Leaning Calvinist, Push me in, or Pull me back

Piece of cake.

1 Timothy 4

10For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.


The exegesis is.....it means exactly what it says.

 

But unconditional election presupposes that if a person is non elect, there is nothing they can do to change that, and if a person is elect there is nothing they can do to change that either. So if election is unconditional, God alone makes our calling and election sure. SO what is this verse talking about? Assurance of salvation?

 

I have heard this line from Adrian Rogers often. I admired him for his zeal for the Lord. The thing is, most don't want to continue this statement to its inevitable conclusion. If we conclude that God acts solely on what he sees in the future, then why allow them to born to hellfire?

In the book, The Sovereign Grace of God by James White, he provides an explanation of the New Testament usage of foreknowledge. It starts on page 41.

God Bless

 

You over simplified the whole process.
You are ignoring the means God has ordained in time.
My use of this verse was to show election as a presupposed biblical reality.

 

Now you're only quoting a small part of what I said and changing it to fit your argument. I never said I had perfect obedience just like the OT saints. I said, "The same level of perfect obedience that was met by the Children of Israel when they applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts." God said "do this," they obeyed perfectly and were saved. Today, God says, "do this'" I obeyed perfectly and am saved. It really is that simple.

So, God only keeps His word to saved people? It is possible for Him to lie to lost people? Is that what you're saying? Because that it the application that I used to support my point - God cannot lie. He said "if thou shalt...." and I did what He said; so, unless it is possible for Him to lie, He had to keep His word and save me.

I don't dodge bullets, Tom. I did answer the question, apparently just not the way you anticipated.

Not all humans will be saved but all humans can be saved. If that is what you're calling limited atonement then, yes, I believe that.

I actually agree with this. It was most certainly offered to God for us. We are the beneficiaries of the atonement.

I agree. You're answering an argument I did not make.

You are correct.

We're not the doorposts, Tom. We are the occupants of the house. We are the father who applied the blood to the doorpost. The application of the blood to the doorpost of each house typifies our faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The doorpost was never in danger. The doorpost was never the recipient of God's judgement. God could have given them any instruction for the blood; He told them to put it on the doorpost. That in no way pictures us, Tom.

The problem is, "offered to" and "available to" are not the same thing.

Every once in while one of my students will make me a big plate of oatmeal raisin cookies (which I believe was the manna that fell in the wilderness). They bring the cookies to me. They made the cookies for me. They present the cookies to me. Most of the time, I take the cookies around at lunch time and make them available to whoever would like one. They were "offered to" me but I made them "available to" anyone who wanted one.

I hold you in the highest regard, Tom; but, the "in depth understanding" card need not be played here. It is quite simple to understand. That is why God gave us so many practical pictures in the OT to illustrate this very issue. Even a child can understand.

Take out "the door posts" and I can agree wholeheartedly. Would you also agree that anyone in Egypt that night could have killed a lamb and applied the blood to their doorposts?

This is the point on which we'll always disagree. "Universal" simply means "available to all," not "applied by all."

 

Kudos for the use of "wowzers!" Haven't heard that one in a while.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If I "confess with my mouth the Lord Jesus," and "believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead," God said He would save me. It doesn't say "might be saved;" it says "shalt be saved."

So, unless you believe that it is possible for God to lie, then, yes, God has an obligation to save anyone who, by faith, submits to His plan of salvation.

 

This is salvation by works. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” (Romans 4:4) (KJV 1900)

 

If someone submits to his plan they already saved. Sorta presenting a doctor for the righteous scenario.


When Paul gave a reason why he was saved:

Because he was Elect? NOPE.
Because of works? Nope.
Because of his faith? Nope.

1 Timothy 1

13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

He was absolutely disqualified in every manner to be saved. Yet he was shown mercy for being a IGNORANT UNBELIEVER.

 

The greatest sin unbeliever/reprobate commits is say "Christ did not die for me".

Are they telling the truth or a lie?

 

You didn't bother to answer the sincere and not rhetorical question I asked you, but...

In Calvinism, (as I understand it, correct me where I am wrong),the means God has ordained in time only bring the Elect to salvation. And they are saved unconditionally, which means that the means infallibly succeed. They cannot fail

And in unconditional election, it is God who makes our election sure in the sense of being made true and immutable

So iF I was a Calvinist, I would interpret this to be referring to ASCERTAINING (making sure of) our calling and election, and that would be consistent with TULIP. If you disagree, let me know how you understand it. Telling a person they are wrong without explaining doesn't profit them or others who are reading

I am trying to better understand Calvinism. Help me out here...

 

No, they would only have to believe that CHRIST met the condition of perfect holiness, and that righteousness is imputed to them through faith. (Romans 4). And that faith is the means of receiving the gift of salvation as defined by Calvin in a sermon on Ephesians 2:8-10

And God doesn't have to look down corridors of time, having perfect, IMMUTABLE omniscience. If He had to look down the corridors of time, He would be neither Omniscient nor Immutable. But verily He is BOTH

 

Continued from above...So basically I agree with you on God's immutable foreknowledge, but the argument that conditional election somehow negates this does not follow, as far as I can see.

 

Of course not. It was faith that spared the first-born that night. Their faith was demonstrated by applying the blood to the doorpost. They weren't saved by works, but they would not have been saved without meeting God's condition. Phrase that anyway you want, but that is not salvation by works - it is salvation by faith.

I'm just that kind of a guy....

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, Tom. You are masterful at twisting words. Like you said above, that is unlike me...I do not enjoy debating with those tactics. When we get to heaven, we'll have all of eternity to laugh about these petty semantics. Feel free to drop in any time.

 

Pastor_Bob,,

God obligates Himself to save everyone He purposes to save.

I would be interested in your response here PB.