Understanding Calvinism

[rturner76]

You really get "2 the point" and stay there hahaha. I'm trying to take an objective look still. I sometimes get confused by some answers and I'm like huh? Oh okay, cause I don't want to sound like I don't understand.

So it is our rejection of Christ that condemns us? That would be because of Christ's already finished work of atonement for our sin no doubt. That atonement is for all who claim it or just the elect?

 

[cygnusx1]

You really get "2 the point" and stay there hahaha. I'm trying to take an objective look still. I sometimes get confused by some answers and I'm like huh? Oh okay, cause I don't want to sound like I don't understand.

So it is our rejection of Christ that condemns us? That would be because of Christ's already finished work of atonement for our sin no doubt. That atonement is for all who claim it or just the elect?

We are born condemned read Rom 5 . Hey maybe the scripture about being condemned for unbelief needs to be read in context , it cannot relate to all men , many have never had the Gospel and stand in sin

 

[2thePoint]

Synods contain the scriptures you ignore

Putting the shouter on permanent ignore...

So it is our rejection of Christ that condemns us? That would be because of Christ's already finished work of atonement for our sin no doubt. That atonement is for all who claim it or just the elect?

Yes, it seems clear from scripture that heaven and hell are determined strictly on the basis of faith or lack thereof in the finished work of Christ on the cross. As Paul told the people in Athens, God overlooked "ignorance" in the past but since Jesus came he demands that people "repent" (means to change one's mind) to follow only the One True God by accepting Jesus. As John explained, those who have the Son have the Father as well, but those who reject the Son reject the Father too. That's why even the Jews had to "repent"; they had rejected their Messiah, and so also rejected their God.

As for the atonement itself, I understand scripture to teach that it's the quality of the Sacrifice that matters, not the quantity. As Hebrews explains, the blood of animals could never permanently take away sin. But by one offering "once for all" in the temple in heaven, Jesus sacrificed his own blood. So even one drop would have been enough to cover all people for all time, because that blood was perfect and sinless. That's why it's insulting and demeaning for anyone to say Jesus' atonement could possibly be limited; who can limit God? The idea is blasphemous on its face, IMHO. So of course, the atonement could not possibly be only for a few, but as John said, "for the sins of the whole world".

Yet the payment of sin does not mean everyone is saved, though the payment is more than enough. That's because salvation is by faith in that spilled blood, with the understanding that we want to be reconciled to God. It was the grace and mercy of God to offer reconciliation and on such simple terms: faith alone. To respond positively must therefore be willingly to be genuine, and the same requirement is for all people so there is no favoritism. Yet Calvinism says God does play favorites, in spite of scriptures explicitly teaching the opposite.

Hope that helps.

 

[cygnusx1]

another reason why the sin of unbelief cannot be the single ground of condemnation is :

The statement in Romans 8 indicates that only those who are in Christ Jesus are no longer condemned , therefore all , every single other person be they of those who reject the Gospel and those who have never heard the Gospel , are all alike under condemnation !

Rom.8

[1] There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Therefore , the ground of condemnation cannot simply and singularly be unbelief .... for many have never disbelieved on Christ because they never heard of Him , yet according to scripture they stand condemned because of sin (Romans 5) hence the reason they die.

The only way around this fact is to introduce the concept that all men are by default "IN CHRIST" until they disbelieve , a view hardly to be taken seriously.

And this small exercise merely illustrates the danger of taking a single scripture and reading it woodenly , refusing to interpret scripture with scripture and getting real excited by anyone who dares disagree .

 

[rturner76]

1[/B]] There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Therefore , the ground of condemnation cannot simply and singularly be unbelief .... for many have never disbelieved on Christ because they never heard of Him , yet according to scripture they stand condemned because of sin (Romans 5) hence the reason they die.

The only way around this fact is to introduce the concept that all men are by default "IN CHRIST" until they disbelieve , a view hardly to be taken seriously.
.

TO me it would make sense unless Christ's atonement is insufficient, it would seem that the sin would be to reject the atonement. Where did it say some are not atoned for? Is that what is says?

 

[cygnusx1]

TO me it would make sense unless Christ's atonement is insufficient, it would seem that the sin would be to reject the atonement. Where did it say some are not atoned for? Is that what is says?

OK , then what is the default position of all sinners ?

1. In Christ thereby no condemnation

2. In Adam thereby under condemnation

 

[rturner76]

I can see a meeting of the minds here if only the elect will not reject Christ. It would make sense. The people who do not accept Christ, God will know that also. Therefore only the elect would choose Christ and both sides would be correct in a way

 

[rturner76]

I think it goes:the

2 In Adam there is condemnation

1 In Christ there is no condemnation for those that accept that they are not condemned.

Only the elect will accept?

 

[cygnusx1]

I think it goes:the

2 In Adam there is condemnation

1 In Christ there is no condemnation for those that accept that they are not condemned.

therefore condemnation cannot be for the singular sin of unbelief , and the singular sin of unbelief needs to be read in context , Pharisees etc rejected Christ , deliberately condemned Christ as a liar and were condemned utterly for "snuffing out God's great light" . Their condemnation superseded natural condemnation (in Adam) their sin eclipsed their condemnation in Adam , they despised Christ and filled up the full measure of their sin.

Only the elect will accept?

that is a separate issue

 

[rturner76]

Yup.....I'm lost. I'll try some more later

 

[cygnusx1]

TO me it would make sense unless Christ's atonement is insufficient, it would seem that the sin would be to reject the atonement. Where did it say some are not atoned for? Is that what is says?

OK , it's Bowling Ball time

man is condemned for more than the sin of unbelief PROVED from scripture :

"Of late, a new theory has been propounded to the Christian public, a theory which approximates perilously near that of the Universalists. Erroneously based upon a few texts whose scope is confined to the people of God, the view which is now rapidly gaining favor in circles which are regarded as orthodox, is to the effect that, at the Cross, the sin question was fully and finally settled. We are told, and told by men who are looked up to by many as the champions of orthodoxy, that all the sins of all men were laid upon the crucified Christ. It is boldly affirmed that at the Cross the Lamb of God did as much for those who would not believe, as He did for those who should believe on Him. It is dogmatically announced that the only grievance which God now has against any man, is his refusal to believe in the Savior. It is said that the single issue between God and the world, is not the sin question, but the Son question.

here we go :

If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He say, "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"? (Matt. 12:31) Observe that Christ here used the future tense, "shall not be." Note, too, He did not merely say to the blaspheming Jews that He was then addressing, "Shall not be forgiven unto you," but in order to take in all others who should be guilty of this sin, He said, "Shall not be forgiven unto men." It is worse than idle to raise the cavil that the sin here spoken of was peculiar and exceptional, i.e., committed only by the Jews there addressed. The fact that this solemn utterance of Christ's is found not only in Matthew, but in Mark, and also in Luke-the Gentile Gospel-disposes of it."

Without attempting to define here the precise nature of this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it is sufficient now to point out that it is a sin quite distinct from unbelief. In Scripture "blasphemy" is always an act of the lips, not merely of the mind or will. For our present purpose, it is enough to call attention to the undeniable fact that none other than the Savior Himself here tells us there is a sin (other than unbelief) which "shall not be forgiven unto men." This being so, then it is obviously a mistake, a serious error, to say that all sin was laid on Christ and atoned for.


AWP

 

[JustAsIam77]

Limited Atonement territory.. here's a previous thread about 1 year ago that I started, I'm getting on in years so forgive me for not wanting to type the same info again, I hope it adds to the conversation, if not, as they say in the Bronx, NY, "forget about it".
http://www.christianforums.com/t7509749/

 

[rturner76]

I think I asked this somewhere but I don't remember the answer. Is your average Christian a "Calvinist" I want to be like a normie when it comes to being a Christian. We all get to go to heaven right? Do yo have to be a Calvinist?

 

[Pinkman]

rturner76
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

drstevej
God does not damn the elect for not believing (your false premise), they are ALREADY damned for their sins. Jesus makes this very point to His critics in the verse I cited. Belief is the escape from DAMNATION already well deserved.

They are already born dammed drstevj says. And Calvinists tell us only the predestined can escape.

Question still remains.
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?


The world waits..

 

[nobdysfool]

rturner76
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

drstevej
God does not damn the elect for not believing (your false premise), they are ALREADY damned for their sins. Jesus makes this very point to His critics in the verse I cited. Belief is the escape from DAMNATION already well deserved.

They are already born dammed drstevj says. And Calvinists tell us only the predestined can escape.

Question still remains.
How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?


The world waits..

Unbelief is not the cause of their damnation, it is the evidence that they remain sinners. Unbelief is a sin, of course, but it's not the first sin, nor the only sin that unbelievers are guilty of. Belief in Christ washes all of their sins away, including unbelief, but to remain in unbelief means that they are guilty of all their sins, including unbelief.

To ask how God can hold men responsible for not believing, when He "deliberately" does not give them the faith to believe, assumes that God is obligated to give all men faith if He gives it to one man, and that God must treat all men with a concept of fairness that is imagined from a fallen, sinful human perspective. In short, under such a system, God is not free to be God, and to do with His Creation what seems good to Him to do with what is ultimately His. Not to mention that the use of the word "deliberately" implies malice aforethought, a "mean streak" in God, as it were. I reject such a characterization of God, as do all Calvinists.

There are some here who believe that the proper approach to this is to badger Calvinists, beat them up, demand that they answer, and then make a big show of all sorts of false accusations and expressions of hatred against what they suppose Calvinism to teach, and try and connect Calvinists to their straw man caricatures. Such actions prove that there is no real intent to learn, or to be taught, it's supposed to be a punch-up on Calvinists, to "put them in their place".

2Ti 2:24-26 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, (25) correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, (26) and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Hatred is not from the Lord. It is a snare set by the devil, and there are many who have been ensnared by him.

 

[2thePoint]

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18)

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." Rom. 1:17

since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Rom. 3:30


IMHO, the NT is replete with the message that salvation is by faith, and lack of faith is lack of salvation. It's all about JESUS, not about US. Jesus is the make/break point, the pass/fail criterion. To put one's faith in him is to be saved, and to refuse such is to be lost. It's that simple.

 

[nobdysfool]

IMHO, the NT is replete with the message that salvation is by faith, and lack of faith is lack of salvation. It's all about JESUS, not about US. Jesus is the make/break point, the pass/fail criterion. To put one's faith in him is to be saved, and to refuse such is to be lost. It's that simple.

I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is who or what is behind the act of believing. Some say the person's own choice, (i.e. free will), other say the ultimately God is the motivator. Either way, the person believes, or not, and is saved, or not. And it is true, it is ALL about Jesus.

 

[2thePoint]

I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is who or what is behind the act of believing. Some say the person's own choice, (i.e. free will), other say the ultimately God is the motivator. Either way, the person believes, or not, and is saved, or not. And it is true, it is ALL about Jesus.

Would you please stop with the large bold type?

So why is Calvinism so obsessed with knowing who or what is behind the act of believing? Whether it's as it appears or an illusion for God's good pleasure, we all agree that for someone to be saved they must hear the gospel and accept it. What difference does it make to you to know the mechanics or logical/temporal order? It does not affect the gospel because Calvinists and Arminians preach the same thing, as you agree here. It does not result in holier living, it does not make the believer more humble (there is no objective evidence that it does)... it only divides and causes needless strife. Of what purpose then is Calvinism? Arminians study the Bible, spread the gospel, strive to be holy, and believe it or not, there are no statistical studies showing that Arminians are less intelligent or informed. So what importance is there in Calvinist theology besides personal preference? Is it really worth all this debate while we should be joining forces to present a united front to the lost?

Please explain here and now why Calvinism is vital to the Christian.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Look back through the thread, or any number of other Calvinism threads as well. Notice the statements judging the motives, intelligence, or backwardness of Arminians. If merely to disagree is considered by Calvinists to be hatred, then judging the motives and other personal faults of Arminians is far worse. I'm using their own standards here. I've been aiming at teachings and arguments, while Calvinists have been aiming at me personally.

So instead of doing the same as the others (presuming I'm overreacting and need to calm down), how about you talk about issues and arguments instead? The thread topic is "Understanding Calvinism", not "Critiquing Arminians and Their Theology". So can we all talk about Calvinism now, instead of me or what Arminians believe? That would be a refreshing change.

I promised I would reply.. your post seems to twist what you have stated about Calvinists to make it appear they are the ones that are guilty of hatred when it is only yourself that made that specific allegation.

I DO agree with your statement that teachings and arguments should be the focus of discussion and not the personal attack such as you made against Calvinists.

Blessings

 

[rturner76]

Well, hallelujah! Praise the lord we finally agree Jesus is the way the truth and the light! This is where we are on the road together and then the road splits when we talk about if it's free will or ONLY God's will which brings you to Christ.

Who is "correct?" I see both sides claiming they have proof. Is it who has more proof or who's proof is better.

THis was addressing Post #575