Featured Calvinism, The fruit of scriptural truth pt3.

We have began to lay the groundwork for a study of the truth of the word of God which is nicknamed Calvinism.
Biblical Calvinism is the Christ centered teaching contained in all 66 books of the bible.
We have started to show how before the truth is fully uncovered and developed, we must be aware of the pesky truth suppressors who seek to undermine confidence in both the scriptures and those faithful men who teach it.
In the first two introductory posts,we laid out a few of the devices used against the light of truth.

As truth is reintroduced we will post the truth, and warn against the error and h pi w it happens.

 

We have declared several things to keep in mind from threads 1 and 2;

The consistent Calvinistic apologetic is therefore presuppositional, reasoning from the Scriptures, not evidential, or reasoning to the Scriptures.

What man needs is spiritual life, enablement and perception [regeneration], not merely information.

The primary influence of the Calvinistic tradition has been theological. As a comprehensive scriptural system, it has affected every area of theology. In particular, the following:

• The whole Calvinistic system is nothing more or less than a systemization of scriptural truth.

• The Institutes of the Christian Religion formed the essence or basis of all subsequent consistent systematic theologies.

• Calvin brought the doctrines of predestination and election into the realm of practical Christian experience, “giving significance to the common man.”

• Every Reformed and Evangelical Creed, Confession and Catechism reflects Calvin’s influence.

• Calvin’s practical emphasis on the Moral Law as applied to every sphere of life revolutionized and elevated Western religion, society and culture.

• Calvin’s doctrine of the Church was rooted in practicality and discipline. His principle of the separation of church and state revolutionized the Western World and brought great political and social consequences.

• By holding to the self–attestation or self–authentication of the Scriptures through the testimony of the Spirit and taking into account moral depravity and the noetic effects of the fall, Calvin pointed the way for a consistent presuppositional apologetic.

• The doctrine of the Christian ministry derived two principles from Calvin: that of an educated ministry to properly and consistently handle the Word of God and the principle of biblical pastoral counseling.

• Calvin’s contribution to the doctrine of grace was his insistence upon “Common Grace” to explain the work of God in restraining evil and the existence of gifts and talents, apart from regeneration, for the fulfillment of the creation or cultural mandate.


Keep in mind this;
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?


23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.


21 For after that in the wisdom of God
the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The carnal wisdom of fallen men cannot suppress the truth of God.

• Calvinism is the only consistent Christian theism, and so is the only Christianity that possesses an inclusive and consistent world–and–life view.
Thus, Calvinism poses the only consistent and intelligent threat or alternative to humanistic philosophy.


(Pelagianism, semi–Pelagianism or Arminianism are all essentially humanistic and deterministic as they begin with a rationalistic approach to Scripture,
posit a “limited god,”
the autonomy [“free will”] of man,
and deny Divine absolute predestination)

On thread #2 , posts 4 and 5 list many of these failed carnal philosophies.

 

A revelational epistemology means that Divine revelation as inscripturated in the Word of God is the source of all true knowledge, that man cannot know anything aright unless he begins with God and his Word.

Eph. 1:10–11
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ,
both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
\even in him:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41 I receive not honour from men.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me;
for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The scriptures are the greatest gift to mankind because God in His wisdom had them reveal all we know about the triune God.

 

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:7–8)

This passage describes the horrible ethical, intellectual, spiritual, moral and social history of mankind abandoned by God to its own sinful tendencies and passions.


This has great epistemological implications Kai. kaqw.j ouvk evdoki,masan to.n qeo.n e;cein evn evpignw,sei( pare,dwken auvtou.j o` qeo.j eivj avdo,kimon nou/n, The terms (evdoki,masan... avdo,kimon) connote “disapproved” [after testing, rejected] or “reprobated” [Latin].


“being filled” is to be construed with each of the following:

“all [kinds or forms of] unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness...”

“Full of” is to be construed with each of the following: [being filled to the point of overflowing or bursting with] “envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity...”


oi{tine" toV dikaivwma tou' qeou' ejpignovnte". They are such ones who [rel. pron., stressing character] as the judgment of God [emph. pos.] fully comprehending...” evpignw,sij denotes full or adequate knowledge. They are fully aware of Divine judgment upon their actions. 395 pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/,


“For all sinned [aor., sinned in Adam], and are continually coming short [pres., denoting continuous action] of the glory of God.”

“...all have sinned.” (pa,ntej h[marton). The aor. tense signifies an event, “all sinned [in Adam].” This refers to original sin, not subsequent or personal sins.


397 (u`phkou,sate de. evk kardi,aj eivj o]n paredo,qhte tu,pon didach/j) Lit: “...[that] to which you were handed over [emph. pos.] pattern of teaching...”

Believers have been pressed—reshaped, conformed to, molded—into the Gospel pattern by the grace of God. They have become “willing bondslaves to righteousness.”

Unbelievers have never been free from the claims of righteousness. The idea is rather one of “disengaged.” Righteousness had no power to engage them, i.e., to motivate or empower them.

to. fro,nhma th/j sarko.j, emph. the content or process of thought. e;cqra eivj [enmity, hatred] qeo,n( tw/| ga.r no,mw| tou/ qeou/ ouvc u`pota,ssetai( ouvde. ga.r du,natai.\

The unregenerate mind has a hatred for God and does not possess the dynamic or power (ouvde….du,natai) to submit to Divine truth.


These truths are very clear and beyond dispute.
They are not in dispute at all, but truth suppressors will try and obscure them the way fall leaves cover up a path to the house. Instead of leaves, they speculate, change the wording, quote from defective sources, just invent things from their own carnal ideas.

 

Another false idea that obscures the path is a denial of biblical foreknowledge;
God foreknows whom and what he has predestinated.
\Cf. Acts 2:23 (Mark the significance of the const. ...th/| w`risme,nh| boulh/| kai. prognw,sei tou/ qeou/).

To base Divine predestination on “foreknowledge” in the sense of mere prescience, is to make the Divine purpose relative to whatever impersonal force makes the ultimate determination.


Thus, every system denying God’s absolute predestination is deterministic or fatalistic, whether it is conscious of this or not.

 

Jesus Himself taught from scripture to remind them and us of why the scripture is the greatest gift in that it was ordained by God to reveal all truth we need to know about Jesus and God's eternal purp[ose of saving all His lost sheep.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


Everything we know about God and His grace comes as the Spirit quickens the word to believers, and bears testimony against truth suppressors

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

jude;
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Perverted false teachers substitute their own philosophy for revealed scripture

 

Do you have anymore on this? Yes right here;
Thomas Constable commenting on God's foreknowledge in 1Peter 1:2 (see notes) writes that

God’s foreknowledge has an element of determinism in it because whatever really happens that God knows beforehand exists or takes place because of His sovereign will. Therefore when Peter wrote that God chose according to His foreknowledge he did not mean that God chose the elect because He knew beforehand they would believe the gospel (the Arminian position). God chose them because He determined beforehand that they would believe the gospel (the Calvinist position; cf Ro 8:29, 30-see notes Ro 8:29; 30; Ep 1:3, 4, 5, 6 -notes Ep 1:3; 1:4; 1:5; 1:6; 1Th 1:4-note; 1Pe 5:13-note).

Warren Wiersbe says that

Foreknowledge does not suggest that God merely knew ahead of time that we would believe, and therefore He chose us. This would raise the question, “Who or what made us decide for Christ?” and would take our salvation completely out of God’s hands.

In the Bible, to foreknow means “to set one’s love on a person or persons in a personal way.”

Commenting on Judas' betrayal of our Lord, Wiersbe writes that "before He chose His 12 Apostles, Jesus spent a whole night in prayer (Luke 6:12, 13, 14, 15, 16), so we must believe that it was the Father’s will that Judas be among them (John 8:29). But the selection of Judas did not seal his fate; rather, it gave him opportunity to watch the Lord Jesus closely, believe, and be saved. God in His sovereignty had determined that His Son would be betrayed by a friend, but divine foreknowledge does not destroy human responsibility or accountability.

Judas made each decision freely and would be judged accordingly, even though he still fulfilled the decree of God (Acts 2:23)." (Wiersbe, W: Bible Exposition Commentary. 1989. Victor or Logos comments on Luke 22:14)


Job alludes to God's foreknowledge declaring

Since his days are determined, the number of his months is with Thee, and his limits Thou hast set so that he cannot pass." (Job 14:5, cf Ps. 139:16 - Spurgeon's commentary)

God’s foreknowledge is much more than foresight. God does not know future events and human actions because He foresees them but He knows them because He wills them to happen. As Job states, not only is our life short but even our days and months are determined by God, with time limits beyond which no one can go. God knows and has determined the life span of every person every born! The fact that God knows and controls (sovereignty) our life span should not lead to despair but to the contrary should lead to assurance and hope, that our times are in His hands (Eccl 3:1, 2, 11a).

Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary explains that

God’s foreknowledge is much more than foresight. God does not know future events and human actions because He foresees them; He knows them because He wills them to happen. Thus God’s foreknowledge is an act of His will. (Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

John Macarthur comments on foreknowledge that

A common explanation of election is that the elect are chosen because God knew beforehand what they would do. That defines foreknowledge as foresight. I've heard it explained that God looked down through the eons of history, saw by virtue of His omniscience what you and I would do, and then chose or didn't choose us based on whether we did or didn't believe. That at first sounds like a good explanation--but it's not the truth. There are several reasons for wanting to believe that God's foreknowledge means foresight. Our fallen nature desperately want some responsibility for our salvation. Likewise our fallen perspective makes God's sovereign choice appear unfair. But because our minds are polluted by sin, we are in no position to exalt our pride and call ourselves virtuous, or pull down the justice of God and call Him unfair." (Read Dr Macarthur's interesting explanation of why many men want to believe that foreknowledge is simply foresight. Scroll down to the section entitled "Man's Decline") (Bolding added)
The Attributes of God - Part 1a | Precept Austin

 

Loraine Boettner,
God's Foreknowledge

The evangelical Arminian acknowledges that God has foreknowledge, and that He therefore is able to predict future events. But if God foreknows any future event, then that event is as fixed and certain as if foreordained. For foreknowledge implies certainty, and certainly implies foreordination. The evangelical Arminian does not deny that there is such a thing as election to salvation, for he cannot get rid of the words "elect" and "election," which occur some twenty-five times in the New Testament. But he tries to destroy the force of these words by saying that election is based on foreknowledge, that God looks down the broad avenue of the future and sees those who will respond to His gracious offer, and so elects them.

But in acknowledging foreknowledge, the Arminian makes a fatal concession. Figuratively speaking, he cuts his own throat, for the simple reason that as God foresees those who will be saved, He also sees those who will be lost! Why, then, does He create those who will be lost? Certainly, He is not under any obligation to create them. There is no power outside Himself forcing Him to do so. If He wants all men to be saved and is earnestly trying to save all men, He could at least refrain from creating those who, if created, certainly will be lost.

The Arminian cannot consistently hold to the foreknowledge of God and yet deny the doctrines of election and predestination. The question persists: Why does God create those who He knows will go to hell? It would be mere foolishness for Him to wish to save or try to save those who He knows will be lost. That would be for Him to work at cross purposes with Himself. Even a man has better sense than to try to do what he knows he will not do or cannot do. The Arminian has no alternative but to deny the foreknowledge of God - and then he has only a limited, ignorant, finite God who in reality is not God at all in the true sense of that word. If election is based on foreknowledge, that makes it so meaningless that it becomes more confusing than enlightening. For even as regards the elect, what sense is there for God to elect those who He knows are going to elect themselves? That would be just plain nonsense.

 

Solid post Scot,
man died spiritually at the fall and is totally dependent on God and His word for the remedy.
Those who do not understand the fall and its lingering damage speak of sinners with full ability which has never been the biblical teaching.

 

There are many ways that truth gets distorted, changed, in an effort to undermine scripture.
Spiritual death occured at one point in time.
Adam did not have a dormant spirit of flesh that was separated from open communion with God.
To suggest that is a denial of Adam as an.image bearer that suffered death in that day.
When a sinner is quickened from spiritual death to life eternal, that capacity to commune with God is restored and the damage from the fall is reversed.
Man who was made originally lower than the Angels, now in Christ are above and will judge angels. eph 2, eph4 Heb2, 1 cor6

 

Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, p. 240.

…God is not the author of sin. God has fore–ordained sin. He has fore–ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and sin has come to pass, and God’s purpose controls, limits, preserves and governs the universe even in the presence of this fact of sin….

He does not himself sin. He does not condone sin. He does not constrain to sin. He does not induce to sin. He does not tempt to sin….

Fore–ordination is not destructive of freedom; God has ordained freedom…fore–ordination is what establishes freedom…nothing can take away from the human being the liberty essential to moral responsibility, because God has fore–ordained the freedom of men at the point of moral decision–making…

God fore–ordains their actions, but he fore–ordains them as free actions: as things they do by their own personal volition….

I am free because God fore–ordained my freedom.

 

From Calvinism /Arminianism; W.R. Downing pg371,372

• Doctrinal orthodoxy is not necessarily to be equated with saving faith. There are different types of “faith”—and most have nothing to do with saving faith at all. Not only tradition, but the Scriptures themselves describe more than one kind of “belief” or “faith”. Mark the following:

1. A doctrinal faith. A creed, confession, or system of doctrine can be termed a “faith” (Acts 14:2; 16:5; Gal. 1:23; 2 Tim. 4:7). But true, saving faith includes more than doctrinal orthodoxy—it includes a God–engendered trust and commitment (Acts 18:27; Eph. 2:8–10).

2. A merely intellectual faith. This is a “faith” that believes the facts, an intellectual assent to propositional truth or historical facts (Jn. 2:23–25; 1 Cor. 2:1–5; Jas. 2:19). While true, saving faith is intelligent and intellectual, it is necessarily accompanied by a God–given commitment.

3. A theoretical faith. This is a “faith” that exists in principle only, but is denied in practice—it is not the controlling force or influence in the life and experience (Jn. 2:23–25; 12:42–43; Acts 26:27–28).

480



A selective faith. This is a “faith” in Jesus as “savior,” but denying him as “Lord,” i.e., “accepting” his redemptive work without recognizing his person and sovereign rule over the entirety of life. This is a scriptural impossibility (Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9–10, 2 Cor. 4:51251; Rom. 10:14–151252; 2 Cor. 5:14–171253). Salvation does not—cannot—come through “receiving”or “accepting” the “Christ” of one’s own imagination.

It is an unreserved, utter commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ—the response of the whole man to the whole Christ (Jn. 1:12–13; 3:161254; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:17; 10:9–10; Eph. 2:8–10).


4. An emotional or irrational faith. This is a “faith” which derives from an existential or subjective religious experience which is divorced from the truth (1 Cor. 15:1–5). It may well have mere facts rather than the very person and work of Christ as its object.

A merely human faith. This is synonymous with mere human trust and is founded upon the faulty theology of man’s alleged “free–will” rather than on Scripture, upon the humanistic premise that “command implies ability” (Rom. 9:16; Eph. 2:8–10).

7. A faith of great claims or display. This is a “faith” which claims great or outstanding credentials or great works, but in reality is deceptive and self–promoting (Matt. 7:21–23). The only objective alignment for any faith is the inscripturated Word of God.

8. An evangelical or Gospel faith. Mark the following characteristics:

• This is true, saving faith as expressly revealed and taught in Scripture.

It possesses a distinct and objective character: it is God–engendered, intelligent, has its proper object, is expressed in total commitment, and issues forth in a converted life–style.

• It has its proper object—not historical facts, but the Lord Jesus Christ in the fullness and context of his person and work. 5. 6. • •

1251 Note the predicate use of the double accusative, in Rom. 10:9–10 (ku,rion VIhsou/n) and 2 Cor. 4:5 (VIhsou/n Cristo.n ku,rion), the reading should be “Christ Jesus as Lord.” 1252 Rom. 10:14–15. “…how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? pw/j de. pisteu,swsin ou- ouvk h;kousanÈ The “of whom” should be lit: “whom,” i.e., they hear Christ himself— the risen, ascended, glorified Christ—through his preacher! 1253 We do not “know Christ after the flesh,” i.e. as he was in his earthly life and ministry. He is now the resurrected, ascended Lord of the universe. His position [lordship] is thus inseparable from his person. This is the very way in which the apostolic preaching presented him. 1254 The use of the present participle o` pi,steuwn with the pronoun pa/j and the preposition evij. Thus, pa/j o` pi,steuwn evij auvto.n signifies “every single one [without exception] constantly exercising faith in him,” stressing in various forms utter, unreserved commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn. 3:16; Acts 16:31, etc.). 481

 

pt2.
FOUR OBSTACLES TO PROFESSING CHRISTIANITY

Yet then my conscience flew in my face, putting me in mind of my late confession to God of His justice in my condemnation. And this giving me a sight of the badness of my heart, threw me again into distress, and I wished I had watched my heart more narrowly, to keep it from breaking out against God’s dealings with me, and I even wished I had not pleaded for mercy on account of my humiliation, because thereby I had lost all my seeming goodness. Thus, scores of times, I vainly imagined myself humbled and prepared for saving mercy. And while I was in this distressed, bewildered, and tumultuous state of mind, the corruption of my heart was especially irritated with the following things:

• These four realities have all been set aside by modern religion and its “decisionism”. Had Brainerd lived today in the context of “modern evangelism,” he would not have had any such struggles, for “modern evangelism” has circumvented them all! Indeed, Brainerd might have simply “made his decision” without anything else than a sense that “God loved him and Christ died for him!”

• “Modern evangelism” would not only set aside Brainerd’s great turmoil and heart–searching over these four realities, but it would consider Brainerd already a Christian from his outward zeal and works—and probably a very “dedicated” one!

1. The strictness of the Divine Law. For I found it was impossible for me, after my utmost pains, to answer its demands. I often made new resolutions, and as often broke them. I imputed the whole to carelessness and the want of being more watchful, and used to call myself a fool for my negligence. But when, upon a stronger resolution, and greater endeavors, and close application to fasting and prayer, I found all attempts fail; then I quarreled with the law of God, as unreasonably rigid. I thought if it extended only to my outward actions and behaviors I could bear with it; but I found it condemned me for my evil thoughts and sins of my heart, which I could not possibly prevent.

I was extremely loath to own my utter helplessness in this matter: but after repeated disappointments, thought that, rather than perish, I could do a little more still; especially if such and such circumstances might but attend my endeavors and strivings. I hoped that I should strive more earnestly than ever if the matter came to extremity–though I never could find the time to do my utmost, in the manner I intended–and this hope of future more favorable circumstances, and of doing something great hereafter, kept me from utter despair in myself and from seeing myself fallen into the hands of a sovereign God, and dependent on nothing but free and boundless grace.

The law, we are told today, was given only to the Jews, not to sinners in general or for all time (But see Rom. 3:19–20; 7:5–13; 13:8–10). “Modern evangelism” is inherently antinomian, and therefore (1) has no medium of conviction but “Divine love” in an irrational sense, and (2) does not require conversion, i.e., a holy, converted life–style by the grace of God, but only a “decision,” often followed by the life–style of a “carnal Christian”. The Corinthian believers (1 Cor. 3:1–4) were not “carnal” in the sense of exhibiting an unconverted life–style, but because they were looking to men for their example rather than Christ.

The Law of God is the eternal expression of his moral self–consistency or absolute righteousness. It is the God–ordained medium of conviction of sin, and defines sin
as transgression of the law [lawlessness] (Rom. 2:14–16; 7:5–13; Gal. 3:241255;1 Jn. 3:4).

The content of the law has been redefined under the New Covenant,1256 and its administration changed. It is no longer written on tables of stone, but internalized in the heart by the grace and Spirit of God [the glory, grace and power of the New Covenant] (Ezk. 36:25–27; Jer. 31:31–34; 2 Cor. 3), but the unbeliever, who stands apart from the grace of God and the righteousness of Christ, stands before that same law utterly condemned (Rom. 3:19–20; 1 Jn. 3:4)!



Believers have died to the law’s condemning power by virtue of their union with Christ (Gal. 2:19; 3:13).

2. Another thing was, that faith alone was the condition of salvation; that God would not come down to lower terms and that He would not promise life and salvation upon my sincere and hearty prayers and endeavors. That word, Mark 16:16, “He that believeth not, shall be damned,” cut off all hope there. I found faith was the sovereign gift of God, that I could not get it as of myself, and could not oblige God to bestow it upon me by any of my performances (Eph. 2:1–8). This, I was ready to say, is a hard saying, who can bear it? I could not bear that all I had done should stand for mere nothing, who had been very conscientious in duty, had been exceeding religious a great while, and had, as I thought, done much more than many others who had obtained mercy.

I confessed indeed the vileness of my duties; but then, what made them at that time seem vile was my wandering thoughts in them; not because I was all over defiled like a devil, and the principle corrupt from whence they flowed, so that I could not possibly do anything that was good. And therefore I called what I did, by the name of honest faithful endeavors; and could not bear it that God had made no promises of salvation to them.

• Saving faith, it is now taught, is not the gift of God sovereignly bestowed, but simply self–determination and mere human trust (but see Eph. 2:4–10; Jas. 2:18ff).

• A religious “decision” is made by natural ability; it is merely a change in the direction of the will—but this has absolutely nothing to do with true biblical conversion (Rom. 9:16; Eph. 2:8–10)!

 

God has given truth in a direct straightforward manner.
Believers are meant to see the truth and begin to grow in grace and knowledge of the truth.
They do just that.
The Spirit of God illuminates these truths to the new hearts given at regeneration.
Do only Spirit illuminated persons look.at the truth? No...others come.
Do all have the Spirit indwelling them? No.
What can they do without the Spirit illuminated truth?
They can read the words and not.come to the conclusions that multitudes of believers have.
What do they do instead?.
They might quote from a good source but then as soon as they offer on the subject it's obvious they have no real acquaintance to the faith once delivered to the saints.
What makes it obvious?
Lack of scripture primarily along with a diminished emphasis on doctrinal content replaced of course by their own carnal philosophy.

Paul speaks of these persons as wolves coming in among the saints.They make believe that they have believed the same things when there is no evidence that they are did.
We are to avoid such duplicity...Acts 28.

 

We see in scripture the Truths of God's grace. We also see in scripture those who oppose these truths and are warned about them;
2pet3
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before,
beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

We see this in relation to Gods grace when these unstable persons look to
change biblical definitions and the biblical usage of those words.

What words get distorted?

Biblical Foreknowledge, Biblical ordination, Biblical predestination are mostly distorted to subvert the teaching.
The word WREST used by Peter means to take out and twist on a torture rack.

We will investigate real examples of those blame God for mans sin kind of posts.

 

Meanwhile here is a helpful article;
Limited Atonement - Westminster Theological Seminary

C. Ryle once commented that “the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy.” This is especially so when it comes to the doctrine of limited atonement. The adjective limited by its very name creates a problem. In redemptive history, Christ’s atonement is the climax of God’s long-anticipated salvation, so why would anyone want to limit it?

Of course, at one level, everyone limits Christ’s atonement: some limit its scope (it is for God’s elect only); others limit its efficacy (it does not save everyone for whom it was intended). Thus, it’s not whether one will limit Christ’s atonement; it’s just how. For this reason, I propose a more positive and less ambiguous term: definite atonement.

The doctrine of definite atonement states that in the death of Jesus Christ, the triune God intended to achieve the redemption of every person given to the Son by the Father in eternity past and to apply the accomplishments of His sacrifice to each of them by the Holy Spirit. In a nutshell: the death of Christ was intended to win the salvation of God’s people alone, and not only was it intended to do so, but it will actually achieve it as well. In this respect, the adjective definite does double duty: it denotes the intent of Christ’s death (for His elect only) and it denotes the efficacy of Christ’s death (He really will save His elect, guaranteeing their faith in the gospel). Jesus will be true to His name: “He will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Since the mature articulation of the doctrine at the Synod of Dort (1618–19), the doctrine of definite atonement has received its fair share of criticism. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley preached that the doctrine was contrary to “the whole tenor of the New Testament.” In the nineteenth century, John McLeod Campbell, a Church of Scotland minister, argued that the doctrine robbed the believer of the personal assurance that Christ “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). In the twentieth century, Karl Barth complained that the “grim doctrine” was a logical deduction from John Calvin’s misguided view of double predestination. Others have raised concerns that definite atonement serves as the Achilles’ heel of Reformed theology, a weakness that destroys evangelism and mission.

Christ’s definite atonement can never be separated from God’s eternal decree or God’s sanctifying work by His Spirit.

However, despite these criticisms, I want to propose that we ought to (re)affirm the doctrine of definite atonement for at least three reasons.

ITS BIBLICAL BASIS
A number of New Testament texts speak of God’s love, or Christ’s death, for “many” (Rom. 5:15, 19), for “all” (11:32; 2 Cor. 5:14–15; Col. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11), and for “the world” (John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2). These texts are often employed by those who want to defend a universal atonement. Conversely, there are a number of New Testament texts that speak of God’s love, or Christ’s death, for a particular group of people: for “me” (Gal. 2:20), for the “church” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), for “his people” (Titus 2:14), and for “us” believers (Rom. 5:8; 8:32; 1 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 5:2; 1 Thess. 5:10; Titus 2:14). When the universalistic and particularistic texts are read together, it would seem that the onus lies with proponents of a universal atonement to explain why the New Testament can ever speak of God’s love, or Christ’s death, in limited terms if in reality there is no such limitation.

However, providing a set of particularistic “proof texts” does not prove the doctrine of definite atonement any more than a set of “proof texts” proves the Trinity or the deity of Christ. Such doctrines are not arrived at by simply accumulating biblical texts in support; they also entail synthesizing internally related doctrines that impinge on a particular doctrine in view. Theological synthesis is an important part of any doctrinal construction.

ITS THEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS
The doctrine of definite atonement does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it is connected to a number of other doctrines that also impinge on it. This can be demonstrated from Ephesians 1:3–14. In this grand one-sentence (in the Greek) paragraph, wherein Paul unpacks the blessings that belong to us in Christ, the Apostle speaks of the saving work of God in three ways.

First, the saving work of God is indivisible. Paul presents God’s saving work on a temporal canvas that runs from eternity past to eternity future. It consists in four distinct moments of salvation: redemption predestined, when God chose us before the foundation of the world (vv. 4–5); redemption accomplished, when Christ redeemed us by His blood (v. 7); redemption applied, when God sealed His Word in our hearts by His Spirit (v. 13); and redemption consummated, when we will possess our future inheritance endowed to us by the Spirit (v. 14). These four moments of God’s saving work are indivisible; that is, they are distinct but inseparable moments of God’s one act of salvation. This means that Christ’s definite atonement (redemption accomplished) can never be separated from God’s eternal decree (redemption predestined) or God’s sanctifying work by His Spirit (redemption applied), which is connected to our glorification on the last day (redemption consummated).

. . . continue reading at TableTalk