How many point Calvinist?

[Gold Dragon]

Calvin tried to encapsulate what he felt were important parts of the bible into a few simple points and concepts. While I feel that his teachings are based on the bible, I would not say that his points do a very good job of capturing the entire message of the bible because they oversimplify and overemphasize some verses at the exclusion of other very important verses and concepts.

In that respect, I consider myself a 0-point Calvinist even though I recognize that Calvin made some excellent biblical contributions to the story of Christianity and our common pursuit of understanding God and His holy scriptures that He has passed down to us.

I am also concerned about some extreme Calvinists who take the ideas of Calvin to apparently logical conclusions that were completely outside the scope of Calvin's original intent. Fortunately, the Calvinist-Arminian debate is moving away from the centre of Christian concerns.

 

[mesue]

I'm with Liz. I'm a 0 pointer.

Mine's on my head! "We're from France."

Seriously, I went from being raised in a sacramaental church to going to a church that is totally dependent on the Word of God. I don't know too much church history or about the people involved. Right now I'm working on what God says about Himself in Hid word. Someday I'll go read someone elses opinion.
I do know that I am saved by the shed blood of the lamb and Jesus loved me first. I don't know what that makes me, except His .

 

[LaxItUp]

I must admit that I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject as I should be, but to say that some are elected is basically saying that man has no free will... Am I correct in this thought?

 

[BT]

I must admit that I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject as I should be, but to say that some are elected is basically saying that man has no free will... Am I correct in this thought?

Yeah you're right, but I'll show you one worse. To say that some are elected (God picks 'em for heaven) is to say that some are unelected (God picks 'em for hell). Now if you can get your head around that and say, "Yeah, that sounds right. God sends old Suzy Q down the street to hell not because of anything she did but because He just didn't pick her." Then my friend you serve a different God than I.

If election were true (as in the above quote) then no human in hell would ever deserve to be. Wrap this around yer melon.

If God elects me for hell, then in my sin I am actually fulfilling the will of God. If I fulfill the will of God then I am to be rewarded. Now if I stand before the God of calvinism I can say, "It's not my fault." and be right because God simply didn't give me the gift that he gave others in a seemingly divine scaled game of eeny meeny miny mo.

I will for the sake of argument give you one verse that absolutely refutes this whole crazy notion (man has no will, man has no choice).. heck I'll even give you one from the OT.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

It seems that even from the beginning of the ELECT nation of Israel the individual was responsible for choice.

 

[LaxItUp]

My thought is this. If man does not have free will, how does man come about his actions? Where does the inspiration to act come from?

 

[LaxItUp]

If this inspiration comes solely from God, then there cannot be a "biblical God".

 

[Jeffrey A]

If election were true (as in the above quote) then no human in hell would ever deserve to be.

... and if calvinist election were true, how can it be true what Matthew wrote, that Jesus "healed all who were ill..." (Matt 8:16)? Was he only interested in the flesh, and completely oblivious to the greater perils of the soul? No, for Jesus himself said, "What will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt 16:26).

If calvinist election were true, then Jesus would have been compelled by his own "desire" to "heal" all men, for Paul writes that "the Lord... is patient..., not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9), but instead, as you rightly say, God, even in his sovereignty, leaves a choice to man, to accept the free offer, or to reject it, for Jesus told the unbelieving leaders, "you are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life" (John 5:40), yet recognized that others will "hear() my word, and believe() him who sent me, (and so will have) eternal life, and (will) not come into judgment, but (will have) passed out of death into life" (John 5:24).

Jeffrey A

 

[2Timothy2]

First, howdy Lax from a former short stick D middie.

Second, BBAS, I can only say look at the question Jesus is answering in verse 29. If you still think as you posted, so be it. I won't argue the point.

Just one word of caution. We should all be careful not to read our theology/preconceived ideas into Scripture. Scripture should dictate to us what our theology is. This is not directed at anyone. We are all guilty of this from time to time, myself most definately included. I simply thought it was a good reminder. Check yourself the next time you are studying the Word, see if you are doing this.

 

[BBAS 64]

I must admit that I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject as I should be, but to say that some are elected is basically saying that man has no free will... Am I correct in this thought?

Good day, LaxItUp

Define free-will, does God have a free will? No the Doctrines of Grace does not deny free will.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[LaxItUp]

What's up 2Tim2... I play Longpole D... Good place to be...

But if people are elected, they can't really have free will, can they? If God elects them, someone cannot choose to be unelected?

 

[BBAS 64]

First, howdy Lax from a former short stick D middie.

Second, BBAS, I can only say look at the question Jesus is answering in verse 29. If you still think as you posted, so be it. I won't argue the point.

Just one word of caution. We should all be careful not to read our theology/preconceived ideas into Scripture. Scripture should dictate to us what our theology is. This is not directed at anyone. We are all guilty of this from time to time, myself most definately included. I simply thought it was a good reminder. Check yourself the next time you are studying the Word, see if you are doing this.

Good Day, 2Timothy2

I am not looking to argue, I am seeking to understand the basis of your on which you draw your conclusions. Seing you have not anserwed the grammer used "of God' in this verse or contended with the phases in verse 29 one has to wonder. You assert that I have not dealt with the context... yet have not when asked to provide a contextual understanding of the whole of Jn 6 you choose not to

After a while one has to wonder why . Scriptures are written words when words lose thier meaning and grammer and constuction are throw out the window. How does one read any words in the Scripture or the newspaper and come to an understanding of what ideas the words communicate?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Of course you do dear one. But you're wrong.

Good day, BT

You should really preface this comment "IMHO",

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[xjonx]

Hindsey,


This is all a bit confusing! Too much religious jargon for me to understand! Calvinism, Augustine... hmmm... 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 says follow Jesus not man... "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. NOT WITH THE WISDOM OF WORDS, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST SHOULD BE MADE OF NO EFFECT!".


It's hard for me to feel at peace with all this jargon, maybe some find it helpful I guess... this jargon could easily cause one to forget we're talking about the POWER OF GOD here, not some intellectual system of belief. hmmm... maybe I speak too quickly, just my first thoughts.


peace, Jonathan

 

[BT]

Good day, BT

You should really preface this comment "IMHO",

Peace to u,

Bill

You're absolutely right Bill. I apologize.


Of course you believe in that interpretation. But you are wrong in my opinion.

Forgive me.

 

[2Timothy2]

Good Day, 2Timothy2

I am not looking to argue, I am seeking to understand the basis of your on which you draw your conclusions. Seing you have not anserwed the grammer used "of God' in this verse or contended with the phases in verse 29 one has to wonder. You assert that I have not dealt with the context... yet have not when asked to provide a contextual understanding of the whole of Jn 6 you choose not to

After a while one has to wonder why . Scriptures are written words when words lose thier meaning and grammer and constuction are throw out the window. How does one read any words in the Scripture or the newspaper and come to an understanding of what ideas the words communicate?

Peace to u,

Bill

OK, I don't really want to get dragged into another Calvinist argument, I'm trying to extricate myself from another one right now. But here is what I'm saying:

[bible]John 6:28-29[/bible]

Notice the question asked, "What shall we do that we might do the works of God?" It is this question Jesus is answering. Jesus had just said not to labor for the bread that perishes but to labor for the bread that endures unto everlasting life. They were asking about this labor. Jesus answers as to what this labor is. This is what He means by "the work of God", i.e. what they might do to do the works of God. He is not saying God's work is giving us faith. He is saying that our doing this labor, mentioned in verse 27 and asked about in verse 28, is our faith in Him, and this is just the beginning of doing the works of God. Although He doesn't say it this is the beginnig of doing the works of God, we do know this from the rest of Scripture, Paul's letters and James, specifically.

If we just take verse 29 all by itself, i.e. ripping it out of its context, I could see your interpretation. But we can't do this. The method I used does two things: it takes the context into consideration, to an extent as to allow the context to guide our understanding of verse 29, and it uses the rest of Scripture to clarify. What it does not do is read a preconceived idea into the text. It also answers the grammar of the "of God", but to understand this prepositional phrase, what it modifies must be understood, which is what I tried to show above.

If you still disagree, can you at least see my point and why I say what I say about this verse? I know my communication skills leave much to be desired and that I'm not the best one to explain all this, but I hope you can at least see why I interpret this verse the way I do.

 

[rural_preacher]

If we just take verse 29 all by itself, i.e. ripping it out of its context, I could see your interpretation. But we can't do this. The method I used does two things: it takes the context into consideration, to an extent as to allow the context to guide our understanding of verse 29, and it uses the rest of Scripture to clarify. What it does not do is read a preconceived idea into the text. It also answers the grammar of the "of God", but to understand this prepositional phrase, what it modifies must be understood, which is what I tried to show above.

If you still disagree, can you at least see my point and why I say what I say about this verse? I know my communication skills leave much to be desired and that I'm not the best one to explain all this, but I hope you can at least see why I interpret this verse the way I do.

I don't want to get into this debate - nor am I suggesting that I'm taking any kind of side by posting - but I just want to say that I think you did an excellent job of explaining yourself in the above post.

Keeping things in context and praciticing proper exegesis is very important.


--

 

[FaithWeaver]

The only one that I agree with 100% is the preserverance of saints.

 

[Jeffrey A]

Regarding Roses Theology compared to Reformed Theology...

With the exception of your intepretation of the verses in R and O, what of this do you think contradicts Calvinism?

If you back track through this thread, you will find my post, "'Perseverance' is not the same as 'Sealed.'" That leaves only the first "S" and the "E" to be compared to the five points of Calvinism (although I've touched on the differences of all points already to some degree).

But again, for benefit of your question here, when I say we are "separated by sin", I am saying that that separation from God IS spiritual death. Death IS "separation." Physical death is the separation of our soul from our body, and spiritual death is the separation of our soul from God. This is contrasted from calvinism in that calvinism teaches that spiritual death is defined as our soul being absolutely unable to make any move whatsoever in the direction of God, even to believe.

Roses' death is man on one side of a great divide, unable to get over to God's side in any way of his own accord -- God must cross it to rescue him. That IS spiritual death. Not that the man's soul is unable to believe or call or feel or hear. In Roses Theology, the Holy Spirit first crosses the divide, and tells a man he is separated from God by the sin, makes the man feel the guilt of that sin, and shows the man the expanse of the separation. He tells the man he is spiritually dead, makes him vividly aware of that death. Then God calls across the divide, "Seek me, hear me, come to me..." And the man, if he heeds the Holy Spirit and the call, answers, "I can't! Help me!" If a man does that, God Himself crosses the divide, and brings that man over to his side. God saves that man from that death. God saves, on condition of a man simply hearing, believing, and calling. Who does God call to himself? All men. Who does he save? All who call upon him.

Reformed death is man lying in a morgue, unable to hear, move, breath, see, or feel. God must re-animate that man, breath life into him, make him stand up, give him life, birth him again spiritually, and give him the gift of faith so that that man can -- and WILL -- call on God. Who does God give life to? Whoever he chooses. Who does he save? Whoever he chose. Who remains dead? Whoever was not picked. Who burns in hell for eternity? The unpicked. How are they able to experience that burning? I don't know... one would think their souls, being dead, wouldn't feel a thing. But apparently, they are guilty, and so are resurrected unto a second death, which God, in his infinite mercy, love, and wisdom, decrees they endure. Why didn't he just pick everyone? "Who are you to talk back to God?"

That is not my God.

As for the Roses' "E" -- Elect to good works -- that is different from calvinism in simply this: God chooses all, collectively as a group, who are in Christ, to do good works. To perform a task. To have a position of service. In calvinism, "Elect" means to have been chosen to be saved.

Not at all the same. That is why I say, "drop the TULIP, and start smelling the ROSES." They are as different as, well, roses and tulips.

Jeffrey A

 

[Jeffrey A]

This is all a bit confusing! Too much religious jargon for me to understand! Calvinism, Augustine... hmmm... 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 says follow Jesus not man... "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. NOT WITH THE WISDOM OF WORDS, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST SHOULD BE MADE OF NO EFFECT!"

Hi Jonathan! You are right, we are to "preach the gospel." But then, what is that gospel we are to preach? Do you think you would be able to summarize it in a few short sentences, with possibly some verses to support each point?


Jeffrey A

 

[rural_preacher]

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I Corinthians 15:3,4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

Romans 10:9-13

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Titus 3:5

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

--