Featured The dislike of Calvinism may rest upon the attitude of Calvinists

Evangelist did not like what I posted, but it was the quote of a Calvinist. I simply agreed with it.

 

Not one bit of human activity is involved in "receiving the gospel for salvation."


I will attempt to get across these items in brief form:
1) The natural ability to hear doesn't mean Spiritual ability to hear - that is given by God.
2) "Receiving" the gospel doesn't mean taking what is offered - rather as a deposit made to an account opened in the person's name.
3) Belief isn't always immediately followed by confession, but true belief of the heart will be confessed.


1) Hearing ability

Rather than post a lot of passages, I call you to remember when God spoke of His Son and the folks heard but didn't really hear (comprehend), and then that of Paul where, again, there was hearing, but no comprehension.

Christ stated after calling John the Baptizer, Elijah, this in Matt. 11:

"At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26“Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
​

This is not the only place the Scriptures give a statement that God must open the understanding or install a new will/heart for remove the "blinders." God has placed upon humankind.

The most (imo) descriptive selection dealing with this is John 6:

37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
​

What is prerequisite to beholding and belief? The will of the Father attending to specific ones.


2) Receiving

Often one asks, can one of their own innate ability be saved?

Of course the Scriptures are very careful to declare no such ability. Again, rather than posting the Scriptures I will just point to 1 Cor. 2 & 3 which Paul is discussing how he approached the Corinthians and how they came to believe through the power of God. (see here) Look for how it is all through the power of God.


3) Belief
When discussing the Jews state of mind just before the passover John (12) records:

38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?” 39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40“HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.” 41These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. 42Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.
​

None of this means humankind is "passive" but "reactive."

The Scriptures state that what is in the heart cannot help but come out the mouth. However, that is not necessarily time conditional. To equate immediacy of belief with confession is (imo) a failure to understand the growth process of the belief.

In the natural world there is a period of time from impregnation called incubation/gestation. It is a time of growth, for the most part hidden in which the birth results in proclamation.

See the underlined part? Many of the rulers believed, but for fear did not confess.

I could spend far more time on in this but to move on is priority.

I don't consider that a person is "passive" in the sense of one glib and inattentive. But that is far from those that would contend that humankind must be the determination factor or the one ultimately in charge. I find it very strange that some might design to apply a label of "determinist" when if anyone is a determinist it is those of the non-cal group.

More to the point, the jar of vinegar is passive and very happy in its snug jarred state. Dump soda in it, and there is huge response.

Who "dumps the soda?" Some would actually suggest the vinegar reaches out and "accepts" or "takes" the soda.

Actually the vinegar "receives" the soda, and it cannot help but react, it can be contained for a short time (just as all belief can be contained briefly) but it will erupt (just as confession will be made).

The nature of the vinegar is completely opposed to that of the soda and the soda to that of the vinegar. The vinegar can no more "comprehend" the soda than darkness comprehends light (John 1). Nor can vinegar remain vinegar when soda is received (2 Cor. 5:17).

Why do you think God does not show partiality? Is there a Scripture that says that God is not partial to his own - to those he selects? Did He choose Joseph over his brothers? Did He choose Moses over Aaron? Did He choose David over Goliath? ...

Is it because of "human" understanding and limitations of "partiality" issues are raised?

Often folks desire to apply human limits upon God saying in effect that if God doesn't do it a certain way, it is unfair, unequal, showing partiality. Yet, did not God throughout Scriptures show partiality when it comes to human selection? Why did He choose Abram and not Lot, why Moses and not Methuselah, why Daniel and not the other three, and why me - the least of my father's!

No man stands uncondemned. That shouldn't even be an issue.
That some are saved doesn't show partiality to them anymore than when I go to the store to select oranges.

It is not given to the oranges to raise the issue of why I select one over the other. My desires and my thinking are far beyond the scope and questioning ability of all oranges.

That all oranges are born to decay and death isn't my fault, and my selection isn't their fault. I choose out of my pleasure and what fits my desires.

This post is far too long, but perhaps it will track with your desires for the thread than some I have read.

 

...it would appear, if I may, that most of this out and back dialog in many of these exchanges over the schematics of any doctrinal issue with check and check mate, point and counter point..., are but attempts at reinforcing yourselves. Reinforcing your own belief's. Not one of you will ever change the other, or any other, so what is the argument and where is it going?

The argument(s) and exchange(s) go nowhere and only end up producing more strife. As we all know, birds of a feather flock together, so be it.

My wife and I attended a Free Will Baptist Church for right at eight years and the Pastor knew right from the start that we were of the once saved always saved persuasion. What was funny however was when we told him of our belief's he agreed with by saying, "Well, I don't think you can lose your salvation but I believe you can forfeit it." Huh...???

He was a good preacher and we were impressed with his sermons except for...

For most..., "That is the way I was raised and I'm sticking with it."

 

Have to take that up with the Apsotle paul, for under inspiration he wrote to us in Romans 9:22 Asv

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:


Looks like the Lord indeed does see a distinction between those whom God had determined to save by/thru the Cross, and those He passed over!

 

Yep. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

You can see many things in scripture, particularly when you look at it incorrectly.

 

I dont know what you mean by proclivities. You are always going to get some people who differ with you in theological stuff ( soteriology, escathology etc so what are you gonna do?) Ive got a letter & a statement of faith /Constitution for a Maranatha Baptist Church about 30 minutes from me. The letter starts with: Dear Steve, It was a pleasure ....blah blah. It is encouraging to encounter folks in these days that actually make doctrine a key criteria when selecting a church. Shows ya how theologically ignorant many are today who dont have a clue what doctrine is .....or care.

Now upon reading this constitution, there are points like....We believe that a correct interpretation of Scripture is to recognize the dispensational framework of Scripture. I disagree. Another, Salvation is the gift of God, made free to ALL. (really?) And We believe in the literal, bodily Premillennial return of Christ.....(Hmmmm, I dont). So dont think the Maranatha Baptist Church & I are going to be able to coexist as one entity. I know this, I would not be content to stay there just as a Premillenial Dispy would not fit in a church that is DoG, Covenant Theology & Amill. Best to own up & go your own way vs puttin up with theology you dont agree with. Therefore, Id love to see Calvinists leave SBC in droves & either start their own churches or move to some of these Reformed churches. But then again, thats why Im NOT SBC. Apparently Im not Maranatha either. Thats why Im trying to start an Old School Church here.

 

Good Luck with your endeavor to start a local church that you would like to see. I agree that doctrine is important. Most important to me is essential christian doctrine. Sometimes, here, IMO, doctrine can sometimes be over emphasized, almost to the point of the doctrine itself being worshipped.

 

Better than no doctrine. then your prone to "Easy Believeism" churches. Last week I was at a Methodist Church & they really didnt have a clue about anything.....What is sin, they dont really know, what is salvation, again they havnt a clue & not a one of them know about being regenerated .....kinda sad. But thats the times we live in.

 

Cals believe all men are fully responsible to believe...not all have the same opportunity.

Non Cals error here for sure...Jn 1:12-13 make it clear that this is not the case at all.
Unless and until God works in the dead sinner...no regeneration takes place.The sinner is made willing by God working in him as the author and finisher of faith.
Calling dead sinners to reform in the flesh is not biblical conversion.

Since this is not the case the Calvinists use biblical language to point out the true condition of man and what the results of God's working in him will be...fruit of the Spirit.

..

It is the Calvinist that speaks biblically on this issue.The sinner is dead.he can be religious and hold to dead religion in the strength of his flesh.

Psalm 115:17
The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.

Proverbs 21:16
The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.

Looks like biblical language here....

Non Cals with their man centered theology error once again...because they have a wounded Adam who needs a little help, or information.....Cals keep the biblical language that all sinned at one point in time and died in Adam.

The good news preached was the means used by God....It is only the work of the Spirit who can give the new heart.This as written actually denies the Spirit's work in an ungodly denial of the new birth.

Non cals continuously error by vain speculation like this....these reprobates always resist like those who perished in psalm 78.

 

I didn't call you arrogant, OR divisive. Could be you are, but I don't know you well enough to say so.

 

This is one of the best threads you have authored. The intent was very clear, to have a dialogue about the Word of God in relation to Calvinism. It was for a civil discussion about our past history of attitudes towards each other. The purpose of this thread is quite noble.

However, as usual, 90% of the posters in this thread choose to throw the thread into a mud slinging contest, usually by posters who have no idea what it is like to lead a Christian group of any type, and probably slept through their seminary classes while Mom and Dad paid the tuition. Most if not all never served in a Presbyterian church, and have no idea what they are talking about. The rest forget that all Baptist churches are autonomous and are in no way connected on any point of doctrine. On top all that, most revert back to the standard of Calvinism instead of the Bible.

The author of this thread, Icon, EWF, and P4T made some good, constructive points. The rest know how to throw out miscellaneous authors of the past, but totally miss the substance of the thread, and come across as third graders in the middle of a temper tantrum.

 

You're confused. The OP has absolutely nothing to do with Presbyterianism.

There have been 16 other contributors to this thread --that includes you and Tom Butler. You need to carefully consider what you are saying before contributing. You have missed "the substance of the thread."

 

False churches plain and simple whom do not know the gospel and are probably loaded with false converts.

 

I certainly understand the frustration of a thread that doesn't track the way one desires - happens often, and not much can be done about it. That seems to be a characterization of the BB. Sort of like family discussions at a reunion. No telling who will laugh, who will fight, who will be left out, and who will take too much off the table.


Because of my view of atonement, I can see the limit placed by both the Arminian and Calvinist as truthful (both limit atonement). This isn't the thread for a discussion of the atonement, but just to show that atonement is limited. For if it were "unlimited" then all the world would be reconciled to God.

I suppose the actual difference is perspective.

I look at atonement as what is complete. That is, the reconciliation is not potential, but actual.

Others look at the reconciliation as potential and therefore unlimited.

Calvinists (imo) generally hold what is potential only in who is yet to be born of the elected. Because in God's perspective election is complete, atonement is complete (actually accomplished). It remains in OUR economy of position and possession within the constraints of TIME, that those without Christ are pleaded with and for; that those "who have ears to hear" are (because atonement is actually accomplished) reconciled to God.



I agree that I read Romans 9 - 11 as you have (on other threads) expressed the reading.

My a "covenant theology" embraces both a literal second coming, literal millennial reign of Christ in which the literal Israel and gentile believers are united to serve the King of Kings. The "covenant" is that I (as a gentile) am grafted into the root and therefore have a share in the beneficial nourishment as do the original branches (Israel). That I do not replace the branches (though SOME are broken off) but have become as one just as all other branches connected to the same root.

I also think that the SBC historic amil view is a hold over from the 1800's and early 1900's. It is (imo) no longer a valid view considering that much of the prophetic scriptures that once could only be seen as allegory can now, in the technological world, be taken as literal. It was taught to my grandfather in seminary, and even during his lifetime he found the amil view no longer a sustainable foundation.

Personally, I do not see the believers appointed to the time in which God's judgment vessels are poured out, so I do hope for a "rapture" of the saints. Part of that perspective is also what is currently happening. That immediately before that event (the "rapture"), the days will be horribly oppressive for the believers who withstand the evil, that most will fall away from the truth of the Scriptures and embrace at least in part the deceptions of this world and worldly. That the world will rejoice and embrace a humanistic peace when the believers are taken. The world will embrace this lie, and soon even turn upon themselves; evil must not deny its own character.

 

If the analogy was pertaining to what occurs after faith in Christ it would be a good analogy...not for coming to faith. To destroy the jar after requiring it to take the soda while standing above the jar holding the soda and refusing to pour it into the vinegar is the more accurate portrayal of Calvinism.

 

Nope. I am Calvinistic, but people need to stick to the bible to get their understanding, first and foremost. I have read some of the Calvinist scholar's works, and agree with much they say, but not until I was convinced via prayer, study, and the Holy Spirit, that the DoG's are true.

 

The direction this thread has taken confirms to me that the opposition to Calvinism is rarely, if ever, based on the attitude of some Calvinists.

The opposition is to the doctrine itself.

The "attitude" we DoGs are accused of having is one of arrogance.

The correct attitude should always be gratitude---and humility.

For the life of me, i can't see how any DoG would be smug and arrogant. That's totally inconsistent with what we say we believe.

 

jesus died for me.... think about that fact, as He was willing to take and edure hell upon the Cross, and was in my place... he died NOT for the Plan, for His foreknowledge, for whatever, but that God work and Will to save ME got accomplished, and the Holy Spirit revealed that truth to me while in my sins,,,

THAT is NOTHING to get arrogant over, for HE chose to save me, and it was Him alone, NOTHING I did decided that!