top 5 against calvinism?

Hi Npetreley;
A quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
-------------------------------------------------

It's the last part of the verse you haven't over come with Calvinism yet. The, "but you were not willing." Plain as day example of choice.

Even Augustine believed in freewill and He is the author of your doctrine.
A quote from Augustines book "A City of God"Verse 9;

"Nor let us be afraid lest, after all we do not do by will that which we do by will because He whose foreknowledge is infallible, foreknew that we would do it...Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass and that we do by our freewill whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us because we will it."

You see unconditional was created by Luther who thought of it first but, Calvin claimed the idea his own,
Romanbear

 

Teachers of the doctrines of God's amazing grace have been dealing with texts such as these for centuries. I hope you have read what leading teachers of these doctrines have had to say. If you have not, then I urge you to do so. If you have read them, but still refuse to believe the truth, I seriously doubt anything I say will convince you to change your mind.

I do not believe in constantly re-inventing the wheel.

 

Actually, our doctrine comes from God as the Holy Spirit is the One Who had the Bible written.

 

Nick, he is refering to the Israelites before they were hardened. He is talking about their rebellion when he was still holding out is arms to the obstinate people as seen in Romans 10:21. And yes, most of the people were unwilling. But, how can you assert that no one in Israel was willing to follow Him? What about Abraham, Moses, David, Rahab, Samuel, Joseph, Ruth, Job and many others?

Abraham was justified by his faith, as were the rest of these people.

Nick, regardless of the means by which you think these people became willing to follow God does not change the fact that not everyone was unwilling as you assert, therefore your interpretation is clearly wrong. There is no question that some were willing and some were not.

The question for debate is WHY are some willing and some are not?!

You say they are not willing because of their natural born sin nature that was imputed to them by God's design making them unable to follow. So let's see what "hallucinogenic meaning" you must apply to this very same text:

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often you have made me sad because my design of imputed sin has made you totally depraved as I longed to do that which is only in my ability to accomplish which is to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but not a single Israelite in the world was willing to follow me because you were born totally unable as a result of the fall and I have not chosen to effectually call you."

Wow, interesting drugs you must be taking.

You're right. You want us to think outside boundaries. The boundaries are scripture, and you want people to think outside it -- to add to it here, change it in another place, and ignore it there -- in order to reach your bizarre conclusions. That's called heresy, Bill. If that's what floats your boat, I say go for it. If God wants to use us to open your eyes, then praise God. If God wants to use us to harden you even more, then praise God. But I call 'em as I see 'em, and your doctrines and reasoning are from the pit. [/QB][/QUOTE]If you think we are heretics Nick, why do you keep coming back? If you think I'm "from the pit" why do you bother answering my posts. Do you converse with the devil?

Get real. We are debating what we believe the scriptures to mean, if you can't do that in a civil and Christlike manner I don't want to have anything to do with you. Calling my interpretations "from the pit" only reveals your lack character and unwillingness to debate these issues, so why come here? If you don't want to debate with people who understand the scripture differently than you do, don't go to a debate board and whine when someone challenges you to consider other options of interpretation.

Personally, Nick, I think you hate me so much because you don't know how to answer my arguments. I know you won't ever admit that, your arrogance wouldn't allow it, but that doesn't excuse you calling my arguments "from the pit" as if my arguments are any less biblically based than any other Arminian on this post. Why do you single me out? Hmmm, I wonder?

 

I have read the "leading scholars" most of them don't try to make this text say that "everyone" doesn't really mean "everyone." Most Calvinistic scholars that I have read say this is merely an expression of God's desire (or permissive will) not his sovereign will. Therefore it is like God's desire to see his Childen always obey him but we don't. So too, they content that this is an expession of God's desire to see everyone saved but they won't.

You have advocated a different position. One in which says that "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone" and I'm asking you how you come to that conclusion. Please defend your view or quote someone who knows how. Thank you.

 

Arminianism

There are five main tenets of Arminianism:

1) God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief,

2) Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved,

3) Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed,

4) This grace may be resisted,

5) Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

Calvinism

A system of Christian interpretation initiated by John Calvin. It emphasizes predestination and salvation. The five points of Calvinism were developed in response to the Arminian position.

Calvinism teaches:

1) Total depravity: that man is touched by sin in all parts of his being: body, soul, mind, and emotions,

2) Unconditional Election: that God’s favor to Man is completely by God’s free choice and has nothing to do with Man. It is completely undeserved by Man and is not based on anything God sees in man (Eph. 1:1-11),

3) Limited atonement: that Christ did not bear the sins of every individual who ever lived, but instead only bore the sins of those who were elected into salvation (John 10:11,15),

4) Irresistible grace: that God's call to someone for salvation cannot be resisted,

5) Perseverance of the saints: that it is not possible to lose one's salvation (John 10:27-28).

rufus

 

Ken H,

Calvinistic theologians interpret that passage according to Calvin's venue and invention; but all of the Greek scholars that I have studied disagree with this hybrid theology of Calvinism. Arminian scholars concur with the Greek scholars; that's why men study Greek in Bible school and seminary. Let His words stand in their own right; Calvin's presuppositions add little to His eternal Word.

 

Now, now brother Ray. Are you sure that Arminian scholars are not interpreting according to Arminius' venue and invention....?

Why not just let the Greek stand on its own, and then accept God's message flowing out of it!! Yeah! Good Plan!

rufus

 

Augustine drank in at the fountain of the god of Aristotelian and Socratic philosophy. His commingling of Biblical truth and man made philosophy has been regurgitated on this planet the errors of a misfired theology.

...

The Apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8 of a soon deception coming from the likes of Augustine.

The Mormons say the same thing.

 

Frogman,

There must be three or four conversations going on in this thread so I've had a difficult time trying to follow all of them. Your comment on 1 Tim. 2:4 in response to Bro. Bill caught my attention.

In the Koine Greek, "all men" in I Tim. 2:1 is plural. "All men" or "everyone" in your version of I Tim. 2:4 is also plural. So it seems to me, whatever your view, 2:1 and 2:4 should be referring to the same groups of people.

 

aki;

i only have one concern with regards to Calvinism. though it comes strong with sovereignty, the calvinists cannot put the blame to the non-elects for recieving the second death.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

 

4-Study,

I believe the scriptures in question have a qualifier that of being testified in due time. I do not see how that all being plural changes this, because taken together those to whom their position is testified in the appointed time, or season as is the word, is meant a time set up by divine appointment.

I will post what I have on it after my evening class.

The best I remember the relationship to all and the 'due time' is the divinely appointed season to which this truth discussed is testified.

Being divinely appointed removes the will of man in grasping by faith, repentance or anything at the very least until this divinely appointed season, thus rendering the teaching of man choosing Christ is heresy.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

double predestination?

 

A.J. Armitage,

Your name is a strong name in my opinion.

Your reference from Romans 9 has nothing to do with God saving some and damning the rest of all of His human created beings, as Calvin wrongly believed. This passage for the main has to do with His Providence in all of human history. He worked in Pharaoh, Moses, Jacob and Esau's life. No where does it out right say that He saved Moses, Jacob, and Esau and damned Pharaoh. It is an unwarranted, quantum leap to even think that God ordains some to Heaven and Hell. Pharaoh was used by God to ' . . . show His power in Pharaoh, and that His Name might be declared throughout all the earth.' [vs. 17] The Lord did not ordain him to Hell, He used this ruler to show the mighty power of the Lord God above all other gods. Pharaoh knew the power and authority that God used in the various plagues, but this did not turn the heart of the ruler enough to persuade him to turn from his false god.

Study Romans 9 from every direction with the aid of Greek scholars and you will see that the above information is true.

 

What seems plain as day to me is that they were not willing. If Jesus had said, "but most of you were not willing" that might imply free will.

 

Until the Holy Spirit regenerates a dead sinner, he is always unwilling.

 

What seems plain as day to me is that they were not willing. If Jesus had said, "but most of you were not willing" that might imply free will. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Romanbear, the problem that ol' Nick has is that some Israelites were willing. We've got Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Samuel, Rahab, etc etc. So these passage can't mean "but all of you Israelites were not willing." It must mean "you (his audience, the hardened Pharisees) were not willing." Which is the reason they were hardened and obviously from this passage it was the reason that God didn't "gather them under his wings."

Romanbear, do you notice how Nick trys the ignore the part of the passage where it says that God "longed" or "desired" to gather them. He hates the fact that God actually wants to save everyone. That alone should be a clear indication of the sheer depravity of his view.

To teach that God wouldn't want certain people to have salvation is truly disgusting to me. God wants all to be saved, to deny that is to deny the clear biblical revelation of God. Even as a Calvinist I held to this view and it is amazing to me that some on this board try to explain away these clear truths of God's desire for all mankind.

 

1) Of course, those God plans to save are always, without fail, regenerated by the Holy Spirit and willingly come to Christ in repentance and faith.

2) This is the same group that Jesus told that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep. If one is not of Christ's sheep, he cannot believe - according to the Bible.

 

Brother Bill,

Read the verse -

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

It was their children, whether physically or those whom they held religious authority over, that He longed to gather. They were not willing for their children to follow God in the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, any of their children who were among the elect would have been regenerated and have willingly come to Jesus in repentance and faith whether their parents, or those in religious authority over them, were willing for them to do so or not.

 

Brother Bill,

Read the verse -

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

It was their children, whether physically or those whom they held religious authority over, that He longed to gather. They were not willing for their children to follow God in the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, any of their children who were among the elect would have been regenerated and have willingly come to Jesus in repentance and faith whether their parents, or those in religious authority over them, were willing for them to do so or not. </font>[/QUOTE] "

"their children" is refering to Jerusalem. Its "children of Jersusalem" or Israel that Christ is referring to.