Featured Trad-Cal Dictionary

As a related side thought: What did Paul think of each of these men: Felix and Agrippa?

He was persistent and did not seem to concern himself about "election" but over extended lengths of time reasoned with each of them.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Apparent failures, yet he was driven to reason with them and convince them to accept Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

which was he (Understood of course that Calvin was to come centuries later)?

 

I don't know any "Calvinists" who believe this.

 

If you would provide examples, your position might be more credible.

 

I'm just saying, I do not know any Calvinists who believe they way you say they do. Arminianism doesn't make sense if you mix Calvinism into it. And Calvinism doesn't make sense if you mix Arminianism into it. But it seems this is what is happening here. Just sayin'

 

With respect,
I've only within the past year or so started hearing about this new -ism called "Traditionalism", but my impression of it is that it relies on 4 parts man's will ( man cooperates in receiving the gift of eternal life ), and one part God's will ( salvation cannot be lost ).

When I compare the charts of both modern "Amrinianism" and "Calvinism" as found here:

https://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm

I find that it's basically 4 to 1 in favor of "Amrinianism", at least according to that site and several others. I also used to believe this for about 25 years after I was converted. When I first looked at what is now coming to be called "Traditionalism", I noticed a few things that some may not.

1) It relies on something that I am still completely unable to find support for in God's word: The supposed doctrine of Prevenient Grace, which is said to enable all men to overcome both their natural hatred of God and His righteousness, in addition to their fierce love of sin and unwillingness to give it up... and to free their wills to choose one way or the other when the word of God is preached.

I also discovered that in recent history, this teaching of "prevenient grace" is found in both the Roman Catholic Catechism, and in many places and institutions that teach doctrines similar to men like John and Charles Wesley.


2) I cannot find in Scripture anyone "making a decision" for Christ...I find places where people spontaneously believed on Him, without even taking the time to make a decision, and I find places where God opened a person's heart so that they listened to the Gospel:

" And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted [thither]. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." ( Acts 16: 13-14 )

But I'm unable to find anywhere in the Bible that a person was ever presented with the Gospel and they stopped and had to think about it before choosing to believe or not.



In my experience, I believed on Christ in my pew when God's word was preached...I never had to make a decision either way. In other words, I knew it was true without ever having to be convinced further.

God's blessings to you sir.

 

Do you know any Calvinists who took a while, some years, after hearing The Gospel to make a decision.

You believed the first time you sat in a pew and heard The Word?

 

The first time I heard the word of God about Jesus Christ, yes. I was 12, and even though it was not the first time I heard about Jesus Christ, it was the very first time I had ever heard Christ crucified preached, and the very first time I heard it in the Authorized. That was 40 years ago this past spring, by God's grace.

Also, until about 15 years ago, I did not know that other people considered the biblical doctrine of election and predestination, calling, justification by faith and so forth as "Calvinism". All I knew was that I saw it for myself one day, and then went looking on the internet to see who else in history had seen it.

Wow, was I in for an eye opener.

 

Who calls justification by faith, Calvinism?

 

The basic problems are a difference in how we view the fall, and just what is now meant by "free will"

 

Mr. Mitchell,
I'm curious about something...would your name happen to be Bobby Mitchell?

 

I suppose that would depend on what a person sees when they read God's word.

1) For some, they see faith as something that mankind is inherently created with ( despite 2 Thessalonians 3:2 ), and they assume that how that faith is exercised when the Gospel is preached is what justifies ( makes them just ) them in the eyes of God. Their faith is in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross for them, but they somehow think that they had a hand in gaining the gift of eternal life by "placing their faith and trust" in Christ as their Saviour.

2) For others, they see faith as a gift ( Ephesians 2:8 ), authored and finished by Christ ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and ultimately flowing from Jesus Christ Himself and given to His sheep as the faith "of Christ"( Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16, 20, 3:22, Ephesians 3:12, Philippians 3:9, Colossians 2:12 ) and that faith is the substance of things seen, the evidence of things hoped for ( Hebrews 11:1 )...in other words, faith in Jesus Christ is something that man cannot provide, but must be provided to him ( John 3:27 ) because all men are fully dependent upon God for anything good that comes to them, and His children are fully dependent upon Him for everything as well ( 1 Corinthians 4:7 ). That gift of faith then becomes the outward evidence and inward witness that a person is truly born again, in addition to the fruits of the Spirit and the belief of God's words ( John 8:47 ).



So, on the one hand, there are those who see their faith in Christ as actively making them "just" in God's eyes ( they are credited with eternal life because they believed on Him ) and then there are those who ( like me ) see that the reason that they believe, is because God caused them to ( Psalm 65:4 ).

From my perspective, standard man's will ( "free will" ) doctrine places a person's faith in Christ as the contributing factor in salvation, while standard God's will doctrine places faith as one more in a long list of things that God's children are dependent upon Him, and Him alone, for... with the new birth being by God's will alone ( John 1:13 ).

The second one, at least to me, has been called "Calvinism" by many I have seen on other forums and in comment sections in places like YouTube.



Best wishes.

 

Some maybe, not me. Faith can't be in faith. Faith has to be in the object of the faith.

 

1) " But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" ( John 1:12 )

I disagree with your usage of this verse, and here is why:


" He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " ( John 1:11-13 )


-In verse 11, it states that Jesus came to His own covenant nation of Israel, and they did not "receive" ( welcome ) Him. To me, that "welcoming" was spiritual, not carnal. They did not welcome Christ in their hearts. Please see Luke 19:14.

-In verse 12, I see that as many as did "receive" ( welcome ) Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on His name.

-Finally, in verse 13, I see that those in verse 12 who did welcome Him, were born "of God"...not of blood ( inheritance ), nor of the will of the flesh ( their own, personal will ), nor of the will of man ( other people's will ).

So, in verse 13, I see the context of those who "received" Him doing so because they were born "of God".



2) " Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." ( Acts 2:38 )

Here I'm assuming that you are referring to Peter's command to repent and be baptized as being proof that all men are afforded the offer of God saving them from their sins, if they will repent and be baptized. Again, I disagree, and similar to above, I will post a few verses to either side and explain why I believe it the way I do:

" Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. " ( Acts 2:37-39 )

- In verse 37, I clearly see that those in the crowd that Peter was speaking to, that came from many nations and cities around the Roman Empire and that had heard his words in their own languages by the power of the Holy Ghost, were said to have been "pricked in their hearts" ( some call this "convicted" ), and then asked Peter and the other apostles, "What shall we do?"

- In verse 38, I see that Peter, when asked this question, then told them what God would have them do...repent and be baptized...which was only after they demonstrated their belief in his words.

- Finally, in verse 39, I clearly see Peter declaring that the promise ( what promise? The promise of eternal life? ) is to them, to their children, and to all that are far off....and then it imposes this limitation:

As many as the Lord shall "call".

So, in the final analysis, Peter is speaking to a crowd, and God is doing a work. Those that respond are those that the Lord has "called" through His Gospel. I also see, at the end of the passage, this verse:

" praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." ( Acts 2:47 )

Which further clarifies Who is doing the saving and "calling".



3) " And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. " ( Acts 16:31 )

Yet again, I see a passage that could be taken, if the context is not established carefully, to mean that if a person does something, then the result will be to gain eternal life. Again, I disagree.

" Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. " ( Acts 16:29-32 )

- Here I see the Philippian jailer becoming afraid during an earthquake and calling for a light, then falling down in front of Paul and Silas and asking them what he must do to be saved.

Question 1: How did he know to ask Paul and Silas about salvation? We are not told. However, I do know of somewhere in Scripture that would explain why the jailer would know who and what to ask: John 6:44.

- They then tell him in verse 31 to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." but it doesn't stop there. They go further and prophesy that his whole household would be saved as well.

- Finally, in verse 32, Paul and Silas speak to the jailer and his household the word of the Lord ( what the Lord had to tell them ).

Question 2: How did Paul and Silas know that the jailer's entire household would believe, given that today, most households are divided, with some believing on Christ and some not?



To me, the Lord is not telling people how to become saved in this passage...He is relating the story of how one man, and his entire household, were brought to the knowledge that God had saved them. Paul and Silas were God's instruments and used to bring that message to him, and God revealed to Paul and Silas by the Spirit, what they should tell him and his house.


4) " 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.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." ( Romans 10:9-10 )

I was going through Romans some years ago and it occurred to me, that this letter is written to people that have already believed:

" Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." ( Romans 10:1 )

It is telling them what evidence they will display as children of the living God:

" But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
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.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." ( Romans 10:8-10 )

Tracking the pronouns, Paul is speaking explicitly to those that have already believed, and this letter is God's word to them...not to unbelieving mankind. When examined in the light of this, I cannot in all good conscience tell an unbeliever that performing these acts will guarantee them salvation.



5) " For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." ( Romans 10: 13 )

I agree. But I also see other defining facts in Scripture...

" Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." ( 2 Timothy 2:22 )


Question 3: How does one get that pure heart that God says has to be there in order to call upon Him?

At the end of everything, my response is that God chooses a person and causes that person to come to Him ( Psalm 65:4 ), and He installs a new "heart" ( nature, Ezekiel 36:26 ) in them which is tender towards Him and His ways.




6) "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." ( Romans 10:17 )

This verse by itself states that faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Is this physical hearing, or spiritual "hearing"? If the former, then anyone who physically hears the preaching of Christ crucified can potentially have faith.

If the latter, then faith comes to those that already "have ears to hear" ( Matthew 13:16 , Luke 10:23-24 ) and they are blessed by God because their faith, as a gift, is given to them the moment they "hear" God's words. As an example, why did Christ say this to His disciples?

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:" ( Matthew 13:10-14 )

" And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." ( Luke 8:10 )

Because God has blessed some people with the ability to "see" and to "hear" His words, while others are not.


" Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," ( Luke 24:45 ) <----- God has to open a person's understanding so that they can understand the Scriptures.



I'm sorry Mr. Mitchell, but I disagree with your usage of the above verses as support for "Prevenient Grace", which, as far as I am convinced, is still a theory that is unsupported by declarations of Scripture, but can possibly be supported by implication.


May His blessings be evident to you each and every day, sir.

 

Well, I wanted to deal with all the verses he used, and all in one shot.
In the future, I'll try not to make a thesis of it.