Calvinism

[Baptistsenior 23]

Why do preachers that condemn Calvanism quote Spurgeon so often?  

[Yeshuafan 10]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.  Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior, BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

The difference between us is NOT concerning the complete depravity of sinful humanity in and of themselves.  Rather, the difference between us concerns the definition of the means whereby the Lord our God and Savior "intervenes," and the extent of humanity for which He engages that "work of intervention."

__________________________________

I also take notice that you STILL have not chosen to give direct answers to the questions that I have asked of you.

the Lord always had called out to Himself a faithful remnant in  Israel, as not all Jews were spiritual sons of Abraham, correct?

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.  Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior, BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

The difference between us is NOT concerning the complete depravity of sinful humanity in and of themselves.  Rather, the difference between us concerns the definition of the means whereby the Lord our God and Savior "intervenes," and the extent of humanity for which He engages that "work of intervention."

__________________________________

I also take notice that you STILL have not chosen to give direct answers to the questions that I have asked of you.

what questions?

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

 

4 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

the Lord always had called out to Himself a faithful remnant in  Israel, as not all Jews were spiritual sons of Abraham, correct?

Yes, there has always remained a remnant of Israel who have been faithful unto the Lord, and thus are called by Him as His true children and as the true "spiritual sons of Abraham."  What bearing does that have on whether the Lord our God has and does willingly and graciously intervene in the life of ALL sinners through His work of drawing such that ALL sinners might have an opportunity to choose faith in Christ for eternal salvation?

__________________________________

Now, to substantiate my comments:

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the Calvinistic gospel LIMITS the purpose of Christ's sacrifice for only a FEW, and thus is contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word. 

1 Timothy 2:3-6 -- "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time."

Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man."

1 John 2:2 -- "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE world."

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, the Calvinistic gospel places the divine work of regeneration BEFORE the decision of faith, and thus is also contrary to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Holy Word.

John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 5:24 -- "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnations; but is passed from death unto life."

John 6:40 -- "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 20:31 -- "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

On the other hand, "the alternative" (the system of belief to which I hold) indicates that indeed lost sinners have "NO capacity" whatsoever at all in and by their own sinful nature "to make the decision" of faith in Jesus the Christ as their Savior . . .

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

.  . . BUT ALSO presents the GOOD NEWS that by means of God the Father's drawing work, which He administers upon EVERY individual sinner, God Himself graciously and supernaturally grants the ability for sinners to willingly make the decision of faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior (but ONLY at those periods of time wherein God the Father is actually engaged in the work of drawing upon that individual).

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:45 -- "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

John 1:9 -- "That is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

John 12:32 -- "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw all men unto me."

Edited December 30, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

23 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

What questions?

On 12/28/2020 at 3:42 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, my questions are NOT about God's obligations, per se.  Rather, my questions are about whether the Calvinistic system of belief presents the character of God correctly.  Furthermore, my questions are about whether you yourself as a Calvinist are willing to acknowledge the truth of your own system, that is --

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is UNWILLING to make a way of salvation for the great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, you have a God who is NOT GRACIOUS to a great majority of sinful humanity?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity chooses darkness rather than the light simply because your God has not granted them any other option?

Are you, "Yeshuafan," willing to acknowledge that according to your system of belief, the great majority of sinful humanity were sovereignly made by God for the express purpose that He might have multitudes upon whom never to show any grace, but only ever to pour out His eternal judgment and wrath?

Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been --

On 12/28/2020 at 4:56 PM, Yeshuafan said:

IF the answer is yes to all of the above, does that make God out to be not fair then?

By using the word "if," you have presented only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provided any direct answer.  So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?

Edited December 30, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Yeshuafan 10]

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

Yes, there has always remained a remnant of Israel who have been faithful unto the Lord, and thus are called by Him as His true children and as the true "spiritual sons of Abraham."  What bearing does that have on whether the Lord our God has and does willingly and graciously intervene in the life of ALL sinners through His work of drawing such that ALL sinners might have an opportunity to choose faith in Christ for eternal salvation?

__________________________________

Now, to substantiate my comments:

1 Timothy 2:3-6 -- "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time."

Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man."

1 John 2:2 -- "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE world."

John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 5:24 -- "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnations; but is passed from death unto life."

John 6:40 -- "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 20:31 -- "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:44 -- "No man can [has the ability to] come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:45 -- "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

John 1:9 -- "That is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

John 12:32 -- "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw all men unto me."

All and the world must be defined per the scriptures themselves, as the all would be those to whom salvation will actually come for, all in context would be his own sheep called and redeemed by the death of Christ!

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been --

By using the word "if," you have presently only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provide any direct answer.  So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?

God of the Bible has made provisions and assures us that His own shall be saved, as he always has saved unto Himself a faithful remnant!

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

2 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

All and the world must be defined per the scriptures themselves, as the all would be those to whom salvation will actually come for, all in context would be his own sheep called and redeemed by the death of Christ!

Certainly the context always matters for rightly dividing God's Word of truth; and in all three passages that I presented above, the words "all," "every," and "whole" refer to every single human individual throughout all time among humanity.  You see, using Calvinistic rhetoric is not of use unless you actually demonstrate from each context that the "universal" words within those contexts are limited in some contextual manner.  So, the challenge is now before you - You must contextually exegete 1 Timothy 2:3-6, Hebrews 2:9, and 1 John 2:2, and therein demonstrate a contextual limiter for those "universal" words . . .

2 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

God of the Bible has made provisions and assures us that His own shall be saved, as he always has saved unto Himself a faithful remnant!

And you STILL have NOT given a direct "yes" or "no" answer to my above four questions.

[Yeshuafan 10]

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been --

By using the word "if," you have presented only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provided any direct answer.  So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?

Your questions are assuming that we deserve grace, and also that he would not be fair to withhold it!

[Ukulelemike 3,802]

5 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

All and the world must be defined per the scriptures themselves, as the all would be those to whom salvation will actually come for, all in context would be his own sheep called and redeemed by the death of Christ!

This is an excellent example of how Calvinism is more human philosophy than doctrine. When the Bible says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life", it MUSM be ASSUMED that "the world" that God loved only refers to that part destined to salvation, and that 'whosoever believeth' only pertains to whosoever is predestined to salvation. Assumption based on a preconceived idea not to be found in scripture. So everywhere that the entire world is referred to, or whosoever, or any indication that salvation is sufficient for ALL, must be redefined to fit the Calvinist view. 

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:18:19

The above passage, in context of John 3:16&17, shows that those who don't believe are already condemned-but how can this be so, if those who are predestined to eternal life, but don't yet believe, are CONDEMNED ALREADY? There could not be any condemnation if God had already set them to eternal life before the foundation of the universe! yet, here ANYONE who doesn't believe, whether they will believe tomorrow or next year, and god KNOWS they will, according to his foreknowledge, yet they are condemned until they believe. Not possible, if Calvinism is true.

as well, the men love the darkeness, rather than light, that's why they reject, not because the Lord has set them for damnation.

God's grace is, be definition, not earned, it is unmerited. But it is unjust if God demands belief of those that He refuses his grace to. God will never demand anything of anyone that He has not given the ability to do it. Will God punish those who don't believe, if He demands they believe, but refuses to allow to believe? When He told the lame to get up and walk, HE gave them the ability to do so. When He told the dead to rise up, he gave them life to do so. So He calls ALL men to repentance, and gives them all the faith to do so-but they can choose not to do so. 

 

[Yeshuafan 10]

26 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

This is an excellent example of how Calvinism is more human philosophy than doctrine. When the Bible says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life", it MUSM be ASSUMED that "the world" that God loved only refers to that part destined to salvation, and that 'whosoever believeth' only pertains to whosoever is predestined to salvation. Assumption based on a preconceived idea not to be found in scripture. So everywhere that the entire world is referred to, or whosoever, or any indication that salvation is sufficient for ALL, must be redefined to fit the Calvinist view. 

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:18:19

The above passage, in context of John 3:16&17, shows that those who don't believe are already condemned-but how can this be so, if those who are predestined to eternal life, but don't yet believe, are CONDEMNED ALREADY? There could not be any condemnation if God had already set them to eternal life before the foundation of the universe! yet, here ANYONE who doesn't believe, whether they will believe tomorrow or next year, and god KNOWS they will, according to his foreknowledge, yet they are condemned until they believe. Not possible, if Calvinism is true.

as well, the men love the darkeness, rather than light, that's why they reject, not because the Lord has set them for damnation.

God's grace is, be definition, not earned, it is unmerited. But it is unjust if God demands belief of those that He refuses his grace to. God will never demand anything of anyone that He has not given the ability to do it. Will God punish those who don't believe, if He demands they believe, but refuses to allow to believe? When He told the lame to get up and walk, HE gave them the ability to do so. When He told the dead to rise up, he gave them life to do so. So He calls ALL men to repentance, and gives them all the faith to do so-but they can choose not to do so. 

 

God could havce cosen that none of us were to be saved, and he would have been totally within his rights to do such!

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

6 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Your questions are assuming that we deserve grace, and also that he would not be fair to withhold it!

False.  My questions are assuming no such things.  They say nothing about "deserving" grace, nor do they say anything whatsoever at all about fairness.  In fact, you have already asked me questions about God's fairness and about whether anyone "deserves" God's grace.  And I have directly answered your questions.  What I desire is for you as a Calvinist to acknowledge the doctrinal realities of your own system of belief, NOT to try to tell me what I assume in my system of belief.  If you want to ask me direct questions about my system of belief, I will answer them and will even present Scriptural support for my answers.  However, what I have found is that when I ask you direct questions about your system of belief, you avoid giving direct answers to my questions, and then respond with Calvinistic rhetoric without providing any Scriptural support for your answers.  

5 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

God could havce cosen that none of us were to be saved, and he would have been totally within his rights to do such!

Certainly this is correct, but it is NOT actual reality; for the Lord our God and Savior HAS chosen to save sinners, AND He has directly revealed His specific plan on the matter through His Holy Word.  The issue is NOT, and NEVER has been, what God COULD have done.  The issue IS what God HAS done, and what He has REVEALED about what He has done.  If a system of belief is not accurate according to God's own revealed Word, then it is false.  It is that simple.  Support your system of belief from the actual, grammatical, contextual doctrine of God's Holy Word; or you have NO authoritative ground for your system of belief.

Thus, not only do my questions remain before you, but also my challenge remains before you --

8 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Certainly the context always matters for rightly dividing God's Word of truth; and in all three passages that I presented above, the words "all," "every," and "whole" refer to every single human individual throughout all time among humanity.  You see, using Calvinistic rhetoric is not of use unless you actually demonstrate from each context that the "universal" words within those contexts are limited in some contextual manner.  So, the challenge is now before you - You must contextually exegete 1 Timothy 2:3-6, Hebrews 2:9, and 1 John 2:2, and therein demonstrate a contextual limiter for those "universal" words . . .

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Yeshuafan 10]

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

False.  My questions are assuming no such things.  They say nothing about "deserving" grace, nor do they say anything whatsoever at all about fairness.  In fact, you have already asked me questions about God's fairness and about whether anyone "deserves" God's grace.  And I have directly answered your questions.  What I desire is for you as a Calvinist to acknowledge the doctrinal realities of your own system of belief, NOT to try to tell me what I assume in my system of belief.  If you want to ask me direct questions about my system of belief, I will answer them and will even present Scriptural support for my answers.  However, what I have found is that when I ask you direct questions about your system of belief, you avoid giving direct answers to my questions, and then respond with Calvinistic rhetoric without providing any Scriptural support for your answers.  

Certainly this is correct, but it is NOT actual reality; for the Lord our God and Savior HAS chosen to save sinners, AND He has directly revealed His specific plan on the matter through His Holy Word.  The issue is NOT, and NEVER has been, what God COULD have done.  The issue IS what God HAS done, and what He has REVEALED about what He has done.  If a system of belief is not accurate according to God's own revealed Word, then it is false.  It is that simple.  Support your system of belief from the actual, grammatical, contextual doctrine of God's Holy Word; or you have NO authoritative ground for your system of belief.

Thus, not only do my questions remain before you, but also my challenge remains before you --

 

Are you then a classical Arminian in  salvation theology then?

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

7 minutes ago, Yeshuafan said:

Are you then a classical Arminian in  salvation theology then?

No, sir.  I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace."  Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace."  Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints."  Rather, I would hold to a Biblical view of eternal security, while also holding to a Biblical view of "carnal believers" and "backslidden believers."

On the other hand, I would hold with Arminianism on the three other "traditional" points of the five, since those three other points are mutually exclusive, possessing no third option.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "limited atonement," but would hold that Christ died for EVERY member of sinful humanity.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "unconditional election," but would hold that God's work of election/predestination concerns all of the blessings that are involved in the "package" of eternal salvation, and that God predetermined to give these blessings unto those whom He foreknew would be in Christ through faith.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "irresistible grace" (since in the Calvinistic system of belief "irresistible grace" is equivalent to "pre-regenerating grace"), but would hold that God's gracious work of "drawing" most certainly CAN be willfully resisted and rejected by lost sinners (and indeed is so rejected by a great majority of them).  However, I do NOT necessarily hold with classical Arminianism concerning all of the various "details" that they may include within their teaching of these three points.  

You see, I do not really care overall what is taught within either the Calvinistic system or the Arminian system, per se (except wherein they may present falsehood in contradiction with God's Holy Word).  Rather, I care what God's Holy Word precisely teaches on any given subject.  Thus also I am willing to confront ANY group wherein I believe they have departed from that precise teaching (even as I have demonstrated in this very thread discussion, by confronting you concerning your Calvinistic system of belief and by confronting my fellow Fundamental Baptists concerning their "non-accountability of babies" system of belief).

__________________________________________

Now, let it be once again noted that I have provided a direct answer to your direct question.  Yet I am still waiting for you to provide a direct answer to my direct questions.

[Yeshuafan 10]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No, sir.  I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace."  Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace."  Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints."  Rather, I would hold to a Biblical view of eternal security, while also holding to a Biblical view of "carnal believers" and "backslidden believers."

On the other hand, I would hold with Arminianism on the three other "traditional" points of the five, since those three other points are mutually exclusive, possessing no third option.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "limited atonement," but would hold that Christ died for EVERY member of sinful humanity.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "unconditional election," but would hold that God's work of election/predestination concerns all of the blessings that are involved in the "package" of eternal salvation, and that God predetermined to give these blessings unto those whom He foreknew would be in Christ through faith.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "irresistible grace" (since in the Calvinistic system of belief "irresistible grace" is equivalent to "pre-regenerating grace"), but would hold that God's gracious work of "drawing" most certainly CAN be willfully resisted and rejected by lost sinners (and indeed is so rejected by a great majority of them).  However, I do NOT necessarily hold with classical Arminianism concerning all of the various "details" that they may include within their teaching of these three points.  

You see, I do not really care overall what is taught within either the Calvinistic system or the Arminian system, per se (except wherein they may present falsehood in contradiction with God's Holy Word).  Rather, I care what God's Holy Word precisely teaches on any given subject.  Thus also I am willing to confront ANY group wherein I believe they have departed from that precise teaching (even as I have demonstrated in this very thread discussion, by confronting you concerning your Calvinistic system of belief and by confronting my fellow Fundamental Baptists concerning their "non-accountability of babies" system of belief).

__________________________________________

Now, let it be once again noted that I have provided a direct answer to your direct question.  Yet I am still waiting for you to provide a direct answer to my direct questions.

Your questions seem to be though assuming that somehow God would not be fair nor gracious if not all were saved?

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

3 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Your questions seem to be though assuming that somehow God would not be fair nor gracious if not all were saved?

Nope. My questions are assuming nothing. They are worded precisely as they are intended, asking whether certain characteristics are accurate to your Calvinistic system of belief. They are asking nothing more, and nothing less.

[SureWord 192]

Someone once said they were "an Arminian before the cross and a Calvinist after the cross". What the were implying is there is freewill in accepting the free gift of salvation but after getting saved there was no freewill to reject your salvation. You are eternally preserved whether you like it or not. 

8 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No, sir.  I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace."  Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace."  Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints."  Rather, I would hold to a Biblical view of eternal security, while also holding to a Biblical view of "carnal believers" and "backslidden believers."

On the other hand, I would hold with Arminianism on the three other "traditional" points of the five, since those three other points are mutually exclusive, possessing no third option.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "limited atonement," but would hold that Christ died for EVERY member of sinful humanity.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "unconditional election," but would hold that God's work of election/predestination concerns all of the blessings that are involved in the "package" of eternal salvation, and that God predetermined to give these blessings unto those whom He foreknew would be in Christ through faith.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "irresistible grace" (since in the Calvinistic system of belief "irresistible grace" is equivalent to "pre-regenerating grace"), but would hold that God's gracious work of "drawing" most certainly CAN be willfully resisted and rejected by lost sinners (and indeed is so rejected by a great majority of them).  However, I do NOT necessarily hold with classical Arminianism concerning all of the various "details" that they may include within their teaching of these three points.  

You see, I do not really care overall what is taught within either the Calvinistic system or the Arminian system, per se (except wherein they may present falsehood in contradiction with God's Holy Word).  Rather, I care what God's Holy Word precisely teaches on any given subject.  Thus also I am willing to confront ANY group wherein I believe they have departed from that precise teaching (even as I have demonstrated in this very thread discussion, by confronting you concerning your Calvinistic system of belief and by confronting my fellow Fundamental Baptists concerning their "non-accountability of babies" system of belief).

__________________________________________

Now, let it be once again noted that I have provided a direct answer to your direct question.  Yet I am still waiting for you to provide a direct answer to my direct questions.

It's ironic, but to me the teaching of "perseverance of the saints" always sounded like an Arminian doctrine and if you followed it to its logical conclusion it is such because it is centered on the believer's works. "Preservation of the Saints" is a much more scriptural term.

Edited January 1 by SureWord

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

13 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Someone once said they were "an Arminian before the cross and a Calvinist after the cross". What the were implying is there is freewill in accepting the free gift of salvation but after getting saved there was no freewill to reject your salvation. You are eternally preserved whether you like it or not. 

It's ironic, but to me the teaching of "perseverance of the saints" always sounded like an Arminian doctrine and if you followed it to its logical conclusion it is such because it is centered on the believer's works. "Preservation of the Saints" is a much more scriptural term.

Indeed, "preservation of the saints" certainly would be a better phrase; for it sets its focus on the promise and faithfulness of God our Savior just as God's Word does, rather than on our behavior.  However, that phrase would not at all be accurate in relation to the Calvinistic system of belief, since that system of belief denies the existence of "carnal believers" and/or "backslidden believers" for any habitual length of time.

[SureWord 192]

Just now, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, "preservation of the saints" certainly would be a better phrase; for it sets its focus on the promise and faithfulness of God our Savior just as God's Word does, rather than on our behavior.  However, that phrase would not at all be accurate in relation to the Calvinistic system of belief, since that system of belief denies the existence of "carnal believers" and/or "backslidden believers" for any habitual length of time.

Yes, I know. Years ago I was a resident counsellor on a Christian camp that dealt with troubled teens from Christian families. Sort of like Lestor Roloff's ministry. I don't know how many times I dealt with teens who suffered greatly from fears that they may have "lost it" because they were backslidden or must have never been saved to begin with because "If Jesus isn't Lord of all, he isn't Lord at all". They would constantly be asking Jesus to save them until the point of almost going bonkers or wondering if they were even one of the "elect".

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

18 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Yes, I know. Years ago I was a resident counsellor on a Christian camp that dealt with troubled teens from Christian families. Sort of like Lestor Roloff's ministry. I don't know how many times I dealt with teens who suffered greatly from fears that they may have "lost it" because they were backslidden or must have never been saved to begin with because "If Jesus isn't Lord of all, he isn't Lord at all". They would constantly be asking Jesus to save them until the point of almost going bonkers or wondering if they were even one of the "elect".

Indeed, it is a shame, because getting "saved again" can NEVER be the solution to their fleshly/carnal character (since it is impossible to get "saved again").  Rather, the solution for victory in the believer's life, no matter how overcome by the flesh, is the process of broken-hearted repentance, humility before the Lord, dependence upon the Lord's grace, submission to the Lord, and walking in the Spirit.  By confusing them with false teaching, in one form or another, the devil keeps them from finding the path to true victory.  (And it saddens me how much of this is found within Fundamental Baptist circles.)

[Ukulelemike 3,802]

On 12/30/2020 at 1:54 PM, Yeshuafan said:

God could havce cosen that none of us were to be saved, and he would have been totally within his rights to do such!

Absolutely, because none of us deserve it. However, He has not, as Calvinism believes and teaches, secured some for salvation and secured some for damnation. Again, if God "commands all men, everywhere to repent", while not allowing a majority to obey that command, then He is, indeed, unjust. To dangle eternal life before those that he has willingly assured cannot have it, would be cruel and wicked. That is not the God I serve. If He tells all men everywhere to repent, He gives all men everywhere the ability to do so. 

[Yeshuafan 10]

On 12/31/2020 at 7:11 PM, SureWord said:

Someone once said they were "an Arminian before the cross and a Calvinist after the cross". What the were implying is there is freewill in accepting the free gift of salvation but after getting saved there was no freewill to reject your salvation. You are eternally preserved whether you like it or not. 

It's ironic, but to me the teaching of "perseverance of the saints" always sounded like an Arminian doctrine and if you followed it to its logical conclusion it is such because it is centered on the believer's works. "Preservation of the Saints" is a much more scriptural term.

Our free will though was greatly affected by the Fall, so we would not even desire to get saved apart from the working of the Holy Spirit towards us!

14 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Absolutely, because none of us deserve it. However, He has not, as Calvinism believes and teaches, secured some for salvation and secured some for damnation. Again, if God "commands all men, everywhere to repent", while not allowing a majority to obey that command, then He is, indeed, unjust. To dangle eternal life before those that he has willingly assured cannot have it, would be cruel and wicked. That is not the God I serve. If He tells all men everywhere to repent, He gives all men everywhere the ability to do so. 

You are assuming here that gain, it would be unfair and cruel that God did not send same saving grace towards all lost sinners.

[Jim_Alaska 2,365]

So, you say that Brother Mike Is "assuming". Let's look at that God's Holy Spirit actually says.

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Based on this Scripture I would have to conclude that it is indeed you who are doing the "assuming". After all, what you said is only your opinion, not Scripture.

Edited January 5 by Jim_Alaska
spelling

[Ukulelemike 3,802]

5 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Our free will though was greatly affected by the Fall, so we would not even desire to get saved apart from the working of the Holy Spirit towards us!

You are assuming here that gain, it would be unfair and cruel that God did not send same saving grace towards all lost sinners.

On your first point, let me say this: 

Jn 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. "

Jn 3:14, 15 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. "

Jn 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

Jesus lights every man that comes into the world, and from Calvary, He drew ALL men to Himself, giving ALL men the ability to believe on Him unto eternal life. No possibility that Jesus' death was only sufficient for some. It is sufficient for all, efficacious for those who believe.

On your second point, the death of Jesus Christ paid the price for all sin, period. Not only some sin, ALL sin. Not 'sins', but "sin". All was paid for. Jesus is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the WORLD. No qualifying additions to make it only the elect of the world. And no, I said it would be cruel of God to demand anyone do something, but not make it possible for them to obey. If we MUST believe unto salvation, then God makes it possible for ALL to believe. If God says, "If you do not believe, then you will go to Hell!" But then, knowingly has made it impossible for most of humanity to believe, THAT is cruel and that is not the God of the Bible, though it surely IS the god of Calvinism.

[Yeshuafan 10]

15 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

So, you say that Brother Mike Is "assuming". Let's look at that God's Holy Spirit actually says.

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Based on this Scripture I would have to conclude that it is indeed you who are doing the "assuming". After all, what you said is only your opinion, not Scripture.

Hebrews said to us that Jesus for the sake of the some, but not for the all, correct?

[Jim_Alaska 2,365]

52 minutes ago, Yeshuafan said:

Hebrews said to us that Jesus for the sake of the some, but not for the all, correct?

An actual Scripture reference would be helpful.

[Bouncing Bill 64]

1 hour ago, Yeshuafan said:

Hebrews said to us that Jesus for the sake of the some, but not for the all, correct?

Jesus came for all, but only some accept. None were condemned before their birth.

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

1 hour ago, Yeshuafan said:

Hebrews said to us that Jesus for the sake of the some, but not for the all, correct?

Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man."

Furthermore, logic requires that you provide a passage which teaches that God the Son, Jesus the Christ, died ONLY for some.  It is correct that some Biblical contexts focus upon a "subset" of all mankind. (See for example Acts 20:17-35)  Thus in those contexts we may find statements that God the Son, Jesus the Christ, died for that particular "subset." (See for example Acts 20:28)  However, statements to that effect (that Christ died for a particular "subset" of all mankind) do not of themselves indicate that He did not also die for a different "subset" as well.  On the other hand, a statement to the effect that Christ died ONLY for a particular "subset" would indeed indicate that He did not also die for any other possible "subset."  The Calvinistic system of belief teaches that Christ's death was limited ONLY to a particular "subset" of mankind (that is - "the elect").  Thus, in order to stand upon Biblical authority, the Calvinistic system of belief must present at least one passage of Scripture that teaches this "ONLY" principle.  (A passage which teaches that Christ died ONLY for the church, or ONLY for Israel, or ONLY for believers, or ONLY for the elect, etc.)

[Pastor Scott Markle 2,846]

19 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Jesus came for all, but only some accept. None were condemned before their birth.

This is two points correct, and one point incorrect.

Correct - Jesus came for all. (See 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2)

Correct - Only some accept. (See Revelation 19:11-15)

Incorrect - None were condemned before their birth. 

Truth - All are under judgment to condemnation through and in Adam (not by their own first act of sinful offense, but by Adam's first act of sinful offense, indeed long before they ever even existed). (See Romans 5:18)

[Yeshuafan 10]

On 1/5/2021 at 11:04 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

This is two points correct, and one point incorrect.

Correct - Jesus came for all. (See 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2)

Correct - Only some accept. (See Revelation 19:11-15)

Incorrect - None were condemned before their birth. 

Truth - All are under judgment to condemnation through and in Adam (not by their own first act of sinful offense, but by Adam's first act of sinful offense, indeed long before they ever even existed). (See Romans 5:18)

Indeed. for all have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God!