Calvinism - TULIP - "I"rresistible Grace

He is just following scripture, skypair.

Eph:4:1 "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called.....(8) Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men'...(11)And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers....

I would rather be the prisoner of Christ than the master of my own destiny.

peace to youraying:

 

Um, I think Paul was a REAL prisoner in Rome at the time of this writing. I'm not sure that proves anything regarding salvation.

The "captivity captive" part has to do with believing Israel's deliverance from sheol enmass to heaven.

skypair

 

I notice Paul didn't say he was a prisoner of the Romans. He said he is the prisoner of the Lord.

peace to youraying:

 

Well, of course, candy. He was a prisoner of Rome on account of Christ. Remember the story? The Jews accused him of preaching Christ -- he go arrested and sent prisoner to Rome because he was a citizen of Rome?

skypair

 

All believers are to consider themselves 'prisoners of the Lord'.

 

I was irresitably drawn to this thread. Calvinism is a cool topic to discuss. Predestination vs. Preknowledge. Non - limited free will to Free will. And ultimately for the Calvinist. Is God responsible for Satan's fall? How culpable is God? You know the essenes had a predestination consept. They believed in double predestination. God predestines the righteous and the wicked.

 

Are you talking to ME?

Are YOU talking to me?

Are you TALKING to me?

ARE you talk...... Oh what's the use:BangHead:

peace to youraying:

 

Aaawww. I get it. Its a joke.

The gospel of God is more then just "cool". It changes lives.

If by preknowledge you mean foreknowledge then you are not so cool with your Calvinism. Calvinism says they are the same thing.

I guess you mean mans will that is bound when you say "non-limited free will". No need to use the word "free" when you talk of mans will, if you are speaking of Calvinism.

You mean others don't have to answer this, just the calvinist? Start a thread on the subject and I bet you have some views from non-calvinist as well as Calvinist. What do you think?

If you mean this as it relates to Satan and his fall, ....
Who made Satan?
Who made Satan with a will?

.
ok

 

Calvinism is a soteriological view of the Gospel...not the Gospel.

 

It's a great deal more expansive than that.It extends quite beyond the so-called five points.

 

Regardless...it's not the Gospel, but a systematic explanation OF the Gospel.

 

That's like saying -- It's not the message of the Good News, only the explanation of it.

 

You got it. The "Good news" is Christ took our punishment on the cross, was crucified and rose in 3 days. That's "The Gospel", not TULIP and whatever accompanies it.

Gospel = what God has done
Calvinism = what man has done trying to explain it

I'm not going to split hairs, calvinism is not the Gospel. John 3:16 is.

 

Umm. I thought it was "and the truth shall set you FREE?!" I thought we were prisoners of SATAN and the grave before we knew Christ?! Naw, rip. I think you are flumoxed by trying to answer on jd's behalf. :laugh:

skypair

 

Do the elect initally resist regeneration? Is regeneration efficacious also.

My problem with election begins with the process of selection. The way Calvinist describe it, it resists reason, logic, and spoken language. According to God's good pleasure does not a election/selection make...

 

On what grounds could any action be deemed better than what God determines to be by His good pleasure?!You do not trust God to make good decisions?!"In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will -- to the praise of his glorious grace..." ( TNIV )

 

What about his good pleasure pointed him to you, yet caused him to reject the person standing next to you... According to his good pleasure certainly does not eliminate random selection, and you appear to have eliminated all other options...

Certainly I trust God to make good decisions, the question then becomes, do I also trust Calvin? Forgive me, but I do not...

BTW, all things God does, he does according to his good pleasure. This statement is not unique to election. The volitional expression of ones will is prevalent throughout scripture; this too is according to his good pleasure. Christ made atonement for the sins of the whole world; this was also according to his good pleasure. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, also according to his good pleasure.

According to the good pleasure of his will, John 3:16 also…

 

Who is able to know the mind of God in such matters? "His good pleasure", rejects any notion of human comprehension concerning "why" He elects some and not others. All we can do is agree with what God has revealed in His Word. It is according to His good pleasure, His will.

God does not answer to you or to me. If we find out that the good pleasure of God is "random selection" (I don't believe it is), then who are you to question the motives of God? "His good pleasure" reveals to us the reasons are hidden in the wisdom of God, unknown to men.

The question becomes, "do you trust scripture". If you trust scripture, you will believe what it says, and not ignore passages that contradict the things you want to believe.

The violitional expression of one's will as being enslaved to sin, and therefore unable to seek God without God's intervention is prevalent throughout scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

Not why, how... And his good pleasure does not say that he did it this way or the other. God spoke to us in the language of men, the word "choice/ selection / election are dependent upon criteria for its fulfillment. You proclaim a mystery here, yet you proclaim to know that mystery when you say that God's good pleasure included nothing in us. You pull this information (out of context) from passages that describe God's selection of Jacob over Esau. But clearly the criteria that fulfilled God's pleasure in this scenario is that the elder shall serve the younger. God chose this criterion to exhibit his sovereignty in that he had already claimed the first born as consecrated unto him. Not that one was better than the other; being first born is the criteria that appeased god's pleasure...

Good enough....
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Do you agree, or do you need to tweak this one a tad?

If hidden, based on what criteria do you eliminate random selection? On what criteria do you eliminate faith as the criteria that God chose faith as the attribute that appeased his pleasure, and then said whosoever will, let him come. {Not my faith... "Faith". My faith is corrupted, but faith as presented by God is uncorrupted.} Remember, it's a mystery, you can neither affirm nor deny either concept...

Again, OK...
John 3:16 (King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Again do you believe, or do you first need to tweak this to fit what you want to believe....

Perhaps you forgot:
Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:17-19 (in Context) Luke 4 (Whole Chapter)