Jerry Walls Refuting Calvinistic Soteriology

Sorry you cannot perceive it yet.Keep searching:Thumbsup

 

Jerry exposes the heresy of reformed theology!

 

because it is NOT in the Bible anywhere!

 

:Laugh:Roflmao

 

Another list of falsehoods. Keeping part of the law does not get it done.
What a strange notion :Cautious
Then the repeated ideas that have many times, in fact each time been handily refuted.:Notworthy

 

Everyone else does see it so look harder.It might help not to turn away from those passages that would help you.

 

All wrong once again.

 

AMEN!!!... Not Universalism either!... Brother Glen:)

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

 

Selected Scriptures

 

Note this poster falsely someone said keeping part of the Law results in salvation.

Here is the actual quote: the claim is made that people were unable to comply with part of the law because of total spiritual inability. But the rich young ruler had kept part of the Law, and this fact was acknowledged by Christ. In Matthew 19:21 Jesus does not deny the person had kept some of the commandments, but told his he had to do more to be complete. Thus Christ acknowledged the partial keeping of the Law. Therefore the Calvinist canard is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

Did I say keeping part of the Law results in salvation? Nope so yet another falsehood from the fount of falsehoods.

 

Here is yet another taint so post falsely claiming the following is wrong: If God's will is to allow people to believe fully in Christ or not, then to believe or not is according to God's will. What these Calvinists are doing is claiming God's will is to compel salvation via irresistible grace, which is false doctrine. God's justice is perfect because He allows people to believe in Christ or not. If God, as Calvinism claims, made individuals unable to believe, then punished them for not believing, God would be the God of Calvinism.

The above quote is true.

 

I don’t attempt to go deep into theology when presenting the gospel. I follow Paul’s instructions on what is of first importance. Jesus died for our sins, according to scripture. He was buried and rose from the dead, as scripture foretold. He was seen after His resurrection by more than 500 people. Through faith in Jesus, they can have forgiveness and a right relationship with God. Salvation always results in a transformed life.

I leave it to Holy Spirit to convict them of the truth of the gospel and bring them into God’s hands.

Do you tell them “repeat after me...” pray the “sinners prayer” and then proclaim them saved?

Do you then go right into telling them Calvinism is false doctrine?

peace to you

 

What was the outcome? God did not destroy the city.

It says nothing of eternal salvation.

peace to you

 

I'm not sure about this point. Some people did keep the law even if only in spirit rather than letter or even completely. Ultimately, it's God's view of the heart of a person that matters. All through the Judges, there wasn't even a complete Tabernacle in which the Law could be kept fully. Yet how many times did God save when the oppression upon the people became great and the people turned to God? Many times.

(BTW, was their turning to God of their own will or did God implant the faith/will?)

How many people in the apostate Samaria had not bowed the knee to Baal? Were those people assiduous law-keepers, being cut off from the Temple at least some of the time when relations with Judah were strained? Hard to keep all the law in that situation. What about Naaman the Syrian? Also, many of the righteous Kings in Judah were blessed and were a blessing, even when not all the law was being kept. The big failure was in being seduced by idols. Ultimately, that was the downfall.

The Old Testament narratives testify that most of the time, all God needs is a contrite heart and an attitude that is seeking in faith. Even the a little honest contrition was enough to stay God's hand in the case of Ahab such that the judgment of his house would not happen while he was alive.

God demonstrated incredible patience. But Calvinist doctrines transform God's patience into a choice to not grant faith. How then is it patience on the part of God, when the solution is, allegedly, entirely in His hands and not the people's?

I don't see how God's omnipotence is necessarily affected. Is there a problem with it being God's sovereign will that the creatures he creates are at liberty to choose as free agents?

The sense one gets from scripture is that the world is a laboratory of choices. In Heaven, everyone was created on the right side of the ledger but eventually, some chose against submission to Divine will. Consequently, the world was created and peopled with humans who were also free to choose, only this time, everyone is on the wrong side of the ledger at the start. And since none of us can choose our parents, we are born on the wrong side of the tracks, right out of the womb.

So the starting point for everyone on earth is the wrong side. In Heaven, it was the other way around. This seems to be no accident. All of us initially live in Satan's world. All in Heaven initially lived in God's world.

Do we think that symmetry is broken with respect to the freedom and ability to at least desire to leave the kingdom into which one was born? If Satan and his minions were free to wish themselves not under the rule of God, are not humans also free to desire relief from Satan's rule?

"Stop the World and Let Me Off", as the song goes.

 

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Act 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Etc.

I know the flip-side of the coin, but both sides must be recognized: the law could not fully justify a man and get him into heaven, but there is a level which was attainable to Israel with the help of the temporary sacrifices, and that's the level to which they were accountable and it was reachable, as evidenced above. It was to that level that they were held responsible, not to the perfect level of God's righteousness. The intent of that latter perfect level was simply to persuade man that he could not attain it, that he might flee unto Christ by faith.

But the crux of the matter is not there: it's ultimately in the logical non sequitur that:
A) God commands us to be perfect
B) We can't be perfect
C) Therefore we can't even admit our imperfection.

C does not follow from A & B.

Indeed, the law's purpose in showing you you can't attain perfect righteousness only functions if C is false.

 

Do we actually know how many will get saved, as John saw a multitude beyond numbering in heaven!

 

But the Lord fully knows

 

Well, I can’t really think of any passage that supports your assertion that God held anyone to a lower standard of righteousness attainable through the sacrifices instead of following the Law.

I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make either.

peace to you

 

What I meant is that, although no man could keep the law perfectly so as to be fully justified thereby, it was still possible to obtain a report such as Zacharias and Elizabeth (and others) obtained. It was to that achievable standard that God held the Jews accountable; just as he had held Cain accountable to a level that God himself said that Cain could attain:
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Clearly, neither in Zacharias' case, nor in Cain's case, was that attainable level that of 100% sinlessness.

 

I don’t believe that view is supported by scripture. I don’t see “fully” justified vs partially justified. Not sure what partially justified would do for someone. Sort of like being partially saved.

What I do see is all the OT saints (including Zacharias and Elisabeth are to believe the promises of God concerning His coming Messiah.

Thanks for posting. I’ll think about what you have said.

peace to you