Jesus is the Reason for Calvinism

I believe in eternal security with all my heart and rejoice in that blessed doctrine, and I reject all 5 points of Calvinism with all my heart.

 

No, it isn't, not really. If it were, I'd accept it.

By God's grace. "irresistible" is a word you added to the words of the living God.

"grace" is all over my Bible. "irresistible grace" never is.

 

I believe that four of the 5 points of Calvinism are false doctrines.

T = Total Spiritual Inability, being dead in our sins means we are unable to receive the gospel in a manner that would result in Salvation. This is false doctrine, the parable of the four soils, Matthew 13:1-23 tells us that some folks lost their limited spiritual ability to understand the gospel by the practice of sin which harden there heart and they became like the soil next to the path. The other soils did respond to the gospel, so they had limited spiritual ability. Therefore Total Spiritual Inability does not fit with scripture.

U = Unconditional Election before Creation where God chose foreseen individuals before they did anything such as putting their faith in Christ. This is false doctrine. When are our names entered into the Lamb's book of life? After creation. When are we chosen? After we have lived without mercy. How are we chosen, God credits our faith in Christ and puts us in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

L = Limited Reconciliation, Christ died for the elect only. This is false doctrine, Christ paid the ransom for all and became the propitiation for the whole world and God is reconciling the world, one believer at a time, through Christ. 1 John 2:2.

I = Irresistible Grace, the idea that 100% of those drawn by the Father are placed in Christ. This is false doctrine. Matthew 23:13 demonstrates that folks who have been drawn and are entering the kingdom can be turned aside.

P = Perseverance of the Saints, once saved always saved. This is sound doctrine. When we are born again, God keeps us so that we will inherit our reward in heaven by protecting our faith. 1 Peter 1:3-5.

This view was challenged not by addressing the verses cited above, but by citing other verses claimed by Calvinism to support the doctrines. Here is the list:

Total Depravity: John 6:44, 6:65; Romans 3:10-18, 8:6-8; Ephesians 2:1-3
Unconditional Election: John 6:37, 6:39, 10:29; Romans 8:28-29, 9:10-23; Ephesians 1:11
Limited Atonement: John 3:16, 10:11, 10:15, Romans 5:12-19
Irresistible Grace: John 6:44, 10:4, 10:27; Ephesians 2:4-9
Perseverance of the Saints: John 6:39-40, 10:27-29; Romans 8:1, 8:29-30, 8:35-39, 11:29; Ephesians 1:13-14; Jude 24-25

My position is there is no actual support in scripture for the TULI, and there is support for P. So why am I not able to discern the supposed support cited above? Because the supposed support depends on redefining words and adding unwarranted inferences to “create” the support.

Let me just address the cited support for Total Spiritual Inability.

Does John 6:44 say mankind is unable to respond to the draw of the gospel unless altered by irresistible grace? Of course not. Does it say to be drawn by the Father means compelled by irresistible grace? Of course not. It simply says unless you are drawn by the Father, you will not come to Jesus. So the supposed support rests on defining drawn to mean drawn by irresistible grace. And this is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 so John 6:44 actually provides no support for Total Spiritual Inability.
Does John 6:65 provide any support? No, again. It says no one can come to Jesus unless granted by the Father. Does this say only the pre-selected elect are granted the capacity to come to Jesus? No. What it actually says is if God hardens your heart, like He did with the non-believing Jews in Romans 11:7;25, then you will not be able to come to Jesus. In John 6:65, Judas is in view, hardened so that scripture would be fulfilled.

Does Romans 3:10-18 provide any support for Total Spiritual Inability? No, of course not. If we start with verse 9, to get the context, we see that Paul is supporting the premise that we all sin, we are all under sin, and therefore whether we are under the Law or apart from the Law, we stand condemned. What Calvinism does is take this perfectly straightforward passage and invent support for spiritual inability. Verse 11 says there are none that understand, which begs the question understand what. Calvinism inserts “the milk of the gospel” claiming folks who have not been regenerated cannot understand the gospel. But that assertion is not found anywhere in scripture, especially here. To the contrary Paul says men in the flesh can understand the milk of the gospel, see 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Men of the flesh and babes in Christ who have not yet learned from their recently indwelt Spirit, understand the milk.

Are there none who seek God? This begs the question, Are there none who seek God at all times, or none who seek God at any time? Since the idea is to support that we all sin, the idea would seem to be we do not seek God when we are sinning. Certainly we all sin, and therefore our way of life is futile outside of Christ. That is Paul’s point, not Total Spiritual Inability.

Note also that the citation stops at verse 18, but if you keep reading to verse 21 you see that Jesus has been “manifested” clearly teaching folks have enough spiritual ability to comprehend the “manifestation.” Bottom line, the passage provides no actual support for Total Spiritual Inability.

Does Romans 8:6-8 provide support for Total Spiritual Inability? No, of course not. This passage makes three points: (1) the mind set on the flesh is death; (2) the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; and (3) the mind set on the flesh is not even able to subject itself to the Law of God. Every one of these points is clear and requires no additional information to understand its message.. What does Calvinism do? They add in that only regenerate folks are able to set their minds on the Spirit or on God or one the spiritual things that can be discerned by the unregenerate (as taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.) So the assertion is without foundation. Next, look at Romans 7:25 where Paul explains that the unregenerate have the capacity to set their minds on spiritual things, but are not able to avoid also serving the law of sin.

How about Ephesians 2:1-3, does this provide actual support for Total Spiritual Inability? No, of course not. This passage makes two very important points: (1) Before we were made alive together with Christ – by God putting us spiritually in Christ – we were dead in our sin, unable to do anything to save ourselves just as a dead person is unable to act in their own behalf. And (2) everyone starts out in this unregenerate condition, by nature children of wrath. Here Calvinism tried to claim being outside of Christ makes us unable to understand the milk of the gospel. But that is nowhere to be found. And we know from Matthew 23:13 that unregenerate folks can be entering heaven, but have not actually entered and therefore have not yet been made alive together with Christ.

This concludes the analysis of the support cited by Calvinism to assert Total Spiritual Inability, and what we have found is none of the passages actually provide any support whatsoever. If you look at the other verses or passages cited for the other doctrines I believe are false, I believe you will find the same thing, only by changing the meanings of words or adding unwarranted inferences can you create support for Calvinism’s other points, except P.

May God Bless

 

Why is it hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom? If the bogus doctrine of "irresistible grace" (no matter how many different names they give it) a poor man and a rich man would both have no difficulty due to being compelled by "compelling grace."

 

Why does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 say people are chosen for salvation through or by reason of "faith in the truth" if election is unconditional?

 

There is no question that Calvinist can quote verses of Scripture that seem to back up the claim. There are also many highly respected and highly educated theologians that pitch Calvinism.

The problem is and speaking just for me is that there are also passages of Scripture that are at odds with Calvinism. Some of those passages very plainly contradict it. For many years I accepted Calvinism without question because most of my commentaries and systematic theologies teach it, most of the sermons I heard supported it and just about everyone makes fun of the alternate views or throws rocks at those who disagree.

There came a day in my life when I realized that trusting in God meant just that, trusting God's Word, plain and simple and then letting the chips fall where they may. I do not see it as my life's mission to convince anyone on the internet that what I believe is pure Bible. Quoting a long list of verses is not the same as demonstrating that those verses teach what the person quoting them claims it teaches. In my limited view, if Calvinists really believe that they have a divine mission to rid the believers of doubt in Calvinism then they would do well to ditch the sledgehammer and the will to deploy it.

I'm not saying those who defend Calvinism on this board haven't studied the alternatives but repeating verbatim what guys like Riddlebarger or Sproul or the like minded have to say isn't going to work because those men are just not interested in being fair and oddly enough I have studied them in detail. I personally don't care if I'm not a hit at the water cooler.

 

Rejecting the truth of God...With all your heart, is not a good idea

 

you can view it as you wish.
I just quoted Georges post.
He said he rejects all 5 bible truths known as Calvinism.

 

I know the history my friend.
A jw can deny the trinity.
A catholic can insist Mary is a co mediatrix.
Arminians can deny truth.
What matters is what Is the faith once taught to the saints.

 

No... I am not making that assumption but I wouldn't rule it out either.
Both are not true, they are not equal.