Jump to content
Online Baptist

New Argument Against Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IN a nutshell, this is the basics of Calvinism: TULIP   Total Depravity: that man is so depraved and dead in sin  that he can not even hear the voice or respond to the gospel without God regeneratin

Let's try something different for a moment: Let's look at our agreements on the issue, and see where we go from there.   As I understand, we agree that:   1: Except a man be born again, he cannot

The Word is clear on predestination and God's elect. He knew us in the womb, He knew/knows all born of water and all born of the Spirit before He carved the universe.   We don't understand it fully

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

To clarify, I'm not angry because you've disagreed with me. I face disagreement all the time. I live in a world where my religious views are routinely mocked and marginalized, where my politcal views are mocked and marginalized by the sam people who expect me to pay them money, where our decision to homeschool makes people question our parenting judgement, etc.

 

If mere disagreements made me angry, I'd have surely died from a stroke from the high blood pressure by now.

 

I'm not angry that we disagree. I'm offended that the Arminians here are expressing their disagreements in such a hostile, dishonest, and, frankly, obnoxious way.

 

It's funny, but every couple of weeks, I'm called before a board of pastors, elders, and teachers with more than 200 years of ministry experience between them to give an account of everything I've taught or preached during that time. If anybody would have the right to look down their noses at me, it's them. And yet, none of them have greeted me by making accusations against my character, or by calling me a heretic or a troll.

 

No, they're all very respectful and polite and, as a result, we find our discussions to be very edifying and enjoyable.

 

Where you all would say, "You haven't told us what you believe about X or how you arrived at that conclusion, we're going to go ahead and label you a heretic", they would say something along the lines of "Mike, I noticed that on such and such a date, you said "________'. Tell me about that. How did you arrive at that? How do you believe that jibes with ________". Or maybe, "I'm a little concerned about something you said. Verse so and so says ______ and historically, the  Church has interpreted that to mean ________. Have you considered that you might be wrong for this reason".

 

Nary an ad hom, straw man, or name calling in the bunch. Maybe I just set my expectations a little high here. Maybe I just assumed that because we are brothers in Christ (and this is before I knew you considered us heretics, of course) that I could expect a little better from you guys. Now, of course, "Dr" James Ach and UkuleleMike will respond with their tu quoques, but it is what it is. You guys clearly don't think much of us and I clearly overestimated you.  

 

So there we are.

 

So, no, I'm not angry that you disagree. I'm not really angry at all. More than anything, I think I'm hurt and disappointed that a bunch of Christians are behaving so much like the world.

Funny how you singled me out after Mike suggested you could be trolling. Fact is YOU began disrespecting people from the start, and refuse to acknowledge it.

 

HERE IS YOUR VERY FIRST EVER COMMENT TO ME, and let the readers determine for themselves its appropriateness:

 

 

The OP would be me. I've never said one word to you on this forum until today, didn't even know who you were until today, and your very first comment to me is THIS???

 

Why don't you just spell out why you're really on this forum, because those of us that have been here for a while aren't stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And by the way, nice way of setting up your tu quoques defense by causing the contention in the first place. Nobody said that your attitude proves you are wrong about your theology. Your hypocrisy is being addressed because you lit the fire and then played the victim with several other people here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I concur from my standpoint I don't agree with either Calvinism or Arminianism.  I believe in the Bible and would feel OK with the title Biblicist.  

Arminian before the cross, Calvinist after the cross.  :clapping:

 

That is, I believe in free will before the cross to accept salvation but after the cross you know longer have the free will to lose it.

 

Dr. Vance touches on this in that article I posted by him. I'm not sure how many folks read it but I highly recommend it. Calvinists (or as they like to be called within Baptists circles, Reformed) believe you have to be either Arminian or Calvinist. There's no middle ground. This is the same mindset the papists have when they think you are either Catholic or Protestant and there's no other option.

 

Both forget that there's the option of "bible believer".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

To clarify, I'm not angry because you've disagreed with me. I face disagreement all the time. I live in a world where my religious views are routinely mocked and marginalized, where my politcal views are mocked and marginalized by the sam people who expect me to pay them money, where our decision to homeschool makes people question our parenting judgement, etc.

 

If mere disagreements made me angry, I'd have surely died from a stroke from the high blood pressure by now.

 

I'm not angry that we disagree. I'm offended that the Arminians here are expressing their disagreements in such a hostile, dishonest, and, frankly, obnoxious way.

 

It's funny, but every couple of weeks, I'm called before a board of pastors, elders, and teachers with more than 200 years of ministry experience between them to give an account of everything I've taught or preached during that time. If anybody would have the right to look down their noses at me, it's them. And yet, none of them have greeted me by making accusations against my character, or by calling me a heretic or a troll.

 

No, they're all very respectful and polite and, as a result, we find our discussions to be very edifying and enjoyable.

 

Where you all would say, "You haven't told us what you believe about X or how you arrived at that conclusion, we're going to go ahead and label you a heretic", they would say something along the lines of "Mike, I noticed that on such and such a date, you said "________'. Tell me about that. How did you arrive at that? How do you believe that jibes with ________". Or maybe, "I'm a little concerned about something you said. Verse so and so says ______ and historically, the  Church has interpreted that to mean ________. Have you considered that you might be wrong for this reason".

 

Nary an ad hom, straw man, or name calling in the bunch. Maybe I just set my expectations a little high here. Maybe I just assumed that because we are brothers in Christ (and this is before I knew you considered us heretics, of course) that I could expect a little better from you guys. Now, of course, "Dr" James Ach and UkuleleMike will respond with their tu quoques, but it is what it is. You guys clearly don't think much of us and I clearly overestimated you.  

 

So there we are.

 

So, no, I'm not angry that you disagree. I'm not really angry at all. More than anything, I think I'm hurt and disappointed that a bunch of Christians are behaving so much like the world.

I invite you to show where we have been "hostile, dishonest, and, frankly, obnoxious". PLease, bring forward the posts.

 

Please, show me where we claim to be Arminians, because I believe you will find we, for the most part are not. The Christian world does not exist in the black and white of Calvinism or Arminianism. 

 

PLease show where you have given thoughtful replies, based in the scripture, to refute those we have given you.

 

I am sorry, but I can't repy with a "tu quoques" because I have no idea what it is. But frankly, if anyone has been operating in ad hominem attacks, it is you.  Shall we have a quick review of your posts? Lets.

 

Post 29: "Funny, except for a few key words here and there, the OP sounds just like the Catholics who keep telling me how awful Protestantism is"

 

Post 32: ".Are you saying that we don't believe that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

 

Post 37: "

You're right. I'm not humble. I'm pride filled and sinful. That's why I needed a Savior.

 

But, prideful as I am, I can still appreciate the irony of you telling me that I'm "prideful" for believing that there is absolutely nothing I can do to merit salvation, while turning around and telling us how God saved you because you sought Him first."

 

Post 40: "So then, you do believe you did something to merit your salvation. Thanks for clarifying."

 

Post 42: "

It's not free if you had to do something to earn it.

 

By your own admission, you believe you merited your own salvation.

 

A dead man cannot dial 911."

 

Post 48: " As much as I disagree, I would still embrace you as a brother in Christ. Reading your posts, I don't have much confidence you would reciprocate."

 

Post 50: "You seem to be very hung up on the word "whosoever".

 

The issue isn't who "whosoever" refers to, but whether or not "whosoever" calls by their own power or by God's power."

 

Post 52: "In order for dialogue to work, both parties must be respectful of one another. Clearly, you're not willing to do that."

 

Post 54: "Don't bother. I had this crazy idea we could talk about this like brothers in Christ but you guys just want to make it personal.

 

I'm not really into that. I'm going to go ahead and drop out of this thread so that I don't interfere with your hatred of us heathen Calvinists."

 

Post 59: "You can mock me all you like, but if you can't express your disagreement respectfully, then you have no argument. So far, all I've seen is ad homs and straw men and blatant dishonesty about what we believe."

 

Post 61: "So, basically, your response is more name calling."

 

And this brings us where we are. I invite, nay, encourage, you or anyone else, to go to these various posts, and judge among yourselves, whether there has been rudeness, dishonesty, name-calling mocking, or any such thing, at least until I called you out as a possible troll, from myself or Dr. Ach. You give no argument, no Bible, no discussion, nothing. These things are necessary if one would be engaged in a fruitful manner on a board such as this.

 

 

I perceive this thread, though fruitful at first in conversation and dialogue, has been lost and I'm done with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

You're right. I'm not humble. I'm pride filled and sinful. That's why I needed a Savior.

 

But, prideful as I am, I can still appreciate the irony of you telling me that I'm "prideful" for believing that there is absolutely nothing I can do to merit salvation, while turning around and telling us how God saved you because you sought Him first.

Nice try!  Really good.  Except that's not what I SAID.  God said that you "FIRST BELIEVED" then you were predestinated.  One thing happened in the dispensation of ETERNITY, the other in the dispensation of TIME (please read the plain text of Eph. 1).  There is no question that God came to seek and save me.  Your premise, of course...being a calvinist...is (besides being dishonest and putting words in my mouth) both condescending and prideful.  Excellent attempt at effective debate...but you cannot argue with what GOD SAID and come out on top!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To clarify, I'm not angry because you've disagreed with me. I face disagreement all the time. I live in a world where my religious views are routinely mocked and marginalized, where my politcal views are mocked and marginalized by the sam people who expect me to pay them money, where our decision to homeschool makes people question our parenting judgement, etc.

 

If mere disagreements made me angry, I'd have surely died from a stroke from the high blood pressure by now.

 

I'm not angry that we disagree. I'm offended that the Arminians here are expressing their disagreements in such a hostile, dishonest, and, frankly, obnoxious way.

 

It's funny, but every couple of weeks, I'm called before a board of pastors, elders, and teachers with more than 200 years of ministry experience between them to give an account of everything I've taught or preached during that time. If anybody would have the right to look down their noses at me, it's them. And yet, none of them have greeted me by making accusations against my character, or by calling me a heretic or a troll.

 

No, they're all very respectful and polite and, as a result, we find our discussions to be very edifying and enjoyable.

 

Where you all would say, "You haven't told us what you believe about X or how you arrived at that conclusion, we're going to go ahead and label you a heretic", they would say something along the lines of "Mike, I noticed that on such and such a date, you said "________'. Tell me about that. How did you arrive at that? How do you believe that jibes with ________". Or maybe, "I'm a little concerned about something you said. Verse so and so says ______ and historically, the  Church has interpreted that to mean ________. Have you considered that you might be wrong for this reason".

 

Nary an ad hom, straw man, or name calling in the bunch. Maybe I just set my expectations a little high here. Maybe I just assumed that because we are brothers in Christ (and this is before I knew you considered us heretics, of course) that I could expect a little better from you guys. Now, of course, "Dr" James Ach and UkuleleMike will respond with their tu quoques, but it is what it is. You guys clearly don't think much of us and I clearly overestimated you.  

 

So there we are.

 

So, no, I'm not angry that you disagree. I'm not really angry at all. More than anything, I think I'm hurt and disappointed that a bunch of Christians are behaving so much like the world.

 

Being as this was a rely to my post, I will give some thoughts too.

 

Well, I'm not angry, I'm not looking down my nose at you, nor anyone.

 

And my opinion is that most on this forum do not get angry, & does not look down their nose a anyone.

 

There is one of two that will get personal, they have with me & it seems its just because of disagreement, & they seem to think I'm mad, looking down my nose. Yet all I am doing is standing on what I believe it true.

 

And the truth is, there's some on both side of this issue that will get personal. Here not long back I read though many post on an SBC blog on this very topic, there was people of both sides of the issue that were getting personal, mocking, making fun of the other side.

 

With that said, I wholly disagree with the TULIP teachings. But getting personal, mocking the person proves nothing good, no matter what side of the issue that person is on.

 

I suppose for some that is the only defense they have, or maybe its the only one they know how to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't care what anyone says, but Calvinism is false, and it is not necessary to defend why, simply refer the arguer to read the Bible without any denominational bias or in the light of men's books they have read. The doctrine of salvation is one of the simplest doctrines in the Bible!

 

Have you not noticed, I agree with you, & or you agree with me, I've stated many times its not in the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This has been hashed and rehashed for centuries and typically it's only those who have not yet made up their mind about such that may be swayed. It seems all here have made their choice so what is the point of continuing with this?

 

At least here on OB it seems clear there are those born again in Christ, our brothers/sisters in Christ, who hold to Calvinism and who don't. Is it more edifying to continue to debate when no one on either side has any inkling of changing their view or might it not be better to move on to an edifying topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This has been hashed and rehashed for centuries and typically it's only those who have not yet made up their mind about such that may be swayed. It seems all here have made their choice so what is the point of continuing with this?

 

At least here on OB it seems clear there are those born again in Christ, our brothers/sisters in Christ, who hold to Calvinism and who don't. Is it more edifying to continue to debate when no one on either side has any inkling of changing their view or might it not be better to move on to an edifying topic?

Yes, John. The doctrines nicknamed "calvinism" have been held by many great Christians in the past, including those very active in evangelism. It is strange that many seems determined to "disprove" the doctrine & discredit those who believe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This has been hashed and rehashed for centuries and typically it's only those who have not yet made up their mind about such that may be swayed. It seems all here have made their choice so what is the point of continuing with this?

 

At least here on OB it seems clear there are those born again in Christ, our brothers/sisters in Christ, who hold to Calvinism and who don't. Is it more edifying to continue to debate when no one on either side has any inkling of changing their view or might it not be better to move on to an edifying topic?

 

As a newer ( 14 months) IFB member, I'm really enjoying this thread so don't move on yet. I've learned more about Calvinism in this thread than the past year trying to figure it out on my own. Reading actual doctrinal statements on Calvinism is confusing. But to have it explained by followers and verses really helps and I appreciate the IFB's answers with verses also, much appreciated!

 

Now can someone give me a EASY definition of arminianism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free" Matthew 17:24-26

Jesus is making a comparative analogy here to the children of Israel. The children of the Kings house were considered FREE. According to Calvinist thought, the only free person, by Calvinism's self-made definition of freedom, is that a person is a slave to Christ. This only describes positional freedom AFTER one has been saved. It is not descriptive of freedom as it relates to desire, choice and consequences. Calvinist freedom is a paradoxical Hobson's Choice.

The children of Israel were free, yet in their freedom they rejected Christ. The Calvinist will argue "they were not REALLY free". Well it's their word against God's:

".........Then are the children free"

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matthew 23:39

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51

You can not resist against what you do not have the freedom to oppose.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As a newer ( 14 months) IFB member, I'm really enjoying this thread so don't move on yet. I've learned more about Calvinism in this thread than the past year trying to figure it out on my own. Reading actual doctrinal statements on Calvinism is confusing. But to have it explained by followers and verses really helps and I appreciate the IFB's answers with verses also, much appreciated!

 

Now can someone give me a EASY definition of arminianism?

  • Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God.  His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
  • Conditional Election - God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
  • Universal Atonement - The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
  • Resistable Grace - The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
  • Fall from Grace - The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation. 
  • I can't get rid of that dot. The actual meaning behind these have various interpretations as well, but the last point, Fall from Grace, is the primary reason the IFB rejects Arminianism, and why we do not refer to ourselves as Arminian nor Calvinist.
Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As a newer ( 14 months) IFB member, I'm really enjoying this thread so don't move on yet. I've learned more about Calvinism in this thread than the past year trying to figure it out on my own. Reading actual doctrinal statements on Calvinism is confusing. But to have it explained by followers and verses really helps and I appreciate the IFB's answers with verses also, much appreciated!

 

Now can someone give me a EASY definition of arminianism?

I'm glad you have gained something from the discussion. That makes it worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I clearly said that I believe in the biblical model of predestination.  To say that I don't believe it would be to say that I don't believe the bible, which would be an abomination.

 

Yes I know what you said, But I have met people before who say that but what they do is not believe the teachings of the Bible that they don't like, but explain them away.  I don't know what Calvin teaches, but the scripture teaching is clear.

 

Joh 17:24  Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

 
Eph 1:4  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
 
Re 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
 
Eph 1:5  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11  In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
 
1Pe 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

 

The promises to the church are exactly the same s=as those to the Jews.

 

De 14:2  For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
De 26:18  And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, John. The doctrines nicknamed "calvinism" have been held by many great Christians in the past, including those very active in evangelism. It is strange that many seems determined to "disprove" the doctrine & discredit those who believe it.

 

I've noticed when something comes up you think is wrong, you will usually try & disprove it. Being as you do this don't you believe its right for the other person if something comes up they believe is wrong to try & disprove it?

 

Calvinism is easily disproved, for its not in the Bible. Yet I don't expect you to accept that statement nor any verses that I point out that proves its wrong.

 

One thing is for sure, both sides cannot be correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

  • Human Free Will - This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God.  His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
  • Conditional Election - God chose people for salvation based on his foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
  • Universal Atonement - The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
  • Resistable Grace - The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
  • Fall from Grace - The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation. 
  • I can't get rid of that dot. The actual meaning behind these have various interpretations as well, but the last point, Fall from Grace, is the primary reason the IFB rejects Arminianism, and why we do not refer to ourselves as Arminian nor Calvinist.

 

 

I can easily see rejecting fall from grace but what about condition election? Is that biblical? Doesn't sound right either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a thought, to me fall from grace is a person who is saved, yet they have fallen into sin, & of course that can have a bad effect on the Christian in more ways than one.

 

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
 
Ps 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

 

Plus one who is in such a state & refuses to repent, confess their sin, is open to God chastening, & it could be God may call him or her hone early if the refuse to repent, confess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Just a thought, to me fall from grace is a person who is saved, yet they have fallen into sin, & of course that can have a bad effect on the Christian in more ways than one.

 

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
 
Ps 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

 

Plus one who is in such a state & refuses to repent, confess their sin, is open to God chastening, & it could be God may call him or her hone early if the refuse to repent, confess.

The biblical concept of fallen from grace is a person who thought they were saved by following the law.

 

"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Galations 5:4

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Yes I know what you said, But I have met people before who say that but what they do is not believe the teachings of the Bible that they don't like, but explain them away.  I don't know what Calvin teaches, but the scripture teaching is clear.

 

Joh 17:24  Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

 
Eph 1:4  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
 
Re 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
 
Eph 1:5  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11  In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
 
1Pe 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

 

The promises to the church are exactly the same s=as those to the Jews.

 

De 14:2  For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
De 26:18  And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;

 

 

 

I believe every word that is in the bible, exactly as it is written.  You mention Calvin, I will just say since the tenants that Calvin taught are not in the Bible I clearly would NOT believe or agree with any of them.

Edited by The Ohio Patriot
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe every word that is in the bible, exactly as it is written.  You mention Calvin, I will just say since the tenants that Calvin taught are not in the Bible I clearly would NOT believe or agree with any of them.

 

 

 

Which tenet, specifically, do you believe isn't in the Bible?

 

After thinking about it, I'm tired of this. If you guys want to fight, then bring it on.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I understand the fall from grace doctrine.

 

I asked about the conditional election. That doesn't sound right.

It is conditional in the sense that faith is required for salvation. However, though God foresees the future, He does not necessarily ACT based on His foreknowledge. Some of these camps on both sides view election as a functional force in salvation, rather than what election really is which is a description of God's choosing a person ahead of time for a specific purpose once that person has come to Christ in faith.

 

Israel had a specific purpose which was to be a light to the world. They reject it. Then God offered salvation exclusively to the Gentiles (Romans 11) and the attention will go back the Jews during the tribulation. (Matthew 23:39, Romans 11:26, Hosea 3:5, Ezekiel 37)

 

Election is thus DEscriptive of the destiny God has planned for the believer, not PREscriptive where God determines a person to be saved simply because He knows ahead of time that they will choose Him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thank you for the correction.

Did you really come up with the idea for the Atomic Bomb! I've been curious about that rumor for years :)

 

Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with Calvin's "tenants" not being in the Bible: He was not a very good landlord of the Scriptures!

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As a newer ( 14 months) IFB member, I'm really enjoying this thread so don't move on yet. I've learned more about Calvinism in this thread than the past year trying to figure it out on my own. Reading actual doctrinal statements on Calvinism is confusing. But to have it explained by followers and verses really helps and I appreciate the IFB's answers with verses also, much appreciated!

 

Now can someone give me a EASY definition of arminianism?

 

Great to hear the discussion has helped you, Lefton!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Did you really come up with the idea for the Atomic Bomb! I've been curious about that rumor for years :)

 

Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with Calvin's "tenants" not being in the Bible: He was not a very good landlord of the Scriptures!

 

LOL, I needed this laugh before I started this day, thank you!   :clapping:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 We need to stress who the Gospel is - a command to repent & trust Jesus as LORD & Saviour, with a promise of new life through the Holy Spirit. See Acts 2 & throughout the NT.

It is conditional in the sense that faith is required for salvation. However, though God foresees the future, He does not necessarily ACT based on His foreknowledge.

 

Israel had a specific purpose which was to be a light to the world. They reject it. Then God offered salvation exclusively to the Gentiles (Romans 11) and the attention will go back the Jews during the tribulation. (Matthew 23:39, Romans 11:26, Hosea 3:5, Ezekiel 37)

 

Election is thus DEscriptive of the destiny God has planned for the believer, not PREscriptive where God determines a person to be saved simply because He knows ahead of time that they will choose Him.

W agree God foresees the future. You'll have to expand on "ACT based on His foreknowledge." with Scriptural examples. He knew Adam & Eve would sin, but he still allowed Satan to tempt. Acting on that foreknowledge, he would have not created Satan. Somehow we have a great problem of evil arising from a GOOD creation.

 

Where do you read "Israel had a specific purpose which was to be a light to the world?" And where, "God offered salvation exclusively to the Gentiles?" Certainly NOT Romans 11. Paul turns to the Gentiles when the Jews reject Christ, but he moves on the the synagogue in the next town. The Jews are NEVER excluded from the Gospel. However, under the new covenant, Israel comprises all & only genuine believers, both Jew & Gentile. Jews are welcome.

Rom. 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.....

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.

 

I usually know (informed foreknowledge) who will be elected locally, so, of course I elected him my choice (usually the best of a bad lot.) In the last 30 years my election has failed.

 

Why would God mislead us by using "election" or "choose" the way it appears in Scripture? And did God choose Israel, knowing that the nation would be obedient to his purposes?

Deut. 7: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.

 

Some of these camps on both sides view election as a functional force in salvation, rather than what election really is which is a description of God's choosing a person ahead of time for a specific purpose once that person has come to Christ in faith.

You need to justify that with Scripture.

 

 

To quote the OP:

My theory is that if God forced salvation against our wills, and Jesus affirmed that if any man will do His will he shall KNOW of the doctrine, then would it make sense that God would impose salvation, but not uniformity in doctrine among Calvinists? If God forces salvation, then why wouldn't He logically force ones belief system? If God is the author of sin, He would be the author of heresy as well.

You are not very good at creating straw men, nor even at refuting your own wrong ideas about the belief of others. You can only attack the doctrines nicknamed "calvinism" AFTER you have understood both the tenets, and the underlying Scriptures. Refuting your own silly conclusions is not helpful to your cause.

 

God does not act against our wills but he renews them by his Holy Spirit.

Ezek. 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

Heb. 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Covenanter,

 

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" Isaiah 49:6

 

I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; Isaiah 42:6

 

And I am not saying that a Jew can not be saved during this dispensation, but salvation is not OFFERED to the Jews by specific exclusion which is clearly taught in Romans 11, Acts 18:6, and Acts 28:28.

 

I will respond to the rest later.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...