Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Members
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

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 by Jim_Alaska
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 12/20/2020 at 7:11 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Psalm 58:3 -- "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

________________________________________

Roman 3:10-12 -- "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Romans 3:23 -- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Romans 3:19 -- "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every  mouth may be stopped, and ALL the world may become guilty before God."

So, here is a question that we non-Calvinists commonly ask in opposition to Calvinism, being turned back at us --

Does "ALL" actually mean "ALL;" and does "NONE" actually mean "NONE"?

You are using the natural ambiguity of language to "force" the Bible to say things it clearly does not say. God told Adam and Eve that on the day they ate the fruit they would die. On that day the process of death began. Often the initiation, the process and the conclusion are referred to by the same noun or verb. Since we understand what is sin, yet do not have the capacity to resist it the curse of sin inhabits us all from birth, but does not actually become sin until we make the choice to sin. The Bible was intended to be read with common sense, not blind devotion to vague concepts that defy logic. God is the God of logic, not the God of confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...