A Question Calvinists must Answer

[Winman]

Of course they can be saved, and praise God, many are! I was an atheist, and I am saved. I know multiple Muslims, and they are saved. I know several Hindus who are saved. But, they are not saved by their (false) theology. They are saved by Christ!

A Muslim cannot be saved while they hold the doctrines of Islam, and a Hindu cannot be saved while holding the doctrines of Hinduism. Anybody who believes this does not understand the gospel whatsoever.

 

[Rippon]

Red Herring. According to you, Arminians can be saved one day...meaning they are not now. You have joined Rippon, Dr. Bob, Aaron and a host of others in questioning the salvation of others on here with no repercussion.

I beg your pardon? I won't speak for the others you mentioned -- but just why do you bring me up in this connection? I have done no such thing that you have accused me of. Now Mr.Snow,Winman and Amy, along with some others, have questioned the salvation of Calvinists in a number of posts.

 

[Amy.G]

I beg your pardon? I won't speak for the others you mentioned -- but just why do you bring me up in this connection? I have done no such thing that you have accused me of. Now Mr.Snow,Winman and Amy, along with some others, have questioned the salvation of Calvinists in a number of posts.

I most certainly have not questioned anyone's salvation. You will have to prove it, and if you can I will gladly apologize.

 

[NextGenDisciples]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble) and didn't allow pride and sin to keep me from accepting this "truth." (Warning: you have just affirmed libertarian free will if you pick this option...and you have room to boast and take "glory" from God thus removing many Calvinistic definitions of "Sovereignty" )

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology. (Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize. After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

I haven't read it all but the answer would be NONE OF TH ABOVE. Calvinism does not state that anybody who does not accept Calvinism as truth goes to Hell or is not part of the Elect. I know and respect several 5 point Calvinists and they do not condemn others for failing to believe. Believing in the elect is not a basis for salvation even if you are Calvinist. We both believe in the same basis of salvation, they just believe God has pre-ordained every person who will believe and if you believe God is an omniscient God then that is hard to argue against. I would say this that the premise of this thread and it's very beginning post is very judgmental towards the beliefs of Calvinism.

Next Generation Disciples
WWW.NextGenerationDisciples.com

 

[saturneptune]

I most certainly have not questioned anyone's salvation. You will have to prove it, and if you can I will gladly apologize.

Do not give it a second thought. I have seen many of your posts, and feel sure you would never say such a thing. Even though I strongly believe in God's sovereignty, the individual who accused you of this is one of those who post to see what he or she can start. It makes no difference to me which side they are on, they are there to cause trouble.

 

[jbh28]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

No, Salvation isn't about which doctrine you believe. Salvation is by grace through faith, not grace through faith and believing in (particular doctrine). I would never say that one that is an Arminian(or something in between) an unbeliever because he didn't agree with me on election...

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble) and didn't allow pride and sin to keep me from accepting this "truth." (Warning: you have just affirmed libertarian free will if you pick this option...and you have room to boast and take "glory" from God thus removing many Calvinistic definitions of "Sovereignty" )

No again. We interpret Scriptures differently. That's fine. We are allowed to do that. One of us is right and one is wrong.(or more than likely, both have right and wrong parts...)I of course believe I'm right, but that doesn't make me any smarter. There are a lot smarter more humble people that are Arminians.

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology. (Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize. After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

No again. Just interpreting Scripture differently.

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

I have seen Calvinists question the Salvation of someone that disagrees. (not really here but on another forum). It's really sad when that happens. We have the Bible, but we come to different conclusions. That's fine. I'm a baptist and believe in individual soul liberty. We are to interpret the Bible the best we know how to. If we disagree, ok. We both love the same God, just have different interpretations over this issue. It's not a matter of salvation at all.

 

[Rippon]

I most certainly have not questioned anyone's salvation. You will have to prove it, and if you can I will gladly apologize.

You have said that the Gospel says that Christ died for all men whereas Calvinism teaches that He died for some men. You then said that constitutes two different Gospels.

Since Calvinists believe that Christ did not die for each and every person who has and shall live you think we believe in a false Gospel. Of course your reasoning questions the salvation of Calvinists.

If you'd like to recant that would be nice.

 

[Amy.G]

You have said that the Gospel says that Christ died for all men whereas Calvinism teaches that He died for some men. You then said that constitutes two different Gospels.

Since Calvinists believe that Christ did not die for each and every person who has and shall live you think we believe in a false Gospel. Of course your reasoning questions the salvation of Calvinists.

If you'd like to recant that would be nice.

My saying that was in response to the Cals that say Calvinism is the gospel. I was pointing out that if it is then it is a different gospel than that most of us believe. Most of us believe that the atonement was for all.
I did not mean to question anyone's salvation. My post was not directed at a person, but a statement. I do not believe Calvinism is the gospel. I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel.

I do not question the salvation of Calvinists. I didn't mean for my post to be taken that way. I think you just like to pit people against each other. The way that you dredge up old posts and are continually pointing your finger at others is disturbing.

 

[quantumfaith]

Your interest seems to delight in phrasing orginating questions to your created threads that imply that those who believe in God's sovereignty are either ignorant of Scripture or believe principles that border on unbelief, never quite crossing that line. It is a technique that guarantees barbs and not an exchange of ideas. Comparing civility to weak agrumentation as you put it is not the question. The term weak argumentation is relative, which IMO characterizes most of your posts.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems here that you are somehow implying that perhaps only one theological flavor has a corner on the sovereignty of God issue.

 

[Ron Wood]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble) and didn't allow pride and sin to keep me from accepting this "truth." (Warning: you have just affirmed libertarian free will if you pick this option...and you have room to boast and take "glory" from God thus removing many Calvinistic definitions of "Sovereignty" )

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology. (Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize. After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

I may get into trouble with my first post on here but oh well I must give an answer. As has been said none of the above are true. Calvinism isn't salvation. An Arminian isn't unsaved because he doesn't hold to the Doctrines of Grace( TULIP) he is unsaved because he doesn't know Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures. The Lord defined what eternal life is, that is salvation, in John 17:3. He said it is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ. Salvation isn't in having a theology that is correct or believing in a god that fits your imaginary musings. It is knowing Christ. I have know some very dead Calvinists as well. Sad to say many will not admit it but they do hold to superior grace rather than sovereign grace. There are only two things a person must know to be saved: who he is, sin, and who God is. If a person ever finds out who God is there will be no problem with knowing who he is.

 

[Rippon]

My saying that was in response to the Cals that say Calvinism is the gospel. I was pointing out that if it is then it is a different gospel than that most of us believe. Most of us believe that the atonement was for all.

You are taking a step or two backwards from your original statement.

I did not mean to question anyone's salvation. My post was not directed at a person, but a statement.

Okay,so far.

I do not believe Calvinism is the gospel. I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel.

You are not being definitive. Will you say point-blank that Calvinism is not a different gospel?

You had said since Calvinist don't believe that Christ died for all people and that the gospel says He died for all then the two are different gospels. And of course you know that Calvinists believe as they do about the extent of the atonement because of the witness of the Word of God.

I do not question the salvation of Calvinists. I didn't mean for my post to be taken that way.

I'll take that as a recantation.Thanks.

The way that you dredge up old posts and are continually pointing your finger at others is disturbing.

You had made your initial post about 40 days ago. That's rather recently. Besides if folks want to disown what they once held --why can't I produce their own words? I like to document. I don't lie.

 

[Luke2427]

Why do you accept the "truth" of Calvinism while so many other believers throughout history didn't? Here I'll give you multiple choice:

1. Those "believers" who rejected Calvinism weren't really saved (elect).

2. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't as good (smart/humble etc) or were too sinful (prideful etc) to accept it. I on the other hand was better (smarter/humble) and didn't allow pride and sin to keep me from accepting this "truth." (Warning: you have just affirmed libertarian free will if you pick this option...and you have room to boast and take "glory" from God thus removing many Calvinistic definitions of "Sovereignty" )

3. Those believers who rejected Calvinism weren't chosen by God to understand Calvinism. They were given enough Grace to be saved, but not enough to understand correct soteriology. (Warning: If you choose this option you have to ponder the reason WHY God would deliberately hide the truth from some of his children while revealing it to others and why you would waste time attempting to convince non-Calvinists to convert to Calvinism considering that you don't have the command to convert people to Calvinistic soteriology but only the command to evangelize. After all the reason Calvinist say they are to evangelize is because "God told us to.")

So, which is it: 1, 2, or 3; Or add the correct answer if you don't believe I've provided all the options. Let's stay civil please. Thanks

I enjoy exchanges with you but your great debating weakness is "false dilemma". You do this repeatedly.

It's either _______ or _________. So which is it??!!??

This same "dilemma" can be turned upon you.

You Arminians- it's either 1,2, or 3.

Which is it?

 

[quantumfaith]

I may get into trouble with my first post on here but oh well I must give an answer. As has been said none of the above are true. Calvinism isn't salvation. An Arminian isn't unsaved because he doesn't hold to the Doctrines of Grace( TULIP) he is unsaved because he doesn't know Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures. The Lord defined what eternal life is, that is salvation, in John 17:3. He said it is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ. Salvation isn't in having a theology that is correct or believing in a god that fits your imaginary musings. It is knowing Christ. I have know some very dead Calvinists as well. Sad to say many will not admit it but they do hold to superior grace rather than sovereign grace. There are only two things a person must know to be saved: who he is, sin, and who God is. If a person ever finds out who God is there will be no problem with knowing who he is.

Excellent contribution Robert.

 

[quantumfaith]

I most certainly have not questioned anyone's salvation. You will have to prove it, and if you can I will gladly apologize.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

A Muslim cannot be saved while they hold the doctrines of Islam, and a Hindu cannot be saved while holding the doctrines of Hinduism. Anybody who believes this does not understand the gospel whatsoever.

Of course they can! What you are saying is that one MUST already BE a Christian in order to BECOME a Christian. That is simply a flaw in your thinking, and reflects a theology apart from the Scriptures, but ties in directly with your Pelagian views on the concept of sin and salvation.

BTW, I'm not holding Pelagianism over you like some sort of hammer. You have repeatedly argued for that position.

And, finally -- again -- JESUS CHRIST SAVES. Will you disagree with me?

 

[quantumfaith]

I enjoy exchanges with you but your great debating weakness is "false dilemma". You do this repeatedly.

It's either _______ or _________. So which is it??!!??

This same "dilemma" can be turned upon you.

You Arminians- it's either 1,2, or 3.

Which is it?

Luke<

In more than one of the subsequent posts, Skandelon, emphasized that if you had a "different" answer, he would appreciate you to share it.

 

[Robert Snow]

You have said that the Gospel says that Christ died for all men whereas Calvinism teaches that He died for some men. You then said that constitutes two different Gospels.

Since Calvinists believe that Christ did not die for each and every person who has and shall live you think we believe in a false Gospel. Of course your reasoning questions the salvation of Calvinists.

No one says that Calvinism is a false Gospel, it's a misrepresentation of the Gospel taught in the bible, that's all. Someone can believe it and still be saved, just like a Roman Catholic can hold to some of the teachings of their church and still be saved.

 

[glfredrick]

No one says that Calvinism is a false Gospel, it's a misrepresentation of the Gospel taught in the bible, that's all. Someone can believe it and still be saved, just like a Roman Catholic can hold to some of the teachings of their church and still be saved.

Winman would disagree with you.

 

[Robert Snow]

Winman would disagree with you.

That shows that Mr. Winman and I have independent thought, we aren't clones, like some Calvinists seem to be.

 

[quantumfaith]

No one says that Calvinism is a false Gospel, it's a misrepresentation of the Gospel taught in the bible, that's all. Someone can believe it and still be saved, just like a Roman Catholic can hold to some of the teachings of their church and still be saved.

Robert, agreed! I dont see Calvinism as a proverbial "different gospel", but rather a distinctly different interpretation as to the methods, means and motivation of God with respect to redemptive history.