Featured The Reprobate Calvinist

I agree with your statement. What bearing does it have on those unable to give any testimony at all?

 

That's right. They claim they've done this or that. They profess to have a "testimony" but in the end the Lord will say :"I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!"

 

I can guarantee you I know whom I have believed in. I am 100% certain I am one of the elect.

 

The Arminian does not know who or what, if even they, are born in God. To think something so basically explained in John iii by the Lord Jesus Himself is so disputed; you cannot be born again except there was a prior birth. Even the blind, dumb Pharisee Nicodemus understood in mortal carnality this precept, as we read in verse seven! See 3.8, in accord with 1 John 5. In case there are sluggards about, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

That is presumptuously hypocritical of they preaching conditional election to demand something of which they are uncertain! Is it so hard to understand one is elected because he trusts the Christ, thusly with Christ's Spirit the Comforter helping him, he keeps the commandments not grievous?

As to the elect, I challenge the arminians to declare plainly
what, or whom, the Bible says is the first elect.
If they can figure this out we MIGHT get somewhere.

 

A-M-E-N!
Monergism- "mono-" meaning the singular case.

Synergism- "Synergy"- work of multiples in harmony

I was dead and am now alive! It is not I but Christ that liveth in me! Hallelujah!

 

Being neither Calvinist nor Arminian, I have to find fault with both sides.

The Calvinist states we are regenerated that we might place faith in Christ.

The Arminian views man as having an ability to understand the Gospel and thus be born again.

But the Bible holds both these views in error, for regeneration occurs only for those who believe to the saving of the soul, and the natural man has no ability nor desire to obey God.

The answer lies in the Ministry of the Comforter, Who enlightens the natural mind that he might repent of his sin.

Christ taught that the Comforter would minister to the world, that is...those who are lost and unbelievers:


John 16:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


It is that ministry that enlightens the natural mind to the spiritual things of God, but does not guarantee regeneration. We see those who have had the truth revealed to them...who turned away:


2 Peter 2:20-22

King James Version (KJV)

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


The writer of Hebrews speaks of willfully rejecting Christ:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


We have to decide whether these passages refer to a regenerate believer committing apostasy and losing his salvation, or whether this refers to those who have come under conviction through the enlightening ministry of the Comforter (the Spirit of Grace) and have rejected Christ, His Sacrifice (the very Blood of the New Covenant), and the very ministry meant to save them.

And we know salvation cannot be lost, right?

The reason there remains no more sacrifice for those that reject Christ is that this is the only Sacrifice which can make the believer complete. Those in this audience who returned to the First Covenant rejected the only sacrifice by which they could be saved, thus, there was no other sacrifice that remained to which they could turn to.

The Writer makes this same point, but here...


Hebrews 10:14-18

King James Version (KJV)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


It is the same point made in v.26, yet with a different person in view: the person who has been sanctified once and for all, made complete in regards to remission of sins by which God no more remembers their sins. The contrast between the First Covenant (the Covenant of Law) and the New Covenant is found in both quotes. Those in vv.26-29 are those who reject, and are compared to those who rejected Moses' Law (the Covenant of Law). Those in the latter quote are those eternally forgiven which creates the condition that there remains no more sacrifice for sin.

The natural man is depraved, incapable of understanding his condition. But, the Comforter has come to enlighten men as to that condition, and the remedy for the condition man is born into.

Divine truth is always revealed to men by the Spirit of God, whether regenerate or unregenerate. This is illustrated in Scripture in Peter, who declared Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, only for Peter to immediately after rebuke Christ for presenting the Gospel of Christ to them.

So we should not think it impossible for the natural man to be made to understand the Gospel, but we do not attribute that understanding to men themselves, any more than Peter drew a conclusion from that which he witnessed in regards to Christ. The Father revealed that divine truth to Peter, and in the same manner God is still revealing that truth to men today. Some will repent, and some will reject that ministry. Those who repent will be saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, whereas those who reject Christ, His Sacrifice, and the Spirit of Grace...will be held to the highest standard of accountability for that rejection because they are without excuse.


God bless.

 

Oh say that I am glad to see someone using the AV.
However, Darrell, you dodged in your theological confusion
the challenge to name the first elect of God according to the writ.
You cannot hold both in error without the third option: hardshell Baptist. As one, we oppose Calvin's private interpretations on the doctrines of grace.
Seeing as this is a madhouse discussion I invite you to have an email chat with me, [email protected].

Jesus' blood atonement is wanting for the vessels of wrath but sufficient to save the elect, witnessed in Isaiah 53, Matthew 20.28, 26.28 from the Lord himself, barring many apostolic writings.
Calvin did not get that memo when he said (as it is held in the Westminster Confession) so he thought all would forcibly repent of sins before death, a cockamamie idea.

 

Or a primitive Baptist.
The third camp of the molinist is no more than arminianism highly polished. There is no wiggle room in the doctrine of salvation; it is a dark, singular thing.
Psalm 49 says:
6They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;

7None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

8(For the redemption of their soul [is] precious, and it ceaseth for ever: )

9That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.

 

As I said in the other post, it is my favorite translation and the one I use in my posting, unless specifically requested by an antagonist to use something a little more modern and more easily understandable.

But we don't exegete translations, so the translation one chooses makes little difference (providing it is actually a translation and not a paraphrase or a pseudo-translation), because we are going to have to look at the original languages in order for a few things to be clarified.

That's not to say that someone cannot read most translations and understand Core Doctrinal issues.

I am charged with confusion quite often, but, I will ask that you show why the post contains "theological confusion," rather than just charging me with it.

There is no dodging involved, as I address this issue from a non-Calvinist/non-Arminian perspective. I am simply a Christian Bible Student loyal to no System of Theology other than Christianity itself.

Here is the challenge:

First, this goes out to Arminians. I am reading that correctly, right?

Then the challenge does not go out to me.

Secondly, nothing in my post has yet been dismantled. I challenge you to point out the Theological Confusion you charge me with. Show how I am in error, John.

Third, there is no "First Elect" issue, the People of God are a Body of unity, and there is no distinction concerning who was first elect. Of course, vague statement demand definition, and are also used at times to bait. And I am not one that falls prey to baiting, lol.

Lastly, the implication that it is Arminians that are in error, and that you have the solution for them, might be best handled by a study of Prevenient Grace. Perhaps if we could get Arminians and Calvinists to talk to each other, and understand the doctrines they embrace, instead of basing most discussions on the caricaturized version of these Theology Systems we see taught by those who embrace them...we might actually get somewhere, lol.

I just did.

Now it is your turn to show why I am in error for finding both groups in fundamental error, for which the remedy is balancing all Redemptive Doctrine.

I hold the "Hardshell Baptist," of all flavors (for Baptists are diverse), in error on issues as well.

I will say that the Independent (and I mean truly independent, not a particular Denomination) Fundamental Baptists are about as close as one can get to in regards to a sound theology as a group. And you will find among them certain doctrinal positions that can be questionable. But that is a thread in itself, lol.

I think it would be a little premature to say we are united in opposing Calvin.

My Theology consists of very Calvinistic elements, and to be honest, I see that Calvinists are closer than Arminians on a number of points.

So I would rather see one embracing Calvin's teachings as opposed to other opposing views, but, what I would rather see is everyone actually thinking through the issues that cannot be reconciled in both.

Proto-Regeneration is not a sound Doctrinal Position.

Ascribing spiritual ability to those who are spiritually dead is not a sound Doctrinal Position.

The reconciliation is right there in Scripture, but ony those not absorbed in Systematic Theology are likely to allow God to show it to them. Indoctrination is a terrible thing.

Doesn't have to be. No reason why logical, rational Christians cannot sit down to the table and give their antagonists a chance to explain what and why they believe. Or that could not be reciprocal. And that the Mediator be the very Word of God.

It really is as simple as that, John.

Sorry, but e-mail conversations are limited to those who show they are friends, which over the years have amounted to enough people that I can count on one hand.

My policy is that all discussion is to be done in the Public Record. That way, I don't get accused of anything I cannot prove publicly, and I don't waste time with people trying to proselytize me, lol.

Barring many Apostolic writings? lol

I guess you are trying to say there is a great testimony of this truth in many Apostolic writings.

You'll have to forgive me, I am a little dumb sometimes, lol. Just ask a few of my brothers here.

And if I responded to this statement and told you that I agree, but that the Atonement was not applied to the Old Testament Saint...what would you say?

If I told you that neither Calvinism or Arminian advocates take into consideration a simple truth, which is men were not eternally redeemed until the Atonement...what would you response be?

Theological Confusion?

I would agree that God does not force men to repent in the sense that the individual plays no part at all, but, the fact remains that it is without question the intervention of Sovereign God by which men repent.

It might be illustrated like this: you and I go fishing, because you are curious as to why I always do better fishing than you do, so you want to learn my secret. We get out on the lake, and I light a stick of dynamite and toss it to you. You throw it out of the boat, and a number of stunned fish float to the surface. Then the Game Warden comes up, and states he witnessed you tossing the dynamite out, and he is going to arrest you. You deny the charge, and you say "He forced me to!"

Well...did I?

The answer is no, I didn't force you, I just brought you to the point where you had to decide. You could have tossed it back to me, but you didn't. You could have set it in the floor of the boat and jumped out, but you didn't.

Same response is seen in those who are brought to the point where it is sink or swim, repent or remain condemned. And just as you did not know my secret until I enlightened you, even so the unregenerate do not have a clue as to even their own condition. God enlightens the natural mind, and at this point the one under that ministry of the Comforter, Who is convicting the sinner of sin...sinks or swims.

And that is not to say that God does not sometimes spend years ministering to the unregenerate. It is just illustrating that until one is made aware of their condition, naturally (pun intended)...they cannot seek out the remedy.

So we acknowledge that Scripture makes it clear that there is a Doctrine of Election. We know that God is Sovereign.

But we also know that God is just, and when each unbeliever stands before Him at the Great White Throne, they will be without excuse. Their punishment will fit the crime, and every one of them will have willfully rejected the revelation God provided to them.

So I see no need to revile Calvin, but simply acknowledge that like every man he had some issues which have to be dealt with in His doctrine. His contribution to the Body of Christ cannot be overlooked, though we would have to see that contribution as it is applied in the ministries of a number of Reformed Theologians who are ministering to a lost and dying world. The same could be said of certain Arminian based ministries, who, whether they are in error on certain points, they know enough to minister from Core Doctrinal Issues, meaning, they are leading the lost to Christ.

And those who are saved through these ministries have a Teacher that will guide them into all truth.


God bless.

 

Then you are neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, so by your own standard you have just confessed to not understanding either soteriological position.

Thanks for clarifying.


God bless.

 

Darrel, the scriptures in Isaiah are clear. If you cannot name the first elected thing or person you fall ideologically in the same camp. Isaiah 42:
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
That is discussing Jesus. This is consistent with the first born into death discussed in the book of Colossians.
For someone on his alleged "last day", you get around!
The offer to fellowship was just that; you rejected it so the offer is rescinded.

Here is what you do not get; there is no error here, there good; it is a works-based synergist message or sweet grace. You cannot be dead in sins and alive in Christ unregenerate. Your alive or dead.

I'm not getting into covenants with you, Darrel, because this will become a never-ending story not fair to the other posters. Good day.

 

Agreed.

Actually, no, I fall into no camp but that of the Biblical Student, lol.

First a Christian, then a Student, then a Baptist (Independent Fundamental in the truest sense of the words, by the way).

Christ is not among the Elect, my friend.

The Elect consists of sinners saved by grace through faith, of whom we can pinpoint the time of their eternal redemption in the temporal sands of time while still acknowledge their election prior to their Redemption.

Agreed.

Sorry, no. That HE is the First Born from the dead has a direct focus on His being glorified, that is, resurrected in Glorified form.

That does not mean He was Himself saved, as the Elect are, but as most will acknowledge...He is the Savior, God Himself.

While fully God and fully man, we do not place Him as being Elect as Scripture teaches Election.

I try. I always hate to leave, so my last day is usually one of mixed feeling, sorrowing for leaving, but at the same time quite happy to take a break and venture out to meet new antagonists. Wish you had shown up earlier, John.

I don't view that as an offer to fellowship, that can be offered right here in the Public Record.

I simply don't have private sessions with people.


Continued...

 

How you state this is a little confusing, but, if you are trying to reconcile Calvinist/Arminian errors by saying Christ is the "first one to be elected" then there is certainly error.

But not error that cannot be quickly pointed out and corrected.

But, unlike how you charged me with Theological Confusion based on what I stated in my post, and then do not bother to show why there is error or confusion, but were content to simply levy the charge...I don't have a problem pointing out the error you have here and showing why it is in error.

Consider:

Colossians 1:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


While we can impose an understanding of "firstborn" as having a meaning of pre-eminence, we do not neglect the rest of Scripture in regards to Christ where we understand that Christ is the first one to be raised in Glorified form. Here we see Christ's Deity clearly stated, and that He is the Creator Himself, which does not allow for an interpretation that would have Christ a created Being, but none other than God.

Now consult v.18 and you will see that He is the Firstborn from the Dead.

What I want you to consider, John, is this: if Christ is the Firstborn from the dead, that means that no one prior to Christ...was alive.

And you can consult the numerous discussions available here to see this basic truth rejected.

Will you? Or will you cede the point that Christ is not the Firstborn in regards to Election, but the Firstborn of those raised from the dead in glorified form?

I never intimated such was a possibility. lol

Perhaps the "theological confusion" might be in that you did not read what I actually posted?

That is true.

And I would suggest to you that prior to the Cross and Pentecost not one man or woman was alive spiritually.

Well, Adam and Eve excluded, of course.

And that is why you will probably continue to make posts that rely heavily on telling your antagonist he is in error without being able to actually show him/her why.

The simple truth is that it is not until the New Covenant was established that men were eternally redeemed.

While the Old Testament Saint was justified by grace through faith, and from an eternal perspective "saved," that does not mean that the previous Covenants afforded that which was bestowed when the New Covenant was established.

The primary example I would give you to illustrate this truth is that the Covenant of Law provided atonement and remission of sins, but, it was not complete:


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

What is not fair is to other posters is for people to make charges against others and fail to back it up.

What is not fair is for false doctrines such the one you seem to think Calvinism/Arminianism is reconciled, that Christ is the First Elected...to go unanswered.

What is not fair is when simple questions are asked and ignored.

But hey...who ever said I was looking for fair?

Hey thanks!

God bless.

 

Christ is the Savior, Cassidy.

Election pertains to those saved by the Savior.

But if you want to take that view, okay. It fits right in there with Mesopotamia being the most important civilization and the Bible is missing hundreds of names from it's genealogies, lol.

So which is it, Cassidy, you are a Calvinist or an Arminian?


God bless.