Does God call and then give us a choice to respond to his call?

[CoconutPrincess]

At first glance it isnt comfortable at all because most likely if they are like me they were exposed to a "God loves everyone and wants to save everyone Gospel but he cant because you wont let him" like I was for so many years.

When I first learned about calvinism I was appalled by it and I refuted it not wanting to believe it could be true, but slowly as time went by I kept finding myself digging deeper and deeper and suddenly it all made sense to me and I understood it and no longer do I view it as a cruel Gospel but I view it as a Loving Gospel!

Funny how things can change once a person has a right understanding.

I totally understand! I don't call myself a Calvinist... I'm a Christian who believes the TRUTH of the Bible I have heard some pretty disturbing things on John Calvin, so I don't follow after him, I follow after Christ. I'm a Christinist lol

 

[CoconutPrincess]

.

God saves the elect by coming into their lives and actively pursuing them, and changing their hearts, and drawing them to Christ, etc.

But the reprobate he simply leaves to their just condemnation. He doesn't have to do any active movement on His part. He can just "remove his hands" of grace from them.

So the reprobate are not condemned by any movement on God's part, but by their own sin. The elect are saved precisely because God intervenes. He comes as a rescuer! A savior.

This really explains so much. Thank you!

 

[CoconutPrincess]

If you enjoy JI Packer stuff, you may want to check out his introduction to John Owen's famous work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (It's a book defending the Calvinistic notion of Limited Atonement). Packer's intro is amazing.

You can view JI Packer's intro here, for free:

Introductory Essay to John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ (J. I. Packer)

I'm very new to the teachings of Packer, but I must say, his book "Knowing God" is very very well written and I have learned so much, things I never even thought of before.

I will for sure read through this intro. Thanks so much for the link! And thanks for helping me to understand election. It's something I have been trying to understand for a long time and now it all makes sense.

 

[Hentenza]

Can you go into detail a little more about this? Can you explain how I took those verses out of context, when I gave scriptural support for reprobation? Were you implying that I was taking scripture out of context?

What does this verse mean, then?

1Pe 2:7-8
(7) So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
(8) and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

The immediate context of the verses is not universal but individual. God hardened Pharaoh's heart is a perfect example. God hardened the hearts of the apostles also, did they suffer the same fate?

Secondly, Peter is refering to those who do not believe. The Greek word ἐτέθησαν is reflexive and it even has been translated as "offer". It differs from κεῖμαι which is the strong verb defining the action of predestination. Peter is not teaching that God has predestined the reprobate but that the result of reprobation is to stumble. You are applying an individual result universally.

 

[BeeWrangler]

Not trying to change the thread here, but I think this question goes with it. After reading this thread I have found that there are things I have been tought growing up in the wrong church that has stuck in my head and have come to find it is not biblical, so I am trying to sort out everything I have learned that is and is not biblical. I have always been told we have free will, and I see it is wrong. My understanding is to evaluate ourselves (our fruit) we look to see why we are Christian... if it is to simply avoid hell or if it is because we Love Jesus with all our heart and want to turn from sin because we know it hurts him. Also we turn from our sin that otherwise we would not turn from. So my question is how do we evaluate ourselves to know we are chosen, elect, truly saved? Am I right in my understanding? I hope this goes with the topic other wise I am happy to post it in another thread

 

[Hammster]

I totally understand! I don't call myself a Calvinist... I'm a Christian who believes the TRUTH of the Bible I have heard some pretty disturbing things on John Calvin, so I don't follow after him, I follow after Christ. I'm a Christinist lol

For the record, I don't know a single Calvinist who follows after Calvin. Not even Packer.

Forum Runner goes to 11.

 

[Skala]

Thank you for pointing that out Hammster

Calvinists follow the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Thus they follow the Bible

@ CP:

What you know of Calvin is probably hearsay. If you do an actual study on the matter you'll find the account of Servetus (for example) and put the whole thing in its proper context to make more sense.

Check out salvationbygrace.org and go to the Q&A Section. There's lots of good information there as well as an entry called "Was Calvin a Murderer?"

It goes into detail about this ad-hominem attack that so many people use to bolster an attack on Calvinism the doctrine itself.

 

[Skala]

The immediate context of the verses is not universal but individual. God hardened Pharaoh's heart is a perfect example. God hardened the hearts of the apostles also, did they suffer the same fate?

The apostle example is irrelevant because the Pharaoh entry in Romans 9 is specifically teaching that God hardened Pharaoh's heart precisely to display his power in him. The apostles hardening is a completely different context that has nothing to do with Paul's teaching in Romans 9.

Peter is not teaching that God has predestined the reprobate but that the result of reprobation is to stumble.

Well, he says "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."

It sounds pretty clear to me that Peter is teaching they were destined to disobey the word, and the result of that is that they stumble. Look at the grammar. "They stumble because..." is a phrase that means the reason for their stumbling is about to be given. And that reason is "because they disobey the word". And then their disobedience is what they were "destined to do". They were destined to be disobedient, which causes them to stumble.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

--- If you do an actual study on the matter you'll find the account of Servetus (for example) and put the whole thing in its proper context to make more sense.---

Blame it on the Romans. It's very common for the Roman Catholics to burn non-Catholic teachers or anti Catholic protesters back in those days. They still do it today but without violence. Back then, Servetus were teaching a new Gospel or in a new way and by habit, the whole town wanted to burn him. Calvin begged to have him beheaded rather than burned at stake. The Catholics were going to kill Servetus anyway but Calvin stepped in to reduce burning to beheading. He didn't believe Servetus or anyone should be killed at all.
So back then, the times were very different but today, Everyone blames it on Calvin. Would be better to say that Calvinist prefers to get as close to the Bible as possible. Burn Calvin is to burn the Bible like Terry Jones. Who wants to run and hide like Terry Jones? Why make Calvin hide when he didn't kill Servetus?

 

[faceofbear]

The funny thing is, even if God "foresees" who has faith, we still don't have any will in our salvation by His foreknowledge, which is why some Arminians have even denied God's omniscience altogether because they realize the logical fallacy of their argument.

 

[faceofbear]

I'm a Christian who believes the TRUTH of the Bible

Oh, so you're a Calvinist.

Kidding.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

Oh, so you're a Calvinist.

Kidding.

LOL

 

[CoconutPrincess]

Not trying to change the thread here, but I think this question goes with it. After reading this thread I have found that there are things I have been tought growing up in the wrong church that has stuck in my head and have come to find it is not biblical, so I am trying to sort out everything I have learned that is and is not biblical. I have always been told we have free will, and I see it is wrong. My understanding is to evaluate ourselves (our fruit) we look to see why we are Christian... if it is to simply avoid hell or if it is because we Love Jesus with all our heart and want to turn from sin because we know it hurts him. Also we turn from our sin that otherwise we would not turn from. So my question is how do we evaluate ourselves to know we are chosen, elect, truly saved? Am I right in my understanding? I hope this goes with the topic other wise I am happy to post it in another thread

You're in the right thread hunny The Bible says to evaluate ourselves to see if we're in the faith. Which is to look at our lives. You are right about the fruit.

A person cannot be desiring to live for God, have a relationship with God, love God and live for God and not be chosen. It's not a perfect life, but the heart is after living for God and non-Christians do not do that, only God's people, the chosen, the elect.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

Thank you for pointing that out Hammster

Calvinists follow the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Thus they follow the Bible

@ CP:

What you know of Calvin is probably hearsay. If you do an actual study on the matter you'll find the account of Servetus (for example) and put the whole thing in its proper context to make more sense.

Check out salvationbygrace.org and go to the Q&A Section. There's lots of good information there as well as an entry called "Was Calvin a Murderer?"

It goes into detail about this ad-hominem attack that so many people use to bolster an attack on Calvinism the doctrine itself.

Great Thank you, I will take a look at the site.

Yes, a friend from the Monday night meeting (who wasn't impressed and left lol) said he murdered is own child and another friend showed me some quotes from him that were not nice at all.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

Check this out... woud love your comments!

Calvinism refuted by one verse

 

[Hammster]

Check this out... woud love your comments!

Calvinism refuted by one verse

I can't seem to play it on my phone. What's the one verse?

Forum Runner goes to 11.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

I can't seem to play it on my phone. What's the one verse?

Forum Runner goes to 11.

He says that Calvinists teach that "all men" only refers to:

all elect men
all races of men
some men from all places throughout the world

Then he quotes Romans 5:18:

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The he says:

Did judgement only come upon the elect men? upon all races? upon some men from all places throughout the world? How does the word ALL change meanings from "everyone who has ever lived" to "every ELECT man" in the same sentence?

Either Jesus died for everyone or not everyone is under judgement. Whichever it is, the word ALL does not change meaning/context from the beginning to the end of this sentence.

Then he says, TAKE YOUR PICK CALVINISTS!

 

[DeaconDean]

What's the one verse?

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." -Rom. 5:18

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

He says that Calvinists teach that "all men" only refers to:

all elect men
all races of men
some men from all places throughout the world

Then he quotes Romans 5:18:

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The he says:

Did judgement only come upon the elect men? upon all races? upon some men from all places throughout the world? How does the word ALL change meanings from "everyone who has ever lived" to "every ELECT man" in the same sentence?

Either Jesus died for everyone or not everyone is under judgement. Whichever it is, the word ALL does not change meaning/context from the beginning to the end of this sentence.

Then he says, TAKE YOUR PICK CALVINISTS!

Sometimes all men does refer to all men. Sometimes it doesn't. Context, context, context. If all men ate justified, then all are saved.

What Paul refers to, in context of the entire argument, is that all who are in Adam are fallen and all who are in Christ are saved.

Forum Runner goes to 11.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

The funny thing is, even if God "foresees" who has faith, we still don't have any will in our salvation by His foreknowledge, which is why some Arminians have even denied God's omniscience altogether because they realize the logical fallacy of their argument.

Which came first , the chicken or the egg? God foresaw His vision and His vision wasn't based on what we did down the roads of our lives.

I'm not sure foresaw is the same as foreknowledge. He saw his vision because it WAS His vision. It unfold within itself. The blackhole gobbles everything in itself.