What are the strong points of the Reformed system

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Concerning the Biblical idea of "apologetics" and the New Testament.

For the context of this thread, the definition of the English word "apologetic" is "defending in writing or speech; vindicating;" and the definition of the English word "apologetics" is "the branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity."  These English words find their origin in the Greek verb "apologeomai," which means "to defend one's self," and in the Greek noun "apologia," which means "a defense." 

In relation to the message of the gospel, the Greek noun "apologia" is used in the following New Testament passages:

Philippians 1:7 -- "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace."

Philippians 1:16-17 -- "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel."

1 Peter 3:15-16 -- "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ."

In relation to defending one's self as a preacher of the gospel, the Greek verb "apologeomai" is used in the following New Testament passages:

Luke 12:11-12 -- "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say."

Luke 21:14-15 -- "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist."

Acts 26:1-3 -- "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.  Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently." (See Acts 1:4-23)

Furthermore, in relation to the message of the gospel, we find the Greek verb "dialegomai," meaning "to reason, to dialogue," used in following New Testament passages:

Acts 17:2-3 -- "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ."

Acts 17:16-17 -- "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.  Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him."

Acts 18:4 -- "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks."

Acts 18:19 -- "And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews."

Acts 19:8-9 -- "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.  But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus."

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."

It appears to me that there is indeed a "doctrine of apologetics" that is taught in the New Testament.  Yet whether or not the present day practice of "apologetics" is in accord with that New Testament doctrine is another question.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Fundamental Faith]

14 hours ago, DaveW said:

Appealing to "early church fathers" for support is not "Justifying and rationalising what I see in Scripture", it is following the teachings of men.

"early church fathers" were men - not some sort of higher power with greater understanding that men today.

And many of the so called "early church fathers" were plainly wrong in much of what they taught.

Augustine for instance was a mystic who was part of the early CATHOLIC church - hardly a man to follow in theological discussion.

The arguments should be ENTIRELY FROM SCRIPTURE without appealing to what "Early church fathers" taught.

I will not take part in the general discussions of this thread, but I will point out this kind of irrelevant information put forward as "proof" of veracity of the doctrines.

 

I could just as easily show men of old times who disagree with you, but so what? "What saith the Scripture?" is what really matters.

Please, provide some and let's discuss it.

4 hours ago, Orval said:

Bob, why would you wish to close down this thread?  Open discussion is a practical and reasonable approach to sharpening both our understanding and our personal presentation of truth.  I would caution each of us to not make this discussion a prideful post of contention but a reasonable exchange of thoughts and ideas.  Calvinism i.e. Reformed theology is not going away and though we do not agree with the theology that does not mean we should not understand it and be able to defend our own position.  We should not just close our eyes and call foul because we disagree with one another poster, 

This is a very reasoned response that I respect. This is how we grow in Christ. Just shutting down conversations gets us nowhere. Let's talk about the hard things and things we don't agree with so we can sharpen our iron. When we run and shut down it just butter sharpening butter.

[Fundamental Faith]

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Concerning the Biblical idea of "apologetics" and the New Testament.

For the context of this thread, the definition of the English word "apologetic" is "defending in writing or speech; vindicating;" and the definition of the English word "apologetics" is "the branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity."  These English words find their origin in the Greek verb "apologeomai," which means "to defend one's self," and in the Greek noun "apologia," which means "a defense." 

In relation to the message of the gospel, the Greek noun "apologia" is used in the following New Testament passages:

Philippians 1:7 -- "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace."

Philippians 1:16-17 -- "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel."

1 Peter 3:15-16 -- "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ."

In relation to defending one's self as a preacher of the gospel, the Greek verb "apologeomai" is used in the following New Testament passages:

Luke 12:11-12 -- "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say."

Luke 21:14-15 -- "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

 

Your first definition of apologeomai is

1. to defend one's self, make one's defence

2. to defend a person or a thing

3. to give a full account of

   1. to calculate or consider well

Apoligia is :

1. verbal defence, speech in defence

2. a reasoned statement or argument

as you can see, itnis well thought out, it's not just a random shouting match of saying "you're wrong and I'm right". It argued from the Scriptures, hence the first part of 1 Peter, "sanctify the Lord in your hearts", arguing from  Biblical basis, using that Words of God to convict the sinners. And remember when the Lird said His word would not return to Him void, it has 2 effects; it either gives life or it condemns.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Fundamental Faith said:

Your first definition of apologeomai is

1. to defend one's self, make one's defence

2. to defend a person or a thing

3. to give a full account of

   1. to calculate or consider well

Apoligia is :

1. verbal defence, speech in defence

2. a reasoned statement or argument

as you can see, itnis well thought out, it's not just a random shouting match of saying "you're wrong and I'm right". It argued from the Scriptures, hence the first part of 1 Peter, "sanctify the Lord in your hearts", arguing from  Biblical basis, using that Words of God to convict the sinners. And remember when the Lird said His word would not return to Him void, it has 2 effects; it either gives life or it condemns.

Brother "Fundamental Faith," (if you were to present me with your given name, I would use it herein out of respect for you as a brother in Christ)

I presented my posting above in order to demonstrate that there is indeed a Biblical doctrine of "apologetics" in the New Testament and in order to reveal the Biblical foundation for that doctrine.  I did this because some dispute over the matter had enter into this thread.  However, I also recognize that the purpose of this particular thread is NOT to discuss the doctrine of "apologetics," but to discuss the doctrine of Calvinistic soteriology.  Therefore, out of respect for the originator of this thread and for his original purpose therein, I would recommend that any further discussion or dispute concerning the doctrine of "apologetics" be moved to a different thread that is established for that very purpose.

[1Timothy115]

21 hours ago, Fundamental Faith said:

I think the people who need to listen are no doing so. Their is more church history that goes all the way back to the early church with Reformed theology than the current state of American Dispensationalism, and it's not just Calvinism. The current culture here on this site has proven in this very thread that scholarly discussion or any form of intellectualism is frowned upon.

Do you  really think that the early church fathers were idiots? I'm not pushing any agenda here. I'm just trying to justify and rationalize what I see in Scripture. I see God having us to use our minds and our intelligence in serving Him, having an answer for anyone who asks us. How can you have an answer or some deep tjoughts if you are eveading a segment of society? These college kids that my son talks to are really on the ball and you better have an answer and be able to compete with their professors or they will just ignore you. 

Im very proud of my son for doing what he does. He has left his mother and I and has established his own way. He hasn't run into the world but has remained faithful. I actually have learned much from him in this way 

So far, I have not seen you argue against what I said. So, is what I said proof enough to close the conversation of tulip with someone pushing the false doctrine of Calvinism?

P.S. According to what I've learned the reference to Isaiah "His word would not return to Him void." Isaiah. 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." I believe this is God speaking not a witness of God. Please note that everything God has said He would do thus far He has done. So, the greater expectation for me is the words God spoke that are yet undone will be done. But, I don't believe any of us can actually use this to say... "Hey, I used God's words and nothing happened." We are after all not perfect yet.

[Orval]

The primary strong point of Calvinism.

The crux of Calvinism is election i.e. predestination. 

It is from their belief in election that they gather the other elements of T.U.L.I.P.

Essentially Arminianists (not sure of the spelling) were reformers and believed that God’s eternal purpose was and is to save men in Christ and through Christ and by the grace of Christ. In other words, they believed the election process began and ended with Christ’s work on Calvary, therefore elected to salvation extended only to how men would be saved in other words God elected that by and through Jesus Christ man would be saved.  The election process did not extend to who would be saved only to the how men would be saved.  This is a biblical approach to the word of God, it does not have to be convoluted nor difficult to understand it is not an intellectual process.  The only way to be saved is through Christ. 

To the Calvinist, all of their theology points directly to their belief in election i.e. predestination and though the reformers argue that all the points can stand on their own the fact is there would no reason for the other points to exist if election were not the central driving theme of their soteriological approach. 

 

It is a matter of interpretation.

The major disagreement on election boils down to matters of interpretation the reformed and catholic method of interpretation is allegorical which, though they will deny it, allows for replacement theology which incorporates the curses and blessing of Israel to be inherited by the church.  Since Israel is God’s elect then the church is also God’s elect.  It is for this very reason so many reformed theologians fight so viciously against the idea of “replacement theology”.  My thought is, one can call it what they want but the bottom line is this, the church becomes elect because Israel was elect. 

The question now is what does elect mean? Is election the same as predestination?  No, it is not, the election of Israel simply means that God chose to use the men and women of Israel to reach the world for God.  Similarly, when Israel refused to be part of God’s plan for the kingdom, God chose to use the Gentile nations to carry forth his plan to save the world.  Matt. 21:43 The word elect, election, etc. does not necessarily mean to be chosen from the foundation of the world, in fact I would say it never means elected to salvation accept in its broadest context.  Just because those who are reformed wish to make elect read predestined does not make it so.  Consider the following verses and interpret them without reading into them predestination. Instead read into them exactly what is written, Israel the very people God choose to bear witness to his name. 

 

Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isaiah 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

Isaiah 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Luke 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

2 John 1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

2 John 13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

I realize that almost no one will read all these verses but to the point, the simple explanation is this, the word elect, simply means chosen and we do the word an injustice when we assign predestined to the secondary meaning.  Both the Hebrew and the Greek simply translate chosen.  There is a secondary meaning of elect it is purpose in other words you were chosen for a specific job or function.

By foreknowledge God chose Israel even before they were Israel, to proclaim his glory and His name, Israel was not predestined to salvation they were chosen for the purpose of bringing glory to God. 

One can argue this point but the fact is when the plane sense makes sense seek no other sense.  The word elect does not mean predestined. 

One must use allegorical interpretation if one is to place the church and Israel in the same covenant relationship with one another and force the word elect to mean predestined to salvation.

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Orval

[Fundamental Faith]

4 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

So far, I have not seen you argue against what I said. So, is what I said proof enough to close the conversation of tulip with someone pushing the false doctrine of Calvinism?

P.S. According to what I've learned the reference to Isaiah "His word would not return to Him void." Isaiah. 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." I believe this is God speaking not a witness of God. Please note that everything God has said He would do thus far He has done. So, the greater expectation for me is the words God spoke that are yet undone will be done. But, I don't believe any of us can actually use this to say... "Hey, I used God's words and nothing happened." We are after all not perfect yet.

No, you did not finish the conversation or settle anything. Go back and re-read what Joshu said, "If you weren't going to serve God, then choose what god you would serve" 

and Unconditional election, as taughtnin John 6 and 10 and Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1 is pretty much laid out there to study. That is always the go to areas in RT. Along with Ez 36.

you really should study what Isaiah 5( is talking about, God's Word is powerful and it accomplishes what He intends to do.so if you take a sovereign God, you can take a thought like RT and that is why I struggle with it. I can understand when and where a sovereign God can choose from the foundations of the world eheresas a sinful man wouldn't choose God.

[1Timothy115]

8 hours ago, Fundamental Faith said:

No, you did not finish the conversation or settle anything. Go back and re-read what Joshu said, "If you weren't going to serve God, then choose what god you would serve" 

and Unconditional election, as taughtnin John 6 and 10 and Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1 is pretty much laid out there to study. That is always the go to areas in RT. Along with Ez 36.

you really should study what Isaiah 5( is talking about, God's Word is powerful and it accomplishes what He intends to do.so if you take a sovereign God, you can take a thought like RT and that is why I struggle with it. I can understand when and where a sovereign God can choose from the foundations of the world eheresas a sinful man wouldn't choose God.

Well, it settled most of the conversation for me. You can go back and re-read Joshua or, you can re-read Revelations 22:17. It's your free choice which one to re-read.

I love reading Isaiah, I just read chapter 5 on Mar. 30, 2016 (I keep a journal). The scripture which caught my eye was... Isa 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" I can understand how a Sovereign and Holy God can do as He chooses and provide His creation the same ability, key word coming...IF. John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, Orval said:

The primary strong point of Calvinism.

The crux of Calvinism is election i.e. predestination. 

It is from their belief in election that they gather the other elements of T.U.L.I.P.

Essentially Arminianists (not sure of the spelling) were reformers and believed that God’s eternal purpose was and is to save men in Christ and through Christ and by the grace of Christ. In other words, they believed the election process began and ended with Christ’s work on Calvary, therefore elected to salvation extended only to how men would be saved in other words God elected that by and through Jesus Christ man would be saved.  The election process did not extend to who would be saved only to the how men would be saved.  This is a biblical approach to the word of God, it does not have to be convoluted nor difficult to understand it is not an intellectual process.  The only way to be saved is through Christ. 

To the Calvinist, all of their theology points directly to their belief in election i.e. predestination and though the reformers argue that all the points can stand on their own the fact is there would no reason for the other points to exist if election were not the central driving theme of their soteriological approach. 

Brother Orval,

First, allow me to present that I do NOT hold to ANY of the "five" points in Calvinistic soteriology.  Having said that, I HAVE dealt with various Calvinistic individuals at length and in depth.  As such, I would contend that the FOUNDATIONAL doctrine of the Calvinistic system of soteriology is NOT even one of the "five" points, but IS the doctrine of divine sovereignty and the definition of sovereignty unto which they hold (which is the premise about which I believe they are in error).  Even so, the "five" points of Calvinistic soteriology might be presented as follows:

1.  Total Depravity -- The REASON for divine sovereignty in unconditional election

2.  Unconditional Election -- The REALITY of divine sovereignty

3.  Limited Atonement -- The PLAN of divine sovereignty in unconditional election

4.  Irresistible Grace -- The POWER of divine sovereignty in unconditional election

5.  Perseverance of the Saints -- The RESULT of divine sovereignty in unconditional election 

Indeed, if you take note of Brother "Fundamental Faith's" previous posting, you will find that the doctrine of divine sovereignty IS the premise issue for his consideration of Calvinistic soteriology.  For he said:

8 hours ago, Fundamental Faith said:

and Unconditional election, as taughtnin John 6 and 10 and Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1 is pretty much laid out there to study. That is always the go to areas in RT. Along with Ez 36.

you really should study what Isaiah 5( is talking about, God's Word is powerful and it accomplishes what He intends to do.so if you take a sovereign God, you can take a thought like RT and that is why I struggle with it. I can understand when and where a sovereign God can choose from the foundations of the world eheresas a sinful man wouldn't choose God. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

By the way, Brother "Fundamental Faith," as I stated at the beginning of this posting, I myself do NOT hold unto ANY of the "five" points in Calvinistic soteriology.  As such, I must contend that "unconditional election" is NOT taught in John 6, John 10, Romans 8-9, or Ephesians 1.  Furthermore, I must contend that although I do INDEED hold to the doctrine of our Lord God's universal sovereignty, I do NOT believe that Calvinistic soteriology holds to a correct DEFINITION of that sovereignty.  Even so, IF the foundational premise is wrong, then all that logically proceeds from that premise will also be wrong.

[Orval]

Thanks for the heads up Brother Scott,

You are correct that God's sovereignty is indeed a major point in Reformed Theology but my post was made in conjunction with my own guide lines sticking within the framework of TULIP.  I do appreciate your break down of the points in relation to sovereignty and if you do not mind I will hang on to those and use them in the future.  I teach one class in practical apologetics and Calvinism each year at Heartland BBC (my pastor is the actual professor) and I will make sure to pass on your information as I update my hand out every couple of years. 

Typically when I am reading, the terms sovereign and sovereign grace are such a part of the vocabulary of the reformed you can identify the mind set of the writer with out knowing much about them based on their word usage.  You seem to have a very practical approach in your post responses and I appreciate the care and time you expend in answering and offering advice.

Thanks for your time and your advice it is always useful and appreciated.

BTW are you familiar with the writings of David F. Wells?  He is one of the few Reformed writers that I love to read and he has written (in my opinion) some gems.  Losing our Virtue, No place for Truth, and God in the Wasteland are particularly good.

Have a wonderful day my friend.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 minutes ago, Orval said:

Thanks for the heads up Brother Scott,

You are correct that God's sovereignty is indeed a major point in Reformed Theology but my post was made in conjunction with my own guide lines sticking within the framework of TULIP.  I do appreciate your break down of the points in relation to sovereignty and if you do not mind I will hang on to those and use them in the future.  I teach one class in practical apologetics and Calvinism each year at Heartland BBC (my pastor is the actual professor) and I will make sure to pass on your information as I update my hand out every couple of years. 

Typically when I am reading, the terms sovereign and sovereign grace are such a part of the vocabulary of the reformed you can identify the mind set of the writer with out knowing much about them based on their word usage.  You seem to have a very practical approach in your post responses and I appreciate the care and time you expend in answering and offering advice.

Thanks for your time and your advice it is always useful and appreciated.

BTW are you familiar with the writings of David F. Wells?  He is one of the few Reformed writers that I love to read and he has written (in my opinion) some gems.  Losing our Virtue, No place for Truth, and God in the Wasteland are particularly good.

Have a wonderful day my friend.

Brother Orval,

I thank you for your commendation of my postings.  I ever pray that they are good unto the use of edifying and that they might minister God's truth and grace unto the readers.

Concerning the author David F. Wells, I was not previously familiar with him.  However, upon your recommendation I shall search out some of his books.

(Now, if I may do a little bit of "self-promotion" (something which I do NOT much care to do) -- You have mentioned a number of times that you are involved with the teaching at Heartland Baptist Bible College.  The Lord our God has graciously allowed me to self-publish a few books, and I was wondering if you would be willing to read them with a consideration of recommendation toward the college ministry.  If so, I would donate a single copy of each for your consideration.  If not, I will not AT ALL be offended.)

By the way, I do NOT mind if you use my "break down" of the "five" points.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle
added the closing "by the way" statement

[heartstrings]

On 3/19/2017 at 9:45 PM, Fundamental Faith said:

I think the people who need to listen are no doing so. Their is more church history that goes all the way back to the early church with Reformed theology than the current state of American Dispensationalism, and it's not just Calvinism. The current culture here on this site has proven in this very thread that scholarly discussion or any form of intellectualism is frowned upon.

Do you  really think that the early church fathers were idiots? I'm not pushing any agenda here. I'm just trying to justify and rationalize what I see in Scripture. I see God having us to use our minds and our intelligence in serving Him, having an answer for anyone who asks us. How can you have an answer or some deep tjoughts if you are eveading a segment of society? These college kids that my son talks to are really on the ball and you better have an answer and be able to compete with their professors or they will just ignore you. 

Im very proud of my son for doing what he does. He has left his mother and I and has established his own way. He hasn't run into the world but has remained faithful. I actually have learned much from him in this way 

The only "early church" men of whom I have any confidence in their writings are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude,  aka the writers of the New Testament because those "histories" are Holy Spirit inspired. Anyone else is subject to skepticism or scrutiny at best. The Bible says "search the scriptures." (John 5:39)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother Orval,

I have refrained from answering your original posting until this point because I do not actually meet the parameters of the request -- Since I myself do NOT hold to ANY of the "five" points of Calvinistic soteriology.  However, in my experience (for whatever it may be worth) in dealing with Calvinistic individuals, I believe that the two strongest of their points are:

1.  Total Depravity -- Since so much of this doctrine is indeed Biblically valid, and they err (in my opinion) simply on the means of God's grace by which He overcomes this depravity.

2.  Unconditional Election, when joined with their viewpoint of Divine Sovereignty -- Since the doctrine of God's sovereignty is indeed Biblically valid, and they err (in my opinion) simply on the definition of that sovereignty both as applied to human decision-making generally and to faith for salvation specifically.

On the other hand, I believe that the two weakest of their points are:

1.  Limited Atonement -- Since there are direct statements of Scriptures which seem to stand so contrary to this point.

2.  Irresistible Grace -- Since it is not directly referenced in Scripture as such, but seems to be primarily developed through a "logical" process from Total Depravity & Unconditional Election.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[fastjav390]

10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Orval,

I have refrained from answering your original posting until this point because I do not actually meet the parameters of the request -- Since I myself do NOT hold to ANY of the "five" points of Calvinistic soteriology.  However, in my experience (for whatever it may be worth) in dealing with Calvinistic individuals, I believe that the two strongest of their points are:

1.  Total Depravity -- Since so much of this doctrine is indeed Biblically valid, and they err (in my opinion) simply on the means of God's grace by which He overcomes this depravity.

2.  Unconditional Election, when joined with their viewpoint of Divine Sovereignty -- Since the doctrine of God's sovereignty is indeed Biblically valid, and they err (in my opinion) simply on the definition of that sovereignty both as applied to human decision-making generally and to faith for salvation specifically.

On the other hand, I believe that the two weakest of their points are:

1.  Limited Atonement -- Since there are direct statements of Scriptures which seem to stand so contrary to this point.

2.  Irresistible Grace -- Since it is not directly referenced in Scripture as such, but seems to be primarily developed through a "logical" process from Total Depravity & Unconditional Election.

I believe Calvinists teach "Total Inability" not "Total Depravity". At least this is what they really mean according to Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" when they say "Total Depravity".

Edited March 22, 2017 by fastjav390

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, fastjav390 said:

I believe Calvinists teach "Total Inability" not "Total Depravity". At least this is what they really mean according to Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" when they say "Total Depravity".

Brother "Fastjav,"

I am quite familiar with calling the doctrine of "total depravity" instead the doctrine of "total inability."  It really does not matter that much to me which title the doctrine is given, for my agreements and conflicts with the details of the doctrine will remain the same.  I have no conflict with the truth that a spiritually dead and lost sinner has total inability within himself or herself because of his or her total depravity.  I have no conflict with the truth that some work of our Lord God's grace must be applied in order for that total inability to be overcome.  However, I DO have a conflict with the particular means of God's grace whereby they would teach that this total inability is overcome.  (By the way, I ALSO have a conflict with the particular means of God's grace whereby the Arminian teaches that this total inability is overcome.)