How many point Calvinist?

eldermike · Feb 21, 2005

The difference is that the Calvinist would (perhaps) say that only the "elect" have faith (which btw is an anti-biblical claim, not un or extra..). And so the rest of the folks walking around who are not "elect" have no faith.. because God withheld it from them for some reason.

I have never heard this said this way. Yes all men have a measure of faith. If you jump across a ditch you are using a measure of faith, just like sitting in a chair. When you sit, you pass the point of no return before you find out the chair will actually hold you up.

God doesn't want anyone to die. But some will die and some will live.
We don't choose God as if we think He will hold us up, like a chair.
We choose God just like Peter did, His Father in Heaven called Him to it.

Now, help me understand what thing is better in the one person that hears our sermons, than the one that turns away. Did God make them wrong? Are some circumstances bigger than God can handle? God can't reach them because...........................? No matter how much I preach at them they will not listen because they are.................help me finish this.

God created man - man rejected God - God appoints all men to die - Jesus died for all men because all men were condemned, not because all men can be saved.

John chapter 17: Jesus thanks God for those He has been given and those He will be given.

The bottom line: God needs no explanation for His actions concerning salvation. This is in fact a search for a justification of God's actions towards men. And for that reason, I need to leave this thread.

BBAS 64 · Feb 21, 2005

Good Day, BT

"The gift is of salvation, faith is a gift given to all people."

I guess that depends on your defination of the word "faith" in a biblical sense I say NO not all people have "faith"

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of the choice ones of God, and an acknowledging of truth that is according to piety, upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages

Faith:

pistis

Thayer Definition:

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting mans relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

1a) relating to God

1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

1b) relating to Christ

1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God

1c) the religious beliefs of Christians

1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same

2) fidelity, faithfulness

2a) the character of one who can be relied on

Peace to u,

Bill

JM · Feb 21, 2005

PS: More then once I've had people say that calvinist theology was influanced by pagan philosophy (which I deny), this often coming my brothers and sisters in the Dispensational camp...it is often said that Dispensationalism is linked to Gnostic Christianity (which I deny as well). We shouldn't condenm a system by similarities found in the world, that's guilt by association.

BT · Feb 21, 2005

ksen said:
I think you need to differentiate between saving faith and other kinds of faith.

True there are different kinds of faith.

Why does it rain on the just and the unjust?

Because God is no respector of persons (which btw kind of goes against unconditional election in itself doesn't it...?)

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Then why isn't everyone saved? Is one person just smarter about how to use this ingrained faith?

Choice.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

(not them that are chosen)

Really? The statement that only the Elect have saving faith is anti-Biblical? What other group mentioned in the Bible have a saving faith?

You add "saving" to the verse... the disagreement is on the subject of the verse not the type of faith evidenced..

By definition only the Elect have saving faith.

So say you, and I would agree. We would disagree on whom are the elect.

BT · Feb 21, 2005

ksen said:
No, trust me, I am a Calvinist. According to the Bible, Elect=Saved so Elect=faith in Christ. I don't see why you have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with the Bible . I have a problem with this:

"Unconditional election"

John 1:12-1312 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I never argued differently. I just objected you calling God's choice "no good reason."

No good reason that I can fathom, I guess would have been a better way to say it.

Unless you believe in Universalism, which I doubt you do, then you have to acknowledge that not everyone will be saved. And seeing as how you mod in the Baptist/Anabaptist forum I will also assume that you acknowledge God's perfect Omniscience of His Creation.

God, knowing who would not be saved and spend an eternity in the Lake of Fire created anyway. God created person A knowing that person A would never be saved and go to the Lake of Fire. According to your logic that person never had a chance.

Your theology is in the same predicament you are trying to put my theology in.

Ah well this clarifies the situation. This is the foreknowledge argument. God chose them because he foreknew who would believe on Him.. there is less argument with this kind of idea because it still gives man a choice and follows that God since He knows all things knew what the choice would be.

I think my good friend SP would term this calminian

JM · Feb 21, 2005

"I think my good friend SP would term this calminian"

Maybe, don't forget Amyraldism (Moise Amyraut 1596-1664), which is what most of my Baptist brothers and sisters believe. See, it's not just calvinists that have a 'human' name for their theology! I think 'Amyraldism' is a mouth full, it could be why folks don't use it often.

With your help (awhile ago) BT, I now deny OSAS and believe the P in TULIP. I thought they were the same and I see that they're not, thanks brother.

BT · Feb 21, 2005

eldermike said:
I have never heard this said this way. Yes all men have a measure of faith. If you jump across a ditch you are using a measure of faith, just like sitting in a chair. When you sit, you pass the point of no return before you find out the chair will actually hold you up.

God doesn't want anyone to die. But some will die and some will live.
We don't choose God as if we think He will hold us up, like a chair.
We choose God just like Peter did, His Father in Heaven called Him to it.

Now, help me understand what thing is better in the one person that hears our sermons, than the one that turns away. Did God make them wrong? Are some circumstances bigger than God can handle? God can't reach them because...........................? No matter how much I preach at them they will not listen because they are.................help me finish this.

(I won't insert a joke here that perhaps the problem is with the preaching because I don't believe that)

It's not a matter of God "can't". It's a matter of a person won't. God convicts man of sin, man can repent or man can run away. Neither is the "fault" of God or because of a lack on the side of God. There are those who will believe and those who will not.

No matter how much you preach at them they will not listen because they choose not to. The Gospel message is difficult to take.

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

This last after the bread of life teaching. They chose to leave him.

God created man - man rejected God - God appoints all men to die - Jesus died for all men because all men were condemned, not because all men can be saved.

That's not a biblical statement.

God created man - man disobeyed God - The penalty for this is death. God gives the Law (a shadow of things to come), God sends His Son. The blood of Christ acts as propitiation for those who "believe".

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

John chapter 17: Jesus thanks God for those He has been given and those He will be given.

The 12 Apostles

The bottom line: God needs no explanation for His actions concerning salvation. This is in fact a search for a justification of God's actions towards men. And for that reason, I need to leave this thread.

God needs no explanation, but why does he offer one. Consider the difference between Job and Habakkuk.

Job asked the question. - God said "Where were you when I made the Earth?" (etc.)

Habakkuk asked the question. - God answered (explained).

You need to leave for your own reasons, and I don't blame you.

BT · Feb 21, 2005

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, BT

"The gift is of salvation, faith is a gift given to all people."

I guess that depends on your defination of the word "faith" in a biblical sense I say NO not all people have "faith"

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of the choice ones of God, and an acknowledging of truth that is according to piety, upon hope of life age-during, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages

Faith:

pistis

Thayer Definition:

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting mans relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

1a) relating to God

1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

1b) relating to Christ

1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God

1c) the religious beliefs of Christians

1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same

2) fidelity, faithfulness

2a) the character of one who can be relied on

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill you know the argument from congruity from Systematic Theologie's "Doctrine of God" aka Theology. So I don't understand why you'd post such a post. His first point is telling (Thayer's that is)

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting mans relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

So you show us that there are differences in faiths. Do you contend that no man besides an elect man has a conviction of the truth of anything, or the belief in anything?

Of course the context of the NT follows... you're using a Biblical Lexicon...

BBAS 64 · Feb 21, 2005

BT said:
Bill you know the argument from congruity from Systematic Theologie's "Doctrine of God" aka Theology. So I don't understand why you'd post such a post. His first point is telling (Thayer's that is)

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting mans relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

So you show us that there are differences in faiths. Do you contend that no man besides an elect man has a conviction of the truth of anything, or the belief in anything?

Of course the context of the NT follows... you're using a Biblical Lexicon...

Good Day, BT

With respect to Thayers and the NT faith, I do not deny differnt kinds of Faith but would rather stick to

1a) relating to God

1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ

1b) relating to Christ

1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God

1c) the religious beliefs of Christians

1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same

Not all men have this faith as it relates to God and His Son.

As, to Jn 6:65,66

After the bread discourse they Said:

Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Joh 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jesus then pressed the issue with these who saught him across the sea.

Why did they leave verse 65

Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

They must of missed it the first time in verse 44, sadly this is still missed to this day.
Peace to u,

Bill

2Timothy2 · Feb 21, 2005

Street Preacher said:
This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Again, I have to object to this statement. It is taking that verse out of context.

BBAS 64 · Feb 21, 2005

2Timothy2 said:
Again, I have to object to this statement. It is taking that verse out of context.

Good day, Timothy

I am still awaiting your full exergesis of JN 6 then we can better determine the context.

Peace to u,

Bill

2Timothy2 · Feb 21, 2005

BBAS 64 said:
Good day, Timothy

I am still awaiting your full exergesis of JN 6 then we can better determine the context.

Peace to u,

Bill

There really is no need to exegete the whole chapter to determine the context of the verse in question. It is Jesus' answer to a specific question, asked in the previous verse. This question was sparked by Jesus' words in the immediately preceding verses.

I posted on this earlier, but I don't blame you for not reading this entire thread. Post 55 17 FEB.

BBAS 64 · Feb 21, 2005

2Timothy2 said:
There really is no need to exegete the whole chapter to determine the context of the verse in question. It is Jesus' answer to a specific question, asked in the previous verse. This question was sparked by Jesus' words in the immediately preceding verses.

I posted on this earlier, but I don't blame you for not reading this entire thread. Post 55 17 FEB.

Good day, Timothy

I did read it after you posted it. In your post you did not deal with any of the questions I asked. You are crying use context I am giving you the chance to do so, but with in the whole chapter. You posit that man can do God's work, and fail to see the distiction of God's work and Man's work in the constuction of the prior verse.

You seem to agree that it is God's work but Man can also do it? That seems a little strange either it is God's work or it is man's. If you say it is man's work to believe, then you must account for his inabilty to do so, in the chapter that is why a look at the whole chapter is important.

Joh 6:44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

If no man is able .. Lacks ability then to say it is man's work is to give work to a man that he can not do. Thus it is God's work and man is dependant on God to do His work as He so choses.

That is why we need to do the whole chapter.

Peace to u,

Bill

eldermike · Feb 21, 2005

No matter how much you preach at them they will not listen because they choose not to. The Gospel message is difficult to take.

I do need to leave this, it's simply not going to be settled here. But I would still ask you to go deeper into the issue of what is the defect in the ones that can't accept our difficult message.

BT · Feb 21, 2005

Bill said:
Joh 6:44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

Bill no one disputes this. The disagreement is that the Father only draws those that He has elected for salvation and does not draw anyone else. irresistable grace... or more that any who the Father draws must come. That's where we disagree, and I would state that you add that notion to the text. The chapter is filled with "believe" and "any man" and not one case of "picked" "called" "elect"

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

2Timothy2 · Feb 21, 2005

BBAS 64 said:
Good day, Timothy

I did read it after you posted it. In your post you did not deal with any of the questions I asked. You are crying use context I am giving you the chance to do so, but with in the whole chapter. You posit that man can do God's work, and fail to see the distiction of God's work and Man's work in the constuction of the prior verse.

First, I am not saying man can do only what God can do. This verse is not dealing with that issue. Second, why stop with this chapter? Why not the whole book of John? Why not all 4 Gospels or the entire NT or the whole Bible? We have to determine where to draw the line. The context shows that Jesus' words in the preceding verses elicited a question from His audience. Jesus answers this specific question. It has nothing whatever to do with the things God does, but with godly works and how we can do them. The phrase may seem to say otherwise, but the context shows what I am saying. IOW, we can only do godly works once we have faith in Christ, since with faith, we are given His righteousness, and before we exhibit faith, our righteousness is as filthy rags.

BBAS 64 said:
You seem to agree that it is God's work but Man can also do it? That seems a little strange either it is God's work or it is man's. If you say it is man's work to believe, then you must account for his inabilty to do so, in the chapter that is why a look at the whole chapter is important.

Joh 6:44 no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

If no man is able .. Lacks ability then to say it is man's work is to give work to a man that he can not do. Thus it is God's work and man is dependant on God to do His work as He so choses.

That is why we need to do the whole chapter.

Peace to u,

Bill

You are still looking at the verse out of context. It doesn't matter what you say about the rest of the chapter if you rip this verse out of it's context. As I said, this verse is speaking of how we can do godly works. Jesus answers that we must believe in Him to be able to do good works. This is in accord with the whole of Scripture, both OT and NT. I think your confusion is that you refuse to see why Jesus is saying what He is saying, and you read into the text what is not there. Using this verse to support the idea that faith is given only to some and no one can have faith unless God gives it is in error. I am not going to debate the merits of that particular philosophy, I am simply stating that using this verse for that is wrong, as it is using it out of context.

May I suggest you reread my post #55 again to see better what I am saying regarding the context of this verse. From what you posted here, you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.

ksen · Feb 22, 2005

BT said:
Because God is no respector of persons (which btw kind of goes against unconditional election in itself doesn't it...?)

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

No, it doesn't go against Unconditional Election. The fact that God is not a respector of persons supports Unconditional Election because if Election were Conditional then God would be respecting some over others.

Choice.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

(not them that are chosen)

People always neglect verse 13 which explicitly says that they were born not by their own will or the will of any other person but of God's will.

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

So say you, and I would agree. We would disagree on whom are the elect.

Who do you say are the Elect?

ksen · Feb 22, 2005

BT said:
Ah well this clarifies the situation. This is the foreknowledge argument. God chose them because he foreknew who would believe on Him.. there is less argument with this kind of idea because it still gives man a choice and follows that God since He knows all things knew what the choice would be.

The foreknowledge of a person's choice is not my argument. I was using that to show you that the accusations about creating people for Hell/Lake of Fire you were throwing at Calvinism can also be hurled at your own theology, unless you want to deny God's Perfect Omniscience.

If Election was based on God's Foreknowledge of a person's choice for or against Christ then what is the purpose of Election, since the person would already come to Christ without being Elected?

Jeffrey A · Feb 22, 2005

ksen said:
If Election was based on God's Foreknowledge of a person's choice for or against Christ then what is the purpose of Election, since the person would already come to Christ without being Elected?

In order for you to grasp our position, supposing (for sake of the argument) those who argue here with you ascribe to Roses Theology as here in this thread previously presented, we must first take one giant step back to the fifth century, before Calvin had once again re-affirmed Augustine's view of predestination, to the position of Bishop Faustus of Riez and Abbot John Cassian, that of semipelagianism as validated by the Synods of Arles and Lyons (475 AD) but reversed by the unfortunate 2nd Synod of Orange (529 AD).

In our position, the concept of "Election" is not "God elected some to salvation." Not at all. Our position on election is simply this: those who believe, are of the collective group which God had fore-ordained are chosen 1) to be holy and blameless before him as royal spiritual priests and witnesses of him to the world (Eph 1:4, 1 Pet 2:5, Phil 2:14-15), 2) to perform good works of mercy and holiness that he determined before the foundation of the earth they should do (Eph 2:10, 1 Peter 4:10, 2 Pet 1:10), and 3) to be saved from the coming period of tribulation of the Day of the Lord (2 Thess 2:13, 1 Thess 1:10;5:2,4,9).

Just as flesh Israel as a collective body had been chosen by God to possess "the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom 9:4-5), so the collective body of the Church, the Bride of Christ, was chosen -- before the foundation of the world -- "that we should be holy,... for [i.e., to do] good works,... (and) for salvation... from the wrath to come."

All then who enter into that collective body, by faith in Christ, are now an individual member of it, and so may consider themselves to have been chosen before the foundation of the world to those three things.

But we Faustian semipelagians do not believe we are individually chosen by God for salvation from the condemnation of sin and death as the Augustinian predestinarians believe; rather, we believe that the initial responsive faith -- responding to God's divine extension of universal calling to repentence -- is our own, the condition upon which God then saves us.

So in our view -- that of Roses Theology, the continuation of the Cassian semipelagian view of the 5th century -- your question is entirely based on a false premise, and therefore, moot.

BBAS 64 · Feb 24, 2005

BT said:
Bill no one disputes this. The disagreement is that the Father only draws those that He has elected for salvation and does not draw anyone else. irresistable grace... or more that any who the Father draws must come. That's where we disagree, and I would state that you add that notion to the text. The chapter is filled with "believe" and "any man" and not one case of "picked" "called" "elect"
.

Good Day, BT

You have raised some interesting questions. I will do my best to answer them. This verse is very clear IMO as to the need of men to be drawn "verb" by the Father to enable men to come to the Son. It is that "coming" that is the reason why Jesus "raises them on the last day". They are given by the Father to the Son, in the giving the Father draws.

As far as election this would be a secondary verse IMO, but does lend it self to be seen as such, as has been noted by some Baptist of old election should be viewed as "meat" of the gospel. I am trying to show the milk in this verse.

If the purpse of the Father in Drawing is to give those to the Son and for the Son to raise up in the last day, by thier comming. Can God fail in doing so?

.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

I agree with all these verses, there is not a conflict. Those who believe are those that Jesus raises in the last day, unless one thinks that non-believers are "raised up", and are those who come to him, though the drawing of the Father.

Peace to u,

Bill

How many point Calvinist?

Which points of Calvinism do you believe to be true?

Total Depravity of Man

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perserverance of Saints

Pray

Contributor

Confessional Free Catholic

Fanatic

Fanatic

Confessional Free Catholic

Fanatic

Fanatic

Contributor

Rangers Lead the Way

Contributor

Rangers Lead the Way

Contributor

Pray

Fanatic

Rangers Lead the Way

Wiki on Garth!

Wiki on Garth!

Roses Theology - peace to Calvin/Armin battle

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency