Should Christians call themselves Calvinists?

[annsni]

I did read it, and I asked you a question. Who is it that pours his spirit unto us? Who is speaking when it says "I will make known my words unto you"?

You know, I should heed God's word.

Prov 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Well, then you are calling God a fool you know. I'm just going by what God allowed in the text. The text says what it says. You can't argue with it. Sorry.

 

[John Toppass]

Who says that Calvinists have anything to hide? In the case that you mention, I'm more than happy to explain what "elect" means and show the Scriptural support for it. Amy, I do believe that you have some sort of animosity towards those of us who believe in the doctrine of grace and it seems to cloud your view of the truth.

I try to understand why those who follow Calvin think that all others view of the truth is clouded.

When in fact, if they would use all the scripture so that it meshes and does not contradict, they would find that you have to cloud the truth to follow Calvin.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm a five-point biblicist.

:laugh:
That is excellent and hilarious!

Isn't that what Arminians always tell us? I'm not an Arminian! I'm a biblicist!

I am attending Liberty right now and I ahve some wonderful professors but Dr. Towns amuses me by what he calls himself- A BIBLICAL dispensationalist!:laugh:

Isn't that great!

I love the attitude that many Arminians have when they say, "I don't adhere to a man-made system!!! I believe the BIBLE!!!!"

It's just wonderful isn't it?:laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

I try to understand why those who follow Calvin think that all others view of the truth is clouded.

When in fact, if they would use all the scripture so that it meshes and does not contradict, they would find that you have to cloud the truth to follow Calvin.

I don't know why Arminians and semi-Arminians follow man made systems and cannot see that Calvinism is biblical and all other systems are self contradictory and unscriptural.

 

[Luke2427]

So if you're talking to an unsaved person about the Calvinist doctrine, do you tell them they may not be one of the elect?

Do you? You believe it as much as we do. You absolutely believe that the elect will go to heaven and that the non-elect will go to hell just as much as we do.

Do you tell folks- "If you do not pray and receive Christ you are not the elect and God will pass over you concerning salvation?"

Because you believe that every bit as much as I do. If it is wrong for me to not mention that then it is just as wrong for you to not mention it.

You believe God commands all men everywhere to repent- so do we.

You believe that the Gospel invitation is extended to all- so do we.

You believe that whosoever will may come- so do we.

You believe that those who believe make up the elect of God- so do we.

You believe there are some that God did not elect to save, namely those that never believe,- so do we.

So what is it about our doctrine that is different from yours that saddles us with the moral responsibility to tell everyone we witness to that they may not be the elect?

 

[Luke2427]

Oh, I'm pretty sure if I was living a life of debauchery and loving every second of it, if I hated God and wanted nothing to do with him, and then a second later I wanted to go to church, I would notice.

And if that happened to you you DID notice- you just didn't understand why- and you still don't. You still don't understand that God did all the changing of your heart totally without your help.

It is my prayer that one day you will come to understand this.

Before I got saved I did not hate God or Jesus. I believed God was good, I believed Jesus was good. But I had been taught I had to be a good person to go to heaven, and I tried to be a good person. I hated the Devil and everything about him.

You did not hate your idea of what you thought God and Jesus was. Your idea, before you were saved was nothing more than an idol of them.

The Mormons and JW's love Jesus and God too- but he is not the one true God.

This is what kills me about Calvinism, they will say things like "Total Depravity does not mean we are as bad as we could be". Well, why not? What is keeping us from being as evil and bad as we can be if we absolutely have no ability to do anything good?

Providence. God restrains the evil of man for his own purposes.

All kings would be like Hitler and worse were it not for the fact that "the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water he turneth it withersoever he will."

All men have a limitless potential for evil. Their circumstances hem them in from being as evil as they can be.

They actually ARE as evil in their hearts as they can be- but it does not play out in their lives because of the Providential restraint of God.

It doesn't make a bit of sense. If we have no ability whatsoever to do good, then simple logic dictates we should be as evil as we possibly can be.

Hopefully now you see the error of this thinking.

Why do we have a conscience? The conscience by definition means we know right from wrong and have an inclination or tugging to do that which is right. All men have a conscience.

You have totally missed the definition of conscience. You were doing OK when you started- it is a certain amount of knowledge- very limited- of what is right and wrong.

No, the scriptures do not teach that unsaved man can do no good. Jesus himself said we who are evil can give good gifts to our children. He said sinners can love and do good, and he said their love and good is "the same" as ours.

The Scriptures ABSOLUTELY teach that sinful man can do no good.

The verses you refer to have NOTHING at all to do with real "goodness".

Rattlesnakes and hyenas give good gifts to their children. SO WHAT???

Does that mean that rattlesnakes and hyenas are morally upright?

The idea is absurd. It just means that it is natural to tend to one's offspring.

To stretch that to say that men are morally good is a terrible, terrible stretch.

Especially when the Bible says very clearly- "There is none that doeth good- no not one" Romans 3.

Luke 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Yes, and the point Jesus is making is that loving those that love you is not real moral goodness- even sinners do that!

If you want to do real moral goodness love those that hate you.

I have a full blooded pit bull that loves me because I love him. Is he morally good?

Of course not.

 

[Luke2427]

That the unregenerate can hear God when he calls is shown in Proverbs.

Prov 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

The scriptures do not show the unregenerate unable to respond to God, they show the unregenerate refuse to respond to God. Huge difference.

And notice verse 28, God says the unregenerate will call upon him, they shall seek him, but he will not answer or be found of them.

So, the problem with the unregenerate is not that they are unable to respond to God, the problem is they REFUSE to respond to God.

The Scriptures teach not only that they WILL NOT but the Scriptures also tell us WHY they will not. They WILL NOT because they CAN NOT.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither CAN HE.

I refuse to lift this house right now! You can command me to lift it all day long! I WILL NOT!!

Why?

Because I cannot.

In fact I resent you for commanding me to do what I cannot do!

I despise the very idea of getting out in this cold weather, digging in the cold wet dirt underneath the foundation of my house, and pulling and straining and tearing my back up trying to pull this house up. I have no desire to do it. Such a command not only do I find unappealing- but also foolish.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God FOR they are foolishness unto him, NEITHER CAN HE for they are spiritually discerned.
I Cor. 2:14

 

[webdog]

I don't know why Arminians and semi-Arminians follow man made systems and cannot see that Calvinism is biblical and all other systems are self contradictory and unscriptural.

I love the attitude that many Arminians have when they say, "I don't adhere to a man-made system!!! I believe the BIBLE!!!!"

So your attitude is much different? You don't follow a systematic theology? :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Because you believe that every bit as much as I do. If it is wrong for me to not mention that then it is just as wrong for you to not mention it.

Not entirely correct. Ours is not based on redefining words and adding asterisks.

You believe God commands all men everywhere to repent- so do we.

God commands a man to repent who He will not empower to do so, and then holds him accountable for not doing what God will not allow him to do. We don't believe that.

You believe that the Gospel invitation is extended to all- so do we.

Same as above.

You believe that whosoever will may come- so do we.

We actually believe whosoever means "who out of everyone".

You believe that those who believe make up the elect of God- so do we.

I thought it was your understanding the elect of God WILL believe, not that the elect are made up of those who do believe?

You believe there are some that God did not elect to save, namely those that never believe,- so do we.

Not really. We don't believe election UNTO salvation.

 

[psalms109:31]

Bibilist

I will not let men label me. I trust God and His sovereignty. He had the Holy Bible translated just the way He wanted it translated and He doesn't need the scholars just like the scholars of old changing it to fit their doctrine. They label people who are something they are not.

We all know from the beginning that He decided , decreed , willed, chosen to save those who believe in His Son. It is in His plan from the beginning. It is the building block that God is using

If men does nothing with His word, God does nothing. That means the preaching the Gospel means something and it makes changes, because He is including those who was not there from the beginning that heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed.

Look around you if man doesn't nothing with His word God does nothing. I have never seen a church grow with man doing nothing but relying on God with out going out. To say man has no part of it is a lie, and we know that from the beginning.

There was a lazy farmer who said God provided the seed, the water, I will let God take care of it and he just threw the seeds out, he had no crop that year and was forced to sell the farm.. The one who bought the farm worked hard. He tilled the rocky ground until it was fine, planted the seed at the right depth, watered, fertilized. That season after it was all done. He had a crop that was numerous. The guy who owed before came by and said God has blessed you. He said back, you should of seen it when God alone was working on it.

Increasing happens with God and man working together if you want to believe it or not. If man does nothing with His word, God does nothing.

 

[Luke2427]

So your attitude is much different? You don't follow a systematic theology? :laugh:

I didn't say that I don't follow one. I said that it is laughable that Arminians and semi-arminians think they don't.

I think it is amusing when Arminians say, "I won't be labeled!!! I believe the BIBLE!!!!":laugh:

I just can't read that without laughing- that's all I am saying.

 

[Luke2427]

Not entirely correct. Ours is not based on redefining words and adding asterisks.

Neither does ours.

God commands a man to repent who He will not empower to do so, and then holds him accountable for not doing what God will not allow him to do. We don't believe that.

Yes you do. Some do not repent- you believe this. Therefore you believe that God will not empower some to repent. Now, your reason is that it is because they choose not to, or whatever- but the fact is that you still believe there are some who will not be empowered by God to repent.

Furthermore, you believe that God will hold those folks accountable for not repenting.

As for the "allow him"- no Calvinist believes God is preventing any sinner of repenting. It is the sinners depraved nature that prevents him from repenting.

We actually believe whosoever means "who out of everyone".
I thought it was your understanding the elect of God WILL believe, not that the elect are made up of those who do believe?

It works both ways. The elect believe and they who believe are the elect.

But the REASON people believe is BECAUSE they are elected.

It does not matter so far as Amy's remarks go.

She believes that some are elected and others are not- so do you.

Therefore if WE ought to tell them- "You may not be the elect" then so should you.

Not really. We don't believe election UNTO salvation.

That's unique.

 

[webdog]

I think it is amusing when Arminians say, "I won't be labeled!!! I believe the BIBLE!!!!":laugh:

...yet calvinists maintain their doctrine IS the Gospel. No difference.

The Bible is the best systematic theology book out there, btw

 

[Luke2427]

...yet calvinists maintain their doctrine IS the Gospel. No difference.

The Bible is the best systematic theology book out there, btw

The Bible is NOT a systematic theology book, though.

It does not deal with subjects systematically.

Now if you mean that the Bible is its own best commentator- I concur.

 

[Jarthur001]

...yet calvinists maintain their doctrine IS the Gospel. No difference.

The Bible is the best systematic theology book out there, btw

The Bible is NOT systematic theology. It is revelation.

 

[webdog]

Yes you do. Some do not repent- you believe this. Therefore you believe that God will not empower some to repent.

I'll stop you right there. The one does not require or even lead to the other. I do not believe God will not empower some to repent. This is clear from Acts 17 where it is stated God has set man in the exact locations and times in history to seek Him. He has given man everything needed to repent, He has reached out to us. I believe man's refusal has nothing to do with empowerment.

As for the "allow him"- no Calvinist believes God is preventing any sinner of repenting. It is the sinners depraved nature that prevents him from repenting.

Not understanding this logic. If man is not empowerd to repent, he is being prevented from doing so.

It works both ways. The elect believe and they who believe are the elect.

Not necessarily. People eating chicken are eating food...people eating food are not necessarily eating chicken. The converse and inverse of a truthful statement are not by default also true.

 

[webdog]

The Bible is NOT systematic theology. It is revelation.

It's both

Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

 

[Luke2427]

I'll stop you right there. The one does not require or even lead to the other. I do not believe God will not empower some to repent. This is clear from Acts 17 where it is stated God has set man in the exact locations and times in history to seek Him. He has given man everything needed to repent, He has reached out to us. I believe man's refusal has nothing to do with empowerment.

Acts 17 does not contradict the whole of Scripture which teaches that man can't repent without being empowered to do so by God. Even Arminians believe that God empowers the sinner to repent.

Not understanding this logic. If man is not empowered to repent, he is being prevented from doing so.

Really? So if gas that is not put in your vehicle does not empower your vehicle to move, that gas still in the pump is PREVENTING it from moving?

I don't understand why you see it that way.

Not necessarily. People eating chicken are eating food...people eating food are not necessarily eating chicken. The converse and inverse of a truthful statement are not by default also true.

Totally different.

And just because they are not necessarily eating chicken they certainly could be.

Regardless it has no logical connection.

The elect were not elected because they believed. They believe because they were elected.

 

[webdog]

Acts 17 does not contradict the whole of Scripture which teaches that man can't repent without being empowered to do so by God. Even Arminians believe that God empowers the sinner to repent.

...and it is shown in Acts 17 what the empowerment is.

Really? So if gas that is not put in your vehicle does not empower your vehicle to move, that gas still in the pump is PREVENTING it from moving?

If the car is empty, yes. Not having the gas is preventing it from moving. If I tell you to drive somewhere, you have a car on empty, I am the only access to the gasoline pump, and I do not give you any...if I tell you to drive somewhere I have prevented you from doing so.

Totally different.

And just because they are not necessarily eating chicken they certainly could be.

Regardless it has no logical connection.

The elect were not elected because they believed. They believe because they were elected.

Where is the difference? It's a converse of a truthful statement. How is there no logical connection? Person + action = result.

 

[Jarthur001]

It's both

Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

Look...

I would never, nor would ANY Baptist theologian say and want to that place Scripture on the say level as Systematic theology. This means every book written about the Bible is the same as the Bible. This is pretty much what the RCC teaches.

Revelation must be seen as the highest authority. I'm not sure you understand the danger.

Scripture is the BASE from which we GET Systematic theology but it is NOT systematic theology. It can never be changed.

Systematic theology changes based in Scripture. One is to NEVER place the two on the same level. All has ALWAYS been the protestant view.

I have nothing more to say on the subject. Its not even up for debate.