Calvinistic Contradictions

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Apr 21, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calvinists teach, that Jesus died only for the "elect", and therefore the Atonement is limited only to the "elect"

    Ephesians 1:4 says, "According as He has chosen us (elected) before the foundation of the world...".

    Question. What exactly does this "election" involve? If the "elect" person has been "predestined" before the foundation of the world, to eternal life, then it should follow that they are indeed saved, and that God wil ensure that these come of faith.

    I now read on this board, and in Calvinistic publications, that, if an "elect" person were to die before they believed (had faith), that they would be eternally lost.

    Lets get this right here. Does this then mean, that some whom Christ has died for, will in the end perish? If Jesus is said to have died for the "elect", before they were born, and before they actually believed, and some die before they can believe, then these whom Jesus died for are actually lost. How then can the Calvinist charge us who hold to universal Redemption, by saying that, to hold this position would mean that some whom Christ died for, will end up in hell. BUT, this is exactly the Calvinistic position with those "elect" who die before they believe, as these too will perish. See the clear contradiction here.

    If an "elect" person can also end up in eternal damnation, then to what purpose was this "election"? What exactly were they "predestined" to?. I read that the "elect" were chosen before the foundation of the world, to spend eternity with the Lord. That God had "preordained" their "destination", that their "election" is "unconditional". Yet, it turns out that it is "conditional" after all, as these "elect" still have to believe before they are actually saved. And, there remains the fact, that some of these "elect" will die before they are saved, and will be lost eternally.

    So, some for whom Christ died, will after all be lost. This is Calvinism.
     
  2. Kiffen

    Kiffen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do wish you would study Calvinism.

    You said,
    "I now read on this board, and in Calvinistic publications, that, if an "elect" person were to die before they believed (had faith), that they would be eternally lost."

    The question is illogical. Calvinism teaches all the elect will be brought to Faith. It is not possible for an "elect" person to die before they believed.

    Please, give a reference or a link to this Calvinist publication.

    Go read some Calvinist books if you are going to try to be an apologist against Calvinism for I cannot take this thread serious and I doubt many other Calvinists can either.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Kiffen. His remarks about "this board" probably refer to his misunderstanding of what I said in another thread about 2 Peter 3:9. Icthus questioned why God would be patient to save the elect. My response was that if Christ returned right now, the elect who are not yet saved would perish, and God is not willing for that to happen. This time is, as PEter says, to be regarded as time for salvation.

    He tried to make it sound like I said some of the elect would be lost when Christ returned because they wouldn't yet be saved.

    I have told Icthus many times he needs to find out what we actually believe and the respond to that.
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Mistaken foundational assumption leads to mistaken conclusions. Calvinists don't believe "Jesus died only for the elect." They, for the most part, believe the atonement was only applied to the elect. Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived.

    And, of course, you have been told this same thing several times right here on this board but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. :(
     
  5. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mistaken foundational assumption leads to mistaken conclusions. Calvinists don't believe "Jesus died only for the elect." They, for the most part, believe the atonement was only applied to the elect. Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived.

    And, of course, you have been told this same thing several times right here on this board but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. :(
    </font>[/QUOTE]Cassidy, you guys make me laugh. You come on here and try to show that what you believe is true, but your own posts show that you cannot even agree as to what Calvinism actually is.

    Here is an example right here. You says:

    "They, for the most part, believe the atonement was only applied to the elect. Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived."

    Listen to the nonsense you believe. Christ's Atonement, which was His death on the cross, is only "applied to the elect". However, you then go on to say, that "Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived.". Do you mind telling us, exactly what these "benefits" are? As far as I am aware from Scripture, the death of Jesus Christ was to make "Atonement" for the sins of the whole world, and thereby render it possible that "whosoever believes in Him shall have everlasting life". Besides this, what "benefits" do the non-elect partake in from the death of Christ? The fact of the matter is, they are still going to hell, since, according to your beliefs, Jesus did not Atone for their sins. The Bible says that those who do not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, have the wrath of God abiding on them. Is this one of their "benefits"? And, when they die without Christ, they are sure to go to eternal damnation. Is this also another "benefit" that the lost have because of Christ's death. Can you show me just ONE Scripture, which shows that the "non-elect" would in some way "benefit" from the death of Christ?

    My conclusions are "mistaken"? Your "solutions" are based on the theories of man, and not on the foundation of the Word of God.

    :D
     
  6. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, I did not misunderstand what you said. Here it is again:

    "The point of God not being willing for the elect to perish is simple. If he returns right now, the elect who are not saved, would perish"

    If Jesus Christ were to return today, those of the elect who are not saved, will perish. Whenever Jesus were to return, there will always be "elect" who will not be saved. It is nothing but conjecture to assume that when Christ returns, it will be at a time only after all the elect were saved. This is complete unbiblical nonsense. Why would this make Jesus "bear patiently with the non-elect"?

    The whole doctrine of "Unconditional Election" is a falsehood. For it teaches that, "there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him". Yet Scripture is clear to the fact, that id we do not "believe", then it is certain that we shall perish. "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved". The "condition" has to be, "believe". But Calvinism would have us to believe, that, "Election is a condition for faith. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world, that He purchases our redemption at the cross, and quickens us with irrestible grace and brings us to faith" (TULIP, What we Believe, Bethlehim Baptist Church, p.19). This makes us nothing better than a bunch of robots, whoc have absolutely no say in whether they would like to be saved, they don't even have to beileve, as this is done for them already. And yet "God commands all men everyehere to repent". For what purpose, since nothing they can do can change the divine "election" of God before the foundation of the world.

    This biggest problem with the Calvinistic "system" that they cannot produce any Biblical support, to show why God would chose some, and reject the rest? Are you better than Joe down the street? What is you election based on? Way would God love you more than the next guy. Remember what happened to "elect Israel", they did not enter God's rest becuase of unbelief. I think that Calvinism makes the heart of man "proud", since God chose you, and rejected the next person, based on nothing.
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do I need to waste my time in the study of heresy? Calvinism, NOT the Bible, teaches that all the elect will be brought to faith. Care to back up your claim from Scripture? If you knew anything about Calvinism, then you ought to know that for the most part, it is based on error. Its very foundation, which denies human responsibility, makes God the author of sin, since He has "preordained all things that come to pass, even our sinful acts". It like we have all been programmed by God to sin against Him, and then He punishes us for doing what He wanted us to do in the first place. What a complete distortion of the Word of God. And you guys actually believe this is taught in the Holy Bible.
     
  8. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mistaken foundational assumption leads to mistaken conclusions. Calvinists don't believe "Jesus died only for the elect." They, for the most part, believe the atonement was only applied to the elect. Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived.

    And, of course, you have been told this same thing several times right here on this board but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. :(
    </font>[/QUOTE]The truth is Cassidy, the "once-in-eternity (past, present, and future) atonement for sin" cannot be applied only to "an elect". And that is where we take exception to Calvinism on this matter.

    The atonement for sin is just that, Atonement for SIN and it must apply to All sin or it is not atonement for sin, but rather atonement for people, and that is not scriptural!
     
  9. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mistaken foundational assumption leads to mistaken conclusions. Calvinists don't believe "Jesus died only for the elect." They, for the most part, believe the atonement was only applied to the elect. Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived.

    And, of course, you have been told this same thing several times right here on this board but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. :(
    </font>[/QUOTE]The truth is Cassidy, the "once-in-eternity (past, present, and future) atonement for sin" cannot be applied only to "an elect". And that is where we take exception to Calvinism on this matter.

    The atonement for sin is just that, Atonement for SIN and it must apply to All sin or it is not atonement for sin, but rather atonement for people, and that is not scriptural!
    </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Wes, we can see that, but Larry and Cassidy have their blinkers on [​IMG]
     
  10. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus,
    It seems to me that Cassidy and Larry, equate sin with the sinner. The sinner has never been a problem for God. Sin, because of its God imposed penalty, is what prevented the sinner from receiving everlasting life by having faith in God.

    The atonement removed the penalty so that Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

    Now, that IS NOT universal salvation, that is universal atonement which enables absolutely anyone out of ALL who does believe through hearing the word, to have everlasting life which we call salvation. Salvation is the Gift given by God to those who come to and hold onto faith while God's grace is present. And, if they persevere to the end, they shall indeed have the promised salvation because they Shall not be judged, but pass from death into life, while those without faith are not found in the book of life and get cast into the Burning lake!

    Yes, I know you know that Icthus, and I am not intending this for you because you indeed hold the truth in this matter.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based on what? Election is to salvaiton. Why in the world would you think that God would elect someone to something and then not fulfill it? And you think we are the crazy ones ...

    No it's not. The Bible talks of the 'fulness of the Gentiles.' What do you think that is? And how will we know?

    Your problem is that you have denied the biblical teaching on election and are trying to force us into that with you.

    No, that is not really what it teaches. This gets back to knowing what you are talking about. You don't.

    And unconditional election agrees with this, which you would know if you knew what you were talking about.

    Without seeing the rest of this, it looks at first glance like they are right.

    No it doesn't. You have been told this is not true before and you continue to misrepresent what we believe. Why?

    Every person has teh duty of faith and repentance. They reject of their own free will, which you would know if you understood what you were talking about.

    ]Actually we have ... His sovereign glory.

    No, which is the proof of Calvinism. If your belief was the initial issue, then you would be betteer than Joe down the street, and God would be a respecter of those who were smart enough to believe. God teaches differently than you believe.

    God's sovereign choice to show his mercy and glory.

    I don't buy the premise. I don't know that he does.

    If you have studied your Bible, then you know that the election you speak of here is not election to salvation. So your point is irrelevant to this discussion.

    That is exactly why Calvinists have no reason to be proud ... Because God chose us based on onthin in us. If God chose you and saved you bcause of your faith, then you would have reason to be proud. We don't, because we understand that none of it is about us. It is all about God, and the difference between the saved and the unsaved is God alone, not man.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one here has suggested that you do. We suggested that you learn about Calvinism so you can at least talk intelligently about it. The fact taht you think it is heresy shows just how much you don't know.
     
  13. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry, I really do not understand that statement. I though there was no such thing as "their own free will" in Calvinism. I'm not looking for an argument, just an explanation. You say we don't know what we're talking about - that may be, so please clue me in.
     
  14. qwerty

    qwerty
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw this the other day:

    From the book, titled:
    Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport

    Jake, a pious Calvinist elder (played by George C. Scott in the film Hardcore)
    (speaking about Calvinism)

    “Well, I admit it’s a little confusing when you look at it from the outside.
    You have to try to look at it from the inside.”

    Larry has given the suggestion that non-calvinists learn about Calvinism so we can talk intelligently about it. The only way that one can talk about Calvinism is to totally accept it, whatever it means. If you disagree with it, you don't understand it.

    I am one who has never had to give TULIP up. I never took up the habit to begin with. So, in the mind of a Calvinist, I will never be able to understand what Calvinism is all about.

    Am I blessed, or what!
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natters, the point of "their own free will" is that unbelievers are freely sinning and freely rejecting Christ. No one is forcing them to. They are doing what they want to do.

    Qwerty, I thought Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport was an excellent defense of Calvinism and shows how the technical stuff here sounds strange to people who are unfamiliar with it. It proves the very point I have been trying to make. When you have people who don't understand it trying to refute it, it is hilarious, and it is a mess. Mouw's point is that we need to simply explain the gospel and Calvinism will take care of itself. It is a book worth reading.

    You don't have to accept Calvinism to understand it. But you do have to understand to argue properly against it.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true qwerty. You do not have to believe Calvinism in order to not be dishonest or wrong about what Calvinists believe.

    In fact, many here have made it pretty simple. Non-calvinists make charges. Calvinists correct the false charges, explain what Calvinists actually believe.... then the non-calvinists wait awhile and post the same false charges again usually with different phrasing.

    I am calvinistic. I don't buy all of the explanations given by other calvinists on every point. I certainly believe that man has free will... and that any exercise of that will outside the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit will result in sin, self-centeredness, self-glorification, etc....

    If one were able of their own, natural free will to make the decision to accept Christ then their salvation would be based at least partly on their own goodness and not wholly on the absolute sufficiency of God's grace.
     
  17. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    i don't believe unsaved people have even a rudimentary understanding of the love of Christ until they are converted. This is a 'get on the inside and you'll understand' sort of thing. it is much the same way with Calvinism.
     
  18. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott J,
    Clever how you, from your calvinist point of view, see that the Non-calvinists are the OFFENDERS, while the Calvinists are the DEFENDERS!

    A decision to Accept Christ is not necessarily out of one's "own goodness". It is based on what one hears and believes, and that often happens while one is in their greatest "BADNESS".

    What you posted is a case in point of how Calvinists skew the truth!
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    So it is a "bad" decision?
    You didn't demonstrate that anything was skewed. In fact, the inconsistency evident within your own post leaves your response and accusation without merit.

    Either the decision was a good one born of something within the hearer or it was a good one resulting from the Spirit's regeneration of the hearer.

    If it was a born of something within the hearer then it is partly their goodness that saved them.

    There is nothing inconsistent nor dishonest about this contention. Either the decision was caused by man's "good" will or God's. I contend it was God's.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see non-calvinists as offenders. I see them simply as being wrong about this subject. In varying degrees, they assume part of the glory for their salvation for themselves rather than recognizing it all belongs to God.
     

Share This Page

Loading...