Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Van, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    One of the odd realities of Calvinism is it is based on Biblical truth. But rather than sticking with what scripture says, Calvinism extrapolates the light of scripture and plunges into darkness.

    Did the Fall both separate man from God and result in the corruption of man such that his or her ability to relate to God is hindered? Yes. This truth is taught extensively in scripture. But Calvinism took this truth and expanded it into the false doctrine of the Fall resulting in everyone being conceived with total spiritual inability, hence in a fallen, natural, man of flesh, unregenerate state we cannot seek God or trust in Christ. But the expansion is utterly unbiblical. Instead scripture teaches that everyone is conceived with limited spiritual ability. The fallen men of flesh are spiritually dead, separated from God having not yet been made alive together with Christ and having not yet been sealed with the Holy Spirit as a helper to grow to spiritual maturity. Thus fallen man cannot understand things of the Spirit of God – that are discerned with the aid of our indwelt Holy Spirit – but can understand spiritual milk. See 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Do some people suffer from total spiritual inability? Yes but only partially as a result of the fall. Subsequently, during their lives, their heart is hardened, either by the practice of sin or by God for His purpose., i.e. the first soil of Matthew 13.

    Did God unconditionally elect whoever would be redeemed before the foundation of the world? Yes. This truth is taught in Ephesians 1:4. But Calvinism took this truth, being chosen in Him, and altered this truth by claiming the verse indicated this election before creation was of individual humans, rather than the corporate election of whoever the chosen Redeemer would redeem. However, the “in Him” provides the foundation for this election which points toward a corporate election rather than an individual election. Which is not to say God does not individually elect us, because He does, during our lifetime, after we have been “children of wrath” and lived without mercy. 2 Thessalonians tells us how this election during our lifetime is accomplished, i.e. we are chosen through the sanctification by the Spirit, for God puts us in Christ, and He makes these individual choices based on crediting our faith in the truth. See Romans 4:4-5 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

    Did Christ die for the church? Yes. This truth is taught in several passages. But Calvinism took this truth and added “only” claiming Christ died only for the supposed individuals chosen before creation. However, scripture is clear, Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the whole world, i.e. becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind, 1 John 2:2. So the issue is not whether Christ died for the church, He did, but that in dying for all mankind, it included the church, i.e He died for both the church and all mankind.

    Finally, is God’s saving grace irresistible? Yes. But what Calvinism does is claim this irresistible grace falls of those without faith because they were chosen before creation individually, and they were without faith because faith in impossible before regeneration.
    However scripture teaches the opposite. As fallen men of flesh we can understand the milk of the gospel, therefore we can both seek God and trust in Christ. Note, this action was taken by 3 of the 4 soils of Matthew 13. However, the second and third soil fell away because God did not credit their faith as righteousness. If God had credited their faith, He would have put them in Christ, and protected their faith, 1 Peter 1:3-5. Bottom line, God’s revealing grace, hearing the gospel, can be resisted, i.e. not heeded, or it can be understood and accepted, i.e. learning from the Father, John 6:45. But once God credits our faith, as worthless as it might be, as righteousness, God puts us spiritually in Christ by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, 1 Peter 1:1-2. Hence we are saved by irresistible grace through God’s acceptance of our faith, and not of works which we have done.

    God Bless.
     
  2. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Van,

    Regardless of anyone's answer to this post. YOu may want to reconsider your Post Title. I don't think "Taking Biblical truth too far" is anyone's problem. Interpreting in correctly, maybe. I would say a big problem in our current churches is that were are not willing to take biblical truth far enough.
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would call Calvinism half-truth.

    It is true we have a "flesh" nature that tempts us to sin (you call this sin nature). That is true. But unregenerate man can comprehend God, as shown in Rom 1:18-32.

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

    These verses are speaking of unregenerate man, but they are not oblivious to God. They hold the truth, they can clearly see creation and have understanding.

    But we also see they did not derive this knowledge of themselves, the scriptures clearly say God has SHEWED it unto them.

    So, it is true that man has no ability of himself to know and conceive God, but it is not true that unregenerate men are ignorant of God, for God has shown them, and they have understood, and are therefore without excuse.

    Calvinism only tells half the story.
     
  4. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0

    Did Christ die for the church? Yes. This truth is taught in several passages. But Calvinism took this truth and added “only” claiming Christ died only for the supposed individuals chosen before creation. However, scripture is clear, Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the whole world, i.e. becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind, 1 John 2:2. So the issue is not whether Christ died for the church, He did, but that in dying for all mankind, it included the church, i.e He died for both the church and all mankind.



    Finally, is God’s saving grace irresistible? Yes. But what Calvinism does is claim this irresistible grace falls of those without faith because they were chosen before creation individually, and they were without faith because faith in impossible before regeneration.
    However scripture teaches the opposite. As fallen men of flesh we can understand the milk of the gospel, therefore we can both seek God and trust in Christ. Note, this action was taken by 3 of the 4 soils of Matthew 13. However, the second and third soil fell away because God did not credit their faith as righteousness. If God had credited their faith, He would have put them in Christ, and protected their faith, 1 Peter 1:3-5. Bottom line, God’s revealing grace, hearing the gospel, can be resisted, i.e. not heeded, or it can be understood and accepted, i.e. learning from the Father, John 6:45. But once God credits our faith, as worthless as it might be, as righteousness, God puts us spiritually in Christ by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, 1 Peter 1:1-2. Hence we are saved by irresistible grace through God’s acceptance of our faith, and not of works which we have done.

    God Bless.[/QUOTE]
     
  5. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    strange that this theology of cals , that exalt the person of God, while portraying the true condition/state of man is so abhorrent to you!
    Are you offended that we say to God be the glory, as we can claim nothing we did resulted in our salvation by God?

    Again the Calvinist starts with misrepresenting my view, for in my view, God gets all the glory, [attack snipped].

    Next we get a claim that Calvinism represents the truth of scripture, but no verse is cited. Pure fiction folks, Calvinism turns the truth of scripture into false doctrine. Matthew 13 clearly teaches unregenerate man can seek God and put faith in Christ.

    How many times have we seen Calvinists misrepresent Romans 8:7? A natural man, fallen, unregenerate can set his mind on the flesh and cannot set his mind on the Holy Spirit because he is not indwelt. But those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Here we clearly see the capacity of natural men to set their minds on spiritual things or on fleshly things. In Romans 7:22 we see Paul himself, delighting in God's law, but not yet set from through Christ, because he had not yet been delivered. Therefore, Paul teaches the opposite of Calvinism, that a wretched man of flesh can seek God and trust in Christ. Hence, Paul teaches limited spiritual ability, unable to understand the spiritual things discerned with the aid of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the meat, but is can understand the milk of the gospel. This is the truth from scripture.

    Of course no Calvinist showed Ephesians 1:4 was an individual election based on the grammar. On the other hand, I showed, by listing a half dozen scholars who believed Ephesians 1:4 did refer to our pre-temporal corporate election, that the Calvinist's whole assertion was bogus.

    Next you offer up your penal substitution theory which I have shown is simply a Trojan horse for limited atonement. 1 John 2:2 says Christ is the propitiation not only for us but for the whole world. And certainly providing the means of salvation to the whole world does not equate with causing the whole world to be saved. Love does not demand its own way. God sets before us the choice of life or death.

    No man seeks after God all the time. But some men seek after God some of the time.
    Whenever we are not seeking God we are turning away into corruption. Therefore we are all under sin, for if you break one point, you have broken the whole law. However, scripture does not say and never teaches that men of flesh, unregenerate do not seek after God at any time. That is a Calvinist fiction. And I have demonstrated this using more than 1/2 dozen different passages. Recall the rich man seeking eternal life? Recall three soils of Matthew 13. Recall Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men were entering heaven. Recall Romans 9:30-33 where folks were seeking God through the law or through faith. Recall where God hardened the hearts of the unregenerate to prevent trusting in Christ. Verse after verse, passage after passage but Calvinism simply denies scripture.

    My view has God choosing each and every believer and placing them in Christ. We do not save ourselves. None of your off the shelf anti Arminian arguments work, Jesusfan. And you would know this if you even understood my position.
     
    #5 Van, Oct 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2011
  6. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again....

    A demonstration of shadow-boxing at its finest.

    It is truly interesting to see those seething with hatred against Calvinists going to great lengths to erect and fight caricatures. It is nothing more than boxing the late-day shadows.

    This whole exercise is nothing more than a Quixotic episode. It is interesting, but very, very sad to watch.

    The Archangel
     
  7. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amazing that Van uses Scripture and you refute none of it.
     
  8. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must be ignorant of the past discussions.

    I've argued, convincingly so, those scriptures with Van in the past.

    As Newt Gingrich is fond of saying (a paraphrase): in order to have a discussion you must first agree on the meaning of terms. It does no good for someone who believes 2+2=4 to argue with someone who believes 2+2=5.

    Van likes to proclaim that his understanding jives with the Greek. Yet, he readily admits he knows no Greek. Not to mention, it is plain that his usages of the many texts he cites are way off the normal understanding and do not (and cannot) be reconciled with the Greek grammar--no matter how he tries to gerrymander the text.

    So, what he says is quite the textbook definition of Quixotic. He's chasing windmills in his own imagination that do not really exist in reality.

    The Archangel
     
  9. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Exactly correct once again....sad to say...it is strange to see this non -stop jihad against biblical truth:thumbs:

    Robert Snow.......have you ever posted a bible verse ???Of all people to question Archangel or anyone else about posting verses.....it is not as though you have extended yourself with verses in most all of your posts:confused::confused:

    Are you secretly hoping to learn more....and so you are looking for calvinists to supply verses?
     
  10. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think that you again err in not realise just how devastating the fall of Adam was to mankind, as we were 'tagged" with his judgement and the curse of sin!
     
    #10 JesusFan, Oct 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2011
  11. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    :laugh:My dear brother......you never said a truer word.:thumbs:
     
  12. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have to quote verses when I am commenting on verses someone else has posted.

    I think Archangel is correct concerning definitions. As long as we cannot agree with what "all" means, it is probably useless to continue the discussion. You might have noticed that I have posted less and less concerning Calvinism.

    I believe the totality of Scripture shows gaping holes in Calvinism. That is not to say that everything about it is wrong, much is correct. As Van has pointed out, there are still many problems with this doctrine.

    I have been told by several pastors that the truth lies somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism. One pastor, years ago, said to learn to eat the nuts and spit out the shells. It seem with Calvinism, I do more spitting than eating!
     
  13. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    Robert.....do you realize that the last sentence is in itself a condemnation? How would you like it if I said that about your own belief system?
     
  14. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    He has the right to reject (and condemn) your belief if he sincerely believes it unscriptural. I reject Calvinism because I believe it very unscriptural. I have probably posted hundreds of verses that I believe refute Calvinism.

    It's not like we reject it without valid (according to our interpretation of scripture) reason.

    You don't see non-Cals writing mini-novels to explain how the first "all men" in Rom 5:18 means 100% of mankind, while the second "all men" means only the elect few. Only Calvinism has to resort to mental gymnastics like this for the system to work. How you can overlook this is astounding.
     
  15. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, you can't explain nor apologize against Calvinism scripturally. I've not witnessed you do this once on the BB.

    I'm certain you cannot even name the doctrines concisely, nor apologize against TULIP or DoG soundly as you are marching oblivious to such teachings uninformed in maladroitness.

    I recall in the past you've stated even Swindoll is reformed and therefore cast him off as in error, stating such reason as to why you don't listen to him or something to that effect.

    Please provide proof Swindoll as Calvinistic or reformed.

    Also, please show why you are against each point of TULIP, while describing what each point actually does teach, with Scriptures. Show also the totality of Scriptures showing gaping holes within Calvinism, with Scriptures of DoG and your passages showing the alleged gaping holes.

    Perhaps also your pastor should've told you the difference between the nuts and the shells. You've been spitting out the nuts my friend. :wavey: :thumbsup: :laugh:
     
    #15 preacher4truth, Oct 25, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2011
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Robert,
    Thanks for your response and a clarification of your view of the teaching.
    Yes, I have noticed you have not posted as much on these issues recently.
    If in the future you would like to take another look at these teachings, i would attempt to help remove some obstacles that hinder you. You know by now that I see the teaching as extremely biblical.....not in between.
    I have tried to see what are the main concerns expressed by the non-cals on this forum. It seems to me that as Archangel posted to Van....they are more imaginary than real.
    In the meantime I can only suggest you serve the Lord with all your strength,and do not be hesitant to revisit the verses offered and try to see what we see in them.:thumbs::wavey:
     
  17. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    Good for you speaking out of turn & answering for my brother Robert. Id prefer him to speak for himself thank you.
     
  18. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I meant no disrespect. I would think you feel the same way about what I believe. I did not condemn Calvinism, I spoke from my experience, as I would expect you to speak from yours.

    Now, if I said Calvinism is heretical, which I did not you would have a point. The fact is that I don't view Calvinism as heresy, there is much truth in it, I just don't think it is altogether correct.
     
  19. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you brother. :love2: I really appreciate you concern. :wavey:
     
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I answered your question, more than three times. Stop denying truth.

    Notice how Calvinists deal with truth, they attack the messenger. They speak in generalities, They ask questions but provide no content. Shuck and jive is all they have.
    They speak as if the Greek supports their view, yet when I refer to the Greek experts who disagree with their view, they simply refer to my view and ignore the experts. Recently Dr. Walter claimed the Greek required 2 Thessalonians 2:13 to say God chose you to salvation, rather than chose you for salvation. He supported this by claiming to have studied Greek for 5 years. However, comma, the scholars of the NASB translate it "for salvation" and the scholars of the HCSB translate it "for salvation" and the scholars of the NKJV translate it "for salvation. And also the NET. So the Calvinist assertion that the grammar precludes the understanding is totally false. Time and again Calvinists claim the grammar requires this or that, but those arguments are largely works of fiction.

    As I have shown repeatedly, the Penal Substitution theory is simply an absurd canard.

    Which is it, is man dead to God, or can God reveal Himself to man. You have got to stick to one argument or the other. Scripture clearly teaches fallen man can understand the milk of the gospel and receive it with joy. Your assertion that a fallen man cannot know Him in a saving way is directly refuted by Matthew 23:13 where unregenerate men were entering heaven. Calvinism has no support whatsoever in scripture.

    Scripture again tells us the basis for our salvation, God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ. Notice how the Calvinist tries to drag the controversy between inherant Omniscience and total omniscience to obscure the truth. 2 Thess. 2:13 tells us the basis of election for salvation. Faith in the truth.

    Calvinists have invented total spiritual inability, then have the unmitigated gall to claim those who demonstrate by using many passages that it is fiction, are the problem.
     

Share This Page

Loading...