Featured To Those Who Hate Calvinism: What is Your BIG problem With it?

Mexdeaf

MexD said:

Yes these sad and pathetic posts offer no substance at all, and you have clearly identified the cause of the weak condition of the church in our day.
These uninformed comments show a complete lack of understanding the
and are devoid of any ability to offer any biblical response...so you get these kind of statements:wavey:

 

That is actually a good post. I have never understood how one can believe that he or she chooses to bestow regeneration upon themselves, (or salvation) in a fallen state, then turn right around and believe in once saved always saved. In other words, I can choose salvation, but I do not have the ability to dismiss it.

I would hate to spend a life second guessing my own ability to grab the prize, as Paul puts it, on my own ability. The book of John 1, and to an extent 2 and 3, give us the words of assurance we need. Again, it is another gift of the Lord, like the being chosen, the faith, the salvation, and now the assurance. All the elements of salvation of totally the work of the Lord.

 

Hi Icon,
I agree completely. As I said above, the purpose of the whole book of John 1 is to give us the assurance of salvation that only comes from the Lord. Assurance of salvation is a gift from God, like all the other elements of salvation. I would hate to depend on my character to give myself salvation. I would never sleep. In fact, I would worry so much I do not believe Ambien would do any good. Your other post is also well taken about good works and a new character following salvation. This is a result of the new nature God gives us, another gift. James addresses this quite clearly.

I will be the first to admit the human mind does not totally understand the mix of free will and sovereignty, but this I know, the Lord saved me and takes me through all the stages in Romans 8:28-30 without any help from me.

 

saturneptune

SN....more than trying to win a debate point, or any such thing.....peter commands that we diligently seek such a scriptural assurance so that we can have a God given confidence...a Boldness in prayer,worship and service, that comes from the Throne of God himself...to His people:

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

We should never allow anyone to suggest we are crippled by a lack of confident assurance of faith. We should be fired up and all out in our service unto God and His kingdom,and Church:wavey::thumbsup::wavey:

 

What you just said reminds me of the verse from the hymn "Amazing Love, How Can It Be" that says "boldly I approach the throne." I could just see me approaching the throne of God on my own self generated assurance. That brings to mind in the "Wizard of Oz" movie the Cowardly Lion approaching the Wizard. LOL

 

SN,
The confidence is all of God and how we come to learn by experience how he leads us at all times;

13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

8 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

 

That is quite a gift you have, and no doubt it is a result of diligent study, but the quick recall you have for Scripture for any given situation. Sometimes I wonder if man defined free will beyond it original intent because of a lack of faith in the Lord to choose in a perfect manner? I cannot prove it, but could free will as defined today by man be an expression of a lack of faith in God to do with right thing?

 

saturneptune

?

I think this is right at the heart of the matter......man is still staggering from the effects the fall and fails to understand that we are responsible to fully submit to the King:thumbsup:
That we are responsible and yet unable apart from Divine enablement, man in unbelief is unwilling to believe.

Our wills are bound by our nature;
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.l

Failing to believe the biblical testimony is lack of knowledge, or a measure of pride and unbelief.Sadly many believers miss out on the comfort of the scriptures these teachings are designed to give us.

 

Yes agreed.

1 Peter 1:1 and following also gives confidence in knowledge of election, its method and the fruit thereby;

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood...

There is an undeniable order of events...the fruit and endeavors of these elect follows in said passage similar to 1 Thess. 1 given. Thus knowing of election and salvation are synonymous but many fear the term and separate them into two states when they are in fact one and the same. The apostles used the term freely to describe the saved.

 

To be honest, and given the time I posted due to unable to sleep sometimes, I understand the question mark more than the sentence I typed.

 

:thumbs::thumbs: Very True....there are already examples of Calvinists on this thread who are nominally appealing to things they have "done" or things that they "feel" or just "know" based on their perception of what they assume is the work of the Holy Spirit. (I don't debate that it is either, just that they can't know it). But there is no objective standard or way to KNOW for sure one's election in the Calvinist schema if it is un-conditional.

I can know my election because there are conditions which have been satisfied. A Calvinist can be assured to a high degree of probability, (nominally by appealing to what they themselves would define as a "work" such as faith, which most of them erroneously refer to faith as) but they cannot appeal to the conditions put forth in I John to know for sure and remain consistent with their own schema.
This doesn't make for a slam-dunk against the system in toto or anything, but, it won't be admitted to in the least I fear. Serious introspection by any Calvinist who is willing to be honest with themselves will show what you are saying to be correct.:wavey: Just don't hold your breath.

 

To Those Who Hate Calvinism:

Hate? Wouldn't "disagree with" seem more appropriate?

 

Without even needing to address every point you made, your argument just confirmed my original statement. Every example that you offered was a performance based evidence that you are of the elect, and if it is performance based, you can not claim that your salvation is based upon faith in Christ alone, and your position ends up being synonymous with Arminianism.

And if fruit is the evidence, then what separates YOUR fruit from MY fruit? Clearly we do not agree on how God saves: I believe it is based on faith in Christ, you believe that God forces that faith on you against your will, yet if we were preordained to salvation that can not be resisted, does it make sense that God would preordain our belief systems as well? If assurance is synonymous with salvation, then that means that not only is salvation irresistible, but so is the assurance of salvation. But if assurance of salvation is irresistible, then why would scripture tell us to "make your calling and election sure"? And what would be the point of examing oneselves whether ye be in the faith or not? If assurance of salvation is a given, then there should never be a question of examining oneself, it would be automatic.

That is only one of the conundrums that Calvinists face. The non Calvinist-in my case arguing from an independent fundamental Baptist point of view-can say that because they FREELY received Christ as Saviour and trusted in the finished work of the cross, they can know that they are saved because that assurance is partly why the scripture was written according to 1 John 5:12-13.


A Calvinist can not claim that because what happens if you backslide? Since your proof of election is based on performance, then if you backslide, there goes your assurance. You can argue that God will chastise you, but that doesn't guarantee that you will respond to the chastisement (Lot didn't). A Calvinist may CLAIM that salvation is by grace through faith, but when you reduce it down to its lowest common denominator, assurance for the Calvinist depends on external evidence which is why your argument ended with that exact reasoning.

Should works follow salvation? Of course (Eph 2:10, James 2:23-24) but the difference is the Calvinist model's proof of election DEPENDS on it and that in turn begs the same question that I would ask of a Pentacostal that believes you can lose your salvation: when have you arrived? How many works are necessary to verify that you are truly one of the elect? And that logic does not escape the argument that an Arminian would use to prove you may not have ever been saved in the first place.

And if God is not electing based on His foreknowledge of who freely chooses to receive Christ, but because election demands salvation even against the will, then that means that not everyone are sinners, only some are sinners. When Romans 5:18-19 is argued in the Calvinistic sense that only SOME were made righteous (the elect) then that means only SOME were under condemnation and judgment only came upon SOME unto that condemnation. You can't cherry pick the verse and say that many means all were sinners in the first half of the verse, and then say that many means only the elect in the last half of the verse. Thus according to Calvinism, if terms like "many" and "all" really only mean some (the elect) then that means that "ALL have sinned" can only mean that some sinned, and I'd have to guess that the some that sinned would be only the non-elect, which makes the Calvinist non sinners.

You don't get saved and then believe, you get saved BY believing. Salvation comes after the belief, but Calvinism puts the cart before the horse.

Now consider what you said:

" The "biblical test" to get a scriptural assurance of ones CALLING and ELECTION"

and then compare it to: "Who God has elected is His concern"

If who God is elected is His concern, then how can our assurance be knowable? And that's just one of the conundrums that Calvinism faces (well 2 now since I did add the issue of the Calvinist usage of the term "many" from their Limited Atonement premise). The very model you attempted to use to explain assurance only confirmed that it is synonymous with Arminianism, and then you concluded with a complete contradiction of your premise in arguing that those whom God elects are solely within His sovereign knowledge (and I'll address Romans 9 when the next person raises that rebuttle) because the logical conclusion of that statement implies that ascertaining ones calling and election can not be knowable.

 

Calvinism is a perverse way of interpreting Scripture that twists the meaning of the Gospel so as to put God in a position of being a monster, which He certainly is not.

If you had a Bible to a new Christian he would never come up with this bizarre belief on his own without outside coaching.

 

Actually, every major error begins with a misunderstanding about the nature of God.

And you say "Jesus taught men are bound not free"? First of all, scripture and verse please. Secondly, Jesus said the opposite in Matthew 17:26 and John 8:32.

Furthermore, in Matthew 23:37, Jesus made it clear that Jerusalem had rejected Christ of their own free will:

"how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"


You write:

"Your view of the fall is Adam was only wounded....and not dead.
So then you deny the need for the Spirit to effectually draw all the Father gave to the Son...even after Jesus taught clearly that ALL such who are given, WILL ...come.......no more no less.....All given come by God's mercy and grace. "

First to this argument, if total depravity implies that the sinner is so dead in trespasses that God has to wake him up just to hear Him, then explain how Adam was still able to not only hear God, but also respond to Him after eating the fruit. Genesis 3:9-10.

Romans 5 makes it clear that Adam was dead the moment he ate of the fruit, yet in his dead state, he could still hear God as well as respond to Him.

Furthermore, in Romans 1:19, Paul clearly shows that those dead in sin can still understand and perceive the nature of God and the truth of God.

Your argument also presents another problem, and that is Judas Iscariot. If you are relying on John 6 to prove that all of the elect are forced against their own will to come to Christ, and then those that come to Him "I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37), then Judas Iscariot being called among the disciples lost his salvation if you interpret these verse in the Calvinist context because you can non separate these statements from what Jesus said about Judas in John 17:12:

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (JOhn 17:12).

Thus if Calvinist interpretation is applied consistently, then those of whom God is said to have given to Christ in John 6 must be the same as those given to Him in John 17, but in John 17, Judas is lost. So either Judas was saved and lost his salvation which contradicts John 6:37, or the Calvinistic interpretation of John 6:37 is erroneous.

And once again, you continue to make an argument based upon sanctification to prove your assurance of justification
I do not argue that we create our own good works (Phil 2:12-13), but the scripture makes it clear that it is our responsibility to willingly yield to the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18), willingly "put on" the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 13:14), willingly give (2 Cor 9:7), willingly cast down imaginations (2 Cor 10:4-5), willingly present yourselves a living sacrifice and be not conformed but be transformed (Romans 12:1-2 affirming that you have a choice between good and evil) as Christ willingly sacrificed Himself for us (Matthew 26:53).

Thus I don't make Christianity without works, I just put them in their proper context (sanctification) and don't confuse them with what Calvinism requires to prove that they are elect.

 

Lets see:

Calvinist = Yeshua1, Mexdeaf, EWF, Saturneptune, Preacher4truth, Salzer mtn, and Iconoclast.

Non-Calvinist = Van, GotoChurch, DrJamesArc, Quantumfaith, Crabtownboy, Plain n Simple, AIC, Thomas Helwys, HOS, and Robert Snow.

The response to the beefs of the Non-Cals was basically, they do not know what they are talking about, God can predestine sin and not be the author of that sin, examining ourselves to see if we are of the faith provides assurance to Calvinists but not to Arminians and so forth. I provided a post with content, and was asked to provide a one sentence response. When others provided a one sentence response, the posts were deemed sad, pathetic and devoid of content.

Shuck and jive folks, Calvinism is defended by shuck and jive. Evasion, misrepresentation, strawman arguments, arguments against the opponents character and qualifications rather than the content of his or her views.

Hyper-Calvinists keep faith with the logical outcomes of their faith, mainline Calvinists evade those outcomes by asserting logical impossibilities, such as God predestines sin but is not the author of that sin.

Calvinism is a house of cards, not one of the TULI doctrines is supported by scripture, but loose and liberal additions to scripture abound in their defense. Calvinism requires that phrase and word means be changed to nullify some scriptures and to pour Calvinism into other scriptures.

 

DrJamesAch

Thank you for your response's to my posts.As they are starting to branch out I will break up the next responses into several smaller posts as I think it will be instructive perhaps to some who might have an interest.

Actually....as you re-read it...I think you see it is very necessary to address these points.Your second post indicates that . That being said the content of your response shows that you while trying to answer cannot do so without evading or changing what was said...allow me to demonstrate it here.

First...let me say that this statement demonstrates while we differ and cannot yet come to any substantial agreement.Your responses indicate that your understanding of what is taught is not accurate.

Let me explain it this way.I heard once of people who fall off the subway platform.The speed of the train passing them twists them into a human knot.The emergency personal who come to help get the persons family to come to the scene because as soon as they try and move the person, they die because as the persons body begins to unfold ,blood begins to flow into the damaged portions again, the person bleeds out.
Your position is also terminal as this subway victim.Like a person who struggles in quicksand get sinks more and more,your attempted defence of this position will and does pull you down.
Keep in mind DR.Ja- it is not a personal attack, but an attack on your stated view. I do like that you are offering scripture to give a handle on your view.I think we can make progress because of the verses being discussed.:wavey:

,

Sure I can.
Jesus and the apostles offered these examples...I just point them out for everyone to consider as they are the biblical teaching. We differ as to the meaning of the verses. Every biblical calvinist believes the truth of salvation being based upon a God given faith in the cross of Christ,and the covenant death He accomplished.

Arminianism is the false position and opposes itself.Nothing any biblical Calvinist believes will be described as Arminian. This happens because Arminian types fail to understand that once God works in a person, that person will obey as commanded, resulting in works.

Nothing if both of us have fruit of the Spirit being manifest.The only difference is I see in scripture where it is God working in the believer....you suggest it is man alone doing the work, although when any of us point this out, you will object. This is why your position is inconsistent...consistently ,inconsistent.

Not yet:wavey: I hope for better things.

In time this will also come to light...

No....here is where you feel the need to suggest something that no Calvinist believes. What we believe is this;
2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

it is only God's loyal Covenant love that makes unwilling sinners...willing...not force by a loving God drawing the objects of His love unto salvation in Christ-
3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

From the 1689 confession of faith;
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

Take time to work through this statement and you do not see "force" mentioned at all....
more on PT2....