are merely a lot of words, without any evidence. Just words. Anyone can produce words.

    What I'v asking for is evidence FROM Scripture, not Dort's word salad, that says that election is to salvation.

    Either you can produce evidence or you can't. Dort didn't produce anything or than his salad.
     
  3. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    No, it doesn’t. I don’t know how many ways I can say it. Just because you keep repeating it doesn’t make it true. I know what I mean when I say that, and it’s not what you are saying that I mean.
     
  4. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You made a statement about what’s meant in the the article in your first post. You keep making the same claim. So I showed you what the Canons actually say about the subject.
     
  5. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    FreeGrace2 said:
    You have now admitted that "election is to salvation". So deal with that. That statement MEANS that salvation is by election.
    This is just a flat denial of reality.

    Then you have to prove to others that "election is TO salvation" doesn't mean that salvation is by election.

    I really don't know how anyone could claim otherwise.
     
  6. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Actually, I quoted directly from the Canons. And YOU said "election is to salvation", but now you deny the reality of what that means.

    Of course you have to deny what it really means, for then you'd have to admit that reformed theology is faulty.

    Yes, I keep repeating my claim. Which is that we are saved by faith, NOT by election.

    But YOUR claim is "election is TO salvation".

    And you can't explain or show where in Scripture this is taught. And the Canons aren't helpful one bit. No Scripture at all regarding "election is to salvation".

    If you are correct, there WOULD be Scripture that clearly makes that point. But neither YOU nor the Canons have provided any Scripture that teaches what you claim.

    The reality is that salvation is CONDITIONED upon faith in Christ. Eph 2:8 says we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH. That clearly indicates the single condition for salvation; which is faith.

    So, from that alone, the "U" in TULIP is unbiblical, because it says that election is unconditional, and to the reformed mind, "election is TO salvation".

    So, maybe you can't connect the dots here, but the dots are very close together and are very easily connected.

    IF "election (unconditional) is to salvation", then there aren't any conditions for salvation. But the Bible is clear that there is a single condition for salvation.

    The Bible has the phrase, "he who has an ear, let him hear". It means those who are positive to truth WILL hear.

    In the face of truth, you are not hearing. You have NO verses that support your claims, and when Scriptural truth is presented, you can't refute it. You say you agree with Eph 2:8, but that verse tells us that salvation is conditoned upon faith.

    So, you and your theology are in contradiction.
     
  7. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I’ll make I simple summary statement. If God chooses someone to be saved, His choice isn’t what saves them. They are still in need of regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc. There are things that need to happen in order for them to be saved. Election is just another way of saying that God chooses.
     
  8. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The reason I posted from the third and fourth heads is because you seem to stuck o the idea that only the first head is talking about salvation, and you cannot get past article 15. The Canons have much more to say. To I quoted another section that went into more details about faith. You are not addressing that. You just keep stopping at 1:15 and even with that, your misunderstanding is causing you to be in error.
     
  9. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    That is just a very confused statement. I am totally surprised that you aren't seeing it.

    But...all of these are mere by products or side effects of the election.

    The point remains that IF IF IF election is to salvation, then everything else is a by product/side effect of election.

    Denying this is futile.

    Doesn't matter. The FACT that the person was chosen to be saved, that THAT unconditionally, PROVES that everything else; regeneration, justification, sanctification, and salvation itself, is mere by product/side effects of the election.

    Here's the huge problem that you aren't seeing.

    Calvinism claims that election is unconditional. That means NO conditions.

    Yet, the Bible clearly states that salvation is by grace, THROUGH FAITH. So faith IS a condition.

    How come you don't see this?

    So, basically, Calvinists are talking out of both sides of their mouths. And all the while, contradicting themselves.

    YOU have said that (unconditional) election is to salvation, and that we are saved by grace through faith. So you are contradicting yourself.

    The fact of reality is that God's election IS IS IS unconditional. But...it's NOT NOT NOT to salvation.

    God's election is to service. In EVERY case. If salvation was by election, there would be at least one clear verse, but no Calvinist ever has found any such verse.

    I can prove my claim from Scripture. I have studied the Greek word for election in the noun, verb, and adjective forms. All of them.

    What I found was that in EVERY case, none of the verses said or even suggested that the election was to salvation.

    In the OT, the Messiah was seen as the "suffering SERVANT". And Isaiah described the Messiah as the Chosen One several times. Jesus was chosen for service.

    In the OT the Jewish people were God's chosen people. Were they chosen to salvation? No, they were chosen for service; to preserve the Word of God, and His commandments, of which they failed over and over.

    Angels are described as "elect" in 1 Tim 5:23. The angel who revealed things to John in the 3rd heaven wouldn't let John bow before him, and he told John that he was a "fellow servant with him (John)" in Rev 19:10 and 22:9.

    Heb 1:14 says it all about elect angels: Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

    Even Paul's election on the road to Damascus was for service. Consider Acts 9:15 - But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.

    The 12 disciples were also chosen for service:

    John 6:70,71
    70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the TwelveH? Yet one of you is a devil!”
    71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

    So, there you have it. Election IS unconditional, in that EVERY person chosen, is chosen for service, including Judas.

    Eph 1:4 says, For he chose us (who believe) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

    You may balk at the parenthesis, but that is exactly how "us" is defined in 1:19a - and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

    There is no reason to argue that the "us" in v.4 is somehow a different group than the "us" in v.19.

    So, Eph 1:4 states that EVERY believer is chosen, which is FOR service.
     
  10. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    There is no need to move past article 15. I've proven my point. No straw men involved.

    You gave a challenge, and I met it. And you cannot refute what I have posted. You have offered zero verses in support of your claims, and I have offered verses that support my claims.

    And I addressed that fact. In fact, "much more to say" is just a bigger word salad. Lots of words, but very little in the way of evidence that supports the claims.

    Where are the verses that actually support the points made in that very large word salad? I didn't see any.

    Once again, I don't need to. I'm not here to argue against word salads. I'm here to meet your challenge, and I have done that. Even though you are in denial of that.

    yeah, right. What have you proved? Nothing. I asked for verses that support your claim that election is to salvation, and all you did was direct me to your very large word salad, that had zero "calories".

    There was no meat. No verses. Just a bunch of claims and statements.

    Your arguments and defenses are really weak. They hold no water.

    You may be able to explain all the Calvinist talking points eloquently, but you have provided no evidence from Scripture that supports the talking points.
     
  11. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I guess we are done, then.
     
  12. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,544
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Obviously, since you have no response that refutes my point.

    And I did it without any straw men. Amen.
     
  13. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    No, your whole argument is a straw man. You are taking what is said in article 15 and saying that it means something else. You can’t see that, so we are done.

    Now, if you want to refute article 15, then okay. But it’s not a refutation to say that it’s saying something it’s not saying.
     
  14. 5thKingdom

    5thKingdom Newbie

    +170
    Christian
    Private

    That is just hilarious.
    Pretending that "effective for salvation" is different than "saves".
    I could not even make that up if I tried.


    .
     
  15. 5thKingdom

    5thKingdom Newbie

    +170
    Christian
    Private

    When we compare Scripture to Scripture (as the ONLY measure
    of Biblical Truth is harmony of ALL RELATED passages) we find
    the "death" that results from sin is NOT a physical death but
    the "Second Death" which no saint is subject to.


    Jim
     
  16. 5thKingdom

    5thKingdom Newbie

    +170
    Christian
    Private

    Rom 9:20
    Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
    Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
    Why hast thou made me thus?


    Rom 9:21
    Hath not the potter power over the clay,
    of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, [saved]
    and another unto dishonour? [unsaved]


    Rom 9:22-24
    What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: [non elect] And that he might make known the riches
    of his glory on the vessels of mercy, [elect] which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


    Clearly, your argument is NOT with the Cannons of Dort
    but with the Word of God.


    Jim
     
  17. 5thKingdom

    5thKingdom Newbie

    +170
    Christian
    Private

    I actually agree with you (for once).
    I would argue that we are elected for salvation.... BUT
    we could argue we are SAVED when we are "chosen" or "elected"
    because God cannot fail to accomplish His purpose.


    And, of course, you cannot name (or show any Scripture noting)
    someone who was saved... but NOT "chosen" or "elected" by God.


    Jim
     
  18. 5thKingdom

    5thKingdom Newbie

    +170
    Christian
    Private

    The question is never what "the Reformed camp" believes,
    it is always and only what the Bible teaches. Does the Bible
    teach unborn babies are saved? Does it teach they are all
    unsaved? Or does it not offer a teaching on this subject?

    If the Bible is silent on a subject... the saints should respect
    that silence and not speculate one way or the other.

    Jim
     
  19. Hammster

    Hammster Getting whiter. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +20,353
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The thread is about the reformed view. The death of the unborn has been discussed, and there are various understandings. I’m not ready to come down one way or the other.
     
  20. 5thKingdom

    5thKingdom Newbie

    +170
    Christian
    Private

    Yes, the Bible says there are several ways that we can KNOW
    when we are "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit (saved/born again)


    Rom 8:9
    But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit
    of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
    he is none of his.


    If you are not "indwelt" with the Spirit you cannot be a saved
    "wheat" in the church, you can only be an unsaved "tare" in the
    church.

    Jim
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...