• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Passages challenging Calvinism

Discussion in 'Soteriology DEBATE' started by Kilk1, Jul 21, 2019.

  1. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    You're one of those? Uh-oh! (Lol.) Are the rumors correct that you universalists believe everyone's going to heaven?
     
  2. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    894
    +514
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Haha sure, if they overcome by washing their robes in Lamb's blood - Come, say the spirit and the bride, the water of life's a free gift for those in the fire (Rev 22:17), and the bonus leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations (22:2) who have emerged from the lake of fire purified to enter in and worship God (21:24-27). Now who could resist that divine 'twofor' deal? I'm still waiting for a viable alternative exegesis for the happy ending of the grace of our Lord Jesus upon all (22:21). Can you bring us back to putrefaction and agony, puhlease - cause that's God, in a nutshell - NOT.

    If Jesus can save you and me, don't you think he can save anyone? Or do you think he likes you specially over others, or he fails in his mission to save the world, and God's plan to be all in all is thwarted by those bad bad sinners? Nope, God's war is on sin, He'll burn it right out and make honest men of us yet. So let's encourage each other and our neighbour - the good news is for everyone after all.
     
  3. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Before we move into other Scriptures, I want to stay within the context of Romans 11 and figure out where we agree/disagree. If the cultivated olive tree is God's people, those cut off would be unbelieving Israelites/Jews (v. 20) because under the new covenant, the standard for being grafted in is faith (v. 20) as opposed to being a Jew. Also, the branches God grafted in would be Gentiles who "stand by faith" (vv. 19-20) because they weren't originally considered God's people under the old covenant, but now are, fitting the criteron of "faith" (v. 20).

    Do we agree on the above paragraph? If not, where does my train of thought fall? Thanks!
     
  4. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Do you believe everyone can be saved or more specifically that everyone will be saved?
     
  5. Shrewd Manager

    Shrewd Manager Through him, in all things, more than conquerors. Supporter

    894
    +514
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
  6. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Sorry, I'm not sure I see why. I guess you do believe people will go to hell, just temporarily? In the end, everyone will be in heaven. Am I interpreting your view correctly?
     
  7. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Wednesday, I replied to your post but have not heard a reply since. If you look at other Calvinists in this thread, the same has happened once we get to Romans 11. Calvinists would continue to discuss with me on Luke 8, and I think they did on Jeremiah 18 as well, but when we got to Romans 11, the conversation ended after a few posts.

    I'm not trying to be rude or anything; maybe these are just a series of coincidences. I myself take a few days before posting a lot of times, even weeks, and I in no way want to rush you. However, I'm beginning to think that Romans 11 refutes Calvinism because it is where my previous conversations on this thread have ended. If you're planning to reply but are still working on it, on the other hand, I completely understand. Here's the paragraph from my last post, showing my current thought:

    If the cultivated olive tree is God's people, those cut off would be individual Israelites/Jews who don't believe (v. 20) because under the new covenant, the standard for being grafted in is faith (v. 20) as opposed to being a Jew. Furthermore, the branches God grafted in would be Gentiles who "stand by faith" (vv. 19-20) because they weren't originally considered God's people under the old covenant, but now are, fitting the criterion of "faith" (v. 20).

    Do we agree on the above paragraph? If not, where does my train of thought fail? Thanks!

    P.S. I'm going to try to contact the others who stopped replying to me as well. Maybe I can hear back from them in case they were just coincidences.
     
  8. Hazelelponi

    Hazelelponi Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,683
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Good afternoon...

    Okay, so let me see if I can grasp what your getting at here.

    Now, if I'm understanding your posts correctly, you understand Jesus to be corporate Israel and thus as Israel in righteousness He becomes the corporate head of righteousness, much in the same way that Adam was corporate head of sinful humanity.

    But just as Jesus is representative of all of Israel in righteousness and thus we obtain salvation through Him by Faith, we still have Israel as a people and a nation.

    In this, Israel as a nation as a people group, a remnant will be saved - those who believe in Jesus.

    However, as a whole the light that was in Israel's hands as a people group was taken due to disbelief..

    So we see the unproductive fig tree cursed and withered, and the branches of the "tree" broken off and new branches grafted in.

    The branches are Israel, the people group, and in this people group some are broken off due to disbelief and others - Gentiles - grafted in, in their place.

    Where I think your confused is that the warning in 11 is to Gentiles as a people group - not individuals, although it will be individuals who will be cut off if the Gentiles fail in their duty.

    The warning says don't be complacent, don't be arrogant as to our position lest it be taken away.

    That doesn't mean that the individual people who are broken off are saved people who fell away, as it's still talking about a people group..

    Right now, Gentiles possess the light of God to the nations, and have a responsibility to the command and if we fail in the command, as a people group, the light will just as easily be taken from our hand and given back to Israel as a people group.

    Believers have a task to fulfull. A duty as it were to be the light of God, of Christ, to the lost.

    It seems, from my perspective at this point is that you confusing people groups and individuals.

    Tell me if I'm following you correctly here, and if I'm not understanding your position or your understanding then I ask you to correct my misunderstanding..
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2019
  9. nonaeroterraqueous

    nonaeroterraqueous Nonexistent Member

    +1,679
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    I don't know about the others, but I don't do endless debate. I make a point of limiting my participation in any thread. These debates have no judge or jury, apart from the prosecutors, who have a vested interest in the outcome. No one wins. I'm easily content to agree to disagree.

    Incidentally, I'm not sure why you think Romans 11 in any way refutes Calvinism. I see in it the same predestination that appears obvious throughout the entire book.

    Predestination is complex, and a paradox. It simultaneously holds to several seemingly contradictory ideas. For example, you have asked if a person has free will. The answer is yes, that a person does, indeed, exercise free will. Yet, you ask if God has the entirety of history scripted, and the answer is still yes. He knows the end well enough to predict it in prophecy, and he has every intention of directing the outcome, also. You also ask if God interacts with us, responding to our good and bad decisions, reacting to them, and answering our prayers when we ask, instead of doing whatever he will do, regardless. The answer is also yes. He does interact with us. While these ideas may seem to run contrary to each other, I would argue that they do not.

    Hamlet, for example, did as he thought best. He believed that he had free will to choose, and in the context of Hamlet's sense of reality he was right. At his level he did have free will, and so do we. Yet, the entirety of Hamlet's life was scripted by Shakespeare. These do not run in contradiction, because Shakespeare's reality is greater than Hamlet's. From Hamlet's perspective he is free. From Shakespeare's perspective...not so much. Yet, Shakespeare did interact with Hamlet, in a manner of responding to his own character's deeds. Many authors build their villains up for destruction, and build their heroes up for victory, responding to their deeds with just outcome. Yet, these same authors often also interact with their characters in yet another way, by writing themselves into the story. An author can become a character, interacting with the other characters at their own level.

    Therefore, when arguing against a Calvinist, one must realize that proving free will makes no case against the doctrine of predestination. One must also realize that arguing that God's mind can be changed, that humans can interact with God and have him respond to us, is also no case against predestination. If I say that God predestines us, and you show me scripture indicating that we have a free choice, then I shrug my shoulders and say that I know. If you say that a person must hear the gospel to believe, making him a product of circumstance, then I agree. If you tell me that we can pray, and alter what God would have done, or if you tell me that his punishments and rewards are a response to our actions, then I tell you that of course such things must be true. None of that makes any case either for or against predestination. The only way to make a case against it is to address it directly. If scripture says that we are not predestined, then we are not predestined. However, if it says that we are predestined, then no case can be made against it. The fact is that scripture does say we are predestined. Therefore, there really is no sense in trying to argue why scripture doesn't say what it obviously says. It would be a better use of our time to understand how we are predestined.

    But then this debate would be concluded by now, wouldn't it?
     
  10. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Thanks for the reply! For clarity, this is my current position: There are two olive trees, a wild olive tree and a cultivated olive tree (notice v. 24). The cultivated tree represents the group/body of God's people (Israel), which used to include all individual Israelites/Jews; the wild tree embodies everyone else. However, under the New Testament, the standard of being in Israel (the true, spiritual Israel) is no longer about being a Jew. Rather, it's about standing "by faith" (v. 20, NKJV). Because of this, the unbelieving Jews were "broken off" the cultivated tree (the true Israel) while the believing Gentiles were "grafted in" (vv. 19-20). (The distinction between the national Israel and the true, spiritual Israel can be seen in 9:6.)

    As far as I can tell, the branches represent individual Jews and Gentiles. If not, what would you say the two trees (v. 24) represent? And what do the trees' branches represent? Thank you!
     
  11. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Thanks for replying! I confess that I didn't expect you to believe in man's free will or that man can altar what God would have done. Calvinists such as Stephen Garrett and, I think, James White deny man's free will. However, I guess we agree on these points. We also agree that God is in control and that predestination is in the Bible. I guess the disagreement is on whether everything is scripted, like Hamlet, as you believe, or if some things are left open for us to influence (the position I'm currently holding).

    If we can altar what God would have done, would this go against God scripting 100% of everything that takes place? Thanks!
     
  12. Hammster

    Hammster Semper Fi! Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,536
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I don’t deny free will if it simply means making a choice to do A or not A. But two things must be considered. One, what is the nature that informs that choice? And two, do we believe that God’s will can trump our will?

    One, if it’s our old nature, then we will freely reject God because we have no affection for Him. If it’s our new nature, we freely choose to follow because our new heart is turned towards Him.

    Two, yes God’s will can trump our will.

    The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord;
    He turns it wherever He wishes.
    Proverbs 21:1
     
  13. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Okay. I know some Calvinists accept free will while some reject it. What about the perseverance of the saints? Do you believe that all who truly have faith will remain, or can they be rejected? Thanks!
     
  14. ICONO'CLAST

    ICONO'CLAST Well-Known Member

    +439
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    "joshua 1 9,

    Election is based on who so ever and we know that God's desire is for all to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." All is a powerful word.

    Under Calvin why would people need to repent if they had no choice in their depravity?[/QUOTE]
    wrong
     
  15. Hammster

    Hammster Semper Fi! Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,536
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Why would God reject someone who had faith?
     
  16. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Lol, sorry, I didn't explain that very well. Could someone who stands by faith be rejected if they failed to "continue in His goodness" (Rom. 11:22, NKJV)?
     
  17. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I think this was formatted incorrectly. Just letting you know. :thumbsup:
     
  18. Hammster

    Hammster Semper Fi! Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,536
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Short answer, a good Father will not abandon His child.
     
  19. Kilk1

    Kilk1 New Member

    99
    +16
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    But could a bad child leave his father (Rom. 11:19-22)?
     
  20. Hammster

    Hammster Semper Fi! Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,536
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Yes, of course. And while that may affect the communion, it doesn’t affect the union.

    And the Shepherd goes after the sheep.
     
Loading...