How To Treat A Calvanist! Should we cut off Calvanists from the Body????

John 10:15, 16
You say that Jesus died only for His sheep (which you mean the elect).


But in verse 16, Christ taught that there are "other sheep not of this fold" who would come into the fold.

Calvinists deny that one can change from "sheep not of the fold" to "sheep of the fold."

There are Bible examples of those who made that change.

Many Corinthians had changed lCorinthians 6:9-11

Paul changed 1 Timothy 1:13, 14

 

Jesus was referring to Gentiles in his reference to "other sheep." Nearly all of us, maybe everybody on this board, are Gentiles, not Jews.

They were not yet saved, but I find it interesting that he referred to them as sheep. Maybe that in the mind of God, it was already an accomplished fact?

Being lost is not the same as being "not of this fold." All of were lost at one time. Mercifully, the Lord saved some of us.

 

HP: Our will cannot birth us into the kingdom in and of itself. Our will and its choices has no power to forgive sin. God alone can birth us into the kingdom. We are saved for the sake of God’s grace, not man’s will.

That in no wise eliminates the part that mans will does play. Everything God calls on man to do is thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ “Choose you this day whom ye shall serve,” “Repent,” “make of yourselves a new heart.” These are just examples of God calling on man to exercise ones will in accordance to the conditions He has said, ‘without which’ no salvation will be experienced. “Lu 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

So we see in the verse you posted that man’s will is not the ‘grounds’ of salvation, nor does the will of man devise the plan of salvation, yet according to other clear texts the will of man is indeed involved in salvation, without which no one shall be saved.

 

HP: Here are my some of my remarks on Psalms 58.
If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Will you Ann hold to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked, as opposed to the righteous, appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency. As soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, the wicked, again as opposed to the righteous, appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate.



Quote:
HP: I would see that as an issue you indeed must grapple with. Tell us Ann, how can one in the end be lost when ALL sins have literally been paid for as the Calvinistic literal payment assumes once for all? If you desire to hold to predestination and election in the Calvinistic sense of them, you also, as did Calvin, have to admit that double predestination is an inescapable end of that argument. If God predestines the saved apart from anything they do or are involved in, God must predestine the damned to their fate as well. Such nonsense makes god out to be the author of all sin, a most absurd doctrine that is a insult to the Holy and Just character of God.

HP: Nice try Ann, but you have all created being dead. If all are created dead, and God only grants to some the means to avoid sins fate, He by direct choice forces all others to the fate of hell by withholding the very means they might escape hell by. That is double predestination Ann. There could have never been the slightest possibility of escape apart from the chosen few you call the elect, unless you say that none were predestined period and it was nothing but blind luck that some happened across salvations opportunity apart from any involvement on God’s part. That would certainly be opposed to Scripture making salvation the product of man or something other than God in some way or another.

HP: What do you mean, “good enough job on their own??” What does an infant bound for hell as a sinner have to do with their fate?? They have done nothing on their own period.

HP: Tell me Ann. What does it mean to be just? Can one arbitrarily choose to condemn one make a way of escape for another arbitrarily when neither one had any choice whatsoever in the state they are born in? I see your idea of justice at direct antipodes with principles of immutable justice instilled within the breast of all moral agents. IF men had a choice at one time or another to choose righteousness as opposed to selfishness, and THEN God chose some to salvation and others He left to their own destruction, only THEN would God be just in His choosing some as opposed to choosing all. God would be under no obligation to save anyone if such was the case, and therefore choosing to save some in no wise shows God as unjust in condemning others who are willing sinners by choice. You have men being created lost and without any possibility of righteous behavior, and then show God as saving some and withholding salvation from others. There is nothing just about such an arbitrary system as you present in the least.
Conscious of it or not, you are simply espousing the false arbitrary system of Calvinism that is simply not established by Scripture.

 

Can something be and not be at the same time in the same sense? Some would have man sinful with no hope and chosen to salvation at the same time. Some would have an atonement completed and finalized on their behalf before they were ever born, yet ineffective to keep them from being born with the sin they say they were created with that should have already been dealt with at the cross. If all sins were atoned for on the cross, and once atoned for forgotten and cast from us as far as the East is from the West, how could one still be born in sin if they were of the elect?? Some need to do some serious introspection into the dogmas they are embracing. Some of the doctrines presented on this board imbibe pure absurdities and clear contradictions.

 

Excellent posts Ann. I do not have the patience for this. I'm glad you do.

 

I'm so sorry to hear about your losses -- I never knew that. God is love. God is sovereign. Bad things happen. Those three truths are hard to understand. Regarding salvation, a pastor friend once told me that there are two parallel truths taught in Scripture -- man is responsible and God is sovereign. Both are true and the lines only cross in eternity.

 

That we don't make us born again, God does. This says nothing of the mechanics involved, however. Bad proof text

 

I see that issue much like a farmer who tends to his cattle. He decided where the cattle will eat pasture grass but the cattle choose which grass they will eat in the field.

 

The text is hyperbole. My son is 3 and my daughter is 1...and neither have "gone astray" yet.

Innocent is the wrong word. Not guilty is a better fit. There is no reason God would send a baby to hell...they haven't consciously broken His law which is what sin it.

Again...hyperbole. By the very definition of "wicked", they cannot be deemed such literally.

agreed.

People go to hell for rejecting the truth presented to them and for "believing not"...not because the legal atonement for all sin has not been paid.

He is both, but He is also merciful. Arbitrarily selecting some over others is not just.

He doesn't have to meet our justice standards...but if our justice standards are derived from a greater justice (God's)...and He doesn't even meet THAT...what does that tell us?

Paul clearly wanted to be chosen...he sincerely thought he was doing the work of God and upholding the Law. What doesn't follow Scripture is to dismiss any passage dealing with choosing or choice with an asterisk after it due to reading it through the lens of man's theology.

Strawman. God is not weak, but He has sovereignly decided who to choose...and it is clear throughout all 66 books of the Bible it is those of faith...not coerced faith, but genuine free agency faith.

 

HP: My point is that David was making no universal remark supporting any such notion as original sin. He is looking at a specific group he sees as wicked as opposed to a group he sees as righteous. He is NOT establishing any dogma of original sin.

HP: Scripture does Ann, and reason attests to it as well. Mt 19:14 “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” “Where there is no law sin is not imputed.” “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” Every definition of sin in Scripture is at direct antipodes with infants or small children being sinful.

HP: I would tend to believe that God killed Moses also, but he is in heaven. God offered His own Sons life willingly as well. No one knows why God takes the lives of the innocents, but that leaves us no right to develop notions such as original sin that is clearly contrary to scripture and reason. There is not a solitary scripture that speaks of God overlooking sin in infants, yet I believe there is clear indications that they will be there. What place they will have is beyond me, but it certainly was consolation to David knowing that he would see His son that died again.

HP: Again Ann you are speculating far beyond the Word of God. The text does not set forth any universal principle of sin in infants in the least, nor does it establish infants as wicked. You would do well to recognize poetic language when it is clear that is exactly what it is and quit using texts to establish Augustinian notions of original sin by them when there is absolutely no justification to do so if context means anything.

HP: What does “all past, present and future sins” mean to you Ann? If you have not heard this a thousand times if you have heard it once you have not been paying attention.

HP: Say that loud enough for all the Calvinists and those leaning hard towards Calvinism can hear and give an answer. Then look at yourself in a mirror and say ask

HP: What does that have to do with anything? What are you trying to refute Ann??
Quote:
HP: What do you mean, “good enough job on their own??” What does an infant bound for hell as a sinner have to do with their fate?? They have done nothing on their own period.

Quote:
HP: Tell me Ann. What does it mean to be just?

Ann: There are two aspects to being "just". First it means that we have no penalty to pay for sin. There is no longer any condemnation on those who are just.
HP:God is Just. What does that mean to you?
Ann: We have become "neutral" with regards to sin since we no longer have the penalty measured against us.

HP: That is no where found in Scripture. Certainly at the new birth one has no sin to their charge but there is no indication that new transgressions subsequent to slavation do not bring repeated slavery to sin, and every indication that sin does bring us back under condemnation. Only as we walk in the light of obedience are we free from condemnation.

Ann: Additionally, we have Jesus' righteousness counted to us - "imputed" to us so that we are righteous in the sight of God. So not only is our sin penalty paid for but we are declared righteous by God's grace.

HP: The doctrine of the imputed righteousnes of Christ is known to the Calvinistic world is an unscriptural and false asumption. Christ indeed imputes to us righteousness for sins that are past, but that is not where you are leading us. You are presuming upon the grace of God to cover sins now being committed or future sins yet to be committed apart from the fulfilling of the conditions mandated fro forgiveness. That is going beyond the scope of Biblical truth and embacing Calvinistic error.

Quote:
HP: I see your idea of justice at direct antipodes with principles of immutable justice instilled within the breast of all moral agents.

HP: Where do you believe we get intuitive principles of justice from? I will speak for myself. I got mine intuitively from God. Knowing that they are universal principles, I can safely assume that if one has not done harm to their God-given instilled principles of immutable justice via false dogmas such as original sin, they to have such clear intuitive notions surrounding justice instilled by God in them as well. Man cannot reveal them to the mind, they are revealed by God Himself. It is not my standard Ann, it is God’s standard.

HP: God is a gentleman and will allow man to reject or accept His offer of a pardon. That is completely in line with Scripture. Re 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.



Quote:
HP: Conscious of it or not, you are simply espousing the false arbitrary system of Calvinism that is simply not established by Scripture.

HP: Certainly the doctrine of grace is clearly established in Scripture, but the Calvinistic notions you appear to be calling grace are not.

 

HP: Wouldn’t it be nice if you really did Ann…… but you either do not or are simply inconsistent. If you believed in genuine faith produced by free agency, how could you then imply that He chooses us apart from such free agency which involves a clear choice, without which no salvation or grace is bestowed upon man, as you indicate above He does? If choice on the part of man is not directly involved with who is saved, there is no free agency involved Ann. Arbitrary selection and necessity then rules just as presented in Calvinistic dogma.

 

The text is not hyperbolic -- it's real. It reminds me of anther passage wherein it states :"No not one." You must have a meager definition of going astray. But I prefer to follow the Bible's understanding of sinfulnes and going astray.

God's ways are above our own. Are you willing to admit that? Or do you wish to cast God as a sinner like yourself?

Wicked from the womb or even before is still 'wicked' in God's eyes. We're waiting for you to conform to God's understanding of the subject.

A "legal atonement" has not been paid for the sins of every single person -- past,present and future. The Lord did not die for Pharoah,Esau,Ahab, Jezebel,Judas and a host of other reprobates whom He had already marked out for condemnation before the world began.

God is a God of order. He is not haphazard in His decrees. Contrary to your wishes the Lord has the prerogative to select as many or as few as He so desires for salvation. It has absolutely nothing to do with justice but mercy.Consult Romans 9;especially verses 14-20 or so.

Ann already did a fine job of answering your items. I just thought I'd add my input as well.

 

Like it or not (and you are certainly in the latter camp), Psalm 51 establishes what we call original sin. Of course other passages such as Romans 5 nails it shut.

The only,I repeat -- the only innocent of which God took the life of was His Dear Son.

Augustine had his theological errors, but he was more solid than you. You are trying your best to minimize biblical doctrines by reducing them down to your humanistic level.

Why it is John Wesley recenly having come back from the dead with his contemptible doctrines of men!

Hmm, a variation of the line that 'the Holy Spirit is a gentleman' fodder.

Of course you choose to misappropriate the Scripture again. That passage deals specifically with believers -- not the unregenerate. But most semi-Pelagians and Arminians use it to the own ends.

Tell us how you really feel HP. Your diatribes are so bogus.