A Dispensationalist View of Calvinism

[AustinC]

A statement like this assumes that everyone reading it is somehow brain dead. To find out (however that happened) that you are in a very small number of people who has ever lived whom God has selected to save while everyone else has been selected to die eternally is intensely humbling? Who would make such a foolish statement? If I am allowed to continue here I will start a thread and ask who believes that being elected to be saved and to live forever in eternal bliss while most of the world goes to hell is something that is intensely humbling and see what kind of answers I get.

I know who would not rejoice with you. Those who are going to hell without any hope of going anywhere else. I have never met the first Calvinist who does not believe he is elect. Elect Calvinists are the only people on this forum who exalts the doctrine of election before the foundation of the world with some sort of specialized calling to be saved, maybe when one is in a sound sleep or is somehow preoccupied with the normal living of life.

Here is what God says in a statement that cannot be misunderstood.

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

The person who is being addressed is the Lord Jesus.

What does it take to please him?

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Now let's use logic and reason. Assuming that everyone believes Re 4:11 and He 11:6 and Jesus Christ really did create all things for his pleasure and it takes faith to please him, then it is he who is responsible before the foundation of the world for those who do not please him, according to Calvinism, because he has elected way back then not to save them and has not given them faith, which Calvinists say is the gift of God. If it is a gift and he is in possession of it, he can give it to whomsoever he wills

I will start my thread soon to see who believes the super ridiculous statement that being a Calvinist is an intensely humbling experience..

I make that statement because I absolutely deserve to be sent to hell and not have my sins ransomed by the Son of God. So does everyone else, including you. That group that you think I lord it over is the group that I should be in. Only God knows why he does exactly what he claims to do in Romans 9. God has mercy on whom he has mercy.

Are you so utterly clueless as to God's amazing grace that you cannot conceive of the grace that it takes from God to save just one sinner (let alone the billions that God has saved from Adam to the present moment)?
Do you realize that in your rant, you called John Newton, the writer of the hymn "Amazing Grace," a cult member? Does it even compute what your accusation is and how far away from God's Spirit your statement lands?

That you think I find pleasure in the damnation of any soul is an indication that you are utterly clueless regarding the doctrines of grace.

I honestly have no idea who has put the ideas you espouse into your ear, but whoever has been teaching you is a terrible teacher who will answer to God as an elder and shepherd.

 

[JD731]

I make that statement because I absolutely deserve to be sent to hell and not have my sins ransomed by the Son of God. So does everyone else, including you. That group that you think I lord it over is the group that I should be in. Only God knows why he does exactly what he claims to do in Romans 9. God has mercy on whom he has mercy.

That fact does not prove that you are somehow a special elect above all others. And if you were special and could prove it, it sure is not a recipe for humility, and when you fellows say that, I get the idea that I am dealing with a snake oil salesman.

Concerning Romans 9, Paul is quoting Hosea and all the players in that chapter are related to Abraham in the flesh. IOW, Romans 7 through 11 is in a context of his physical offspring and how the history of the church, which at the time of the writing of this epistle in 58 AD is already 28 years old with gentiles being included in it for 18 of those years. It was written sometime during the events of Acts 18 from Corinth. He is explaining how the children of Abraham becomes the sons of God and if the explanation of the times in relation to the covenants and promises that are uniquely Jewish but now includes gentiles is not explained here then it is explained nowhere in scripture. It should occur to the reader of these epistles to turn to OT passages that are being quoted and try to figure out the thinking of God. His thinking is more important than John Calvins.

Are you so utterly clueless as to God's amazing grace that you cannot conceive of the grace that it takes from God to save just one sinner (let alone the billions that God has saved from Adam to the present moment)?

How does that fact make you special in the eyes of God above billions of others that are not so blessed?

And grace is the principle by which God is saving gentiles because he has made no promise to save us. The blood of Christ is how he is doing it. You will not accept this truth but your relatives are clearly described before God opened the door of faith and gave Jesus Christ as our blood sacrifice in Acts 10. Check yourself out here;

11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time
ye were without Christ,
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and
without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins," we are told. The gentiles had no blood sacrifice in the OT and in the first part of the NT, therefore were not reconciled to God.

Do you realize that in your rant, you called John Newton, the writer of the hymn "Amazing Grace," a cult member? Does it even compute what your accusation is and how far away from God's Spirit your statement lands?

I do not mean any disrespect to John Newton. I have never met him but writing songs and hymns is not the way to heaven. I am reminded of a statement Jesus made, here;

Lu 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

That you think I find pleasure in the damnation of any soul is an indication that you are utterly clueless regarding the doctrines of grace.

There is absolutely nothing true about the T.U.L.I.P. and there is no such thing in the scriptures called the doctrines of grace in that context. That is made up by your religious movement and it takes lots of oxygen out of the air.

I honestly have no idea who has put the ideas you espouse into your ear, but whoever has been teaching you is a terrible teacher who will answer to God as an elder and shepherd.

I am being very honest and forward in dealing with this topic, but I am not your enemy. I am telling you the truth. The Reformed faith, whether Baptist or Presbyterian, should be rejected.

 

[AustinC]

That fact does not prove that you are somehow a special elect above all others. And if you were special and could prove it, it sure is not a recipe for humility, and when you fellows say that, I get the idea that I am dealing with a snake oil salesman.

What will prove my election will be my perseverance in faith and God's preservation of my faith. JD, it's God continuing to sanctify me through my lifetime. If I drift and Satan devours my faith, it will be an evidence that I never had faith at all. This, I work out my faith with fear and trembling...not with arrogance, as you mistakenly imagine.
JD, you seem to be lacking discernment.

Concerning Romans 9, Paul is quoting Hosea and all the players in that chapter are related to Abraham in the flesh. IOW, Romans 7 through 11 is in a context of his physical offspring and how the history of the church, which at the time of the writing of this epistle in 58 AD is already 28 years old with gentiles being included in it for 18 of those years. It was written sometime during the events of Acts 18 from Corinth. He is explaining how the children of Abraham becomes the sons of God and if the explanation of the times in relation to the covenants and promises that are uniquely Jewish but now includes gentiles is not explained here then it is explained nowhere in scripture. It should occur to the reader of these epistles to turn to OT passages that are being quoted and try to figure out the thinking of God. His thinking is more important than John Calvins.

Do you not see what Paul says in chapter 9 as he also stated earlier in Romans 2, namely that those of the circumcision are not necessarily Jews, but those who are spiritually circumcised are the Israel of God. In both places, Paul is showing us that we are the offspring of Abraham.

How does that fact make you special in the eyes of God above billions of others that are not so blessed?

It makes me a child of God, one who receives the inheritance of the New Covenant (read Hebrews 9).

And grace is the principle by which God is saving gentiles because he has made no promise to save us. The blood of Christ is how he is doing it.

Grace is how God saved Adam and Eve, to this present moment when God is saving both Jew and Gentile by grace.

You will not accept this truth but your relatives are clearly described before God opened the door of faith and gave Jesus Christ as our blood sacrifice in Acts 10. Check yourself out here;

11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time
ye were without Christ,
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and
without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

What is interesting is how Paul connects Gentiles to God by Jesus establishment of the New Covenant at the cross. The Old Mosaic Covenant was forever finished as Jesus fulfilled the work of atonement that the Old Covenant could not do. Both Jew and Gentile believers are children of God because their names were written into the Will. (You really have to read Hebrews 9)

"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins," we are told. The gentiles had no blood sacrifice in the OT and in the first part of the NT, therefore were not reconciled to God.

The sacrifices of the nation of Israel never saved. Everyone, including Gentile proselytes were justified by faith in the Promised One (the Messiah, Jesus) who was to come. That's what all the IT laws and regulations pointed toward. How do you not know this?

I do not mean any disrespect to John Newton. I have never met him but writing songs and hymns is not the way to heaven.

LOL, one of the most respected hymns in Christianity and used by God to deeply worship our King, and you brush it off. Do you not know amazing grace in your own life?

I am reminded of a statement Jesus made, here;

Lu 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Are you actually saying the song "Amazing Grace is an abomination??? Sir, you are unbelievable.

There is absolutely nothing true about the T.U.L.I.P. and there is no such thing in the scriptures called the doctrines of grace in that context. That is made up by your religious movement and it takes lots of oxygen out of the air.

Nothing true?
So, you aren't corrupt to your core. You were not saved without merit. Jesus didn't die for his children. God isn't strong enough to save a person if the person has a strong enough will. God doesn't give perseverance to Christians. All those statements would be true by your assertion. Honestly, do you actually read what you write?

I am being very honest and forward in dealing with this topic, but I am not your enemy. I am telling you the truth. The Reformed faith, whether Baptist or Presbyterian, should be rejected.

You are telling me what some really bad teacher has taught you. Your mentor should be ashamed of himself and should resign from ministry. What you are sharing is demonstrably false in scripture.

May God break the prejudice in your heart and open your spirit to all of his word. It is clear you don't know much of God's Word at present.

 

[JD731]

What will prove my election will be my perseverance in faith and God's preservation of my faith. JD, it's God continuing to sanctify me through my lifetime. If I drift and Satan devours my faith, it will be an evidence that I never had faith at all. This, I work out my faith with fear and trembling...not with arrogance, as you mistakenly imagine.
JD, you seem to be lacking discernment.
.

I discern that Calvinism and the Reformed faith is not just an error but is a competing system of religion that is in opposition to the truth of the scriptures. It did not have it's beginning by believing what the scriptures teach and it is not sustained by what the scriptures teach. That is my personal opinion. It began and is sustained by what men say the scriptures teach. However, upon examination it is evident that the scriptures do not say what these men claim they say. Of all the bad things that come out of this religion, and there are plenty, the worse thing is how it redefines the person and work and motivation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and savior of the world.

Jesus Christ saved the woman at the well in Samaria in John 4. Then he spent two days there and taught the Samarians at their request. They learned something very important about Jesus Christ during those two days and now we know what it was they learned.
Read about it.

John 4:42
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world <2889>.

John, who was an apostle, and the disciple whom Jesus loved, said this about him.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. <2889>

I am sorry Mr. Sararitan and I am sorry Mr. John but you need to check in with Mr AustinC because he has the real skinny of who Jesus is. He wants us to know that his Jesus did not come to be the saviour of the world <2889>, but the savior of the elect who were pre-chosen before the foundation of the world, and whom the scriptures knows nothing about.

I would like to testify with these people of the scriptures, I have heard him myself in the word, and I know he is the Son of God, sent by his Father to be the savior of the world.

 

[AustinC]

I discern that Calvinism and the Reformed faith is not just an error but is a competing system of religion that is in opposition to the truth of the scriptures. It did not have it's beginning by believing what the scriptures teach and it is not sustained by what the scriptures teach. That is my personal opinion. It began and is sustained by what men say the scriptures teach. However, upon examination it is evident that the scriptures do not say what these men claim they say. Of all the bad things that come out of this religion, and there are plenty, the worse thing is how it redefines the person and work and motivation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and savior of the world.

Jesus Christ saved the woman at the well in Samaria in John 4. Then he spent two days there and taught the Samarians at their request. They learned something very important about Jesus Christ during those two days and now we know what it was they learned.
Read about it.

John 4:42
And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world <2889>.

John, who was an apostle, and the disciple whom Jesus loved, said this about him.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. <2889>

I am sorry Mr. Sararitan and I am sorry Mr. John but you need to check in with Mr AustinC because he has the real skinny of who Jesus is. He wants us to know that his Jesus did not come to be the saviour of the world <2889>, but the savior of the elect who were pre-chosen before the foundation of the world, and whom the scriptures knows nothing about.

I would like to testify with these people of the scriptures, I have heard him myself in the word, and I know he is the Son of God, sent by his Father to be the savior of the world.

Sigh...
If you actually stepped out of your bigotry, you would know that Reformed theology is deeply immersed in scripture. Much more than you. I have told you that I am willing and able to exegete any passage in scripture with you so we can look at what God has to say to us. You seem unwilling to do this, but instead play the role of accuser. Note who plays that role in the Bible, JD.

JD, here is a document of the scripture where God tells us of his choosing. It is 6 pages of scripture. You are sarcastic in your ignorance, not because you have a valid point. Read God's Word. Tell me if I am making up any of the scripture passages.

At this point, you are showing us your pride.

 

[George Antonios]

You began this thread with a serious error. Dispensationalism is an eschatological view. Calvinism is a soteriological view. In the same way, Covenant Theology is an eschatological view and Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism are soteriological views.

True, but just an observation, if you're going to call Arminianism "semi-Pelagianism" you might as well call Calvinism the same because Calvinism was historically born out of Augustine's inability to answer Pelagius' contention that faith is a work in and of itself - precisely the Calvinist inherited claim. Augustine's "out" was therefore, paraphrasing: "well we are not the ones who believe, God makes us believe". And the rest is history.

 

[timtofly]

Covenant theology is over 2000 years old. You need to understand Covenant theology if you want to argue for Dispensationalism.

Covenant theology is Judaism? No wonder it is so far off base.

 

[37818]

.

Covenant theology is Judaism?

Jeremiah 31:3, ". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . ."
Hebrews 8:8, ". . . For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: . . ." We call it New Testament Christianity . . . .

 

[timtofly]

.

Jeremiah 31:3, ". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . ."
Hebrews 8:8, ". . . For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: . . ." We call it New Testament Christianity . . . .

Are you saying Calvinism is a religion besides Christianity? Just another aspect of Judaism for Gentiles?

From what the NT states the Atonement was for Adam's flesh, both Gentiles and Israelites. There is no specific application to Israel.

 

[37818]

Are you saying Calvinism is a religion besides Christianity? Just another aspect of Judaism for Gentiles?

From what the NT states the Atonement was for Adam's flesh, both Gentiles and Israelites. There is no specific application to Israel.

No. I am not Calvinist.

 

[JD731]

Sigh...
If you actually stepped out of your bigotry, you would know that Reformed theology is deeply immersed in scripture. Much more than you. I have told you that I am willing and able to exegete any passage in scripture with you so we can look at what God has to say to us. You seem unwilling to do this, but instead play the role of accuser. Note who plays that role in the Bible, JD.

JD, here is a document of the scripture where God tells us of his choosing. It is 6 pages of scripture. You are sarcastic in your ignorance, not because you have a valid point. Read God's Word. Tell me if I am making up any of the scripture passages.

At this point, you are showing us your pride.

Well, I posted two verses that says Jesus Christ is the savior of the world. Once before the cross and resurrection, and once afterward. I did not quote JD731 saying anything. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the savior of the world. It is too simple to get wrong.
Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. <2889>
For then must he often have suffered from the foundation of the world <2889> but now once in the end of the world <165> hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself He 9:26
Sin is the transgression of the law 1 Jn 3:4
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world 2889> unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2 Cor 5:19
(For until the law sin was in the world <2889>: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:13
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom 10:4
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours (his little children to whom he is writing) only, but also for the sins of the whole world <2889>. `1 Jn 2:2
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: He 9:27
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world <3625> in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:31

Calvinism denies the once and for all time blood atonement for the sins of the whole world and how God was satisfied with the offering of his Son for the sins of the whole world and because of that he is not imputing their sins to them before they die or the day of the Lord comes. This is a very serious denial.




But, my thread is not for the purpose of debating Calvinism because I have done that already. My purpose is to register my view as a dispensationalist on this false religious system that honors no context and believes no words and exalts itself. Believe me, you will have nothing new to offer.

 

[AustinC]

Well, I posted two verses that says Jesus Christ is the savior of the world. Once before the cross and resurrection, and once afterward. I did not quote JD731 saying anything. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the savior of the world. It is too simple to get wrong.
Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. <2889>
For then must he often have suffered from the foundation of the world <2889> but now once in the end of the world <165> hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself He 9:26
Sin is the transgression of the law 1 Jn 3:4
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world 2889> unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2 Cor 5:19
(For until the law sin was in the world <2889>: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom 5:13
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom 10:4
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours (his little children to whom he is writing) only, but also for the sins of the whole world <2889>. `1 Jn 2:2
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: He 9:27
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world <3625> in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:31

Calvinism denies the once and for all time blood atonement for the sins of the whole world and how God was satisfied with the offering of his Son for the sins of the whole world and because of that he is not imputing their sins to them before they die or the day of the Lord comes. This is a very serious denial.




But, my thread is not for the purpose of debating Calvinism because I have done that already. My purpose is to register my view as a dispensationalist on this false religious system that honors no context and believes no words and exalts itself. Believe me, you will have nothing new to offer.

Do you realize you are arguing for universalism where all humanity is saved by virtue of Jesus universal atonement?
And, if you deny that you are teaching universalism, then you make salvation by works and not by grace since it is the human and the human will that either saves or damns themselves. In the second position God becomes secondary to man.
Which one are you then proposing? The only other possibility is that Jesus atonement is particular only to those who believe, which therefore makes it limited. It is once and for all who believe, but you are thinking it's universalism, which is a dangerous path to travel.

So far, you have not dealt with dispensationalism at all. Why? Because dispensationalism is not about salvation.

Do you see your confusion or are you still scratching your head and stumbling in the dark?

 

[JD731]

Do you realize you are arguing for universalism where all humanity is saved by virtue of Jesus universal atonement?
And, if you deny that you are teaching universalism, then you make salvation by works and not by grace since it is the human and the human will that either saves or damns themselves. In the second position God becomes secondary to man.
Which one are you then proposing? The only other possibility is that Jesus atonement is particular only to those who believe, which therefore makes it limited. It is once and for all who believe, but you are thinking it's universalism, which is a dangerous path to travel.

So far, you have not dealt with dispensationalism at all. Why? Because dispensationalism is not about salvation.

Do you see your confusion or are you still scratching your head and stumbling in the dark?

It certainly is about dispensationalism because the blood atonement of Christ is for the gentiles as well as the Jews, all in God's good time in the NT. Now you have begged for verses and I have given them to you and you reply with Calvinistic philosophy and ignorant speculation. Neither do you know what atonement is and you equate it to salvation from the penalty of sin when the text of scriptures in the NT are in harmony with the figures and types of the atonement in the OT under the law of Moses. The nation was atoned for and the sacrifice propitiated God while Israel were still in their sins. When the atonement was made it simply meant that God did not hold the sins of the people against them. They were reconciled to God. It did not mean they were saved. Because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, then this ceremony was repeated yearly. But Jesus made a one time sacrifice by shedding his blood and it needs never be repeated again. This is the reason the scriptures says God is reconciled to men and he is not angry with sinners any longer and will receive as many as will come to him for salvation in Jesus name, salvation, which is the gift that is mentioned in Romans 5. The gift is the Spirit, who is the life of God and the righteousness of Christ. Reconciliation is a two way street. Both parties must reconcile. That which caused the enmity between God and man, sin, has been taken out of the way. God is no longer angry art the sinner. God is reconciled to sinners by the shed blood of his Son and now sinners must be individually and personally reconciled to God.

There is no such thing as being chosen before the foundation of the world. A doctrine like that makes the atonement of Christ an incidental necessity.

 

[AustinC]

It certainly is about dispensationalism because the blood atonement of Christ is for the gentiles as well as the Jews, all in God's good time in the NT. Now you have begged for verses and I have given them to you and you reply with Calvinistic philosophy and ignorant speculation. Neither do you know what atonement is and you equate it to salvation from the penalty of sin when the text of scriptures in the NT are in harmony with the figures and types of the atonement in the OT under the law of Moses. The nation was atoned for and the sacrifice propitiated God while Israel were still in their sins. When the atonement was made it simply meant that God did not hold the sins of the people against them. They were reconciled to God. It did not mean they were saved. Because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, then this ceremony was repeated yearly. But Jesus made a one time sacrifice by shedding his blood and it needs never be repeated again. This is the reason the scriptures says God is reconciled to men and he is not angry with sinners any longer and will receive as many as will come to him for salvation in Jesus name, salvation, which is the gift that is mentioned in Romans 5. The gift is the Spirit, who is the life of God and the righteousness of Christ. Reconciliation is a two way street. Both parties must reconcile. That which caused the enmity between God and man, sin, has been taken out of the way. God is no longer angry art the sinner. God is reconciled to sinners by the shed blood of his Son and now sinners must be individually and personally reconciled to God.

There is no such thing as being chosen before the foundation of the world. A doctrine like that makes the atonement of Christ an incidental necessity.

You quoted them. You did not explain what they mean.
When John the Baptist declared "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" was he speaking universally? If so, then all humanity is made perfect before God and every human is justified, without spot or blemish. Every human from Adam to the end of time will be in heaven.

Do you think that is what John the Baptist meant?

As for the covenantal atoning sacrifices in the nation of Israel, you must read Hebrews. Note that the priests had to continually offer sacrifices for the people as well as themselves. Also note that those sacrifices were for the chosen people of God The elect. (Did you read the document I provided to you?) But, Jesus is greater than the Old Covenant, which pointed toward Jesus. Jesus is both the sacrifice and the High Priest. He is far superior in both ways. As a sacrifice he only had to sacrifice once. His atonement was for all the elect, chosen people of God. He did not have to atone for his own sins, like the high priests of Israel because he perfectly kept the law. He is greater than all old covenant and its foreshadowing because He fulfilled it all. JD, do you not know these things? Has your mentor not explained this? Has he pointed you toward universalism and taught that all humanity is fully, universally atoned for by Jesus? Do you even comprehend what that implies?

At present, your doctrine is so messed up that you really have no idea what you are talking about. You are presently arguing for a heresy, rejected by Christians, yet you don't know it. Read your Bible. I couldn't care less if you hold to dispensationalism, but I do care that you presently hold to a form of universalism that is contrary to the Bible and to God himself.

 

[37818]

When John the Baptist declared "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" was he speaking universally? If so, then all humanity is made perfect before God and every human is justified, without spot or blemish. Every human from Adam to the end of time will be in heaven.

No. For the world universally, yes. But it is conditional on believing and to accept it only as the gift.

 

[AustinC]

No. For the world universally, yes. But it is conditional on believing and to accept it only as the gift.

So, you are saved by your works according to your confession.
Look at the circularity of the comment.
Jesus paid all sins, but you, by your free will, must do the accepting. If you don't accept, God is casting a perfect and holy person into hell because of one bad choice...that Jesus paid for in the cross. You are in a never ending loop of contradiction.

 

[37818]

So, you are saved by your works according to your confession.

You are an irrational false accuser.

 

[AustinC]

You are an irrational false accuser.

Not at all. However, you are refusing to be honest about your own position. If you wish to hold to a contradicting circular argument, you certainly may. Just don't think that it's what God teaches.

 

[Van]

You began this thread with a serious error. Dispensationalism is an eschatological view. Calvinism is a soteriological view. In the same way, Covenant Theology is an eschatological view and Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism are soteriological views.

Calvinism is not a soterological view, it is a bogus soterological view, rejecting God's word and embracing the invention of men.

 

[timtofly]

Not at all. However, you are refusing to be honest about your own position. If you wish to hold to a contradicting circular argument, you certainly may. Just don't think that it's what God teaches.

Yes, the elect are every one. God voted and elected all to be saved. Why would an individual not vote to accept that election? Because they as a sinner vote for themselves and against God's vote.

The work is not on getting saved. The work by humans is to constantly avoid salvation. No one is automatically saved. They are just automatically elected by God to be saved. Those who do give up their will, just end up being the ones elected that count.

Calvinist claim the Atonement was only for the elect, making the starting point narrow. What is even the point to think about salvation, if there literally is no choice in the matter?

Universalism is the teaching that no one is a sinner. Not that all humanity has been elected to be redeemed.

Since not every one knows they are elected, they need to hear about the Atonement. That is why the Gospel has to go out to all. Then those hearing can reject which does narrow down the end result.