Is "Calvinism" Biblical?

[JM]

Mark 13:20 "the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen" does NOT at all mean God...

If you're going to argue like that "does not mean" and provide no context and proof there is no sense continuing. You are just being argumentative - not debating.

You also need to be corrected when you claim that Reformed theology teaches that God "elected certain randomly, unconditionally to be saved..." that isn't what we teach or believe.

If you don't know or understand that you should stop posting in this forum. If you do know it you should stop for misrepresenting what we believe just to create a strawman...

 

[TheSeabass]

If you're going to argue like that "does not mean" and provide no context and proof there is no sense continuing. You are just being argumentative - not debating.

You also need to be corrected when you claim that Reformed theology teaches that God "elected certain randomly, unconditionally to be saved..." that isn't what we teach or believe.

If you don't know or understand that you should stop posting in this forum. If you do know it you should stop for misrepresenting what we believe just to create a strawman...

On this forum, I see many people who simply cite verses and then assume those verses prove their point without ever proving the verse proves their point.

There is no Calvinism in Mark 13:20. The verse says nothing about before the world began that God randomly and unconditionally selected certain individuals to be of the elect and only those and no one else can ever be part of the elect. That is a lot to read into one verse.

As far as me saying that Calvinism teaches that "elected certain randomly, unconditionally to be saved...". I have yet seen a Calvinist on any forum give a basis as to why God elected one individual over another. If there is no basis then God choice would be randomness and unconditional.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I have yet seen a Calvinist on any forum give a basis as to why God elected one individual over another.

You must be referring to severely misinformed and/or woefully ignorant individuals. The basis for God's election is stated explicitly in Scripture: "He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will" (Eph. 1:5). As Calvin said (and Augustine before him), if we seek any cause for election outside or beyond God's own will and purpose, we are in error. God's reason for choosing is his own pleasure and counsel. Who needs, or even has, a better reason?

 

[TheSeabass]

You must be referring to severely misinformed and/or woefully ignorant individuals. The basis for God's election is stated explicitly in Scripture: "He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will" (Eph. 1:5). As Calvin said (and Augustine before him), if we seek any cause for election outside or beyond God's own will and purpose, we are in error. God's reason for choosing is his own pleasure and counsel. Who needs, or even has, a better reason?

Eph 1:5 does not give a basis.

What is the basis of God's will that He would choose to save one over another?
What is the basis of God's "pleasure and counsel" in choosing one over another?

There is no basis given in Romans 9:15 as to why God has mercy upon one but not another. Yet the basis is given in other verses as Jeremiah 18:8-10.

 

[TaylorSexton]

What is the basis of God's "pleasure and counsel" in choosing one over another?

As I said:

"If we seek any cause for election outside or beyond God's own will and purpose, we are in error. God's reason for choosing is his own pleasure and counsel. Who needs, or even has, a better reason?"

In your response you literally did exactly what I said we should not do. It seems that the problem you have is not with right doctrine, but with submission to it. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), only the Holy Spirit can make you submit to his teachings instead of grumbling against them.

 

[TheSeabass]

As I said:

"If we seek any cause for election outside or beyond God's own will and purpose, we are in error. God's reason for choosing is his own pleasure and counsel. Who needs, or even has, a better reason?"

In your response you literally did exactly what I said we should not do. It seems that the problem you have is not with right doctrine, but with submission to it. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), only the Holy Spirit can make you submit to his teachings instead of grumbling against them.

You still are not giving a basis. Does God's "pleasure and counsel" work randomly at choosing men to save or is there a basis to it?

 

[TaylorSexton]

You still are not giving a basis. Does God's "pleasure and counsel" work randomly at choosing men to save or is there a basis to it?

Yes, as Scripture says, his basis is his own will, pleasure, and purpose. If you cannot accept such a basis, then your complaint is with God and his Word, not me.

 

[TheSeabass]

Yes, as Scripture says, his basis is his own will, pleasure, and purpose. If you cannot accept such a basis, then your complaint is with God and his Word, not me.

Again, you continue to avoid giving a basis to God's will and pleasure. So God's will and pleasure was to randomly select certain individuals to be saved? God is an arbitrary God?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Again, you continue to avoid giving a basis to God's will and pleasure.

Because I have no desire, nor do I see the need, to go beyond what Scripture tells me. Again, if I give no answer, it is because Scripture has given no answer. Your complaint is therefore not with me, but with God and his Word.

If you are satisfied with prying into matters which God has not seen fit to reveal, then that is your own business. I, however, will stick to taking Romans 9:20 seriously. If you find that God's own will and pleasure are not good enough reason to you for him to act in a given situation, then you can take that issue up with him. I, however, tremble at the thought.

 

[TheSeabass]

Because I have no desire, nor do I see the need, to go beyond what Scripture tells me. Again, if I give no answer, it is because Scripture has given no answer. Your complaint is therefore not with me, but with God and his Word.

If you are satisfied with prying into matters which God has not seen fit to reveal, then that is your own business. I, however, will stick to taking Romans 9:20 seriously. If you find that God's own will and pleasure are not good enough reason to you for him to act in a given situation, then you can take that issue up with him. I, however, tremble at the thought.

Not being able to give a basis shows a gaping black hole in Calvinistic theology, yet the bible plainly reveals over and over again God has mercy upon those that obey Him, Jeremiah 18:7-10; Hebrews 5:9.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Not being able to give a basis shows a gaping black hole in Calvinistic theology...

...or a flaming arrogance in the heart of the one who looks at God and said that what he has revealed is not good enough.

Romans 9:20...

 

[TheSeabass]

...or a flaming arrogance in the heart of the one who looks at God and said that what he has revealed is not good enough.

Romans 9:20...

It should send up a reg flag to all that Reformed theology has a gaping, dark hole in it's theology that it has created for itself and cannot give an explanation for. The bible shines light and let's us know why God has mercy upon some and not others while Reformed theology does not know. Logically therefore, Reformed theology is not biblical else it would know the basis God uses.

 

[TaylorSexton]

It should send up a reg flag to all that Reformed theology has a gaping, dark hole in it's theology that it has created for itself and cannot give an explanation for. The bible shines light and let's us know why God has mercy upon some and not others while Reformed theology does not know. Logically therefore, Reformed theology is not biblical else it would know the basis God uses.

Have I miscommunicated, or are you deliberately feigning being dense in order to frustrate me? If the latter, I would hope for better conversation/debate tactics than this from a Christian. Substance and sober, thorough thought is always the better option.

I have given you a basis for God's election numerous times, in plain English, and, despite your repeated accusations, my answer was a quote from Scripture. Again, if you have problems with this, take it up with God, who wrote the Book, not me. Your issue is with him, friend.

 

[TheSeabass]

Have I miscommunicated, or are you deliberately feigning being dense in order to frustrate me? If the latter, I would hope for better conversation/debate tactics than this from a Christian. Substance and sober, thorough thought is always the better option.

I have given you a basis for God's election numerous times, in plain English, and, despite your repeated accusations, my answer was a quote from Scripture. Again, if you have problems with this, take it up with God, who wrote the Book, not me. Your issue is with him, friend.

You have not given a basis.

Sure, God does things by His good pleasure but this is not a basis.

Is God's good pleasure baseless and does it have a basis?

Ephesians 1:9 "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:"

Was God's good pleasure baseless? No, it had a purpose, a design that salvation for all, both Jew and Gentile would be "in Christ" and not a baseless choice God made for man before the world began.

 

[TaylorSexton]

You have not given a basis.

I gave the basis which Scripture gives. For the nth time, if you have a problem with that, your complaint is with God, not me.

Sure, God does things by His good pleasure but this is not a basis.

That is for you to prove.

Is God's good pleasure baseless and does it have a basis?

God, being ultimate, can have no other basis beyond himself. This is such a simple concept to grasp.

...not a baseless choice God made for man before the world began.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[TheSeabass]

I gave the basis which Scripture gives. For the nth time, if you have a problem with that, your complaint is with God, not me.



That is for you to prove.



God, being ultimate, can have no other basis beyond himself. This is such a simple concept to grasp.



False dichotomy fallacy.

AGAIN, you (Reformed Theology) fail to give a basis.

If all you can give as a basis is "God's good pleasure" then how can a man know if he is saved or not?

Each man will be wondering if God's good pleasure is for him is to be saved or is God's good pleasure for him to be lost. Reformed Theology has this gaping black hole leaving man in the dark on salvation of all issues.

If God's basis is Himself -His own good pleasure - then prove to me you or another person are saved. Proved to me another person is lost.

 

[TaylorSexton]

AGAIN, you (Reformed Theology) fail to give a basis.

I gave the scriptural reason. I am baffled that you are venting your rage against me that Scripture gives no other reason. Vent your rage at God, not me. He is the one who wrote the book.

If all you can give as a basis is "God's good pleasure" then how can a man know if he is saved or not?

Here's Paul's answer (although, if patterns mean anything, you will reject it, as well): "The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children" (Rom. 8:16).

Each man will be wondering if God's good pleasure is for him is to be saved or is God's good pleasure for him to be lost.

We are not commanded to wonder whether or not we are elect. You will find that command nowhere in Scripture, and is therefore an irrelevant complaint against Reformed theology. Rather, we are command to repent and believe, and to "make every effort to confirm [our] calling and election" (2 Pet. 1:10). It doesn't say worry about; it says to confirm it.

If God's basis is Himself -His own good pleasure - then prove to me you or another person are saved. Proved to me another person is lost.

Why is being able to prove salvation the litmus test for sound doctrine? Where do you find this in Scripture, or is it merely ad hoc? I think it is the latter. I have already provided the answer(s): We know we are God's children by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, and by our faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[TheSeabass]

I gave the scriptural reason. I am baffled that you are venting your rage against me that Scripture gives no other reason. Vent your rage at God, not me. He is the one who wrote the book.



Here's Paul's answer (although, if patterns mean anything, you will reject it, as well): "The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children" (Rom. 8:16).



We are not commanded to wonder whether or not we are elect. You will find that command nowhere in Scripture, and is therefore an irrelevant complaint against Reformed theology. Rather, we are command to repent and believe, and to "make every effort to confirm [our] calling and election" (2 Pet. 1:10). It doesn't say worry about; it says to confirm it.



Why is being able to prove salvation the litmus test for sound doctrine? Where do you find this in Scripture, or is it merely ad hoc? I think it is the latter. I have already provided the answer(s): We know we are God's children by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, and by our faith in Jesus Christ.

You incredibly posted "We are not commanded to wonder whether or not we are elect."

While Reformed Theology leaves a person wondering about his salvation or lack thereof, the bible lets a person know he is saved just from the first epistle of John.

Reformed Theology teaches eternal security-perserverance of the Saints but what good are these ideas if one does not even know if he is saved or not?

If a person does not know if he is saved or not, should he go about doing good works anyway (Eph 2:10) just in case he is saved? Attend worship services anywayt just in case he is saved? Take of the Lord's Supper, give to the contribution, pray to God, participate in the great commission anyway just in case he may be saved?

1 Thess 5:21 How can one "prove all things" if one does not even know if he himself is even saved or not?

2 Cor 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"

How can one examine himself if he does not know if he is in the faith or not?

1 Pet 3:15 how can one be ready to give an answer if he does not know if the hope of salvation is in him or not?

2 Pet 1:10 how can one make his election and calling sure when all he can be under Reformed Theology is unsure?

Eph 1:13 how can one know if he is sealed or not?

 

[TaylorSexton]

You incredibly posted "We are not commanded to wonder whether or not we are elect."

While Reformed Theology leaves a person wondering about his salvation or lack thereof, the bible lets a person know he is saved just from the first epistle of John.

Reformed Theology teaches eternal security-perserverance of the Saints but what good are these ideas if one does not even know if he is saved or not?

If a person does not know if he is saved or not, should he go about doing good works anyway (Eph 2:10) just in case he is saved? Attend worship services anywayt just in case he is saved? Take of the Lord's Supper, give to the contribution, pray to God, participate in the great commission anyway just in case he may be saved?

1 Thess 5:21 How can one "prove all things" if one does not even know if he himself is even saved or not?

2 Cor 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"

How can one examine himself if he does not know if he is in the faith or not?

1 Pet 3:15 how can one be ready to give an answer if he does not know if the hope of salvation is in him or not?

2 Pet 1:10 how can one make his election and calling sure when all he can be under Reformed Theology is unsure?

Eph 1:13 how can one know if he is sealed or not?

The fact that you are repeatedly ignoring what I am saying and continuing to babble on and on about things which I have never said and Reformed theology doesn't actually teach just shows, as I said in the other post, that the anti-Reformed goggles are preventing you from holding intelligent conversation. Until you take those things off, this conversation is useless.

I am not asking you to agree with or even accept Reformed theology. But, I am asking you to at least try to understand it aright. You owe that much to your brothers and sisters (that is, if you even consider us Reformed to be such, which is not at all apparent from your constant misrepresentation of our theology). Thus far, no such effort has been put forward, and it due—whether in part or in whole—to those goggles.

When you wish to take them off and actually hold profitable conversation, please let me and the rest us know.

 

[TheSeabass]

The fact that you are repeatedly ignoring what I am saying and continuing to babble on and on about things which I have never said and Reformed theology doesn't actually teach just shows, as I said in the other post, that the anti-Reformed goggles are preventing you from holding intelligent conversation. Until you take those things off, this conversation is useless.

I am not asking you to agree with or even accept Reformed theology. But, I am asking you to at least try to understand it aright. You owe that much to your brothers and sisters (that is, if you even consider us Reformed to be such, which is not at all apparent from your constant misrepresentation of our theology). Thus far, no such effort has been put forward, and it due—whether in part or in whole—to those goggles.

When you wish to take them off and actually hold profitable conversation, please let me and the rest us know.

You were asked to give a basis as to why God would save some and not others and yet you could not come up with one. Not being able to give a basis left you in a hole where man would have no idea if he is saved or not. To avoid this theological hole and get out of it, you keep playing the "you don't understand Reformed Theology or the "you're misrepresenting Reformed Theology" when neither are valid.

So in this 'conversation' give us a basis or admit Reformed Theology leaves man in the dark on whether he is saved or not.