What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

I love Matt Slick. He's great. Wrong about a number of things but you can't deny the guy has zeal for God and His Word.

I remember not too many years ago some guys ridiculing John MacArthur because he wasn't "a real theologian," and so the question I would ask is this: what does it mean to be a "real theologian?"

I love MacArthur, and despite the fact we disagree about a few things, I view him to be at the top of the list when it comes to being a Theologian. Few men, in my view, have put in the time in serving God that MacArthur has.

So I have to say, I don't see logic as the reason for why we have doctrinal differences, nor do I see those who, like Matt Slick (as well as the atheist he was debating) who think they can expound God's Word in a "logical" manner and because of their logic think they have an inarguable case or point of view.

What is logical about God creating the world in six days?

What is logical about people who walk around every day being dead?

So for the sake of discussion, what does it mean to be a Theologian, and what does it mean to be a real Theologian?


God bless.

Yes but Matt is the furthest thing from John Mac. Mac can defend his beliefs against anyone unlike Matt . I watched Matt get chewed up and spit out by an atheist. He needs to stick with debating Mormons .

 

[P1LGR1M]

Precisely. . .it is prophecy, not teaching.

?

So Prophecy is not teaching?

Let me try to address that:


Luke 24:25-27
King James Version

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


Were these disciples expected to have learned from Messianic Prophecy?


Galatians 3:22-25
King James Version

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


How did the Law bring men to Christ? Was not the Prophesy of Christ the very teaching by which Abraham was justified?


Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.


Christ was not a "riddle," it was clear teaching by Prophets. It was a Mystery as to how Messiah would bless all families of the earth, but the teaching was still understood as the means of Redemption for Israel.

I just don't understand why you would think Prophecy is not teaching.

God told Miriam that he speaks to the prophets in riddles (dark sayings) and not clearly (Numbers 12:8), but not so to Moses to whom he speaks plainly.

Here's another Old Testament Prophet saying something similar:


Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:


And another:


Matthew 3:11-12
King James Version

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Seems like they are teaching to me.

Prophetic riddles must be interpreted. . .and therein is the problem, for they can be interpreted in more than one way, the only rule being that all interpretation must be in agreement with NT teaching if it is to be correct.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the "agree to disagree" and "Scripture can mean one thing for some and something else for another" philosophies.

While Prophecy can have more than one application (such as the Coming of Messiah having two applications using the same prophecy), that doesn't mean it can have two different meanings.

And that is the purpose of the New Testament, to equip the Church with the knowledge God means for them to not only understand but to be in agreement about.

Some of your interpretation is in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching, as in two resurrections of humankind.

And as I have requested before, please quote what you think is in error and we will discuss it.

If you want to say that I am in disagreement with Apostolic Teaching because I don't view Peter as giving the magic code for interpreting Prophecy by saying a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years" I am sorry. The fact remains that Revelation 20 makes it clear there is a thousand years in between the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs and the general resurrection of the dead who stand before the Great White Throne Judgment.

If you think the First Resurrection of Revelation 20 is the first resurrection in a sequential context then it is up to you to quote and debunk my own position that shows that there is a resurrection at the mid-point of the Tribulation which denies a sequential meaning to protos.

Even if you want to make a "riddle" out of Revelation 20 it still remains that there is a period in which Satan (a literal Biblical demon) is bound, and a time when he is released. There are literal people who join ranks with him and they are destroyed.

So just how long are you going to make that time in which Satan is bound. Scripture states a thousand years. If you would like to present your view, please do so. It will not be the first time I have addressed the spiritualization of Scripture, but the first time it has been called the riddle-breaking of Scripture.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Yes but Matt is the furthest thing from John Mac. Mac can defend his beliefs against anyone unlike Matt . I watched Matt get chewed up and spit out by an atheist. He needs to stick with debating Mormons .

But there are times when Matt does a good Job ministering to atheists.

I would say one of Matt's biggest problems is that he is dedicated to a System of Theology that he doesn't properly understand.

His second biggest problem is that he relies heavily on logical argumentation which sometimes he simply is not very good at.

His third biggest problem is that he has control over most of the conversations he has with those who call in, and because he can run rough-shod over the callers I think his ego has an inflation issue.

Do you think John MacArthur can defend his belief that men have always gone to Heaven when they died to anyone?

And I ask you, what does it mean to be a real Theologian?

I'll also ask if you think John MacArthur is a real Theologian. Sounds like you have some respect for him, which I myself do, he's a great preacher.


God bless.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

But there are times when Matt does a good Job ministering to atheists.

I would say one of Matt's biggest problems is that he is dedicated to a System of Theology that he doesn't properly understand.

His second biggest problem is that he relies heavily on logical argumentation which sometimes he simply is not very good at.

His third biggest problem is that he has control over most of the conversations he has with those who call in, and because he can run rough-shod over the callers I think his ego has an inflation issue.

Do you think John MacArthur can defend his belief that men have always gone to Heaven when they died to anyone?

And I ask you, what does it mean to be a real Theologian?

I'll also ask if you think John MacArthur is a real Theologian. Sounds like you have some respect for him, which I myself do, he's a great preacher.


God bless.

I believed exactly like Mac for the past 40 years , have most all of his books . Now that I’m no longer a Calvinist I disagree on many things such as tulip , double predestination, meticulous determination and the Calvinists perspective on Sovereignty.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I believed exactly like Mac for the past 40 years , have most all of his books . Now that I’m no longer a Calvinist I disagree on many things such as tulip , double predestination, meticulous determination and the Calvinists perspective on Sovereignty.

Ahem, you mean Dr, MacArthur, don't you?



One of the greats in my view. I have to say that only David Jeremiah ranks above MacArthur in my view. This because David Jeremiah isn't confused about certain things MacArthur is, lol.


God bless.

 

[Guojing]

I have told you, John is not teaching Eternal Salvation, he is teaching about Progressive Sanctification.

John 3:16 tells men how they are saved, the First Epistle of John tells believers how they are to live after being saved, and gives warning to those who fail to exhibit the characteristics of people who have been saved,

God bless.

So in 1 John, he is saying "those who fail to exhibit the characteristics of people who have been saved" are liars and do not know the truth.

Is he saying they are still saved or not? Make it clear.

 

[Guojing]

[

 

[Guojing]

It's not a versus: Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection is in all of Peter's preaching.

God bless.

To be clear, your answer is No, I believe there is no difference between preaching

• In wickedness, you have killed your Messiah but God raised him from the dead as a sign that he is truly the Son of God, so repent of that wicked deed and be water baptized, and you will be saved from your sins in the future. (Acts 2:36 Acts 3:14-21 Acts 5:30 Acts 7:52)

and

• Christ has died for your sins and rose again on the 3rd day for your justification. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

 

[P1LGR1M]

So in 1 John, he is saying "those who fail to exhibit the characteristics of people who have been saved" are liars and do not know the truth.

Is he saying they are still saved or not? Make it clear.

Just can't deal with John 3:16. eh?

Just quote what I have already said. Not sure why you refuse to do that.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

To be clear, your answer is No, I believe there is no difference between preaching

• In wickedness, you have killed your Messiah but God raised him from the dead as a sign that he is truly the Son of God, so repent of that wicked deed and be water baptized, and you will be saved from your sins in the future. (Acts 2:36 Acts 3:14-21 Acts 5:30 Acts 7:52)

and

• Christ has died for your sins and rose again on the 3rd day for your justification. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

Quote what I said: I have shown that Peter was preaching the One Gospel.

What is confusing you is the Gospel veiled and the Gospel revealed.

Peter wasn't preaching water baptism. He was preaching the One Baptism of Christianity.


God bless.

 

[Guojing]

Just can't deal with John 3:16. eh?

Just quote what I have already said. Not sure why you refuse to do that.


God bless.

those who fail to exhibit the characteristics of people who have been saved

What does this statement mean? Are they still saved?

 

[Guojing]

Quote what I said: I have shown that Peter was preaching the One Gospel.

What is confusing you is the Gospel veiled and the Gospel revealed.

Peter wasn't preaching water baptism. He was preaching the One Baptism of Christianity.


God bless.

So, there is no difference. You just need to say that. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[philadelphos]

There is an error in believing that there is a "sign" placed on the believer or elect. When people state that if a person truly is saved, then it will manifest by some sign such as a sinless life or greater generosity or a milder temper. A "true Christian" would be such and such which is the "doctrine of salvation + works"
I had a neighbor with whom I had many, what I thought, were good conversations about God. We agreed on points of doctrine. Then one day he told me that I was not saved, obviously, because I did not talk in tongues. I didn't have the "mark" of saved upon me.
This is a false doctrine..salvation +works or "signs."
If a person states to me that he believes in Christ and the Resurrection, or ascribes to the Nicene Creed, I take his word. I don't look for "signs" or "works" as meaning a "True Christian" would do such and such and because that person did not do "such and such" then he wasn't really a Christian.

That's tautological and unbiblical. Also blind and dangerously reckless/negligent.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Mt 7:21)

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Titus 1:16)

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph 5:11)

Doubting a believer at the face value and requiring or demanding signs would be against the Holy Spirit's work. However, doubting someone who is supposed to be 'mature' in the faith is another matter.

Hyper-moralists who insist in xyz in order to be a "real Christian", aren't worth the breath to correct. But churches here often have very serious failures in assessing/inspecting and correcting/disciplining Christ's flock, if they are indeed Christ's flock. Congregations are typically dominated by juvenile seniors with stunted spiritual maturity. A culture of narcissistic Christianity. A shameful reality.

Historically, Calvinists rely on 'bureaucracy' and 'establishment' with ministers/elders and church courts to address sinful behaviour. Plus preventative assistance from recital of catechisms/creeds, education from sermons, recital of psalms, etc. Baptists on the other hand have little to no mechanisms, not formalised anyway.

But a 'holy people' shouldn't need that, by definition being already 'set apart' from sin. Anyone honest will admit that they sin 'a thousand times a minute' as someone said earlier. Ultimately, 'self-regulation' by way of the Holy Spirit must be sufficient, but obviously we are not yet in the New Kingdom.

Blessings to all

[edit: not 'should be', 'must be']

 

[P1LGR1M]

P1LGR1M said: ↑

So we are not saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves? It is, as you say—of works?

Please answer.


God bless.

I have told you, John is not teaching Eternal Salvation, he is teaching about Progressive Sanctification.

John 3:16 tells men how they are saved, the First Epistle of John tells believers how they are to live after being saved, and gives warning to those who fail to exhibit the characteristics of people who have been saved,

those who fail to exhibit the characteristics of people who have been saved

What does this statement mean? Are they still saved?

The statement is self-explanatory if you don't remove it from its context.

Again, John 3:16 is Christ speaking of why He was sent (to die on the Cross to save those who would believe in Him), and John is writing in the First Epistle to a body of people who are already saved. Just like a Pastor preaches to his congregation, he doesn't assume everyone there is saved and thus preaches 1) the Gospel and 2) instruction for Progressive Sanctification and 3)—warnings about characteristics that would indicate whether someone was saved or not.

It is very ironic that the Epistle of John, which was written to address erroneous beliefs, is used by legalists and people that think they are sinless quite a bit. A hyper-literal interpretation of part of the Epistle that ignores the rest of the teaching found within the Epistle.

As far as whether they "are still saved," that is what John is exhorting: a self-examination of one's faith. And if someone thinks they are sinless they should take the warning seriously, because this would indicate faith in something other than Jesus Christ.

So, there is no difference. You just need to say that. Thanks for clarifying.

You again presume to speak for me.

And you again fail to answer a simple question:


P1LGR1M said: ↑

So we are not saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves? It is, as you say—of works?

Please answer.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

So, there is no difference. You just need to say that. Thanks for clarifying.

Is there a "difference" between these two accounts of the Gospel:


Genesis 12:1-3
King James Version

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Galatians 3:26-29
King James Version

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Do they say the same thing?

Is there a difference?


God bless.

 

[philadelphos]

I was reminded of this thread. This passage illustrates the 'doctrine of predestination' or 'doctrine of grace', and why Calvinists emphasise God's grace so much being conscious that we truly are lost sheep, not 'self-saving sheep'.--The preacher was jailed by the Chinese government for 20 years in a mining labour camp, accused of being an anti-revolutionary. The opposite of Calvin and the many biased preachers on cushy stipends.

Mt 18:12-14:

"How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

Repeated in Luke 15:

"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?"

Dual-lingual sermon in Cantonese and Mandarin, sorry other language groups.

Blessings to all

 

[Guojing]

Is there a "difference" between these two accounts of the Gospel:


Genesis 12:1-3
King James Version

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Galatians 3:26-29
King James Version

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Do they say the same thing?

Is there a difference?


God bless.

They are not.

We in the Body of Christ cannot claim the blessings given to Abraham there. We can claim his righteousness before God by faith, but not that we will be a great nation etc.

 

[Guojing]

The statement is self-explanatory if you don't remove it from its context.

As far as whether they "are still saved," that is what John is exhorting: a self-examination of one's faith. they should take the warning seriously, because this would indicate faith in something other than Jesus Christ.

God bless.

So faith also require works to indicate that you have faith? Is that what you are saying here?

 

[P1LGR1M]

They are not.

I guess that means no?

We in the Body of Christ cannot claim the blessings given to Abraham there.

We can claim the blessings:


Genesis 12:1-3
King James Version

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


The blessing is The Seed, and it is The Seed that blesses all nations of the earth.

All nations are blessed and become one in Christ, The Blessing:


Galatians 3:26-29
King James Version

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


That is the Gospel, my friend.

And it is the same Gospel given to Abraham as it was declared to Satan (Genesis 3:15), and Isaiah (Isaiah 53), Peter (Matthew 16:20-21), and the world (John 3:16).

We can claim his righteousness before God by faith, but not that we will be a great nation etc.

"Nations" and Families" are used interchangeably, thus we conclude that we are of the One Family of God, which is comprised of peoples from all families and nations.

Thus the veiled Gospel to Abraham fulfilled, and all families of the Earth are blessed in The Seed.

How we are blessed in the Seed was Mystery to Satan, Abraham, Isaiah, and the world until the Spirit began revealing it (the Comforter, John 16:7-9) to His holy Prophets and Apostles (Acts 2 forward).


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

So faith also require works to indicate that you have faith? Is that what you are saying here?

No, lol.

It doesn't "require" works, it evidences good works:

John is saying essentially, "If we see such and such it indicates one is or is not a Christian in reality."

He is pretty specific about people living in a pattern of unbroken sin, in that it indicates one is certainly not a Christian.

This is James' point as well. Abraham's faith was evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Had Abraham refused it would have evidenced lack of faith in God's Promise to him.

The Writer of Hebrews gives us commentary on that faith:


Hebrews 11:17-19
King James Version

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.


Abraham's faith was evidenced by his faith that because of God's Promise, if he did offer up Isaac (kill him)—God would have to raise him from the dead to fulfill His Promise.

But more importantly, you have to understand that this is Temporal Justification. Abraham was justified (declared righteous) because of his faith and works, but he was not Eternally Justified until Christ died in his stead to atone for his sin that he might be Eternally Redeemed:


Romans 3:24-25
King James Version

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


Abraham was declared righteous based on what he did, and that had relevance to his daily conversation, not his Eternal Redemption. His sins still had to be atoned for in Christ.

We see that here as well:


Hebrews 9:12-15
King James Version

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


So you see, trying to make Abraham's justification for his faith and works an eternal context ignores the true context.

Trying to make the faith and works of believers in this Age eternal justification when only the Sacrifice of Christ can bring about the righteousness of God freely given to men through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus is error.

In a temporal context, yes, we are justified by both our faith and our works. Neither James nor Paul are arguing against that. They are showing the temporal context in Romans 4 and James 2.

Romans 4 is given to show there is a precedent for God justifying men apart from works and is given on the heels of Paul's teaching of Eternal Justification and Eternal Redemption in Romans 3.

What does God conclude after justifying so many men and women prior to the quotation of Paul in Romans 3: there is none righteous. No, not even one.

In the temporal arena, yes, men and women were justified, but that is a different justification from the Justification we receive when we believe in Christ.

And that is still true today: Christians are justified in the eternal context, and we are justified in our daily conversation. Two entirely different Bible Doctrines confused in the debate that has raged for 500 years.


God bless.