Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

[Benefactor]

I am not a Calvinist so that everyone knows.

I am not an Arminian so that everyone knows.

I do believe in once saved always saved and that does not make me a Calvinist.

I am a Baptist, I take serious my relationship in Christ and I love everyone and believe Christ died for all and that all can be saved, but most will not.

I reject universalism, special election, infant baptism, and a bunch of other stuff and I accept the 66 books of the Bible as 100 percent God's word.

So now put your theological model's boxing gloves on and let the in fighting began, metaphorically intended.

Here is a starter for you Calvinist that might get your spiritual blood pressure up, maybe not so much at first but as things progress in my favor you may need to see your medical doctor or take a breather.:godisgood:

Romans 11:32 is the culmination of Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11. It completely refutes the doctrine of special election. Now that should draw some retort! If you are going pile on the bricks, :tonofbricks: check to make sure they are made of styrofoam.

P. S. I welcome quotes form different men in history and recent authors but try to keep it short I hate reading long extended explanations of a doctrine, just get to the point. I have anti my view commentary listing ADD and ADHD. Now if you are a wimp and your wear theological feeling on your sleeve then perhaps you don’t need to engage this topic.

 

[Jim1999]

Ever try reading those 66 books you say you believe?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

Ever try reading those 66 books you say you believe?

Cheers,

Jim

Be Nice Jim!

And Cheers to You!

 

[Benefactor]

Ever try reading those 66 books you say you believe?

Cheers,

Jim

You know you get a point taken from you for hitting below the belt.

 

[preachinjesus]

wow the OP is just plain incendiary. It's like walking up to someone on the street and smacking them around.

 

[Benefactor]

wow the OP is just plain incendiary. It's like walking up to someone on the street and smacking them around.

I take it - it got your attention. I was watching a U-tube feed of a "Christian" doing basically just that. I wonder if the reason I worded it that way was because of some subliminal effect it had on me?

 

[Jim1999]

I thought I was being nice. I was offering a solution to his problem. Then I lose a point!

Cheers,

Jim

PS. Some claim they read the Bible. It says Holy Bible on the genuine leather cover.

 

[Benefactor]

I thought I was being nice. I was offering a solution to his problem. Then I lose a point!

Cheers,

Jim

PS. Some claim they read the Bible. It says Holy Bible on the genuine leather cover.

You don't mean you are supposed to actually read what is inside do you.

What are points for but to be gained and lost.

Benefactor

 

[Benefactor]

Romans 11:32 the proves Calvinist wrong

32. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

This is the bottom line. The balance sheet concludes that all are in disobedience and as such all may now be shown. Mercy is there for all period.

"May" teaches us that the subject of mercy, lost sinners, must decide if they want mercy.

"May" of course requires a condition and as such it flat rocks the boat, no it sinks the boat of Calvinism. Why? Thanks for asking

ACRT - Augustinianism, Calvinism, Reform Theology all have it wrong because for a person to have mercy he must meet a condition which is required in the statement, "May show mercy to all"

God is not willing that any should perish and He desires all to be saved and here He as declared all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Is that not great! What a wonderful God we serve.

 

[Dale-c]

Welcome Benefactor!

Looks like you are up to lively debate, or at least lively monologue
We will have to see about the former.

I think you will find around here things are not quite as cut and dried as you seem to think

 

[Benefactor]

Welcome Benefactor!

Looks like you are up to lively debate, or at least lively monologue
We will have to see about the former.

I think you will find around here things are not quite as cut and dried as you seem to think

Civil and open discussions, but as polarized as Calvinist and non Calvinist are not sure that can happen.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Romans 11:32 is the culmination of Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11. It completely refutes the doctrine of special election. Now that should draw some retort!

It is hard to retort to something that has no supporting arguments. Why not tell us why or how rom 11:32 refutes the doctrine of special election. So far as I can tell, it doesn't even address it.

 

[Jim1999]

Truth or Calvinism........It just dawned on me. That was a typing error and should read: Truth of Calvinism.........Ok, now I get that.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Benefactor]

Truth or Calvinism........It just dawned on me. That was a typing error and should read: Truth of Calvinism.........Ok, now I get that.

Cheers,

Jim

Now wait a minute!

 

[Benefactor]

It is hard to retort to something that has no supporting arguments. Why not tell us why or how rom 11:32 refutes the doctrine of special election. So far as I can tell, it doesn't even address it.

Larry with 21k plus post I don't think I can say anything that you have not heard yet, but I will give it a try.

Romans 11: For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

The Conclusion of 8-11

A. All committed to disobedience
B. All may have mercy
C. May set a condition for receiving mercy
D. Special election cannot exist when mercy is conditional on the part of the believer. Slam Dunk

Stay tuned folks now comes the Calvinist spin on this.

 

[Martin]

I am not a Calvinist so that everyone knows.

I am not an Arminian so that everyone knows.

I do believe in once saved always saved and that does not make me a Calvinist.

I am a Baptist, I take serious my relationship in Christ and I love everyone and believe Christ died for all and that all can be saved, but most will not.

==Two things. First, saying that one is not a Calvinist or Arminian but a Baptist is really a meaningless statement. Throughout church history there have been Baptists on both sides of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Just take a glance at the different confessions.

that all can be saved

==I am not sure that is a Biblical statement. Yes, the offer of salvation has been made to all men and it is the job of Christians to take that offer to all men. However there are those who have put themselves beyond the forgiveness of God. The late Adrian Rogers use to talk about "God's deadline". Passages such as 2Peter 2, Hebrews 6, and 10 warn about this very real danger. I would also be quick to point that the Lord Jesus Himself told us that "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (Jn 6:44). Those the Father draws in this unique way will come to Christ and be saved (Jn 6:37-39, 44). In other words, people can't just "get saved" anytime they want to. This is why the Bible warns that today is the day of salvation.

Romans 11:32 is the culmination of Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11. It completely refutes the doctrine of special election. Now that should draw some retort! If you are going pile on the bricks, check to make sure they are made of styrofoam.

==I think that is an assertion on your part and not a Biblical fact. Certainly there are very clear passages that teach special election. Christians have debated exactly how those passages should be best understood, but special election is hard to deny. God choose Abraham, Israel, the Church, the Apostles, Paul, and everyone who believes in Him. It is very clear in Scripture that those who come to Christ do so only because the Father gave them to the Son (Jn 6:37-39, 10:26-27, 15:16, 17:1-3, Acts 13:48, 2Thess 2:13, etc). Romans 11:32 only states the obvious, that grace is offered to all. However only the elect will take advantage of the grace through faith in Christ (ex: Jn 10:26-27).

 

[Benefactor]

==Two things. First, saying that one is not a Calvinist or Arminian but a Baptist is really a meaningless statement. Throughout church history there have been Baptists on both sides of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Just take a glance at the different confessions.

I am not a Calvinist or an Arminian - I do believe in OSAS. That is more the middle road between the two.


==I am not sure that is a Biblical statement. Yes, the offer of salvation has been made to all men and it is the job of Christians to take that offer to all men. However there are those who have put themselves beyond the forgiveness of God. The late Adrian Rogers use to talk about "God's deadline". Passages such as 2Peter 2, Hebrews 6, and 10 warn about this very real danger. I would also be quick to point that the Lord Jesus Himself told us that "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (Jn 6:44). Those the Father draws in this unique way will come to Christ and be saved (Jn 6:37-39, 44). In other words, people can't just "get saved" anytime they want to. This is why the Bible warns that today is the day of salvation.

I would not argue with that at all, except I take the view that God the Father gives to Christ all he knows will believe not all that are pre picked. I do not see foreknowledge as fore loved. Elections is according to grace and foreknowledge in Christ.


==I think that is an assertion on your part and not a Biblical fact. Certainly there are very clear passages that teach special election. Christians have debated exactly how those passages should be best understood, but special election is hard to deny. God choose Abraham, Israel, the Church, the Apostles, Paul, and everyone who believes in Him. It is very clear in Scripture that those who come to Christ do so only because the Father gave them to the Son (Jn 6:37-39, 10:26-27, 15:16, 17:1-3, Acts 13:48, 2Thess 2:13, etc). Romans 11:32 only states the obvious, that grace is offered to all. However only the elect will take advantage of the grace through faith in Christ (ex: Jn 10:26-27).

What is interesting is that God desires all to be saved. To reconcile this with special elections is impossible without having a contradiction or a solution that is not contradictory. When there is a contradiction or apparent contradiction there must be a solution. In that God desires all to be saved but only saves a few is a huge contradiction.

God desires A and B to be saved but only pick B. What is wrong with this picture?

Jesus is the savior of all men and God desires all to be saved but according to ACRT they cannot be saved unless God saves them. However God desires all to be saved and died for all but now denies His desire and picks a few and the rest He desires for salvation refused to pick them, thus they go to hell.

The logic is solid. If God desires / wills all to be saved and can but does not unless there is a condition then that is one big real irrefutable contradiction.

One must reason away the desire of God
Or
One must interpret the so called passages that are said to be special election in light of this passage and other universal offers, John 3:16 and others.

The way it will work and preserve God's Holiness is to understand election corporately and according to grace and foreknowledge, not individually for a few.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry with 21k plus post I don't think I can say anything that you have not heard yet, but I will give it a try.

I didn't think so, but I must confess I don't recall ever hearing Rom 11:32 as a text in this discussion.

Romans 11: For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

The Conclusion of 8-11

A. All committed to disobedience
B. All may have mercy
C. May set a condition for receiving mercy
D. Special election cannot exist when mercy is conditional on the part of the believer. Slam Dunk

First, you would have to define who the verse is talking about by "all." I think the point is drawing off of Rom 3 where Jew and Gentile alike are under sin and therefore Jew and Gentile alike can receive mercy.

Second, I don't see any condition in this verse for receiving mercy. Furthermore, that needs more explanation. What would a suitable condition be for receiving mercy? Mercy means we have done nothing to receive it.

Third, you have given no argument as to why special election cannot exist when mercy is conditional. You haven't shown from this verse that there are any conditions on mercy, much less on the part of the believer.

Stay tuned folks now comes the Calvinist spin on this.

There's no spin here. So far as I can tell, you haven't even made an argument from this verse. In other words, you didn't use this verse to show anything at all related to special election.

 

[Benefactor]

I didn't think so, but I must confess I don't recall ever hearing Rom 11:32 as a text in this discussion.

With as many post that you have that is a surprise. I would have thought that this passage would have been used. Well now it has...

First, you would have to define who the verse is talking about by "all." I think the point is drawing off of Rom 3 where Jew and Gentile alike are under sin and therefore Jew and Gentile alike can receive mercy.

Agree both Jew and Gentile

Second, I don't see any condition in this verse for receiving mercy. Furthermore, that needs more explanation. What would a suitable condition be for receiving mercy? Mercy means we have done nothing to receive it.

Condition is there because eleasa is a subjunctive aorist active and is correctly translated "he may show mercy" As you know the subjunctive conveys mild contingency and of course contingency means condition. We are not told in the verse what the condition is but we know that there is a condition, that is not disputable, that is a fact. In that we know for a fact that a condition is necessary to receive mercy this alone means that special election is impossible. Verse 32 is the summation of 8-11 and it is very clear what is communicated. Within these chapters we have that condition spelled out in Chapter 10:12 and 13. We know that not all will believe but we know that some will as is the case in John chapter 1 where John states that the Jews did not believe but as many as did were saved. And we know that some of the Jews did believe so we cannot say that they all did not believe for some did. Likewise 11:32 allows for freedom of believe under the conditions of Chapter 10. Truth is disseminated, heard, and received of rejected. So 11:32 if given is correct meaning within it context which is a concluding statement of Chapters 8-11 then we must come to the conclusion that special election has not place in the offer of salvation and the saving of men which is therefore on the basis of free will


Third, you have given no argument as to why special election cannot exist when mercy is conditional. You haven't shown from this verse that there are any conditions on mercy, much less on the part of the believer.

The condition is not on mercy but for mercy, that is a huge difference. Because we know that God wants all to be saved and because Jesus died for all these truth are in agreement with this verse and those verses that "appear" to teach special election must then be subject to these text. Please note that election is according to foreknowledge not fore loved. We reject completely the forced meaning that foreknowledge mean other than what it means. This is an argument that has been forced on this word to support the Calvinist view of special election.

There's no spin here. So far as I can tell, you haven't even made an argument from this verse. In other words, you didn't use this verse to show anything at all related to special election.

The relationship is not for special election bur for Scriptural salvation on the basis of conditonal mercy as explained in RED above. Jesus said Luke 7:50. Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.

1 Timothy 2

1. Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2. for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6. who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

To desire and then to deny His desire by only picking a few of the all is a contradiction. The only option other than free will is universalism to heaven or to hell. The only solution is to accept what it says and to allow election according to foreknowledge to mean what it says and to accept what Romans 11:32 clearly says and to accept John 3:16 "world" meaning all mankind, just for a few.

 

[Darrenss1]

In that God desires all to be saved but only saves a few is a huge contradiction.

God desires A and B to be saved but only pick B. What is wrong with this picture?

Jesus is the savior of all men and God desires all to be saved but according to ACRT they cannot be saved unless God saves them. However God desires all to be saved and died for all but now denies His desire and picks a few and the rest He desires for salvation refused to pick them, thus they go to hell.

The logic is solid.

Logic? Is that what you call it? Most positions will teach no man can come unless the Father first draws him. So how can anyone get over that hurdle to refute a position without offering an alternative? God desires all to be saved but not all are saved is something every position needs to explain regardless. Desire is not the function or intention so it would not be a contradiction anyway, if the bible said God intended to saved everyone, then there would be a contradiction.

Darren