Featured Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

None of these terms have been shot down.Some people do not understand them is all......yall:laugh::laugh:

 

Well, of course.

Iconoclast is confronted with scripture, and he....sleeps.

 

How many errors are there is this commentray?

Since when does Calvinism start with the 'T' only the ignorent equate the five points of Calvinism with Calvinism. The TULIP acrostic was first presented around 1905 by Boetnerr as a summary of the teachings of the synod of Dordt which in itself was a response to thye five points of the remosntrants. The remonstrants were remonstranting aginst reformed soteriology. Hence their statements are not a full orbed positive assertion of what the Calvinist believes but rather a focused response to what the remonstrants disputed.

Calvinistic theology begins with God, or more specificially our understanding of God's sovereignty. What does the bible teach about God's soveriegnty:

1 - God can do anything - Gen 18:14, Num 11:23, Job 42:2, Ps 103:19, Dan 4:17, Jer 32:17, 27, luke 1:37, Eph 1:11

2 - God will do everything he pleases - Ps 115:3, Ps 135:6

3 - God's purposes will not be thwarted - Job 9:12, Job 11:10, Job 12:14, Job 42:2, Prov 21:30, Ecc 7:13, Isa 14:27, Isa 43:13, Lam 3:37

4 - God will not be thwarted in what he pleases - Isa 46:9-10, Dan 4:35, Rev 3:7

5 - God rules over good and bad - Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, 7, Job 2:10, Eccles 7:14, Isa 45:6-7, Lam 3:38, Amos 3:6

Then of course there is the all importnat Eph 1:11.

This view of God's proactive total control of his creation is the basis of reformed soteriology - not total depravity!

Total depravity

I guess the commentator has read Psalm 51:5 " Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." or perhaps he reads it through the lense of his traditions like he does the texts he quotes and so asserts the sin to be David's mothers!

Now here is the issues if sin and guilt is not imputed to us, how can we be made rightous by imputed rightousness?

Strawman! It claims nothing of the sort. Total depravity does NOT claim that man is as evilas he could be, or that he is unable to recognise the will of God, or unable of doing any good towards his fellow man. No, it simply means that men has fallen in his totality - the whole personality, intellect, emotions, affections, understanding etc of man is tainted by sin.

Which is why we need regeneration. Now waht really worries me about these comments is that the writer seems to be taking a pelagian view of man.

Hence we need to be saved by grace! Eph 2:8-9

Unconditional election

You know someone is on the wrong tract when they are telling you what you believe - or rather what you must believe. Now I cannot understand how anyone can read words like 'saved' and 'redeemed' and not seem as completed tasks, but rather as something that is potential based upon our ability to believe - but I know many people do see it that way.

No, the point is we are all deserving of hell because we are all sinners. However the doctrine of election is that God has saved many from that judgement.

One more thing I would say before moving on is that the only theological system that solves this 'problem' (if you see it as such) is open theism. Even a simple foreknowledge view lays some blame at God's feet for he has created a world in which he knew some would not believe, therefore in his creative act he condenmed people to hell.

Again a strawmen. The bible is clear that God has appointed means. Here is a counter question, if God desire all men everywhere to be saved why does he set many people at unfair disadvantage, for example why are the people who from the day are born, to the day they die never hear the gospel?

Cretainly all those who believe will be saved, but how can you establish scripturally that faith/ believe originates in us.

This is universalism, if Jesus Christ has ransomed all men then all will be saved!

Yet the commentator has not correctly articulated the teachings of Calvinism!

So what is, pelagianism or universalism, the commentator seems to embrace both.

Can I suggest to the commentator that before he tries this he actually takes the time to understand the theology of those he seesk to engage with

 

:laugh:

I'll quote Van, from earlier in this thread, in response.....

 

Of course not and the Bible and myself never make such claims. You quote right up to the good part of the chapter and neglect one of the most important parts. Like most calvinist you only see the part you can use to support your mistaken theology. Why not quote this too;
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

It says clearly that everyone that looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life.
I dare say if Calvinist could they would delete all verses that oppose there pitiful doctrines. I know you see them and still you deny it in favor of particular election which isn't even found in scripture. There fore you justify what you believe by avoiding the obvious truth.
MB

 

Here we have a classic "prove A" and then claim "B" has been proved.

The non-Calvinism doctrine is God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. God was pleased to create mankind for the purpose of glorifying God. Therefore He endowed mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices. He then sets before us the choice of life or death and begs us to choose life. He allows mankind to operate within the limits or confines He establishes, hence we make plans but He directs our feet.

This doctrine is consistent with the innumerated points above but lets actually look at Ephesians 1:11.

"In Him,also we have obtained an inheritance,
having been predestined according to His purpose,
who works all things after the counsel of His
[decretive or permissive]will."

Calvinism says we were predestined to be put in Him, but this verse says in Him we have obtained an inheritance because the inheritance was predestined. Putting it together, after we are put in Him, we obtain an inheritance predestined for everyone put in Him.

So the verse does not support being predestined to be placed in Him, which is the false doctrine of Calvinism found no where in scripture.
In other words, the basis of reformed theology, total control or exhaustive determinism, in not found in scripture, and is best refuted by the observation that God is not the author of sin.

 

Because all do not choose to be saved. It is called free will.

 

Does anyone believe I believe in Universal Salvation? Of course not. So this post is yet another false charge, calculated to change the subject. Salvation is not by compulsion, salvation is offered, "be reconciled to God" but only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are spiritually put in Christ by God. So reconciliation was provided to all mankind, but is "received" only by those God puts spiritually in Christ.

Calvinists repeatedly pretend this concept to too hard for them to grasp. Go figure.

 

Not exactly. Ever hear the song about keeping your eyes on Jesus. We look on Jesus when we believe in Him. This happens with the mind's eye not physcial eyes. You do keep your eyes on Jesus don't you? You do look to Jesus when you worship or pray. You look to Jesus when trouble comes we all do that. So why do you question it?, Or try to make it seem like a physcial action.
MB

 

Your refusing to look at the truth of it and that's the truth. It's sort of like not being able to see the forest for the trees. You are so convinced that you are absolutely right it's almost a conceded thought. Christ died for the whole world, the Bible says so and you say that ain't so. You're in denial of the truth. You keep telling your self to redefine even the words of scripture to make it fit the nonsense you accept

Some believe and some don't because of individual acceptance of Christ. There is nothing special about either one. God is no respector of persons. We either believe or die in hell.
MB

 

Van,

I always find discusion works better if people address the subject of the post they are responding to rather then going off at a tangent, as you do in your response to me, and as I will highlight in the 'meat' of my response.

I also find it is easier to talk to people about things, and reason with people if we don't use terms like 'false doctrine' for anothers position. Let me be very clear that the church has never declared calvinistic soteriology to be heresy, or even heterdoxy indeed it is at the heart of evangelical christianity, and has been has long as evangelical christainity has existed.



Red hearing 1 - An arguement not put forward being refuted

No, I haven't said that. Let me repeat what I did say;

Where do I say in those words that if I prove the sovereignty of God I prove Calvinism? No it is true to say that if one has a reformed understanding of God's sovereignty then the 5 points make sense and logically flow out of that understanding - but I am not even argueing that here! I was simply asserting that the commentator misrepresents the starting point of Calvinists, and then I went on to state what the starting point of Calvinism actually is.

Red Hearing 2 - Jumping to conclusions rather then reading what is being said

And you can explain how that fits with every scripture I referenced can you please?

Yes please - before we do though may I just point out that I was citing Eph 1:11 in reference to God's sovereignty and not predestination so nothing you have written is remotely relevant to the point I was making

I am sorry but not only is that conclusion irrelavant to the topic at hand, it is also convoluted beyond degree. for example where do you draw the conclusion that it is the 'inheritance' that is predetermined and why would Paul even need to make such an arguement?

The point I was making from the vesre is that God works all things according to the purpose of his will not just somethings, but all things, hense all things that happen, happen because they are worked by him, and they are worked by him according to the purpose of his will.

Really? I guess the early church, and reformers, the puritans, and the generations since were reading a book other then the Bible then?

Tearing down a view without putting anything in its place

So which view to hold and how do you establish it from scripture? You see I notice that earlier you mentioned this;

This concept of man's will and his freedom to choose is spoken of where in the bible? This sounds very philosophical to me! It also sounds like Pelagianism, would I be right in that statement or have I misunderstood you perspective?

The origin of evil

Again, a statement that shows ones ignorence of reformed theology that you might suggest this is what we teach or what we believe, let me direct you to chapter 3 of the baptist confession of faith that clearly refutes this strawman. The truth is, until the introduction of open theism, the reformed faith is the only system that resolves the problem of evil.

It was the growth of various Arminian and semi-pelagian philosphies that raised the question again, and the creeping arminainism of a teaching of God have a permissive will that has crept into some reformed circles in the last century or so that has muddied these waters again!

Whilst we are on th subject perhaps you will explain your views on the origin of evil in our world? Do you for example believe evil just is? Do you believe it took God by surprise when evil occured? You see, the reality is, once you start to bring charges like this against God only the position of the open theist remains above the charge because if God knew evil would occur in the world he was about to create, and he created it anyway, he has sovereignly ordained that evil will occur - now you might be a open thiest for all I know, but otherwise your own theology, what ever it might be, still makes God cuplable if the follow this line of reasoning, or there is another power in the universe that rivals God? Which do you believe?

now, can we get back to my response rather then pursueing these red hearings

 

And to be fair, many of us do not fully understand our opponents positions either. The truth is I know what I believe better then anyone else does, and they know whet they believe better then I do - so we are all likely to err if we try and draw and conclusions and logical ends of other people's theologies

Thnaks for the share

And I am not talking about TULIP; it only scratches the surface.[/QUOTE]

Indeed it is, indeed it is