Understanding Calvinism

There were comments made regarding 'faith' and 'works'. Scripture and scriptural points were used in each comment that I commented on. You seemed to say that if one believed those verses, literally, that it was likened to the pharisees, in principle. I disagree. We are allowed to do that.

These pharisees belonged to the party of the pharisees. Plainly says that. We assume they were believers in Christ, somewhat. Not as they should have been, right? They rose up to say that those coming to Jesus Christ had to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Jesus Christ did not command that. In Acts repentance was preached, faith toward Jesus Christ, and those coming were commanded to be baptized. The issue was dealt with, in council at Jerusalem.

We are 'created unto good works', in Jesus Christ. 'Predestinated', even, to do these. The true believer will 'do' them. We know them by their fruits, Jesus said. Those who hear these sayings of mine, Jesus said, 'and doeth them', and He also told what would happen to those who 'doeth not'. It is obvious, scripture shows us, that indeed, 'faith without works, is dead'. This is not teaching of a pharisee, or in principle of one. James was one of those who addressed the issue of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses. It was James who wrote 'faith without works is dead'. We don't need to dispute what James said. It won't change one word of it, or what was meant.

Again, it is in and through Jesus Christ, we are saved. And only in Him. Those who are born again through Him, 'do' these things. Not for salvation, no. Cite where I ever wrote that, or find someone who ever heard me teach or preach such. One truly known to Jesus Christ does all that scripture says, it is how we know they are His disciples. That is not my, or any other person, who has said the same, personal words or teaching, they are very clearly taught in scripture. Canon. It is how we know that it is the truth. No, we do not earn salvation. But one who has been truly saved, will bear the results of it. The power of God will make one Holy. The nature of the Holy Spirit is such that one filled with Him, will show it. And, that is why, faith without works is dead. Just as the body without the spirit, is dead. Hope that clears up what scripture teaches.

I do have a good understanding of calvinism, I believe. It is brought up quite often. Such is the forum I suppose. I admit, I do get a little concerned that it seems to almost take up all the threads here. The debates between calvinist and arminianism. No one seems to be gaining any advantages. Maybe just respect that brothers and sisters have different views regarding some biblical subjects? But, DEFINITELY, ALL, is in, and through JESUS CHRIST. In fact, either, or, is vain without Him. Of all the sects represented here. God Bless brother.

billybtennessee said:

There were comments made regarding 'faith' and 'works'. Scripture and scriptural points were used in each comment that I commented on. You seemed to say that if one believed those verses, literally, that it was likened to the pharisees, in principle. I disagree. We are allowed to do that.

Click to expand...

Sure. But if you're allowed to do that, so am I.

I pointed out those verses made careful distinction: works show faith; lack of works show dead faith. The words of these Scriptures actually say as much.

That's the point. They say what they mean. Citing them to say what they don't mean but "seem to" when used in isolation is termed "prooftexting".

billybtennessee said:

These pharisees belonged to the party of the pharisees. Plainly says that. We assume they were believers in Christ, somewhat.

Click to expand...

"Pharisees having believed" is what Luke writes in Acts. Are you saying that's an assumption?

billybtennessee said:

Not as they should have been, right? They rose up to say that those coming to Jesus Christ had to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Yeah, disciples make mistakes pretty often.

Let's note Peter's response: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11

Ar you saying Peter's saying he wasn't circumcised? That circumcision was unbearable? I'm sorry, I don't see it. Peter knew what he was saying: the Law condemned all, morally.

Now where did Peter say acts of obedience or good works are required in order to be saved? Point out the verse.

billybtennessee said:

Jesus Christ did not command that. In Acts repentance was preached, faith toward Jesus Christ, and those coming were commanded to be baptized. The issue was dealt with, in council at Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Scripture attributes to the Law the very best of works (Psalm 119). And Scripture points out that "keep the law of Moses" is indeed the point of the Pharisee's position, circumcision being one of the laws of Moses. This is not a discussion of ceremony alone.

billybtennessee said:

We are 'created unto good works', in Jesus Christ. 'Predestinated', even, to do these. The true believer will 'do' them. We know them by their fruits, Jesus said. Those who hear these sayings of mine, Jesus said, 'and doeth them', and He also told what would happen to those who 'doeth not'.

Click to expand...

Jesus has spent a whole lot of time saying what He meant people to do it. List it. It's pretty obvious that no Christian satisfies all of these commands.

billybtennessee said:

It is obvious, scripture shows us, that indeed, 'faith without works, is dead'. This is not teaching of a pharisee, or in principle of one. James was one of those who addressed the issue of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses. It was James who wrote 'faith without works is dead'. We don't need to dispute what James said. It won't change one word of it, or what was meant.

Click to expand...

I've not changed what James says. James clearly separates the concept of faith from the concept of works. So's There's no need to change one word of it.

But there's a need to make theology consistent with what James said.

heymikey80 said:

Sure. But if you're allowed to do that, so am I.

I pointed out those verses made careful distinction: works show faith; lack of works show dead faith. The words of these Scriptures actually say as much.

That's the point. They say what they mean. Citing them to say what they don't mean but "seem to" when used in isolation is termed "prooftexting".

"Pharisees having believed" is what Luke writes in Acts. Are you saying that's an assumption?

Yeah, disciples make mistakes pretty often.

Let's note Peter's response: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:8-11

Ar you saying Peter's saying he wasn't circumcised? That circumcision was unbearable? I'm sorry, I don't see it. Peter knew what he was saying: the Law condemned all, morally.

Now where did Peter say acts of obedience or good works are required in order to be saved? Point out the verse.

Scripture attributes to the Law the very best of works (Psalm 119). And Scripture points out that "keep the law of Moses" is indeed the point of the Pharisee's position, circumcision being one of the laws of Moses. This is not a discussion of ceremony alone.

Jesus has spent a whole lot of time saying what He meant people to do it. List it. It's pretty obvious that no Christian satisfies all of these commands.

I've not changed what James says. James clearly separates the concept of faith from the concept of works. So's There's no need to change one word of it.

But there's a need to make theology consistent with what James said.

Click to expand...

The word "show", is not found in the verse. What is found is: "Faith without works is dead". And also, 'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." Real clear what it says. Agreed, no need to change any of it. And further, it would do no good to try.

Those in Christ, are 'doers of the word, and not hearers only'. James 1:22. Jesus Christ said the same. Those who truly love Christ will keep His sayings. Jesus also said that. One can take it up with Him, if they disagree. It was Jesus Christ who said that.

You have asserted that no christian satisfies all these commands Christ gave. That is strictly your presumption. You will not be the judge then, nor are you even now. Only God knows the heart of His. Only God can judge regarding. The natural man will find fault with all of those that scripture calls righteous, perfect, just, holy. It is Gods word they are finding fault with however. The natural man will say one cannot be holy, as Peter also wrote, too. 1st Pet. 1:13-22. As He who called us is Holy, so are we to be. A Holy God can not make His holy? Another presumption. And of course we add to our faith, all of the virtues Peter listed in 2nd Pet. 1:5-11. He that lacketh these things are blind, Peter wrote.

Also, what is NOT an assumption, is that circumcision and keeping the law of Moses was not necessary. The issue was taken to the church at Jerusalem, and settled. Also, as you are well aware, Peter, James, Paul, were all circumcised, as those of jewish faith and practice, but not as a necessary requirement for trusting and obeying, following, Jesus Christ. Again, this was dealt with in Jerusalem, by the church there, written in Acts. You have no point here, and I have no idea why you think you do. These are not any works James wrote about. James was there, well aware, of what was decided in Jerusalem, about the issue you keep bringing up, regarding the pharisees.

Also, 'concept' is a word that has no point. Faith without works is dead. That is what the point is. Really no need to debate, it still is what scripture says. Won't change any at all. You wanna make theology consistent with what James said, then just accept what he wrote. It is that simple. Works mean one will 'do', and that is what scripture teaches. James makes the point clear, and so does Jesus. Matt. 7:24-27. Matt. 25. Luke 6: 44-49. John 14:15,21,23,24. John 15:4-10. And many other scripture. Point is, as I also agreed with in comment a while back, and I will continue to, "Faith without works is dead." Not successfully debatable now, as it was not then. Consistent theology, never disagrees with scripture. It just accepts what scripture says, about this point, and any other.

Pinkman said:

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

Click to expand...

Okay, so if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying:

1.) preaching God's sovereignty over everything is a lack of love on His part.

2.) Calvinists are regarded no better, in your view, than atheists?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.....

Pinkman said:

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

Click to expand...

then you must be misunderstanding the Good News : Salvation is of The Lord .

Election is based upon God's love . Why did God elect a person ? because He loved them.

How do we know He loved them ? because He died for them .

How do we know this death actually saves anyone ? because scripture informs us that if while we were enemies Christ died for us , then how shall He not freely (no conditions) give us all things with Him. God who held not even His only Begotten Son back , shall not hold back any good thing.

The argument of scripture is that God's love cannot be minimised or ineffectual , He will not hold back any lesser blessing seeing He gave the greatest blessing.

Pinkman said:

Understanding Calvinism ?

Anyone in the USA heard of Professor Richard Dawkins ? He is a professional atheist who gives Christians in the UK a hard time. According to him humans are nothing more than a bunch of particles following a deterministic pattern.

Sounds very much like the Calvinistic fraternity on this board. Dawkin's does believe in random mutations though so not everything is predestined exactly.

Trouble I find with the Calvinistic puppet theory is that it is completely devoid of love.

Click to expand...

Dawkins? Why are we talking about modernistic materialism? It's not Calvinism by any stripe.

That's okay. It's pretty clear the complete void of love is what's held in store for Calvinists, intentionally spreading false assertions about their position and claiming it's about puppetry when Calvinists hold to nothing of the sort.

In fact, the accusation seems to be carted out puppet-like again and again, like an automaton parroting some statement again & again like a skipping CD. It's mindless, this accusation, and it takes no account of what's being said by Calvinists since 1610 -- much less 1558.

Pinkman said:

Ezekiel 33:11;

John 3:16;

1 Timothy 2:4;

II Peter 3

Click to expand...

So what? These texts have been addressed in several ways from the Reformed view for at least 500 yrs (and on these forums for the last 3 yrs consistently).

Pinkman said:

I hear what you say and like it very much. Even though you use the word 'elect' you are sounding less Calvinistic. I reckon CBHC's vast work is taking root.

Click to expand...

you can wake up now , it seems you were just dreaming . sorry you cannot stomach the word "elect" .

Pinkman said:

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, states: “But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it.”

.

Click to expand...

there is one potter and it isn't the pot !

who fits who ? who shapes who ? who designs and creates with purpose ?

if God had nothing to do with it He could not be a potter and Romans 9 would never proclaim God hardens men .

Pinkman said:

Either you are a vessel of God’s glory or you are a human garbage can. Do you decide which you are? 2nd Timothy 2:21 states: “If anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.

Click to expand...

sanctification and mortification are not the same as salvation nor is it Justification.

Romans 9 deals with salvation 2 Tim 2 sanctification . try not to mix them up.