John Calvin Had It All Wrong

339 posts in this topic

Posted

I think first generation Calvinists - those 'converted' to Calvinism from other churches - are as likely to be saved as anyone. They have simply adopted a false teaching. It is perhaps the second generation Calvinists - their children, or children's children - that will be tempted to rely on their 'election' as a member of an 'elected' family or church instead of on the blood of Christ for salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually, Carl, it doesn't posit choice.  That's what "irresistible grace" is all about - the "elect" can't resist. Ergo, no choice.  Of course they believe in the atoning sacrifice of Christ - but they limit it to only the selected ones, i.e., as I mentioned, the "world" in John 3:16 doesn't mean everyone because Jesus only died for the elect (those who can't resist the draw of the Father...). I can't go so far as to say that no calvinist is saved.  But if it's someone whose been raised to believe in hardcore calvinism, then most likely they aren't saved.  Catholics teach the atoning sacrifice of Christ also, but add their own stuff to it...hardcore calvinists do the same when they claim only the elect will be saved.

 

salyan, you posted as I did and basically said what I was going to...

 

The Puritans are perfect examples of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think first generation Calvinists - those 'converted' to Calvinism from other churches - are as likely to be saved as anyone. They have simply adopted a false teaching. It is perhaps the second generation Calvinists - their children, or children's children - that will be tempted to rely on their 'election' as a member of an 'elected' family or church instead of on the blood of Christ for salvation.

 

Sure, but you could just as easily say that this or that folk might be relying too much on God's forgiveness of sin, rather than on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to be saved. Or they might be relying too much on their faith in the blood of Christ, rather than on the sacrifice itself (if there's even a difference in those two positions). And on and on it goes...

 

For me, the whole discussion leads to the question that ThePilgrim and IamChief have already given an answer to, and one which has come up before with STIC and his "different Jesus" doctrine, which is what nuances of belief is a person allowed to get wrong before God won't have mercy on them? If someone believes and repents, but for whatever reason they never heard that Jesus was born of a virgin, will they be rejected for relying on a "different Gospel" or a "different Jesus"? If someone gets the doctrine of the trinity a bit wrong and thinks Jesus was part God and part man instead of fully God and fully man, or if their view on examination is closer to modalism, though they don't realise this themselves, will they not be saved because they got their systematic theology wrong? And by the same token, if a 'Calvinist' thinks he is relying on the blood of Christ, but on examination it could be said that maybe technically he isn't, is he also relying on a different Gospel?

 

And if the answer to any of those questions is yes then we have a Gospel that isn't simple at all and relies on the sinner getting an A+ in systematic theology (the right one of course).

 

Your thoughts, Salyan?

Edited by Alimantado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can't go so far as to say that no calvinist is saved.  But if it's someone whose been raised to believe in hardcore calvinism, then most likely they aren't saved.  Catholics teach the atoning sacrifice of Christ also, but add their own stuff to it...hardcore calvinists do the same when they claim only the elect will be saved.

 

The huge difference between those two positions is that adding works changes what one relies on for their own salvation whereas believing in limited atonement/election doesn't--the individual Calvinist believes on the blood of Christ just like a 'free will' person does, as you've acknowledged yourself.

 

But what you've just said there (a Calvinist is not saved if they believe in Election) means that even if someone believes all the 'basics', such as the the need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ for their sins to be forgiven, they will still be unsaved if they are wrong in some other area not directly related to their own salvation. And if that's true for Election, then why not beliefs about eschatology, or anything about scripture really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually, Carl, it doesn't posit choice.  That's what "irresistible grace" is all about - the "elect" can't resist. Ergo, no choice. 

 

I forgot to respond to this bit, HC. Irresistible Grace, as I understand it, is a statement about desire not about the presence/absence of a choice that's made on the basis of that desire. Sure, a person could argue that by giving a person a desire that would make them choose Christ 100% of the time, God is effectively taking away their free will, but if the 'non-reformed' system is examined in the same way, exactly the same conundrum comes up. Under the 'free will' system, does our will/desire/constitution (whatever you want to call it) determine the choice we make to follow Christ? If the answer is no, that makes the decision pretty much random, or based on external events, and therefore surely not our responsibility? If the answer is yes, then our choice is effectively constrained by that will (as with Calvinism) and the responsibility for the choice falls to who or what put that will in us created beings.

 

The simplest way I can think to put this point is, what is the difference between a Calvinist saying 'that unelect person is totally depraved and will not ever choose Christ' and a non-Calvinist saying 'that alcoholic/atheist/homosexual there could choose Christ but we all know they are way too in love with their sin to ever do it.'?

ThePilgrim likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It seems one of the prOBlems here is that in many cases Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different definitions of what a Calvinist is.

 

As pointed out above, a Reformed church that preaches the biblical Gospel, sends forth soul winners who use the same Romans Road approach many non-Calvinists do, and sees many come to Christ, even though they believe in election and predestination along the lines of what Spurgeon, Edwards and Whitefield did, there will be non-Calvinists who write them off as not really being Calvinists.

 

This is odd, especially since most of these folks don't actually consider themselves to be Calvinists, but as believing in the doctrine of grace (or however they word that term) which they see as being biblical. Their own teaching points to Scripture as being their source, they often cite Paul's writings as where God brought it all together. Then some point to Augustine as being among the first to take to writing about it. Then they point out that Calvin was the first to systematically put it together at a time when such could finally become widely available thanks to the printing press. The odd part being that non-Calvinists will say man Calvinists are not actually Calvinists but when "Calvinists" say they are not Calvinists because they are not following Calvin, the non-Calvinists demand they be called Calvinists. It's all rather circular and gets one nowhere.

 

From what I've seen, non-Calvinists know more about the life of Calvin than do "Calvinists" and this is because "Calvinists" don't follow Calvin. It's similar to the way non-dispensationalists often know more about Darby than do dispensationalists. Again, both sides argue over how to define one another while missing the actual points.

 

So, back to the point of the Gospel. If "Calvinists" or Reformed or whatever term we are using, do preach the biblical Gospel message, then how can that be called a false gospel? If there is evidence of hundreds of thousands being born again in Christ over the centuries through the preaching and ministry of particular Calvinists, then how could that be if they are presenting a false gospel?

 

It doesn't matter what Calvin himself did or said. The question is only about whether or not "Calvinists" are preaching the biblical Gospel or a false gospel. Wesley was vehemently opposed to "Calvinism" yet he teamed up with a staunch "Calvinist" (Whitefield) and freely acknowledged the working of the Lord through him and that many came to Christ through his preaching.

 

The evidence seems to suggest that outside of "hypers", Calvinist are preaching the biblical Gospel that leads folks to salvation.

John,

 

What do you think of Harold Camping's version of Calvinism where he advised others that you can do nothing to be saved and to simply wait on the Lord for salvation? Do you consider his version to be an example of hyper Calvinism? I first was exposed to the false theology of Calvinism from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sure, but you could just as easily say that this or that folk might be relying too much on God's forgiveness of sin, rather than on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to be saved. Or they might be relying too much on their faith in the blood of Christ, rather than on the sacrifice itself (if there's even a difference in those two positions). And on and on it goes...

 

For me, the whole discussion leads to the question that ThePilgrim and IamChief have already given an answer to, and one which has come up before with STIC and his "different Jesus" doctrine, which is what nuances of belief is a person allowed to get wrong before God won't have mercy on them? If someone believes and repents, but for whatever reason they never heard that Jesus was born of a virgin, will they be rejected for relying on a "different Gospel" or a "different Jesus"? If someone gets the doctrine of the trinity a bit wrong and thinks Jesus was part God and part man instead of fully God and fully man, or if their view on examination is closer to modalism, though they don't realise this themselves, will they not be saved because they got their systematic theology wrong? And by the same token, if a 'Calvinist' thinks he is relying on the blood of Christ, but on examination it could be said that maybe technically he isn't, is he also relying on a different Gospel?

 

And if the answer to any of those questions is yes then we have a Gospel that isn't simple at all and relies on the sinner getting an A+ in systematic theology (the right one of course).

 

Your thoughts, Salyan?

 

Whoa! And here I was trying to avoid a deep theological conversation! :wink:frog:

 

I think what I was trying to say in regards to second-generation Calvinists, is that when kids grow up in a church that tells them that they are elect because their parents are, they are likely to think they don't have to do anything to be saved. That is false, because there is one thing they have to do. Choose to repent & believe/trust (that's all essentially one action, so I'm counting it one thing.) So because they don't ever repent & believe, they don't get saved.
 

What can or can't people believe before they are or aren't saved? That's a pretty deep question, and one I honestly haven't the time to think through and reply to properly right now (sorry - I'm going on two weeks of holidays on Saturday and life is kinda crazy right now). And a quick answer really doesn't do it justice. But... what did Paul say about the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15?

 

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

 

Maybe the theological understanding that is necessary for salvation is that described here?  A) Christ (Messiah - son of God) died B) for our sins (we are sinners) (substitutionary atonement) c. according to the Scriptures (Bible as word of God) d) buried and rose again. That seems awfully simplistic, but then isn't that the same thing we would teach a child? We would tell them that they are a sinner, and there is a punishment for sin, but Jesus died to pay that punishment, and rose from the dead because He is God, and He will forgive us and take away our sin if we trust that He did that for us. 

 

I'm not so sure that Calvinism prevents Biblical salvation. I think it OBscures it, confuses it, and adds works to it. It certainly blasphemes the character of God. Thus it is possible that those converted to Christianity through Calvinism may not be Biblically saved. Calvinism is not huge on reaching the lost though, so the greater danger would seem to be to those who grow up through it. But... since I am a Biblicist that believes that 'no man may pluck us out of His hand'... I do not believe that a Christian ceases to be saved upon adopting Calvinism - for the simple fact that he cannot lose his salvation. I do think that Calvinism burdens a believer so that his Christian growth will be hindered, for he will be trying to 'endure to the end' instead of trusting Christ to work 'both to will and to do'.

 

Edited to add: Man, that was an awfully long quick answer! :coverlaugh:

Edited by Salyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We believe the Scriptures, and the Gospel proclaimed in the Scriptures. Reformed doctrine in no way corrupts the Gospel.

 

We preach that all are sinners, dead in sin, & needing salvation;

we preach Christ as Lord & Saviour, who accomplished our salvation by his life, atoning death, & resurrection;

we command repentance, & turning to Christ in faith, as Saviour & Lord;

we teach baptism as symbolizing cleansing from sin, union with Christ, application of his blood, & filling with the Holy Spirit, but with no saving merit;

we teach godly living, as those who will face a holy Judge at death, & at the resurrection.

 

The contention with anti-calvinists is that they impose their own logic on Calvinism, based on their own (mis)understanding of Reformed doctrine:

e.g.

Calvinists believe only & all the elect will be saved, regardless of what they do;

NO! God has ordained the way of savation - repentance & faith in Christ;

 

Calvinists believe the elect are saved against their will;

NO! The work of the Holy Spirit is to show us our sin & need of a Saviour, so that we willingly, eagerly come to Christ;

 

Calvinism teaches antinomianism (rejection of the Law);

NO! The preaching of the Law convinces us of our sin & need of a Saviour. The Holy Spirit then writes the Law in our hearts, so that we live godly lives according to our renewed nature.

 

Calvinism destroys the Gospel, so that sinners know that their salvation depends on God's election, so there is nothing they can do about their salvation - they might as well continue in sin, so that grace can abound - if God wills to save them, or, if God intends to damn them they might as well enjoy sin in this life:

NO! God is not mocked. There is a Gospel imperative - God COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent. God-defying sinners are only proving their depravity.

 

etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice straw man there - tell us what we are saying and then argue against it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Here is a really simplified way of looking at it. The choice of which DaveW speaks is that which God made before the foundation of the world.  Die-hard calvinists believe that the word elect means a select group of people will get saved.  So, in effect, God sat in Heaven pre-creation and looked through the annals of time and chose: this one will get saved, this one will not; this one will, this one not.  I'll draw this one, won't draw that one.  Etc.

 

 

 

 

Well LuAnne, I don't know anyone who teaches that.

 

The most Calvinist Baptist I know, says Salvation is like going in a door marked 'Free Salvation' and when we get inside we look back and see a sign 'Saved by Grace.'

 

God chose JacOB over Esau, "The elder will serve the younger" "JacOB I have loved, Esau I hated"  JacOB still had to take matters into his own hand.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice straw man there - tell us what we are saying and then argue against it......

 

Well Dave, that is what you have been doing.  Telling us what we believe then arguing against it.

Covenanter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think first generation Calvinists - those 'converted' to Calvinism from other churches - are as likely to be saved as anyone. They have simply adopted a false teaching. It is perhaps the second generation Calvinists - their children, or children's children - that will be tempted to rely on their 'election' as a member of an 'elected' family or church instead of on the blood of Christ for salvation.

 

No one I know believes they can rely on their election.  We have faith in the finished work of Christ and his death and resurrection. We also believe in calling sinners to repentance through faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well LuAnne, I don't know anyone who teaches that.
 
The most Calvinist Baptist I know, says Salvation is like going in a door marked 'Free Salvation' and when we get inside we look back and see a sign 'Saved by Grace.'
 
God chose JacOB over Esau, "The elder will serve the younger" "JacOB I have loved, Esau I hated"  JacOB still had to take matters into his own hand.


Invicta, it appears to me that HC was describing the doctrine of 'limited atonement'. Are you saying you've never met a Calvinist who teaches or affirms limited atonement?

 

Also, HC was addressing a part of how salvation works according to Calvinism, but in your example above you're talking about the experience of salvation according to the person being saved--apples and oranges.

HappyChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Invicta, it appears to me that HC was describing the doctrine of 'limited atonement'. Are you saying you've never met a Calvinist who teaches or affirms limited atonement?

 

Also, HC was addressing a part of how salvation works according to Calvinism, but in your example above you're talking about the experience of salvation according to the person being saved--apples and oranges.

 

Yes, you are correct, I do know one Baptist who says that.  There may be others who I know who haven't expressed that.  I have also known what you call Calvinists who are dispensationalists, two definitely and one prOBable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Whoa! And here I was trying to avoid a deep theological conversation! :wink:frog:

 

I think what I was trying to say in regards to second-generation Calvinists, is that when kids grow up in a church that tells them that they are elect because their parents are, they are likely to think they don't have to do anything to be saved. That is false, because there is one thing they have to do. Choose to repent & believe/trust (that's all essentially one action, so I'm counting it one thing.) So because they don't ever repent & believe, they don't get saved.
 

What can or can't people believe before they are or aren't saved? That's a pretty deep question, and one I honestly haven't the time to think through and reply to properly right now (sorry - I'm going on two weeks of holidays on Saturday and life is kinda crazy right now). And a quick answer really doesn't do it justice. But... what did Paul say about the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15?

 

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

 

Maybe the theological understanding that is necessary for salvation is that described here?  A) Christ (Messiah - son of God) died B) for our sins (we are sinners) (substitutionary atonement) c. according to the Scriptures (Bible as word of God) d) buried and rose again. That seems awfully simplistic, but then isn't that the same thing we would teach a child? We would tell them that they are a sinner, and there is a punishment for sin, but Jesus died to pay that punishment, and rose from the dead because He is God, and He will forgive us and take away our sin if we trust that He did that for us. 

 

I'm not so sure that Calvinism prevents Biblical salvation. I think it OBscures it, confuses it, and adds works to it. It certainly blasphemes the character of God. Thus it is possible that those converted to Christianity through Calvinism may not be Biblically saved. Calvinism is not huge on reaching the lost though, so the greater danger would seem to be to those who grow up through it. But... since I am a Biblicist that believes that 'no man may pluck us out of His hand'... I do not believe that a Christian ceases to be saved upon adopting Calvinism - for the simple fact that he cannot lose his salvation. I do think that Calvinism burdens a believer so that his Christian growth will be hindered, for he will be trying to 'endure to the end' instead of trusting Christ to work 'both to will and to do'.

 

Edited to add: Man, that was an awfully long quick answer! :coverlaugh:

 

Thanks for this, Salyan. Enjoy hols! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Do the anticalvinists on the forum agree with this statement?

We believe the work of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth and reveal the truth contained in the scriptures to their hearts. His work also includes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, I believe in that. Question for you:

 

Do you believe that Felix resisted the Holy Spirit in Acts 24:25?

No Nicolaitans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Yes, I believe in that. Question for you:

 

Do you believe that Felix resisted the Holy Spirit in Acts 24:25?

 

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

 

Felix did resist the Holy Spirit - and a convenient season never came. There are many guilty sinners out there who have heard & understood - & rejected the Gospel. And no, they cannot blame the Holy Spirit for not quickening them. They have consciously & deliberately rejected Christ.  

 

John 16:Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Were Abraham & his descendants chosen by God?

 

Deut. 7:For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

 

Neh. 9:Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;

And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:

 

But is even that choosing selective?

 

1 Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

 

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

 

Let’s answer the question, which is posited innocently enough. The poster then gives us Deut. 7 which states plainly enough that they were in fact chosen. But the verse concludes that the purpose of said choosing was to guarantee possession of a land.

 

The poster then gives Kings, where God says he has 7,000 chosen,  then the argument is sealed with the tried and true Romans 9.

 

So here is the chain of logic.

God has chosen, he has chosen some, therefore he has chosen so that his eternal decrees can stand pat.

 

CLAP TRAP – PURE NONSENSICAL CLAP TRAP

 

What does Deut 7 say about God choosing Abraham and his dependents? I t says in plain old 6th grade English that He chose them through an oath that was given to Abraham.

Nehemiah also speaks of the oath. It enlarges the information as it states plainly that the oath finds it´s fulfillment in the possession of a piece of land.

1 Kings 19? Well, as true as it is that God has reserved unto himself some 7000, what that has to do with the fulfilling of the oath sworn unto to Abraham is a mystery. The connection is only inferred by the poster, yet he fails to exegete the connection which only exists in his twisted view of the scriptures.

There is no cross reference between 1 Kings and Nehemiah 9.

So what are we to do with all this nonsense? Ignoring it would be good?

Answer the question and you´ll get 10 more pages of confusion that ignore the information given in the response.

All Calvinists, reformed theology, call it whatever you want all start with Romans 9 in mind. It is the lens through which they view scripture, so sooner or later, all application returns to God having elected some and you dare not question it because in electing sinners to Hell He has somehow demonstrated Hid glory. So there.

PrOBlem is this. Deut 7 said that God had chosen Israel to give them the benefits of an oath that was sworn to Abraham. Nehemiah said that the oath is fulfilled in possessing of a land that belonged to Canaan and others. 1 Kings 19…. Uhmm…. No connection at all to the 2 previous passages. It only serves to make a bridge to the already preconceived conclusion that all election is too mystical for us to understand, do not question it, God said He is glorified.

So to answer your question, yes, Abraham and his dependents were chosen. But by not telling us why, you are allowed to foist a foolish and unlearned prattle upon the simple. Both passages you started with stated in 6th grade English why. To fulfill and oath, an oath that was given to Abraham, an oath that deals with a tract of land.

 

What about that oath???

 

Luk 1:67  And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Luk 1:68  Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

Luk 1:69  And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

Luk 1:70  As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

Luk 1:71  That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

Luk 1:72  To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

Luk 1:73  The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

Luk 1:74  That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

Luk 1:75  In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

 

Wow, what a novel concept!! Compare scripture with the right scripture to come to a

Biblical and correct conclusion.

 

 

Were not Abraham and his descendants chosen?

 

They sure were. Anyone here want to tell us why?

 

God bless,

calvary

DaveW, Miss Daisy and LindaR like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great posting! Thank you!

 

He (Covenantor) does exactly what you describe; lists so many verses from so many books and thinks he's showing us a clear connection between them but all it does is cause confusion.

 

I've complained many times and so have others about him but always falls of deaf ears but they will ban others who post just as much heresy as he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Covenanter,

Above, you admit that Felix resisted the Holy Spirit. Being that the Holy Spirit is a person, namely God, then do you also admit that it was God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel and be saved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well Dave, that is what you have been doing. Telling us what we believe then arguing against it.


Maybe you should research "straw man" a bit further. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I won't make a detailed reply to Calvary - I want us to take encouragement from the Word of God.

 

Deut. 7:For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

 

God is concerned with people, to have a special relationship with himself. The old covenant relationship, requiring OBedience on the part of man, was powerless. Israel failed repeatedly so that a new covenant was promised. The purpose was the same, a purpose realised in Christ, by his OBedience, his sacrifice, his resurrection, his intercession, by the spread of the Gospel to all nations & ultimately by the resurrection to the new heaven & new earth. 

 

Gen. 12:1 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:

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:

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.

 

Exo. 19:Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

Now therefore, if ye will OBey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

 

Lev. 26:For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.

10 And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.

11 And I set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.

12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

 

Jer. 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

2 Cor. 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people

 

Rev. 21:And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

 

God is concerned with people, believers, wherever they are on earth. He did provide a land for them, possession being dependent on their OBedience. He is, of course, the God of all the earth, & his intention is a righteous NH&NE populated by his redeemed people, both Jew & Gentile.

 

 

So to answer your question, yes, Abraham and his dependents were chosen. But by not telling us why, you are allowed to foist a foolish and unlearned prattle upon the simple. Both passages you started with stated in 6th grade English why. To fulfill and oath, an oath that was given to Abraham, an oath that deals with a tract of land.

The "tract of land" promises were fulfilled, as Nehemiah acknowledged, (also Joshua & Solomon.) Those OC promises were a means to an end, so that the Messiah could come to the promised land for the purpose of redemption. Now the focus is on the LORD Jesus Christ, and his redeemed people gather & worship throughout the world.

 

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

The redeemed people of God (chosen people) are now believers from all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.

 

Rev. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Typically the calvinist position is that man cannot use his free will to come to the Lord. That through "Irristible grace" a mans free will is over come, thereby the "drawing process" of the Lord is the base factor in the salvation of the soul and not the will of man who is in need of relief from the penalty of sin.

There are so many Bible examples of men doing what they seemed right in their own eyes, both good and bad that even entertaining this silly doctrine goes against all logic any man possesses. One has to set aside his own common sense to accept this non sense and unbiblical doctrine in order to comply with the false and heretical sytem known as calvinism.

 

Here, let me give you 2.

 

.    Moses' Good Decision

"Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; (25)

 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward. (26)

 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible."  - Heb_11:25-27

Here we find Moses making a good choice out of his own free will.  These verses state that Moses explicitly chose for himself as for a result of his own reasoning and analysis of the situation.  He made his own decision to suffer affliction with God's people, Israel, rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.  It was Moses' responsibility and decision to do that.  We also stand responsible for our decisions.
 

 

2.    Moses' Bad Decision

"For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his (Moses') hand would deliver them (Israel): but they understood not."- Act_7:25

God had called Moses to deliver the nation of Israel out of bondage from the nation of Egypt after 400+ years.  The circumstances relating to Moses' disOBedience of that calling and his spending 40 years on the back side of the desert in wasted time is recorded in Exo_2:1-25; Exo_3:1-22.  Now, notice Act_7:29-30 :

"Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons. And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush."

You see Moses wasted 40 years by willfully disOBeying God's will for him to lead the children of Israel out of bondage.  After 40 years on the back side of the desert, Exo_3:1-22 reveals to us that the Angel of the Lord appeared unto Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.  After dealing with Moses in this manner, Exo_3:10 enlightens us that God again seeks to have Moses OBey His will as He commands him again to go unto Pharaoh.  My question is, "Would God ask Moses to lead the children of Israel and then put it into Moses' mind to be disOBedient to God's command?"  This would be unbelievable!  We do find, though, that Moses out of his own free will chose to disOBey God.  God did not over-ride the free will of Moses.  Forty years later God dealt with Moses again and this time Moses chose to OBey.
 

 

Same man, same free will.

 

God bless,

calvary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Typically the calvinist position is that man cannot use his free will to come to the Lord. That through "Irristible grace" a mans free will is over come, thereby the "drawing process" of the Lord is the base factor in the salvation of the soul and not the will of man who is in need of relief from the penalty of sin.

 

Every explanation I've ever read of Calvinism specifically addresses this OBjection and says that what happens is that a man's inclinations are changed so that he freely chooses Christ and has no desire to do otherwise, not that his free will is removed.

 

Now it could be argued that this is a distinction without a difference since if man's decision-making is the result of something, such as his desires and inclinations, then that is not free will. But for me, this begs the question, if that isn't free will, then what is? To qualify as 'free will', does the decision have to have no basis at all? And then wouldn't that make it random?

 

The Heb 11:25-27 verse describes Moses making a decision based on an inclination he has: "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt..."

 

Why would Moses hold the reproach of Christ in higher regard than the treasues in Egypt while the next man wouldn't? I don't think we're given an answer to that, whereas Calvinists think we are. However, showing examples of people making decisions doesn't refute Calvinism, in m.o, since the system doesn't deny that people make them.

Covenanter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now