1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinism -TULIP

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Claudia_T, Dec 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dustin

    Dustin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's true Pelegianism. The way you explained it is so works based, I can't call it any different. I urge you , drop your presuppostions and search the Scriptures prayerfully. The Gospel isn't a list of things we have to do, it's Christ on the cross dying for a people who aren't worthy of His blood.
     
    #81 Dustin, Dec 22, 2006
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2006
  2. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0

    what is? are you saying 2 Peter 1:1-11 is Pelegianism? and if so what the heck is that? :)

    and do you think that those verses do not say what I think they say?cause it seems pretty obvious to me what they are saying,
     
  3. Dustin

    Dustin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do I do with them, I make my calling and election sure. Unregenerate man can't do spiritual things. All of the things in this passage are speaking of bearing fruit, something we can't do with out the Holy Spirt. We could superficially "do" all of these things, and still not be in Christ. You can't bear good fruit apart from Christ, and if you're honest and you don't "do" these things in Christ, you need to make sure you are in Christ.
     
  4. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dustin well of course you have to have the Holy Spirit in order to do these things, nobody said you didnt... and of course you have to be "in Christ" and do it through the power of Christ etc and so forth... this passages isnt about HOW to do it... its about that if you DONT then what happens?


    These things are NOT OPTIONAL.

    That little word "IF" says it all....

    IF you do these things....



    9: But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
    10: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for IF ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
    11: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

     
    #84 Claudia_T, Dec 22, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2006
  5. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    What does it mean to make one's (1) calling, and (2) election, sure?

    Does it mean that we must do these things to convince God that we have been called and elected?

    I think God sees the heart, and searches the hearts and know what the mind of the Spirit within the heart says (Rom 8). God has perfect knowledge of our true state. If we have been called, He has done the calling and knows; and if we have been elected, He has done the electing and knows it.

    So then, for who's benefit do we make our calling and election sure? This speaks to our confidence in our daily walk as Christians, rising above the doubts and besetting sins. A true believer that falls, does not fall out of God's grace - he falls from his own "steadfastness", or, confidence. He has no boldness in witnessing, in prayer, and may even begin to doubt his own salvation.

    But those that bear the fruit of the Spirit are steadfast and unmovable, and are sure of their calling and election.
     
  6. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is none good saving the Father which is in Heaven. If man knows good, then he must have some knowledge of God for good only comes from God. Because you say its not true and the Bible says it is, I think I will take the Bible. You said Calvinist believe the lost know good and evil and where a man heart is there his treasure is also.
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Quote:
    L - Limited Atonement "God so loved the FEW that He gave - Christ appeases an Angry God at Calvary for the FEW"
    Better have a heart to heart with your Calvinist friend Joseph B

    You must have been sick the day they discussed limited Atonement in 5-point Calvinist class.

    THE REASON for Limited atonement -- is LIMITED payment MADE. God is "appeased" via the propitiation concept of Calvinists. PAYMENT is made to God in the amount OWED by those that God actually cares to pay for --

    THE FEW of Matt 7.

    In 5-pt Calvinism God would SAVE the MANY - IF He were to choose to PAY for the MANY. God is sovereign "he can do what He wants" and since ALL DESERVE hell - then only PAYING for the FEW (Limited atonement, limited PAYMENT) is ok -- NONE deserve it!. It also shows that god only LOVES and DESIRES the FEW.

    Or are you are 3point Calvinist trying to defend 5 point Calvinist views?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Romans chapter 9 is the number one proof-text for the doctrine, since it discusses "vessels of wrath" (people made for "destruction"), and that God "has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will harden". Then, anyone who questions why God would even create such a person, for instance, are blasted away with a quote of verse 20: "O man, who are you that replies against God?" In other words, this is the "truth" of God's sovereignty, so nobody has the right to question it, not even the poor "vessel of wrath" himself!
    But people don't even bother to check the [SIZE=-1]CONTEXT[/SIZE]. This passage is discussing Israel, a nation of people God was judging as opposed to Gentiles whom He was spreading His grace to, not individual people or everyone in a particular group being predestined for wrath as opposed to other individual people being elected for grace. (Obviously, many Israelites have gotten saved, so this can't be treating individuals as vessels of wrath). The passage also mentions God's hardening of Pharaoh, but this is still not talking about salvation or [SIZE=-1]ETERNAL[/SIZE] punishment. Paul uses the example of Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh to show how the people were chosen ("elected") by God for His purpose and not by their own will in the first place, and how God raised them up to show his power, and then hardens, all according to His will, and chooses others (and once again, individual salvation is not even mentioned. The very context of Jacob and Esau from Malachi 1:1-4, 3:6, and even the original Genesis 25:12 account is discussing nations!). The Jews, of course, would be offended by this, and one of them might ask "why does He find fault" [i.e., with the people], and then Paul says "Who are you O man, to reply against God"? The Jews had been opposing the Gospel and the apostles all along; yet, possessing the Law (v.4), they should have known better.

    Let's review the context by further examining the "why does He yet find fault; for who has resisted His will?" question. WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what? "Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?". This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text. But is it in the context of what the hypothetical person was asking Paul? It looks like it at first glance, and Calvinists assume so, so everytime someone questions or challenges "God holding helpless, 'totally unable' sinners responsible for their sin they couldn't repent of", the Calvinists just throw up the next verse as the quick magical answer. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) Paul argues that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works" rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
    To further demonstrate God's choice of men for these purposes was not "unjust" (v.14) Paul goes into the whole story of Pharaoh. No Jew thought of what God did to Pharaoh as being "unjust". So then what Paul is getting to nobody also should think is unjust. The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one.
    Before one jumps to the clay "vessels", let's for once look more at the second part of v.20 (the beginning of Paul's answer to this question): "Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have you made me this way'?". Made them what way? Predestined to Hell? Sinners who "chose to sin in Adam" (legally charged with the choice of a 'federal head') and are "allowed to go the way their 'totally depraved' nature takes them"? Helplessly unable to repent, yet "held responsible" to repent and left in that state? Passed over for "saving grace" and therefore doomed to suffer the eternal "justice" for their sins? Most Calvinists I argued with deny with a passion that God "makes" anybody that way (since they, through their federal head, really did it to themselves somehow); and if one of us even addresses that, they claim we are misrepresenting their position and don't know a thing about it. Yet the next verse clearly does credit God as "making" these "vessels" the way they are. And even to those who do confess God "makes" the reprobates that way, still, once again, none of the above concepts are what was being discussed! (A reader would have no reason to even assume they were any of those things in the first place!). So you just can't say "Paul was answering the objection to God's unconditional election and preterition process"!
    The focus is on "children of promise" as opposed to "children of the flesh".

    According to Ephesians 2:3, we all started out as "children of wrath" (which would be synonymous with "vessels of wrath", "sons of disobedience"(Col.3:6), "seed of Satan" (Matt.13) and also "children of the flesh" for the Jews), and John clearly defines "children of the devil" and "children of God" as "he that commits..." or "...does not commit [practice] sin" (1 John 3:8-10). Thanks to our "depravity" (sin from Adam), nobody is born in the latter state, and so the former, as an eternal state of condemnation, is not what God unconditionally "makes" anybody. This should prove once and for all that the question and Paul's answer have nothing to do with Calvinistic reprobation or preterition. God has declared that there are two groups: Physical Israel (which is in the same spiritual status as the rest of humanity) and spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28, 29). "Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law He gave us, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are? Didn't He create us as His people? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?" THIS is what is being asked! HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?" He as "the Potter" sovereignly laid out a plan, involving two categories of people; the first had a purpose, but this purpose is not the salvation of the individuals in the group, but to pave the way for the second. It's this second group one must be apart of, and who are we to question this plan? (This still says nothing about a person's inability to cross from one group to the other.
    http://members.aol.com/etb700/predestination.html
     
  9. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    So this is an argument based on how hard it was to accept. As I have just shown it is the one that does the proof-texting out of context. It looks like it is teaching that, and it offends the unaware reader (2 Pet.3:15, 16), and if he then decided to be "humble" and accept it, his "offense" is taken as the proof it was "God's hard truth".
    So now here, it seems God's whole "glory" and "Deeper reverence" is all based on the notion that He chose me and rejected someone else. Think about this! Why does this make God more "glorified", or the message more "all-encompassing"? His message is called "good news". Of course He can send anyone He wants to Hell; but the whole point of the Gospel is that He doesn't do everything He "can". That's what "Grace" is; not "He gives me and some others grace only, and refuses everyone else".
    And all these charges af false gods and idolatry are either against the rules, or if you insist that all non-Calvinists really are idolaters, then for one, the Baptist Board is guilty of compromise for not declaring it a false gospel that is not allowed to be propagated here. And then why don't you all be like Outside the Camp and come out and openly declare only Calvinists are saved? You can't have it both ways. There is no "you believe in a false god and a false gospel, but I still accept you as a saved Christian". That's being two-faced! (and again, just remember all the screams of "misrepresentation" at Dave Hunt!). Neither does the charges of the other side trusting in dead works, or not realizing the awfulness of sin, or that the only other alternative is open theism fly. Again, either they are non-Christians, or this language is way off-base. But with the whole doctrine being founded largely upon Romans 9, and how that was taken so out of context; I don't see how anyone can dare make it an issue of the other side worshipping a false god, or their doctrine having completely no biblical bases.

    Now someone mentioned Shirley Guthrie a couple of times, and him I found to be very good, and much more balanced on the issue. He even criticized some of the conclusions many Calvinists have taken things to.
     
  10. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric said:

    Amen to that Eric
     
  11. Dustin

    Dustin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    The people who do those things are those who are saved, those who don't are the ones who need to worry, they're the ones who need to make thier calling and election sure.
     
  12. Dustin

    Dustin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0

    Pelagianism is the religion of the natural man. NO, 2 Peter is not the Pelagian book in the bible, there are NO Pelagian books in the bible. Pelgius was a shadowy character, probably a monk, from western europe (the UK). He was around at the same time as Augustine of Hippo, the bishop of the churches of North Africa. Pelagius' doctrines denied God's grace beyond the ability to choose between good and evil. Read: libertarian Free Will. He also denied original sin. Adam's sin didn't condemn us, it just set a bad example for us, and Christ's example was our good example to follow. (make your descision, cast your vote, etc...) Augustine opposed this doctrine on the basis that sin renedered man unable to do anything pleasing to God and that salvation was soley by God's grace, and God saved whoever it pleased Him to save. Over time, many church councils condemned Pelaguis' doctrine as heresy, though the actual Pelagian movement ended sometime during the 500's. Pelagianism in different forms came and went but some stuck around all the way to the 16th century when followers of Jacob Arminius ,the Remonstrants, wished to systematize his teachings. This system, later known as Arminianism, led to the Synod of Dordrecht, which denied these views in favor of the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions, which are still in use today. This is also where the so-called five points of Calvinism came about, though niether Calvin or Ariminius had anything to do with them other than the names. The TULIP acrostic came about much later, maybe the late 19th or early 20th century.

    I'm of an Augustinian ilk, a Calvinist, and anti-Pelagian. Pelagianism, is as I said, the religion of the natural man. It's a denial of true biblical grace. It's makes the free will sovereign instead of the God who created us, where the actual point of salvation, depends on our will and not God's. That is some serious heresy. It's liek saying God did all He could now we just have to make a choice and follow an example. I actually used to think this. But, by God in heaven, I know better now. God is soveriegn, not a fallen man's will. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It's not a set of rules, or an example we follow. We can't merit it because we're sinners, and God hates sin. God didn't have to send Christ to save us, He didn't save the world in Noah's time except for the 8 on the ark. (The ark is a type of Christ.)Not because God is bloodthirsty, but because He is just! He gave the world what they deserved, they were sinners, God judged the sinners. But God had mercy on 8 sinners. God is free to do what pleases Him, that's what Augustine was saying. This horrified Pelagius. It should also horrify a man who thinks his salvation rests upon his will, instead of God's, because I think we can all agree, that God is bigger than we are. God is not conformed by our will! We are conformed by His! Such is the grace of God, in it's true biblical sense.

    Grace and Peace in Christ be with you all,
    Dustin
     
  13. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dustin,

    Just reading through what you just said, it seems to me BOTH things are wrong, this Calvinism thing AND the Pelegianism thing.

    God created us with brains and a will. We have the ability to think and to choose. Thats why Lucifer chose to sin.

    Thats why Adam and Eve chose to sin.

    To get back to God, God makes all the moves.... his Spirit woos us and grace along with repentance are both free gifts, but we have the ability to choose to accept those gifts.

    We are not robots. God doesnt force anyone to love Him... that wouldnt be love at all. God is love. He desires our love... love can only be given freely or else it isnt love at all...

    This free choice of whether or not to accept God's free gifts has nothing to do with trying to do things on your own.

    It just had to do with deciding whether you want to follow God or follow Satan. Who do you choose to be your master? God or Satan?

    Thats all there is to it.

    You see, when the Bible says this:

    Rom:9:16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

    That doesnt mean we dont HAVE a will. It just means that it is God's mercy that saves us... not the fact that we chose to accept His mercy.

    You work out your own salvation by allowing God to do His will, in you. If you choose not to do that then you are grieving away God's Holy Spirit and He will leave you.

    Phil:2:
    12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
    13: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.


    You are choosing all the time who you are YIELDING yourself to:

    Rom:6:16: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

    Claudia
     
    #93 Claudia_T, Dec 23, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2006
  14. Dustin

    Dustin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it's a hard truth for a sinful human! Non-Calvinists are just as saved as Calvinists. There will be a lot of both in heaven. I'm not calling non-Calvinists open theists, I'm saying that Arminianism, taken as a whole in the big picture, would lead to practical open theism, though maybe not professional. It's synergism, which is error. Election is all over the bible, not just in Romans 9. We are conformed by God's will, He is not conformed by ours. It's not for me to say who is a Christian and who is not, I don't know men's hearts and the Lord knows who are His. And I'm certain God saves us despite our errors because no one is 100% theologically correct.

    Grace and Peace be with you,
    Dustin
     
  15. Dustin

    Dustin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course we have a will, but it's not free, it's in bondage to sin. We aren't robots, we are slaves to sin. What I was trying to convey to you was that faith in Christ and obedience and holiness aren't steps you take to be saved, they are fruits of salvation. Grace alone is the basis, and faithalone is the means, Christ alone is the object of faith. Maybe that's a little clearer?
     
  16. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dustin,

    But you, see, I agree our will IS in bondage to sin... but the thing you are supposed to do is DIE... then you become married to Christ...

    but you have to choose to be married to Christ... Romans Chapter 7


    Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For a woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed form the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin, which were by the law, did work in our bodies to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:1-6).

    The one you are originally "married" to is your flesh.

    Compare Romans 7:5 with Romans 6. "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."
    The law made us to be united by "marriage" with the flesh. But in chapter 6 the body of sin is destroyed by Christ. By us being crucified with Christ.


    You cannot serve two masters. You cant be married to two men at one time because of the law. But you've got to make that choice, Paul said "I die daily"... "I am crucified with Christ"

    In Jeremiah 3:1 we read, "They say, If a man put away his wife and she go from him and become another man's shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord." Paul says, "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

    James 4:4. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."


    We VOLUNTARILY give up our lives so that this body of sin can die. We hate the marriage with it so much that WE are willing to die in order that it may die too.


    Up till then you are a slave: "For what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. . . . For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do."


    What you are really saying is that we involuntarily get released from slavery to Satan and are forced into slavery to Jesus.

    Claudia
     
    #96 Claudia_T, Dec 23, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2006
  17. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    After death you become born again, a new creature which is part of the bride of Christ. I think???? Christ has one bride which is his Church.
     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Sinful humans are also known to like "hard" things, particularly when they think it is in their favor! So again, that proves nothing!

    Calvinism's whole argument on Arminianism is based on "taking it where it logically leads to", but y'all didn't like it when Dave Hunt did that kind of thing to Calvinism, and when people call "the Calvinist god" of being "cruel" or a "puppet master"; and it also used to be reprimanded on the old CvsA forum here. That's why Claudia sounded befuddled when she said both were wrong. Arminianism is not the same as Pelagianism either.

    The problem here is that none of us can explain all of God's workings perfectly. So it's a matter of putting together the truths we do have, and some people highlight one side of things, and the other another side. So both sides can believe something that seems to lead one way, without it having to be taken to what you think is "its logical conclusion".
    And most of those passages are being interpreted in light of the Calvinist interpretation of Rom.9, and their whole preconceived theory in general.

    But then all of that "false god/idolatry" rhetoric has got to go! Again, do not label us with what you think "or theology leads to". We do not take it that far, like you may not take it as far as what you all disclaim as "Hyper-Calvinism". To say "well, your theology leads to the idolatry of a false, weak god", and then begin addressing us with that, is to in fact call us idolaters, even if you try to direct it hypothetically at an imaginary third party! And if we are idolaters, then either we are not saved, or you believe idolaters can be saved, true christians!
    Problem is, Augustine went beyond with those last points, and this was basically unheard of before him. Pelagius crossed a line into error, but then Augustine went to the opposite extreme.
    Agai, he went to an extreme, when whom God didn't save and speculations on why became just as much apart of the "gospel". The Noah account was a type of salvation, but "all those left behind and got what they deserved" were not the model of the good news. They all chose not to go, and while Calvinism tries to affirm this, the story does not go into all this business that they were denied some "ability" to go or choose, because "God was giving them what they deserved".
    Arminianism is not a "systematization" of Pelagianism. It's a lesser extreme. And actually, the entire Catholic Church even distanced itself from Augustine's philosophy, in practice, over time, despite all the councils against Pelagius. There were a few fathers who kept onto it (Aquinas was one of them IIRC), but the Church of course, actually became largely Pelagian again, in practice. I would also say Pelagianism is the theology of Judaism and Islam, because they believe basically, as you explained, that Adam's fall was just a bad example that had no real impact on us. We are to just pick ourselves up and keep trying to obey God's Law, and hopefully we will be able to "make it". Arminians do not believe this, though those heavy in the fifth point do come close to that latter point. But many "Arminians" in Baptist circles do not believe that anyway.
     
  19. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I - Irresistible Grace (Called and then hauled. You wake one day to discover you are already a Christian so might as well choose Christ as your Savior)


    On this point that Bob explained about "Irresistable Grace" when does God decide its "your time" to be "saved" then?

    You discover you are already a Christian? so you may as well Choose Christ as your Savior?
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That is yet another example of arbitrary selection - with capricious timing.

    When we see God waiting until someone is old and dying - or in their mid-life or in their teens to get a conversion event to happen -- He simply picks -- innexplicably in Calvinism.

    in the arminian model -- God is right there from the very start "CONVICTING THE WORLD of sin and rightousness and judgment" .

    Full court press from the very start! Standing at the door and knocking - but never busting down the door and entering. Waiting for the one ALONE on the inside to OPEN the door.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...