Reasons Why Professed Christians Fail To See or Grasp The Doctrines Of Grace

[Alan Dale Gross]

8] When offered truth by scripture, or confessions of faith, they turn and make excuses, it is man made, it is philosophy, etc.

In my mind and experience, a God-wrought intimate personal awareness of what it is to be a sinner
is absent in every case of an individual being unable to see what is going on and has been since Eternity Past, as to How God Saves Souls.

A soul must understand their undone, helpless, hopeless, position before a Holy God from Who's Perspective, they are a Law-Breaking ungodly wretched worm, to who He has ZERbligation and who are Hell bound and in utter need of a Savior, to Save them from the guilt of their sin.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity is taught along with The Doctrines of Grace in nearly every chapter in the Bible.

Total Depravity is so prevalent in the religious world that, as mere men, they have decided to change and alter its definition,
as is their custom in habitually denying the word of God, to want everyone to believe they are Totally Depraved but not Totally Unable.

There you have Total Depravity. When religiously motivated people think they are absolutely reversing the meaning of a Bible teaching
and that they have the favor of God in doing so, it is because they are just giving everyone an example of the State of their soul's Nature,
which is that it is Totally Depraved.

The subject of Totally Depravity includes the Bible teachings on what sin is and, therefore, what a sinner is.

Until someone learns that they are blind, dead, and lost in their sin, a God Who Saves souls by the Work Accomplished by the Blood of the Savior, to save their soul from sin is not a part of the discussion. The discussion is whether the individual wants to go to Heaven or Hell when they die. And God's Not in that pure denial of the soul's sin which has rendered them without strength, or ability, or capability, which requires a All Powerful QUICKENING TO LIFE FROM THE STATE GOD FINDS THEM IN, WHICH IS DEAD.

No one can be Saved until they're lost.

"Jesus Came to Seek and Save that which is lost",
"the well need not a physician, but the sick." "He hid these things from the wise and prudent, but has revealed them unto babes".

However, people are too proud to even adopt Total Depravity into a model, from which to judge The Doctrines of Grace.

They don't even take Total Depravity under consideration. They are already too "well" and "wise and prudent|".

While God sees them as Totally Depraved.

Unless he shows them, they won't give God permission to Save souls the One Way He Reveals to Mankind throughout The Bible.

 

[JonC]

I have never heard of people who have read these people you speak of. Do you think missionaries go out, and learn a language, so they can explain who Aqinas, Calvin, or beza was?

Theology makes well meaning people....stupid? So, theology is a bad thing? You have some unique ideas.

Some seem to simply want to spread Calvinism. I question whether these are Christians.

I was a Calvinist, so I get many may not teach Calvinism to others.

No, theology itself is not a bad thing. My graduate degree is in theology, so obviously I am not "anti-theology:.

But some theologies are because they alter what Scripture says.

The problem seems to be more with those who have not attended seminary as they tend to be more dogmatic about theories and philosophies involved in theology while at the same time not being able to identify what is of Hod and what is their own understanding. It is less common to see one who recieved a formal education in theology unable to recognize theory and theological development.

For example, an uneducated Calvinist will not see how Calvinism developed but will blindly accept it as the "normal" teaching of Scripture while an educated Calvinist tends to be interested in the development of his view and able to distinguish subjective theory from objective Scripture.

 

[JonC]

The question would be, is a christian someone who denies scripture, or believes it? Many people in utah believe the mormon church is Christian. Do you think they are Christians?

Many Calvinists on this board believe that sins can be transferred, that God must punish sins to forgive, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God abandoned Jesus, etc. That is denying Scrioture, and adfing to Scripture. Are they saved?

Truth is, some may be saved. I was saved when I was a Calvinist.

Doctrine does not save us. While Calvinism is a corruption of the gospel that gospel is still present. Same with Catholics.

This is not true of Mormons.

 

[Zaatar71]

Of course they agree with the WCF/LBCF they are all calvinists.

Maybe there was a reason they were what you call Calvinists? It looks like what they saw in scripture equals what you are calling calvinism.

But you asked where was determinism buy some Christian's and I showed you where and you deflect. I am shocked.

You have not really answered that at all. Islam seems to believe things are determined without a personal God who is indeed in control. Is that your view, SH?

 

[JesusFan]

Many Calvinists on this board believe that sins can be transferred, that God must punish sins to forgive, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God abandoned Jesus, etc. That is denying Scrioture, and adfing to Scripture. Are they saved?

Truth is, some may be saved. I was saved when I was a Calvinist.

Doctrine does not save us. While Calvinism is a corruption of the gospel that gospel is still present. Same with Catholics.

This is not true of Mormons.

Sorry brother, but as Spurgeon stated, and I see him superior to you in theology, Calvinism is the Gospel message , as its basically Pauline Justification

 

[JesusFan]

Many Calvinists on this board believe that sins can be transferred, that God must punish sins to forgive, that Jesus suffered God's wrath, that God abandoned Jesus, etc. That is denying Scrioture, and adfing to Scripture. Are they saved?

Truth is, some may be saved. I was saved when I was a Calvinist.

Doctrine does not save us. While Calvinism is a corruption of the gospel that gospel is still present. Same with Catholics.

This is not true of Mormons.

No way that Calvinism theology anywhere close to either Rome or Mormons

 

[kyredneck]

View attachment 10987

He should have stayed off those Calvinist websites. Terrible is the error of the internet that even the framers of the laws and governments of the United States were not able to grasp the truths that Zaatar holds to be self evident. (Satire)

No. I didn’t get this image from the internet. It is a quote that was sent to me. I don’t think Jefferson posted this on his anti-cal website. But according to Zaatar, it should be rejected not on the merit of what it says, just because you must blindly follow Calvinism (you don’t really have a choice). It must not be considered because it is anti-cal.

"...Thomas Jefferson, for example, was raised Episcopalian, donated a significant amount of money to building Episcopalian churches, attended a Episcopalian church, and yet is not considered an orthodox Episcopalian by any historian of note. His views would be considered heretical by today's orthodox standards.

"...Calvinists - The Calvinists included Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and other reformed churches. Essentially, Calvinists did not believe that true Christianity should retain a pope or official bishops. Pastors could serve in the capacity of minor church authorities. The also believed that salvation was entirely through God and that humans were sinners and that there was nothing they could do to change that.

Much of New Engl..."and was Calvinist in some capacity throughout the 18th-Century. Most of the colleges around 1770 were Calvinist-influenced institutions. Benjamin Franklin and John Adams grew up in Calvinist homes although both would renounce that form of Christianity in later years (Franklin by the age of 15, and Adams as an adult). Holmes p 12-37. Samuel Adams, on the other hand, remained a practicing Calvinist all his life...."

 

[JonC]

No way that Calvinism theology anywhere close to either Rome or Mormons

Calvinism IS reformed Roman Catholic doctrine, and it is very close to Catholicism.

Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory (the Roman Cathokic theory) and built a faith off of that revision.


There is no meaningful difference between Calvinism and Catholicism. You demonstrated this when you dismissed God's Word to follow men you believe are smarter than you (your words). These men are your "pope". You accept their theories as if they were God's Word.

Calvinism maintains many of the same Roman Catholic errors. For one, Augustine developed his doctrine of sin (one you believe) from a mistranslation in the Vulgate. This became Catholic doctrine and Calvinists main main this doctrine.

I agree Calvinists are not on par with Mormons.

 

[Zaatar71]

Some seem to simply want to spread Calvinism.

When reading some of these men, they suggest that calvinism is the truth found in scripture. They quote Jesus, and the Apostles. That is what they teach is that which was taught by Jesus. This would be the gospel, correct?

I question whether these are Christians.

I would not question if the Apostles were Christians, except if you mean Judas?

I was a Calvinist, so I get many may not teach Calvinism to others.

This is a confusing statement. People have the truth, and somehow, they do not present it to others. Did you ever hear of Founders Ministry? They all believe and teach these things. Are you saying they are all wrong?

No, theology itself is not a bad thing. My graduate degree is in theology, so obviously I am not "anti-theology:.

Thanks for clarifying that! It did not sound good in your other post.

But some theologies are because they alter what Scripture says.

maybe I have not seen those?

The problem seems to be more with those who have not attended seminary as they tend to be more dogmatic about theories and philosophies involved in theology while at the same time not being able to identify what is of Hod and what is their own understanding.

Well, how do you distinguish what is your "own understanding". Everyone has their own understanding don't they? You say you went to seminary. Did you not believe what they taught? How did you determine that all of them were wrong, but you were right?

It is less common to see one who recieved a formal education in theology unable to recognize theory and theological development.

I am not sure what you are talking about here? You seem to call many things, theory. When I hear these men at Founders, they speak of bible truth. Are they wrong according to what you are saying? All of them are wrong, but you are not wrong?

For example, an uneducated Calvinist

I read online the the Person known as Charles Spurgeon was a confessional Calvinist, yet he had no training in a seminary. Should we disregard what he preached and taught?

will not see how Calvinism developed but will blindly accept it as the "normal" teaching of Scripture

I have heard people say they came to these truths without seminary, or knowing of all these people you mentioned, Aqinas, Augustine, beza, calvin? how did that happen if they did not follow in your footsteps?

while an educated Calvinist tends to be interested in the development of his view and able to distinguish subjective theory from objective Scripture.

Who are these people? Are the founders educated people? Tom Ascol, Voddie Baucham? Are they educated, and trusted pastors to listen to?

Some seem to simply want to spread Calvinism.

Who does that, if they are not sure that it is the gospel that others call by that name?

I question whether these are Christians.

You question if calvinists , are Christians??? That seems a bit radical! Are Rc.Sproul, and Sinclair Ferguson Christians? They always speak of these things? They are mistaken, or those who would mislead us? Are you sure you are in the mainstream on this?

I was a Calvinist, so I get many may not teach Calvinism to others.

Are you one of those people who go online, and announce you are deconstructing your faith? That does not seem to be a good idea!

No, theology itself is not a bad thing. My graduate degree is in theology, so obviously I am not "anti-theology:.

But some theologies are because they alter what Scripture says.

So how did those who wrote the confession of faith "alter" what the scripture says? looks like they were reading directly from it!

The problem seems to be more with those who have not attended seminary as they tend to be more dogmatic about theories and philosophies

This is along the line of the 15 reasons given as to why some do not hold to these truths. You seem to be drifting away somewhere?

involved in theology while at the same time not being able to identify what is of Hod and what is their own understanding

What is hod? as compared to 'their own understanding?

. It is less common to see one who recieved a formal education in theology unable to recognize theory and theological development.

Do you ask this earlier?

For example, an uneducated Calvinist will not see how Calvinism developed but will blindly accept it as the "normal" teaching of Scripture while an educated Calvinist tends to be interested in the development of his view and able to distinguish subjective theory from objective Scripture.

Not sure how you make these judgments. But thanks for these attempted responses!

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Who are these people? Are the founders educated people? Tom Ascol, Voddie Baucham? Are they educated, and trusted pastors to listen to?

Educated? Yes. Trusted? That's an incredibly questionable matter - not in regard to reformed theology, but more in regard to what groups they are gravitating towards and the resulting issues that stem from those groups. I personally think Tom Ascol to be a bully, and a hypocrite.

 

[Zaatar71]

In my mind and experience, a God-wrought intimate personal awareness of what it is to be a sinner
is absent in every case of an individual being unable to see what is going on and has been since Eternity Past, as to How God Saves Souls.

A soul must understand their undone, helpless, hopeless, position before a Holy God from Who's Perspective, they are a Law-Breaking ungodly wretched worm, to who He has ZERbligation and who are Hell bound and in utter need of a Savior, to Save them from the guilt of their sin.

The Doctrine of Total Depravity is taught along with The Doctrines of Grace in nearly every chapter in the Bible.

Yes. I think you are saying this correctly,100%

Total Depravity is so prevalent in the religious world that, as mere men, they have decided to change and alter its definition,
as is their custom in habitually denying the word of God, to want everyone to believe they are Totally Depraved but not Totally Unable.

I see. This makes much sense! I am sure you are onto something!

There you have Total Depravity. When religiously motivated people think they are absolutely reversing the meaning of a Bible teaching
and that they have the favor of God in doing so, it is because they are just giving everyone an example of the State of their soul's Nature,
which is that it is Totally Depraved.

Wow, Good insight!

The subject of Totally Depravity includes the Bible teachings on what sin is and, therefore, what a sinner is.

Until someone learns that they are blind, dead, and lost in their sin, a God Who Saves souls by the Work Accomplished by the Blood of the Savior, to save their soul from sin is not a part of the discussion. The discussion is whether the individual wants to go to Heaven or Hell when they die. And God's Not in that pure denial of the soul's sin which has rendered them without strength, or ability, or capability, which requires a All Powerful QUICKENING TO LIFE FROM THE STATE GOD FINDS THEM IN, WHICH IS DEAD.

No one can be Saved until they're lost.

This makes so much sense, and is so clear. Surely this is bible based truth! Some of the other posters want to drift all over the place and never seem to land on scripture. Have you noticed that same thing?

"Jesus Came to Seek and Save that which is lost",
"the well need not a physician, but the sick." "He hid these things from the wise and prudent, but has revealed them unto babes".

Yes, clear truth once again! You came to this from your bible Alan? Did you have to search in history to see this teaching, or have you learned that many others saw the exact same things?

However, people are too proud to even adopt Total Depravity into a model, from which to judge The Doctrines of Grace.

They don't even take Total Depravity under consideration. They are already too "well" and "wise and prudent|".

While God sees them as Totally Depraved.

Unless he shows them, they won't give God permission to Save souls the One Way He Reveals to Mankind throughout The Bible.

This post answered almost all things that some of the objector's raised in this thread. Thank you for such a fine post Alan!

 

[Zaatar71]

Educated? Yes. Trusted? That's an incredibly questionable matter - not in regard to reformed theology, but more in regard to what groups they are gravitating towards and the resulting issues that stem from those groups.

I am not sure what you mean! Could you clarify what you mean by issues they are gravitating to? Is something serious going on, where we should not trust these teachers?

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I am not sure what you mean! Could you clarify what you mean by issues they are gravitating to? Is something serious going on, where we should not trust these teachers?

Specifically Doug Wilson and Moscow Idaho. They have a decaying effect on reformed circles.

 

[Zaatar71]

Silver hair, let's take a look back to your posts:
Oh I forgot I do not have my Calvi dictionary on hand.
See there is just another of your many failures ZA. You keep reading your religion into the bible rather than get your theology from the bible.
You are under the delusion that calvinism is the standard by which the word of God should be understood. Oh you silly man.
I repeat the same truths in the hope that you will realize the failure of your man-made religion and turn to the real God of the bible.
IF you are so sure that your man-made religion is not based on pagan philosophy then do the hard work and prove it.We know from history that augustine brought pagan teachings into the church Might do you some good to learn some history instead of drinking the calvinist kool-aid.
I agree that calvinist determinism shoves the pendulum too far.Still no response from you rebutting that the basis of calvinism is pagan philosophy.
We have seen in history the ebb and flow between the hard of determinism and the soft of liberalism

From these posts, it looks like you are found in about half of the 15 reasons,Sh?

 

[Zaatar71]

Specifically Doug Wilson and Moscow Idaho. They have a decaying effect on reformed circles.

What do they say, that causes decay? Do you have any link, or article about this decay? if you do, share it. What about Founders ministry, are they causing decay?

 

[JonC]

When reading some of these men, they suggest that calvinism is the truth found in scripture. They quote Jesus, and the Apostles. That is what they teach is that which was taught by Jesus. This would be the gospel, correct?


I would not question if the Apostles were Christians, except if you mean Judas?

This is a confusing statement. People have the truth, and somehow, they do not present it to others. Did you ever hear of Founders Ministry? They all believe and teach these things. Are you saying they are all wrong?

Thanks for clarifying that! It did not sound good in your other post.

maybe I have not seen those?

Well, how do you distinguish what is your "own understanding". Everyone has their own understanding don't they? You say you went to seminary. Did you not believe what they taught? How did you determine that all of them were wrong, but you were right?

I am not sure what you are talking about here? You seem to call many things, theory. When I hear these men at Founders, they speak of bible truth. Are they wrong according to what you are saying? All of them are wrong, but you are not wrong?

I read online the the Person known as Charles Spurgeon was a confessional Calvinist, yet he had no training in a seminary. Should we disregard what he preached and taught?


I have heard people say they came to these truths without seminary, or knowing of all these people you mentioned, Aqinas, Augustine, beza, calvin? how did that happen if they did not follow in your footsteps?


Who are these people? Are the founders educated people? Tom Ascol, Voddie Baucham? Are they educated, and trusted pastors to listen to?

Who does that, if they are not sure that it is the gospel that others call by that name?

You question if calvinists , are Christians??? That seems a bit radical! Are Rc.Sproul, and Sinclair Ferguson Christians? They always speak of these things? They are mistaken, or those who would mislead us? Are you sure you are in the mainstream on this?

Are you one of those people who go online, and announce you are deconstructing your faith? That does not seem to be a good idea!

So how did those who wrote the confession of faith "alter" what the scripture says? looks like they were reading directly from it!

This is along the line of the 15 reasons given as to why some do not hold to these truths. You seem to be drifting away somewhere?

What is hod? as compared to 'their own understanding?

Do you ask this earlier?

Not sure how you make these judgments. But thanks for these attempted responses!

I can help you understand.

By "theory" I mean doctrines that are subjective abd not actually in God's Word. These doctrines cannot pass the "test of Scripture". Calvinists can only test what they belueve Scripture teaches against what they belueve is taught by Scripture (not by "what is written".

Calvinists DO read directly from Scripture but only to support their theories (what they read in Scripture does not state what they believe). Calvinists also have to avoid or explain away many passages (like Exekiel, that sins cannot be transferred, God forgives based on repentance) and Psalm 22 (that God forsook Jesus to suffer but was faithful not to abandon Him).


Do I go online and announce I am deconstructing faith? No. I was a Calvinist for a long time. I taught Calvinism as correct when teaching theology and it affected my sermons when preaching of Atonement.

I, however, do go online and point to God's Word (which means I am opposed to Calvinism).


You are wrong, BTW. I stated that I was a Christian while being a Calvinists. Like Catholics, Calvinists can be saved but this is despite their doctrine. What they miss out on is the deep things of God because they replace Scripture (and what God is saying) with their philosophy and theories.


I make these judgments because I test doctrine against "what is written" in Scripture. God's Word is our standard for doctrine. Just as SDA doctrine fails the test of Scrioture, so does Calvinism. The actual judgment belongs to God because He gave us Scripture snd instructed us to test doctrine against this standard.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

What do they say, that causes decay? Do you have any link, or article about this decay? if you do, share it. What about Founders ministry, are they causing decay?

Wilson redefines faith in the same likeness that Norman Shepherd did/does. His "serrated edge" teaching leads to horrible conduct from his students - all manner of unsanctified behavior, as such he thinks cursing can/does glorify God. One example I can think of is cross-politic ( a show made up of men who are in various offices in Wilson's church) blaming baptist theology for transgenderism, and refusing to apologize, rather they doubled down and thought it was funny. He was one of the leading architects of the federal vision - which NARPAC has condemned as heresy. There are also lots of allegations of sexual abuse within his church. These are just a few things. But sadly, men like Ascol, Baucham, White, Durbin, and others seem to ignore these things and partner with/recommend him.

 

[JonC]

You keep reading your religion into the bible rather than get your theology from the bible.

Yet you cannot defend your faith by quoting Scripture.

 

[Zaatar71]

I can help you understand.

By "theory" I mean doctrines that are subjective abd not actually in God's Word. These doctrines cannot pass the "test of Scripture". Calvinists can only test what they belueve Scripture teaches against what they belueve is taught by Scripture (not by "what is written".


Calvinists DO read directly from Scripture but only to support their theories (what they read in Scripture does not state what they believe). Calvinists also have to avoid or explain away many passages (like Exekiel, that sins cannot be transferred, God forgives based on repentance) and Psalm 22 (that God forsook Jesus to suffer but was faithful not to abandon Him).


Do I go online and announce I am deconstructing faith? No. I was a Calvinist for a long time. I taught Calvinism as correct when teaching theology and it affected my sermons when preaching of Atonement.

I, however, do go online and point to God's Word (which means I am opposed to Calvinism).


You are wrong, BTW. I stated that I was a Christian while being a Calvinists. Like Catholics, Calvinists can be saved but this is despite their doctrine. What they miss out on is the deep things of God because they replace Scripture (and what God is saying) with their philosophy and theories.


I make these judgments because I test doctrine against "what is written" in Scripture. God's Word is our standard for doctrine. Just as SDA doctrine fails the test of Scrioture, so does Calvinism. The actual judgment belongs to God because He gave us Scripture snd instructed us to test doctrine against this standard.

Thanks for trying to explain your remarkable view! None of the Historic churches, or confessions "passed the TEST of Scripture" ???
This is quite a claim! All the Reformers, Puritans, Spurgeon, Founders, they all fail your test, but only you see it clearly? That seems like a real big stretch does'nt it? Jesus and the Apostles did not pass this test? They did not use scripture. or pass this test you have constructed? Are you sure of this? Do you feel uneasy, making such a bold claim? Well thanks again for making a response, and trying to defend it! Does anyone here agree with your ideas?

 

[Silverhair]

Maybe there was a reason they were what you call Calvinists? It looks like what they saw in scripture equals what you are calling calvinism

When you set out to write a document that supports the calvinist view that would require that you be a calvinist ZA.

You have not really answered that at all. Islam seems to believe things are determined without a personal God who is indeed in control. Is that your view, SH?

Well since you said it then yes determinism is determinism no matter who holds to it.

If one believes that their version of God determines all things how does that change what determinism is ZA?