Defending the truth against the primary so called "proof texts" against Calvinism

Yes, at the beginning, it was the general baptists(who were first) and the particular baptists. But it's the particular baptists that we all come from. I'll find the name of the book I got my info from and let you know.

 

Well said... To this, I would add only this:

Of course no one has ever heard "Calvinist teaching" in a Baptist Church -- IF that "Calvinist teaching" is the parody often pressed forward by those who are against the term without understanding the first thing about its true theological stance!

No one is teaching what some of those web sites say about Calvinism. They are pure fabrications and straw man arguments!

 

Well, no, it's not a point of view. It is historical fact.

What Quantumfaith responded is essentially accurate: Many of the Baptist churches today are much closer to Arminianism. That is plain to see.

However, that those churches are further away from Calvinism today does not change the historical facts. The historical facts are that the Baptist Movement started in what is essentially a Calvinistic understanding of salvation.

The Archangel

 

We're not talking about your ancestry.

Arminians calling other Arminians Armenians!

Even if you had said that you were not Arminian, but Baptist, that still doesn't make any sense. (BTW,did you borrow that line from Ergun Caner?)

It makes as much sense as saying :"I'm not Presbyterian --I'm a librarian!"

 

The thing that puzzles me is where are the proof text proving Calvinism?
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

This doesn't prove you are elect from before the foundation of the world because you are not in Christ before the foundation of the world.
This verse is saying we are elect in Him. We have to be in Him first then we are chosen or elect to an inhereitance. Can you prove you were in Christ before the foundation of the world?

Take these two verses you undoubtably wanted us to notice;
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
If you'd just condider the entire chapter you would notice that Paul was writing about saved people here being predestinated. not unsaved people being predestinated to Salvation.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

You are mistaken if you believe non cal's only have three verses with which to disprove Calvinism. The fact is just about every verse you use to support it can be used to disprove your own doctrine simply by reading it in context.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Most Cal's believe that this is a view of their election. When it was a view of the election of the Jews. Gentiles simply were not elected before Christ. Even though you may believe you were elect even before the Jews because of Eph1:4.
MB

 

The thing that puzzles me is where are the proof text proving Calvinism? [/QUOTE]

Calvinism doesn't "proof text." Neither should anyone else with a solidly biblical theology. There is no one verse of Scripture that makes or breaks any theology!

First, you are mistaking God's election for salvation. Election is but one part of salvation. Each elect person still has to follow through with the effectual call, regeneration, faith/repentance, etc., before salvation is complete.

Get this first phase incorrect and you'll never come to understand what it is that God caused to be revealed in the Word.

Thanks for making out point! The elect get saved. The non-elect do not. How do you argue against one of the most plain texts in all of Scripture that indicates that God did indeed choose?

Another truth of the Word held by Calvinists as well as Arminians. Can it be any other way? We do not attempt to set Scripture against Scripture!

Which parts of the Bible ought we toss out because they do not apply to us? Realize that what you suggest is an ancient heresy, started first by Marcion circa AD 120 or so... He tried to take away from the completeness of God's Word and only select the parts that he thought applied to him.

Does the NT indicate that the elect were chosen before the foundations of the world? Yes or no? Reading INTO that, that the elect are only Jews is a rather contrived message when the text was written to Christians!

Let me ask you a question...

Have you ever bowed down and simply said to God, "Here I am... Do with me as You will, no matter what..." CAN you say that? If so, what is your beef with a sovereign God?

 

You mean give up my need to control? You want me to completely surrender to my Maker?

What an absurd & revolutionary idea! LOL

 

DANGER DANGER WIL ROBINSON!

I fear I'm becoming a ROBOT! :laugh:

 

Your a Calvinist. This is as close to being a robot as a person can be, theologically speaking. If it were not for some dusty old creeds and councils of men, and the writings of John Calvin, you wouldn't know what to believe. :laugh:

 

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

Actually, Romans 9 refutes the foundation of Calvinism, Total Depravity, look and see.

Rom 9:10-12 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had CONCEIVED by one, even by our father Issac; (For the children being not yet born, NEITHER HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

God spoke this to Rebecca AFTER she had CONCEIVED. Both Esau and Jacob were existing and very much alive in her womb when God made this promise to her. And yet the scriptures say they had done NEITHER GOOD OR EVIL. This shows that the unborn child is not a sinner. This also shows that a person has to actually commit sin to be a sinner. A child in the womb is judged neither good nor evil, but neutral.

This refutes Total Depravity as Calvinism understands it.

 

And you continue your inane postings with those kinds of comments. Your Calvinist brothers and sisters in our Lord go by the Bible. Yet we do profit by the edifying works by men of God in the past and present. If you attend church regularly (as I'm sure you do) you listen to the teaching of your pastor based on the Bible I suspect.

 

But, my pastor preaches the bible, he's not a Calvinists.

 

So, you make the ridiculous argument that sin is not something you do? This makes all of God's commands to be nonsensical. When God said, Thou shalt not bear false witness, is that something you do? When God said, Thou shalt not steal, is that something you do? When God said, Thou shalt not kill, is that something you do? When Jesus said it was a sin to look on a woman to lust after her in your heart, is that something you do?

Where in the Bible does it say it is a sin to be born? Where does it say it is a sin simply to exist as an unborn child?

Why you change the very definition of what sin is. Eve desired the forbidden fruit before she ate it, but she did not become a sinner until she actually performed the act of eating it. Sin is something you do.

 

Nevertheless, verse 11 shows that good or evil are WORKS, something you do. You are attempting to change the subject, I am not talking about election, I am showing that an unborn child does not have the ability to do either good or evil.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having DONE any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, NOT OF WORKS, but of him that calleth; )

This verse shows God did not choose Jacob over Esau because of any good or evil they had DONE, not because of any WORKS they had done. Doing good or evil are works, they are something you do or perform. And the scriptures show Jacob nor Esau had done either while they were in Rebecca's womb.

Incredible, you believe someone who has never done evil is a sinner. And it is not I that said Jacob and Esau had done no evil at this point, it is God's word.

 

I am sure those sermons must be .......interesting. Like MB your pastor must look at the verses......and not see what they are clearly saying,
Like earlier when MB looks at eph 1:4 and completely misses it.

I am sure there are many verses you never actually hear preached.
Robert....you post often,yet i do not see you comment on or explain what you believe the verses teach.

Robert....how do you understand Eph1:4-11
Jn6:37-44
Could you post those...maybe start a new thread,and explain how those verses do not mean what we all see them to teach.

 

http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/hotissues/calvinismbible.htm



Calvinism and
the Bible
by Fisher Humphreys
Professor of Divinity
Beeson Divinity School, Samford





Introduction

John Calvin believed what he did because he thought Scripture taught it, and the same is true of Calvinists. On the other hand, the same thing is true of traditional Baptists; they believe what they do because they think Scripture teaches it. Therefore, it is important for us to consider Scripture to see if we can discern what it teaches about these matters.

Let us begin by reflecting on this fact: There were no Calvinists or traditional Baptists in the era in which the Bible was written. That means that no one raised the questions we are raising in the way we are raising them, and that in turn means that no one in the Bible set out to answer our questions directly.

That is why, when you listen to Calvinists and traditional Baptists talking about the Bible, they seem soon to descend into proof texts. The trouble with proof texts, of course, is that the intentions of the writers of the Bible are ignored and the texts are treated as free-floating truths, independent of their authors' intentions. We ought to attempt to avoid this mistake.

We will begin by looking at the largest and most important passage in support of Calvinism. I want to face it candidly. Then, in order to get at its author's intention, I want to consider it in its larger context. I think that when we do this, we get a different reading of it.

Next, I want to consider five concepts of predestination and two New Testament passages that are of special importance to traditional Baptists.

Finally, I want to describe what is happening here and to explain why I think it is happening.




Romans 9-11



I begin with the greatest Calvinist text: Romans 9. The simplest way to appreciate Calvinism is to read Romans 9:6-18.

My conclusion is this: If we take this passage at face value, we should become Calvinists.

But there is more to be said. We call this more interpretation. Candidly, we are going to look for a meaning for this passage other than the face value meaning.

We begin by remembering that Paul was not writing in order to settle a debate between Calvinists and traditional Baptists. Why, then, was he writing?

This is his only letter to a church he didn't establish himself. He had promised to come to be with them, but he has been delayed by a famine in Jerusalem; in Galatia he had collected some money for the Christians in Jerusalem to help them through the famine, and he felt that he should take that money to them before he went to Rome. So he wrote the church at Rome to tell them his understanding of the gospel, and to give them advice about their life together.

In Romans 9-11, which all interpreters agree is a single connected passage, Paul is addressing a fact that was fast becoming obvious to everyone: In general, when Jews were hearing the gospel, they were rejecting it, and when Gentiles were hearing the gospel, they were accepting it.

This created at least three problems for Paul. First, there was a personal problem; he was a Jew, and his heart was breaking because his fellow Jews were rejecting the gospel; that is why he says in Romans 9:2, I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

Second, there was a theological problem. Paul believed, and frequently said, that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God's promises made centuries earlier to Israel. How, then, could Paul account for the fact that the Jews who had those promises resisted the message of their fulfillment in Christ and the Gentiles, who did not have those promises, accepted the message of their fulfillment in Christ?

Third, there was a church problem. The church at Rome was either exclusively or predominantly a Gentile church, and there seems to have been some anti-Semitism, some anti-Jewish sentiment, in the church. When Paul in Romans 11:17 ff. speaks of Israel as the vine and of Gentiles as a branch grafted into the vine, he is heading off anti-Jewish sentiment.

That is the fact Paul was confronting, and those are the problems he faced because of that fact. In chapter 9 he is not addressing Calvinist/traditional Baptist disagreement. We need to remember that when we read Romans 9.

Paul's question was: Why is it the case that, in general, Jews are rejecting the gospel and Gentiles are accepting it? He gave at least five answers to that question.

The first answer is Calvinistic: God loves some and not others. God loves Jacob, not Esau. Like a potter, God honors some vessels and destroys others. God shows mercy to some and not to others. That is God's prerogative. That is what we see in chapter 9. If that were all, we should become Calvinists, but it is not all.

Second, the reason that God accepts some people and rejects others is that some people accept the gospel and others reject it. This is the burden of Rom. 10: If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So this is why so many Jews are not saved: they are rejecting Christ. And this is why many Gentiles are being saved: they are accepting Christ.

Third, some Jews are being saved. We see this in 11:1: Has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite. There is today, as there always was throughout Israel's history, a faithful remnant who are following God, and who are being saved.

Fourth, I will simply quote Romans 11:26: All Israel will be saved. Some of those who take Romans 9 at face value are not so comfortable with taking Romans 11:26 at face value. This, of course, resolves Paul's problem fully. His question is: Why are so few Israelites being saved? And this answer is: All Israel will be saved.

Yet there is still more. Fifth, and finally, it is all a mystery. Romans 11:33-36.

Now let's try to put this together, taking all five points with equal seriousness. We begin at the end. First, we respect the mystery in all this.

Second, If we take the first and the second together, this is what we have: God has predestined that Jews will be lost, and Jews are lost because they themselves reject the gospel.

Third, if we take the first and third together, we have this: God has predestined that the Jews will be lost, but some Jews are not lost.

Fourth, if we take the first and fourth together, we have this: God has predestined that Jews will be lost, and all Jews will be saved.

I think that, given these facts, we are entitled to say that Paul's initial affirmation of predestination is not an abstract statement about God's eternal predestining of some people to be damned. It is rather as a way of assuring us that, even though in general Gentiles are being saved and Jews aren't, God is not indifferent what is happening in the world and God has not lost control of the world. Paul then continues by assuring us of the great mystery that in fact the Jews will not be lost.

For these reasons-Paul's real issues, Paul's five points, and the fact that Calvinists do not take Romans 11:26 at face value-I think that we are not required to understand Romans 9 to teach the Calvinist understanding of predestination.

On the other hand, let me say again that, on the face of it, that is precisely what Romans 9 teaches. For the reasons I have given, I do not think the face value meaning is the one Paul intended.