Calvinism

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 2021 by SureWord

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.