Question for the Calvinists

[IM4given]

I am neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist. These are both false doctrine. But the Bible clearly teaches that a born again. bloodwashed, child of God can never be lost. (john 5:24) But the Bible also teaches that saved people are NOT sinless and we are capable of falling into sin, and if we do not get right, the Bible teaches that God will be chasten us or take us home early. This is hardly in keeping with "perseverance of the saints" because obviously not all saints "persevere".

The Bible teaches that "there is NONE righteous, no not one" and it teaches that none of us seek after God. But Calvinism teaches that man is so "totally depraved" that he has no free will or ability to respond positively to the Gospel. This is a lie of the Devil. Sir, we are supposed to contend for the faith. If it's false doctrine, call it what it is. As for myself, I reject and refute all of the "tulip". Jesus died for every single person who ever lived and He paid the debt for every sin ever committed. He draws ALL to come to Him, we all have the ability to believe on Him, but he doesn't force anyone to accept Him.

AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYMEN!




1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another

[coc333]

I had a moment. Just thought I would make the observation.

I have previously addressed the issue of once saved always saved so I will simply say go back and check my previous post. I will say that you make a great number of twist and turns in your efforts to make a distiction that is not there. Anyway, as you said we each must decide for ourselves.

The Bible does tell Christians to contend for the faith. I have stived to do so; some don't seem to want me to do so.

"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear" (Mark 4:23)

Anyway, just thought I would take a moment.

In Christ,

Robert

[futurehope]

There seem to be two topics here and both of great interest.

1. Why do those oppose Calvanism do so with such, should we call it conviction?

I'm not going do the whole long drawn out thing with every point. I'll just stick to the most obvious: It is not the will of God that any man should perish and He sent His Son to die for the whole world's sins. This alone should be enough to realize that the calvanistic approach is off.

2. The matter of God's knowledge not only past and present, but future as well.

This is one of the hard things for our human nature to comprehend. Some say that, "If God knows the future already, how do I have a free will to decide?'' We need to try to understand that God's knowledge of the future does not mean direct control. It is never indicated in His word that He has already made the decision for us but that He simply knows already what our decision will be. It a matter of knowledge, not control.

[kevinmiller]

It is not the will of God that any man should perish and He sent His Son to die for the whole world's sins.

I don't think it's that God has determined or "willed" people to Hell but rather that he has predestined people to Heaven. There is a difference. You see, who God foreknew would choose Him, those people He predestined to Heaven. It is, rather, a combination of God's foreknowledge and choosing but the choosing comes as a result of the foreknowledge. Therefore, he doesn't choose for people to go to Hell but simply knows who will choose it for themselves.

[Alimantado]

I had a moment. Just thought I would make the observation.

Fair enough; thanks for popping in!

[futurehope]

I don't think it's that God has determined or "willed" people to Hell but rather that he has predestined people to Heaven. There is a difference. You see, who God foreknew would choose Him, those people He predestined to Heaven. It is, rather, a combination of God's foreknowledge and choosing but the choosing comes as a result of the foreknowledge. Therefore, he doesn't choose for people to go to Hell but simply knows who will choose it for themselves.

Exactly!! God having KNOWLEDGE of OUR choice before we make it does not mean that HE made or will make the decision for us. Good post Kevin and it's good to see you again.

[deputydog530]

Just skimming through these posts I felt I had to point out two things. :2cents

It was stated above that the calvanist wins souls just like the bible beleiver. I know some calvinists and according to them, this is not true. They take no time to soul win because to them it is a waste of time. God will save who he deciedes to and man has no part in it. (This is according to the T in the TULIP. Total depravity of man. The true calvanist holds that man is so depraved that he cant even accept Christ as saviour.)

Second, they say they know they are saved by their "fruit". I know a lot of religious people that have lots of good works that fit the definition of "spiritual fruit" but they are not saved. (these are mostly folks who grew up in church.)

Therefore the true calvinist can not really know if they are saved or not. They can only hope they are elected.

I wont linger on this issue. I have spent much time studying these doctrines and Calvinism just does not work in the Bible.

That being said, I also know some believers that lien toward part of the calvinistic beliefs but are not calvanists. Perhaps many call themselves calvinists but really are not, not knowing all they believe.

All I know is I prefer to be called a bible believer.

God Bless. :wave:

[kevinmiller]

It was stated above that the calvanist wins souls just like the bible beleiver. I know some calvinists and according to them, this is not true. They take no time to soul win because to them it is a waste of time. God will save who he deciedes to and man has no part in it. (This is according to the T in the TULIP. Total depravity of man. The true calvanist holds that man is so depraved that he cant even accept Christ as saviour.)

That's called hyper-calvinism. Most of my friends are Calvinists and they firmly and earnestly believe in winning souls. They come from backgrounds such as Presbyterianism and the Reformed Church, which is very Calvinist.

Second, they say they know they are saved by their "fruit". I know a lot of religious people that have lots of good works that fit the definition of "spiritual fruit" but they are not saved. (these are mostly folks who grew up in church.)

That is 100% true. It's straight out of Scripture: Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
A person's fruit gives evidence to their salvation. A person with no fruit or evidence of salvation is unlikely to be a true Christian.

Therefore the true calvinist can not really know if they are saved or not. They can only hope they are elected.

A Calvinist believes that if he has gotten saved, then he must have been one of the elect. It isn't the way around, that he got saved but still has to wonder. A Calvinist can know for sure and for certain of his salvation because they believe in eternal security just as we do. They just have a different view on the sovereignty and election of God.

[matie-k]

http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoid ... usion.html

[kevinmiller]

Very good informative link, Katie. Thanks for posting it!

[dwayner79]

Very good informative link' date=' Katie. Thanks for posting it![/quote']
What he said... :thumb

[1Timothy115]

I was viewing a "Reformed" site yesterday and they had closed a discussion on Independent Fundamental Baptists. Many of them, some of whom said they left the IFB, agreed that IFBers were Calvinists. I believe it is a responsibility to know enough about Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism to refute that misconception.

I attended an IFB Church in the South and I attend an Independent Baptist Church here in Ohio, I've seen no basis for the assumption. I almost...joined their site to raise the discussion anew. The point that tightened my jaws was attributes of IFBs such as "easy believism!" I didn't join but here is the site's link to let others see how the "Reformist" movement views Independent Fundamentalism.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/indepen ... ult-36208/
This is how some folks view you and I whether Independent or Fundamental Independent (so far I've seen no difference) Baptists.

[kevinmiller]

Many of their observations were correct, however. The serious problem of easy-believism in many IFB churches, for example.

[1Timothy115]

Many of their observations were correct' date=' however. The serious problem of easy-believism in many IFB churches, for example.[/quote']

Yes, there were many who who gave a knowledgeable answer but, there were enough who gave unfounded replies that the original post/questioner said he will stay away from any IFB Churches. That is sad.

[Guest Guest]

I was viewing a "Reformed" site yesterday and they had closed a discussion on Independent Fundamental Baptists. Many of them' date=' some of whom said they left the IFB, [b']agreed that IFBers were Calvinists. I believe it is a responsibility to know enough about Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism to refute that misconception.

My highlighted part: In their opinion, that is.

I attended an IFB Church in the South and I attend an Independent Baptist Church here in Ohio' date=' I've seen no basis for the assumption. [/quote']

I don't either, Tim. :thumb

I am in northeastern, OH. :-)