Featured A Dispensationalist View of Calvinism

So... because I disagree with your wildly inaccurate understanding of scripture, I don't believe every word of scripture? Really?!

Paul is arguing that Justification has always been by faith and, as such, a Christian is essentially a descendant of Abraham--who himself was justified by faith. The "So then" is a result clause, but you've picked the wrong "result." This passage is clearly about being justified by faith and Christians are descendants of Abraham. It is really quite plain.

The Archangel

 

Woe, you're really off the deep end. Literally nothing you have claimed is ever taught in the Bible.
You're claiming that God has universally atoned and saved all humans, but humans overpower God's salvation and defeat God so that they go to hell.
Note that grace is none existent as well as faith. You literally are preaching another gospel that is not ever preached by any person in the Bible.

 

No, you just struggle with bible interpretation...period.

Sure it's a sermon. It takes about 45 minutes to read it. The preacher did an amazing, God moved, job of expressing the Supremacy of Christ Jesus over all things.

A very good parable. Do you understand what Jesus was teaching?

Nope, you don't understand what Jesus was teaching...at all.

You are projecting your dispensationalism onto the text. Note, that not one Christian believed what you teach for 1800 years.

Wow, you really miss the message of this sermon.

You quote, but you have no idea what the preacher is saying.

Again, you project your less than 200 year old theory upon the text.

A wonderful message from Jesus.

You still don't grasp what Jesus was saying. You force your theory upon the text.

Another great passage that you fail to understand.

Do you understand who "all Israel" is???

You project your theory on the text.

You realize, don't you, that Jews have been coming to faith from the early church even to this day...don't you???
Paul is clear in Romans that those who are "Israel" are those who are justified by faith. The sermon to the Hebrews is clear on this issue as well.
You have been taught by a person who is ignorant of scripture and you simply don't know what you are talking about.
I was raised in dispensationalism so I've heard similar teachings. As I read scripture and truly observed scripture, I kept seeing how disjointed and twisted dispensationalism is. It misses the point of so very much of the Bible.

 

He's terrible at arguing.

 

Notice how this poster never actually addresses biblical arguments?

 

I've been reading the thread, and your arguments and statements have been and still are quite flawed.

The text of Romans (citing Genesis) clearly says that Abraham believed God and that was counted to him as righteousness. So, I'm not debating that.

This is what you're missing. When God goes to Abraham (then: Abram) in Genesis 12, many promises are made. Because of those promises, Abraham goes to Canaan. (See the "so" in Gen 12:4). Your understanding that Abraham believed he would have a son is flawed because it is far too narrow. Abraham believed all that God said; the son was the means by which those promises would come true.

If you're making the argument that Abraham believed God about the son from him and Sarah (as you've referenced above), then you have no choice other than to say Abraham's faith in God failed when he had Ishmael with Hagar.

What is more, the picture you paint here is that God comes to Abraham pleading with him to accept promises and/or believe in Him. But, as we are told in Joshua 24, Abraham is an idol worshiper when God comes to him.

[2] And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods. [3] Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River and led him through all the land of Canaan, and made his offspring many. I gave him Isaac. (Joshua 24:2–3 ESV)​

So, God's response to Abraham is not a response to his "faith." If Abraham is an idol worshiper--as Joshua 24 clearly states--then God's actions of revealing Himself to Abraham and calling Abraham is what generates Abraham's faith in God.

Also, the "actor" here is clearly God. God is not believing for Abraham, but clearly God is doing the work. God is the one who chose Abraham, and that choice included salvation. What we see in Genesis is a long sanctification process (culminating with the "sacrifice" of Isaac). Abraham believed the promises of God, not simply that he would have a son.

If you are correct, then any sin would mean the removal of that Justification. "Justification" is a forensic term; it's legal language. And it is salvation. In Romans 5:16 and 18, Paul uses "Justification" as the opposite of "Condemnation." So, justification is salvation.

Your scheme here paints justification as God's response to something we do--believe. But, that would fly in the face of what Paul tells us in Romans 3:

[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22–26 ESV, emphasis mine)
​

If justification is God's response to our believing, then it is no longer a gift of his grace. What is more, Paul's entire thrust in Romans 4 is to show the difference between faith and works as it relates to salvation--and justification in Romans 4 is salvation.

It does not escape my notice that you are referring to me and all the other Calvinists as non-believers. The issue is not so much a theological system (remember, I've never read Calvin at length), it is an issue of hermeneutics. Your errant views are coming not from an Arminian system, but from an inability to read the Bible properly.

The Archangel

 

Must make a book "Gospel according to Van", a followup to his Systematic theology!

 

indeed, as Paul main point here would be that in Lord Jesus, both saved Jews and gentiles are now joint heirs in true spiritual Israel!

 

he knew of a promised Messiah yet to come, and placed hope into that Lamb of God to take away his sins!

 

When you state here that the God of we Calvinists is a different God, are you stating that we are not saved then, due to having another and a false god?

 

Nope, you make stuff up, just for the sheer pleasure of making stuff up.

God's grace is abundant in the fact that He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance.

Are you saying you do not have to repent? Because, God forbid if all repented, He would be forced by His own will to save them from eternal death.

If you remove universal salvation from your vocabulary you yourself would stop pushing universalism, no?

The Atonement is not automatic, like you claim happens to you without repentance. Because repentance (to you) seems like a work of man that (to you) is forcing God to be the Atonement. Either you have repented, or you are a lost Calvinist. Because it is God's will that humans repent, that is come to a state of repentance. Do you think repentance and Atonement are the same thing?

Does God force you to repent? Are the elect only those God forces to repent? So technically you never have to repent, because God did it for you.

From the history I have read those at any time throughout history who have repented were the redeemed. You have a weird boundary between if it is us who repent or God repenting for us.

I do not recall John the Baptist preaching. "Let God repent for you and be baptized".

 

I didn't make up what you wrote:

"I am aware that a human can reject the Atonement that has fully eradicated his sinful condition.

How is salvation contingent on one's choice? Salvation was already provided before any human was ever created. Only the result of one's choice, their eternal destination is contingent on one's choice. Salvation gave them the choice of eternal life. Rejection gave them the choice of eternal damnation."

Here you repeat your false doctrine of universal salvation at birth, but damnation as time passes.
You are in direct disagreement with Ephesians 2:1-10.

I am saying that upon God taking you out of death and giving you life, you will repent of your sins.

I do not preach universal atonement or salvation. I preach what the Bible preaches. You were dead in your trespasses and sins.
Atonement and salvation is particular to those whom God chooses to quicken.

See above. The atonement is particular to those whom God has given to Jesus. Read John 10.
God does not place a human, merited action, upon people before He can save them. If he did, then salvation would not be by grace alone.

Repentance is an effect, caused by God upon God quickening the dead unto life. Read Ephesians 2:1-10.

No, repentance and atonement are not the same.
Jesus substitutionary sacrifice on the cross for all that God has given to him is the Atonement. It is particular to those God chooses.
Repentance is an effect God causes to the person that he has chosen to save. Dead men don't repent. They have remorse, but they don't repent. This is where we have goats among the sheep.

God causes me to see my sin and repent in obedience. As a Christian, I can walk in sin and miss fellowship with my King.

No. The elect are those God chose to graciously save and make alive with Christ. Read Ephesians 2:1-10.

Nope, I have answered this above and you just don't seem to know what God tells you.

Not at all. The Ninevites repented and God held off His judgment, but those who did not have faith in the Promised One died in their sins. Remorse does not save you eternally.

Not at all. I have biblical text that confirm one must be made alive before repentance that shows salvation can happen.
God must cause. The effect will be repentance.

Do you recall that John the Baptist was preaching to the Chosen People of God? Let that sink in. God made a Covenant with the nation of Israel at Mt Sinai. He chose them and setup a temporary covenant with them to point them toward faith in the Promised One who came via the Abrahamic Covenant. When Jesus died, he ended the Mosaic Covenant (" It is finished") and established the New Covenant (Read Hebrews 9).

Your ignorance of the Covenants makes it hard for you to understand the Bible and what God is saying to you.
You have a man-centered theology where man makes the demands and God must respond to those demands. What you teach is not the Gospel.

 

God is particular about the whole world.

You can keep pointing out that God only has the ability to quicken only whom He chooses, but it is you who limits God, not a person's ability to choose.

You think God just overrides a person's will. I get it.

It is you who thinks the Cross was limited.

You seem to have no concept that the Sovereignty of God allows the majority of Adam's flesh to die and reject the Atonement. You claim God has never given them the opportunity to reject, because then rejection would make God look weak. Yet it is fallen man's repentance that makes God Sovereign because God allows humans to repent.

Of course repentance comes after the Atonement. Why is that making the Atonement universal in my view and not universal in your view? The difference is that in your view the majority of humanity were never Atoned for, thus God planned to fail all those humans. He knew they would die, and He forced them all into the LOF.

 

More personal attacks, with no evidence. These troll like posts should be deleted.
Does Matthew 23:13 indicate lost people were seeking God? Yes.
Does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 indicate God chooses people for salvation through faith, a conditional election? Yes
Does 1 Timothy 2:6 say Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all, thus not only for the elect? Yes.
Does 2 Peter 2:1 say Jesus bought those heading for swift destruction? Yes
Does Luke 7:50 say a person's faith (not their God instilled faith) saved her? Yes

Not only this Calvinist, but none of the posting Calvinists have addressed these biblical arguments (other that to say taint so and it does mean what it says) but they are quick to charge others with their mendacity.

 

Your record is broken. It keeps repeating the same error over and over again. You have been shown your error by more than myself, yet you persist in a terrible interpretation most likely taught to you by a person who hasn't understood scripture, but has drank deeply of the dispensational kool-aid that misses the forest because of the trees.

 

Since you mention the remnant... Might I ask what makes them faithful to God when all else go after other gods?

The Archangel

 

I know!! I know!!

shaking my hand and waving


Oh, pick me, pick me!!!

I’m gonna blow it

the answer is “the power of God”