For Your Information - Hunt Exposes Calvinism

[CmRoddy]

Wow.

Bene, I already answered that post of yours on CARM. The answers after your exegesis (rather, eisegesis) of Ephesians 1 are simply distractions to take the focus off the text you presented. I'm not going to play your childish games. Go back to CARM and respond to my critique of your exegesis (parden me, eisegesis).

 

[heymikey80]

CmRoddy, the truth of this matter is simply this: You as a RT / Calvinist must hold to your view or your theology crumbles. For those of us who are not followers of ACRT as you are don't have to redefine Biblical words to make our case.

Yes. You do and you have.

Foreknowledge is just what it says, knowing something before / prescience. Election according to foreknowledge is a selecting process based upon something.

The word indicates who God knows beforehand. It doesn't indicate what God knows about someone. That's you, reinterpreting Biblical words to make your case.

Corporate Election or Plan Lapsarianiam is where all are elected in Christ.

Were that true, Scripture would contradict itself. For it says the elect shall be saved, and that through God's mercy, by faith. If someone is elected, and doesn't believe, that contradicts what God's said.

Foreknowledge sees the lost in Christ who freely believed. Foreknowledge sees or knows all who will believe and be in Christ and thus are elected in Christ before the foundation of the world

This version of foreknowledge contradicts something said just a few verses later:

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Rom 9:16
​

So it's un-Scriptural. So Calvinists don't believe it, because it's un-Scriptural.

4. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Us being holy and without blame can only be IN Him: God sees us in Him in this respect and foreknew that we would believe thus be In Him.

This is a mistake, the Greek is essentially instrumentally by Christ That is, the election of us is by Christ's work -- not by our faith. Rest assured the Greek didn't state it in a way that contradicts Romans 9:16, and Calvinists don't rationalize-away verses that speak directly to their subjects, like Romans 9:16.

5. having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6. to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

Adoption is by Jesus Christ and how is this possible? It is made possible / accepted in the Beloved. The thrust of this statement puts all relationships, conditions, and result in Christ. This is corporate election or plan lapsarianism. We are not accepted out of Christ but are in Christ. foreknowledge saw this, knew this and expressed it in written form.

This is just a marring of the text. Christ has made us accepted by the Beloved, individually, not as a group of people that all had to meet some bar of your prescribed performance of faith.

7. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8. which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9. having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10. that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth in Him, 11. in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Don't miss the next verse:

12. that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Peter tells us that all this (Election) is according to foreknowledge. God has absolute knowledge and He knows all who will receive Christ. All who believe and are saved are "IN CHRIST". Being in Christ we are chosen. As it states we are chosen IN HIM

4. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Just amazing how that completely upends Peter's statement that we're being kept by God's power through faith. Instead we're kept by our faith, and God's power is just a confirmation that God knew all along we'd embrace him.

This isn't God's power -- it's ours.

Do you deny that God did not see the time in which a sinner would believe?

Certainly not -- God had to be involved to cause it.

Do you deny that God determined that Christ would die for the sins of the world?

Certainly not -- Christ shall judge the world. To ascend to this position the power to make such decisions must be shifted from the Father's hand to the Son's. Christ has died for the sins of the whole world -- not just people, either. We will judge angels. The world as a whole is in Christ's hands.

But that doesn't mean Christ ever intended to save every single person without exception in it.

Do you deny that believers are chosen IN CHRIST?

Certainly not. They were chosen to believe and be saved.

Do you deny that election is according to foreknowledge / knowing something before / prescience?

Yes, I deny that election is knowing something before. Scripture says it right: it's knowing someone before.

Do you deny that Jesus and the Father are one?

They're one in substance, but distinct in person.

Do you deny that the lost are saved by believing in Christ?

Certainly not. But those believing believe because God has changed their hearts.

Do you deny that God's Absolute knowledege / to us foreknowledge did not see all sinners who believed and will believe before they believed?

Certainly not -- God saw what He would do to change hearts. He caused it.

Do you deny that Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the world, all mankind? 2. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Yes, I deny that Christ is turns aside God's wrath against every person. Because God's wrath shall be inflicted against some persons at the Last Day.

Christ is the One Who propitiates, and there is no other appeal -- He is the One Who propitiates, in the eyes of every individual in Creation. But Christ is not acting to propitiate for every individual in Creation. That's pretty obvious, because Christ could do this. Yet Scripture says He didn't. In fact -- Scripture says Christ never knew some people.

Do you deny Scripture that says Christ didn't ever know some people?

Do you deny that God's wrath shall be inflicted against some persons at the Last Day? That is, that Christ does not propitiate for them?

Do you deny that Christ desires all men to be saved? 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6. who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

Yes, I deny that God desires every man particularly without exception to be saved, just as I deny that Paul has commanded you to pray for every man particularly without exception.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men 1 Tim 2:1
​

Be consistent. Finish your prayer session for each and every one of the billions -- then we'll talk. Don't miss any individual. That's "First of all".

Do you deny that we are "saved by faith" that faith saves us.

Christ saves us.

Faith can't be anything but an instrument or an indicator. Faith does nothing. Faith is not powerful to save. It's a language shortcut to say "your faith has saved you." it isn't a cause of salvation. It's an instrument.

Do you deny the following verse: 9. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Certainly not. There is indeed no other Savior of men.

Do you deny the following: 8. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9. who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10. but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Certainly not. It is rather you who must conclude -- were you treating Scripture consistently -- that God has saved everyone, for God has called everyone. But no, in your view, God called us all, then saved those who responded -- not saved and called us with a holy calling.

Do you deny that we are saved throught the gospel and that election is IN CHRIST.

Election is by Christ. It's what's consistent with the rest of Scripture; it's also a reasonable understanding of the verse. I'm sticking with that. You can mash up the Scriptures and spit 'em out all you want as if they side with you, but it pits one Scripture against another.

I'd rather have a view that is completely compatible with all of Scripture, than one that fits my mindset but is inconsistent with much of Scripture.

That's why I'm a Calvinist. Because I'm unwilling to ascend the throne of interpretive pontification above God's Word.

 

[nobdysfool]

The bottom line is, since all was created by God, anything that happens in that creation is ultimately the result of God's decree to create. Therefore, God's decree to create is the ultimate source of anyone's choice to believe. He doesn't choose them because He sees they will believe. They believe because He chose them to believe. God's Election is of persons, not actions. Their actions are the result of His choice, not the cause of His choice. God does not choose generic groups of people, He chooses people.

 

[drstevej]

Less than two hours till Calvin's 5ooth Birthday!

 

[Benefactor]

Less than two hours till Calvin's 5ooth Birthday!

YouTube - Just As I Am-Brian Doerksen

 

[heymikey80]

Many propose to be teachers. Few warrant the proposal.

YouTube - John Calvin Hymn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txk_Qo6dJAI

 

[Benefactor]

Roger Olson, "My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism"

Submitted by SEA on Fri, 07/17/2009 - 7:17am.

• Calvinism
• Determinism
• General

My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism
Roger E. Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University
​

Above all I want to make clear that I admire and respect my Calvinist friends and colleagues. We disagree strongly about some points of theology, but I hold them in high esteem for their commitment to the authority of God's Word and their obvious love for Jesus Christ and his church as well as for evangelism.
However, I do not admire or respect John Calvin. I have been told that he should not be held responsible for the burning of the heretic Servetus because, after all, he warned the Spanish doctor and theologian not to come to Geneva and he urged the city council to behead him rather than burn him. And, after all, Calvin was a child of his times and everyone was doing the same. Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal.
Furthermore, I find Calvin's doctrine of God repulsive. It elevates God's sovereignty over his love, leaving God's reputation in question. What I mean is that Calvin's all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.
Much to the chagrin of some contemporary Calvinists, Calvin clearly taught that God foreordained the fall and rendered it certain. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXIII.8) He also affirmed double predestination (III:XXI.5) and displayed callous disregard for the reprobate who he admitted God compelled to obedience (disobedience). (I:XVIII.2) Calvin distinguished between two modes of God's will-what later Calvinists have called God's decretive and preceptive wills. (III:XXIV.17) God decrees that the sinner shall sin while at the same time commanding him not to sin and condemning him for doing what he was determined by God to do. To Calvin this all lies in the secret purposes of God into which we should not peer too deeply, but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone who regards God as above all love.
John Wesley commented on the Calvinists' claim that God loves even the reprobate in some way. As one contemporary Calvinist put it, "God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways." Wesley said that this is a love such as makes the blood run cold.
Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, commented that those who find themselves suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there for the greater glory of God. To paraphrase Wesley, that is a glory such as sends chills down the spine. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism. (Institutes III:XXII.11)
I have been heavily criticized by some of my Calvinist friends for saying that my biggest problem with Calvinism (by which I mean consistent divine determinism) is that it makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between God and the devil. (I am not saying Calvinists worship the devil!)
For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history. God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said "The glory of God is man fully alive." The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God's instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative.

July 21, 2009; Roger Olson, "My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism" | Society of Evangelical Arminians ; Roger Olson.

 

[CmRoddy]

Roger Olson, "My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism"

July 21, 2009; Roger Olson, "My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism" | Society of Evangelical Arminians ; Roger Olson.

You would post this terrible article. Well, I'll go ahead and post my critique I wrote on CARM.

Here is the first response.

There are several problems with Roger Olson's post.

First of all, the fact that he is accusing Calvin of murdering Servetus is astounding. I guess folks will simply choose to ignore historical facts in order to attack someone they disagree with. This is sad and on the same level as those like Dan Barker and Dave Hunt.

Secondly, Roger, like the vast majority of Arminians, place God's love above all other attributes of God as if His love is the most important of all.

Furthermore, I find Calvin's doctrine of God repulsive. It elevates God's sovereignty over his love, leaving God's reputation in question. What I mean is that Calvin's all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.​

Of course, nowhere does Scripture put God's love above His other attributes. Yes, "God is love," but God is also timeless, just, jealous, righteous, holy, etc. We should view Him as a balance of all these.

Plus, the fact that the Bible says that God does indeed hate (c.f. Ps. 5:5; 11:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hosea 9:15; Rom. 9:11-13) certain people is a big indicator that His love isn't equal or extended to every individual.

Thirdly, the following paragraph is troubling.

Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, commented that those who find themselves suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there for the greater glory of God. To paraphrase Wesley, that is a glory such as sends chills down the spine. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism.
​

I guess Roger denies what many passages say. The fact that God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of showing His power through him (Rom. 9:17) escapes him. The fact that God created everything according to its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov. 16:4) also seems to escape Roger's notice.

The fact that God has the right to form, from the same lump, one vessel for honorable use and one for dishonorable use, the fact that God did this and endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to show the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which He prepared for glory (Rom. 9:21-23) also seems to escape Roger's notice.

God hardened the hearts of the kings Joshua fought against in order to deliver them into the hands of Israel to receive no mercy and be utterly destroyed (Joshua 11:20). The king of Hesbon, Sihon, was not willing to pass through the land because God hardened his spirit in order to the hands of Joshua (Deut. 2:30). I'm sure we can say that these people were not saved.

Jesus Himself spoke about God's sovereignty in salvation.

John 12:37-40
37But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"
39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40"HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."

Matthew 13:10-15
10And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
11Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
12"For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
13"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
14"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'
16"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
17"For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
​

I guess all these passages escape Roger's notice. They certainly didn't escape Calvin's or Beza's notice.

Fourthly, Roger seems to believe that God and Satan are "absolute competitors in this universe."

For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history. God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said "The glory of God is man fully alive." The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God's instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative.
​

It is amazing that he can think that the creation can actually compete with the Creator in any meaningful fashion. The Devil's existence is contingent upon God and if God so desires, He could literally cause the Devil (and everything/everyone else He created) to cease existence.

Of course, the only way to be consistent in holding this view is to be an Open Theist, which I doubt Roger adheres to.

Now, if God does desire the good for every creature then it will happen. He is totally sovereign and nothing gets in the way of what He wants to do. To say otherwise is to deny God His right as the Creator and ruler of the Universe.

He works out everything according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11) and does according to His will and no one can answer back to Him (Dan. 4:35). There is nothing too hard for God (Jer. 32:17; Gen. 18:14). As surely as He has thought, it shall come to pass and no one can frustrate His plan or turn back His hand (Isa. 14:24-27). He declares the end from the beginning and He will accomplish all His good pleasure; as surely as He has planned, it shall come to pass (Isa. 46:9-11). He can do all things and no purpose of His can be thwarted (Job 42:2). He does whatever He pleases (Ps. 115:3; Ps. 135:6). When God sends His word forth, it shall accomplish all that He pleases (Isa. 55:11). God is the potter, and we are the clay (Isa. 64:8). He forms us into what He wishes and no one can turn to Him and say "He did not make me" or "He has no understanding" (Isa. 29:16). Woe to the clay that answers back to the potter by saying "What are you doing" or "He has no hands" (Isa. 45:9).

All in all, Roger's post was unconvincing and filled with emotional arguments rather then Biblical arguments.

Here is the second response, particularly on the last paragraph.

I doubt Roger merely meant competitors in the sense you wrote.

Just look at what he said!
"For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history."

This is scary on many levels.

First of all, He said that God and Satan are "absolute competitors in the Universe" and this results in a "tragic history." He obviously meant that God and Satan are opposite (good vs evil) but equal (in power) forces in the Universe that are battling it out for victory. This is further evidenced in rest of his quote, but I'll get to that in a bit.

Secondly, Roger actually says that "nothing about the Christian worldview is more important" then that! Are you serious? Are you sure this man is a "professional theologian," SW? Since when is this the most important thing in the Christian worldview? Is the Gospel, the Trinity, the Crucifixion, the deity of Christ, the Resurrection all not more important then the assumption that God and Satan are absolute competitors?

Now, the rest of that one paragraph is also scary.
"God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said "The glory of God is man fully alive." The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God's instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative."

This further proves that Roger means absolute competitors in the sense of equal forces battling it out.

First of all, what guarantee do we have that God will end up victorious in the end if this is the case? What is our guarantee of salvation and peace with God if Satan is just an opposite force trying to damn us?

Secondly, he says that God desires the good for every creature while Satan desires harm for every creature. Is Roger trying to postulate, despite the Bible's clear teaching that God does what He wishes and accomplishes what He desires and plans, that Satan can actually do something to impede on God's desire for good? Is the God of the Bible really to be represented as struggling against a force as powerful as He, despite Satan's existence being contingent upon God? I submit that it is not the Biblical description of God. A prime example of Roger's error is the fact that Satan can do nothing without the permission of God. Just see Job's narrative for that piece of fact.

Thirdly, he said "To view the devil as God's instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative." OK... how and why? How does it make a mockery of the Biblical narrative and why does it do so. All he did was make claims and arguments from emotion, and this is a clear example.

 

[CmRoddy]

Here is what is amazing. Folks like Bene will post some shallow article/essay against Calvin/Calvinism and just wait. If no one responds to it he claims victory over that post. But if someone does respond to it and cuts it to pieces (like I did with Roger Olson's man-defending rant) he just completely ignores the response and starts posting other bad articles/essays.

Oh well, I guess he just can't handle the correction.

 

[Hismessenger]

Obviously you don't believe repentance has any value; God can't change his mind. That is interesting.

Show me one sentence that even hints that God made a mistake and needs to change His mind. All His ways are perfect and no amount of human logic can over come this fact. In perfection there is no need to change your mind for His creation is very good for what He has purposed it to be. Only by faith can one come to accept this truth.

hismessenger

 

[SeekerOfTheTruth]

Hi everyone,
I'm new here, but I've been seeking the truth on this matter myself. I started out not holding to any side but sought to know the truth, and prayerfully asked for God to reveal this. I have come to the conclusion that neither 5 point Calvinism and Arminianism is entirely correct, the truth being somewhere in the middle.

I believe that man has to repent and believe, and willingly decide to come to God. He is able to make that choice. I also believe Christ died for all the world, not just some.

However, regeneration (being born of the Sprit) is the work of God, and does not come about just because of man's will. That is, God decides whom he wants to regenerate.

So salvation consists of two parts - man has to repent, he has to will to choose God by himself and God gives him this freedom, but God is the one who regenerates, but God does not regenerate anyone who does not willingly repent.

I found the following videos helpful, note sure if it's been posted, if it has my apologies.

Oops, I'm unable to post links. Do a search for a 9 part series on you tube called CALVINISM- 'Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvinist' - By Dr. Norman Geisler"

 

[heymikey80]

I believe that man has to repent and believe, and willingly decide to come to God. He is able to make that choice. I also believe Christ died for all the world, not just some.

However, regeneration (being born of the Sprit) is the work of God, and does not come about just because of man's will. That is, God decides whom he wants to regenerate.

So salvation consists of two parts - man has to repent, he has to will to choose God by himself and God gives him this freedom, but God is the one who regenerates, but God does not regenerate anyone who does not willingly repent.

I found the following videos helpful, note sure if it's been posted, if it has my apologies.

Oops, I'm unable to post links. Do a search for a 9 part series on you tube called CALVINISM- 'Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvinist' - By Dr. Norman Geisler"

The basic problem with Geisler's view is that it doesn't account for what Scripture says.

Salvation does consist of two parts -- but both come from God.

I've found the original statement of the Calvinistic viewpoint significant and important to understanding its view, and distinguishing Calvinism from the caricature so commonly drawn by its opponents.

The Canons of Dordt

I've also found the 20th Century response of Loraine Boettner to address most conflicts with the view:

Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[philagon]

• Conditional Salvation
  ​
• Eternal Security​

you seriously think these two ideas are compatible?

 

[atcfisherman]

Hi everyone,
I'm new here, but I've been seeking the truth on this matter myself. I started out not holding to any side but sought to know the truth, and prayerfully asked for God to reveal this. I have come to the conclusion that neither 5 point Calvinism and Arminianism is entirely correct, the truth being somewhere in the middle.
"

I tend to agree like the above quote which the scriptures seem to point out both. The problem that I have seen with the responses for calvinism on this site is they use "nonsense" words like listening to the christian science reading room people read their other book. Just quote scriptures and don't add personal comments, especially ones from am man named calvin or anyone else.

With this being said, I do have some questions. Now I am very much in the middle as the scriptures are clear to me. That is if you take the entire bible as a whole and not "hang on" to a few scriptures.

1) God = love according to the scriptures. So, show me scriptures where God chose to send people to hell. If the calvinist say God chose some to go to Heaven, then that directly means he chose some to go to hell. That isn't love. The scriptures say they have a choice to receive this salvation. God did it this so man had to excuse.

2) If we have not choice to receive this salvation, why even evangelize? I mean, if someone is already the elect, it wouldn't matter if they were raised in a biker gang. They would eventually be saved even if they never heard the gospel b/c according to this theory, God picked him no matter what.

3) There are so many scriptures that clearly state that Jesus died for all. That doesn't mean that all will be saved. It means that if all received Him, that He could save them. But, the scriptures clearly state that we have to "choose ye this day whom ye will serve." If we don't have a choice, then how are you even choosing to get up each day unless you are saying that it isn't you but God is making you.

Bottom line is this and let me be very clear. I know that the above questions have be posed before. And, I also doubt that any calvinist have every "changed their minds" about their chosen theology over a debate. Change only comes from God and the Holy Spirit must move on one to change. But, the individual must also be willing to listen to Him and not be blinded by pride.

I find it difficult and disturbing to see so many people calling themselves a follower of an earthy man whom isn't Jesus Christ. Be very careful to do so as your allegiance can change from Jesus to Jesus + calvin. May this never happen.

But what is scary is all the defense for calvinism is from man made words. If one truly believes that the bible is all we need, then just post scriptures and let the scriptures speak for themselves. But, that isn't what I have seen on this website. It as been probably 5% scripture and 95% quoting scholars, and mortal men whom come up with different ideas.

As for me, I choose to only get my answers from the Bible. Now again, I am not attacking calvinism, but I do see a sadden trend on this site to all the replies. To much "ducking" the questions and not enough answering with scriptures and scriptures alone.

One last thing we need to remember is that God's ways are much higher than our and to think we can figure out some of this is beyond our understanding as mentioned in the scriptures. No eye has seen and no ear has heard....

 

[bbbbbbb]

I will weigh in here with a few comments.

I tend to agree like the above quote which the scriptures seem to point out both. The problem that I have seen with the responses for calvinism on this site is they use "nonsense" words like listening to the christian science reading room people read their other book. Just quote scriptures and don't add personal comments, especially ones from am man named calvin or anyone else.

One of the really big problems is what those "nonsense" words really mean to those who are using them. For example, election is a biblical word, but it can mean different things to different people. Some of those things are supported by the biblical text and others are supported by logic and most are supported by a combination of the two. Coming to a common definition is the beginning of a genuine discussion.

With this being said, I do have some questions. Now I am very much in the middle as the scriptures are clear to me. That is if you take the entire bible as a whole and not "hang on" to a few scriptures.

Agreed, It is easiest to dismiss scriptures which appear to contradict our own logical conclusions.

1) God = love according to the scriptures. So, show me scriptures where God chose to send people to hell. If the calvinist say God chose some to go to Heaven, then that directly means he chose some to go to hell. That isn't love. The scriptures say they have a choice to receive this salvation. God did it this so man had to excuse.

Many Calvinists believe that man will be held responsible for his decisions. Many also hold that God's election is for heaven. However, the logical implication is that if God has chosen some for eternal life (Eph. 1:5) He has not chosen others (i.e. His choice has resulted in their eternal loss). That is a logical inference which is not directly stated in scripture. Nevertheless, it can lead to the belief that unsaved mankind is not responsible for their sin and that God bears all the responsibility.

2) If we have not choice to receive this salvation, why even evangelize? I mean, if someone is already the elect, it wouldn't matter if they were raised in a biker gang. They would eventually be saved even if they never heard the gospel b/c according to this theory, God picked him no matter what.

This is also another logical conclusion which leads some Calvinists into fatalism. Fatalism has many facets, none of which have biblical support. Calvinists are not, as a whole, fatalists.

3) There are so many scriptures that clearly state that Jesus died for all. That doesn't mean that all will be saved. It means that if all received Him, that He could save them. But, the scriptures clearly state that we have to "choose ye this day whom ye will serve." If we don't have a choice, then how are you even choosing to get up each day unless you are saying that it isn't you but God is making you.

Some Calvinists believe in a limited atonement, which is the third point of TULIP. This has no direct biblical support. Other Calvinists believe that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all mankind (whosoever will call upon Him will be saved) be efficient (useful) for only those who believe. I think your view is closest to this.

Bottom line is this and let me be very clear. I know that the above questions have be posed before. And, I also doubt that any calvinist have every "changed their minds" about their chosen theology over a debate. Change only comes from God and the Holy Spirit must move on one to change. But, the individual must also be willing to listen to Him and not be blinded by pride.

Very true and extremely difficult.

I find it difficult and disturbing to see so many people calling themselves a follower of an earthy man whom isn't Jesus Christ. Be very careful to do so as your allegiance can change from Jesus to Jesus + calvin. May this never happen.

But what is scary is all the defense for calvinism is from man made words. If one truly believes that the bible is all we need, then just post scriptures and let the scriptures speak for themselves. But, that isn't what I have seen on this website. It as been probably 5% scripture and 95% quoting scholars, and mortal men whom come up with different ideas.

Very true. That has been my own observation, as well.

As for me, I choose to only get my answers from the Bible. Now again, I am not attacking calvinism, but I do see a sadden trend on this site to all the replies. To much "ducking" the questions and not enough answering with scriptures and scriptures alone.

One last thing we need to remember is that God's ways are much higher than our and to think we can figure out some of this is beyond our understanding as mentioned in the scriptures. No eye has seen and no ear has heard....

 

[atcfisherman]

Hey bbbbbbb, thanks for your above post. You never agressively attacked me for my questions and you had some good replies. Thank you very much!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hey bbbbbbb, thanks for your above post. You never agressively attacked me for my questions and you had some good replies. Thank you very much!

You are welcome. As you know, this is not an easy issue and I have learned that many sincere Christians see things differently on this. I am praying that we all come to one mind on it. As you say, it is the scriptures themselves and not man's opinions that will do this.

 

[Hammster]

I tend to agree like the above quote which the scriptures seem to point out both. The problem that I have seen with the responses for calvinism on this site is they use "nonsense" words like listening to the christian science reading room people read their other book. Just quote scriptures and don't add personal comments, especially ones from am man named calvin or anyone else.

This is always a fascinating argument to me because of the logical fallacy built into it. You, a man, are telling other not to listen to a man. So which man should we listen to?

With this being said, I do have some questions. Now I am very much in the middle as the scriptures are clear to me. That is if you take the entire bible as a whole and not "hang on" to a few scriptures.

Calvinists do the same.

1) God = love according to the scriptures. So, show me scriptures where God chose to send people to hell. If the calvinist say God chose some to go to Heaven, then that directly means he chose some to go to hell. That isn't love. The scriptures say they have a choice to receive this salvation. God did it this so man had to excuse.

First, let me ask this: Does man deserve salvation?

2) If we have not choice to receive this salvation, why even evangelize? I mean, if someone is already the elect, it wouldn't matter if they were raised in a biker gang. They would eventually be saved even if they never heard the gospel b/c according to this theory, God picked him no matter what.

That is the straw man version of Calvinism that we see set up frequently because it is easy to knock down. The truth is that God ordains the means as well as the ends. IOW, we evangelize because the bible commands us to.

3) There are so many scriptures that clearly state that Jesus died for all. That doesn't mean that all will be saved. It means that if all received Him, that He could save them. But, the scriptures clearly state that we have to "choose ye this day whom ye will serve." If we don't have a choice, then how are you even choosing to get up each day unless you are saying that it isn't you but God is making you.

Since you didn't take your own advice and list the scriptures, I will give the generic response. Most scripture that you think say Jesus died for all in fact to not say such things. And the ones most commonly quoted, if taken to their logical conclusion, will lead to Univeralism.

Bottom line is this and let me be very clear. I know that the above questions have be posed before. And, I also doubt that any calvinist have every "changed their minds" about their chosen theology over a debate. Change only comes from God and the Holy Spirit must move on one to change. But, the individual must also be willing to listen to Him and not be blinded by pride.

Is that advice that you yourself are willing to follow? I started out with your view and was convinced that the Reformed view was biblical. So what do you do with that?

I find it difficult and disturbing to see so many people calling themselves a follower of an earthy man whom isn't Jesus Christ. Be very careful to do so as your allegiance can change from Jesus to Jesus + calvin. May this never happen.

Name one who is a follower of John Calvin? I know none, myself. Do I know some who have read his works and agree with his conclusions? Yes. But none 'follow' Calvin. Again, it is an argument meant to somehow demean the Reformed.

And again, here is your fallacy. You tell us to not follow Calvin (which again, none do) yet we are supposed to follow you? How does that work?

But what is scary is all the defense for calvinism is from man made words. If one truly believes that the bible is all we need, then just post scriptures and let the scriptures speak for themselves. But, that isn't what I have seen on this website. It as been probably 5% scripture and 95% quoting scholars, and mortal men whom come up with different ideas.

So if I post scripture that states my view, are you going to believe that it agrees with the Reformed view? If I say, for example, that John 3:3 supports the reformed view, but give no reasoning for it, are you just going to accept it? This is a debate forum, and even Paul, when talking to others, used words not of scripture (at least not at the time he was speaking them) to defend and promote his view. And you have done so as well in this post, as I have not seen one verse to back up your view.

As for me, I choose to only get my answers from the Bible. Now again, I am not attacking calvinism, but I do see a sadden trend on this site to all the replies. To much "ducking" the questions and not enough answering with scriptures and scriptures alone.

Do you have scripture to back this up? I have not found this statement anywhere in the bible.

One last thing we need to remember is that God's ways are much higher than our and to think we can figure out some of this is beyond our understanding as mentioned in the scriptures. No eye has seen and no ear has heard....

One thing you should remember is that God has condescended to communicate with us in a language that we can understand. The words don't need any special revelation from God to understand. Yes, there are things we cannot grasp. But others are easy enough for a child to understand.

 

[atcfisherman]

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself. This He said, signifying by what death He would die." (John 12:32-33)

“Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
(1 Timothy 2:5-6).

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’" (John 1:29)

“My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2)

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” (John 3:16-17)

The key is they “MIGHT” be saved. These are just a few scriptures that prove that Christ died for ALL. It doesn’t say that all will be saved. It says that they MIGHT be saved. He died for all humanity and creation, but that doesn’t mean that all will receive it. This isn’t universalism! Universalism teaches that all will be saved no matter what. These scriptures and many more clearly state that the ransom was for all and that salvation is offered for all, but it doesn’t say that all will be saved. IT SAYS THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED!!!

THIS IS VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD THAT EVEN A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND IT, BUT YET I AM AMAZED AT HOW PEOPLE WILL TWIST THESES SCRIPTURES TO SAY IT WASN’T FOR ALL ME. IT IS CLEAR HERE!

 

[Hammster]

What did Christ's death accomplish? Did it pay for everybody's sins?