Non-Calvinist Help- Questions

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm not sure what you are asking but I do think that someone humbly coming to Christ is a beautiful thing even if their analysis of the reasons they come are different than mine. One thing that bothers me is that sometimes when I read the guys that seem to be put up as the gold standard for Calvinist theology they say things that seem contradictory. For example, I have a sermon by Jonathan Edwards where he is basically saying that Christ has died for you, and all things are prepared for your salvation, and the only thing lacking is your consent! If I were to put that up without a source, most Calvinists I know would tear such a sermon apart as being at least "semi-Pelagian", and at worst, heresy.

I think you were on the right track in post 48. It bothers me greatly that everyone from free willers to high Calvinists can't worship together and not doubt each others salvation. I have a paper by Martin Lloyd Jones about the brief period in England where the Calvinist Puritans were in control. They were asked to come up with a list of essentials for being able to remain in fellowship as Christians. If I remember right there were 16 points and almost none of them involved anything related to the theological arguments of the TULIP.

MLJ was not a Puritan, rather he was a Calvinist Methodist… think about that! Blending Calvinist doctrines to Methodist practice. My Welsh family mostly went to and identified with the Calvinist Methodists of the day.

 

[Silverhair]

Now you're just being obtuse. The simple fact is that if the gospel is a set of propositions, with requirements and dangers and rewards promised, and the decision is up to you; then you can choose wisely or foolishly. I just happen to believe that on our own, we tend to choose foolishly. If you did OK on your own then you were wise on your own. So why not boast. I'm not saying you should, just that you have a right to. And related to that - the idea here is that if taken to it's logical conclusion this is exactly how you get to Pelagianism and later to Socinianism. (And I realize that people say Pelagius was a nice guy and wasn't that extreme himself. People also say Calvin wasn't a Calvinist.)

You used the terms wisely or foolishly and I agree with that. Man in his free will can make wise or foolish choices. But that is the point you seem to be missing, they can make those choices. If one wants to humble themselves before God how does that equate to boasting. Now when the calvinist says they were chosen before the foundation of the world then that gives them reason to boast as they must have been special in God's eye or He would not have picked them.

As for Pelagius, when you have to depend upon your enemy to say what you were like then the information does become suspect. He seems to be the boogeyman of calvinism just as free will seems to be. It's a handy name to haul out to attach to anyone you disagree with.

Nope. Owen and Edwards both insisted that men must always act using their rational minds and that this is an essential part of the interaction between God and men.

Nice to see that Owen and Edward’s had some understanding of free will.

We know for sure, from experience that the action of the Holy Spirit is not equally given to everyone. Not everyone has the same call, circumstances, or opportunities. So yes. That is a Calvinistic principle. (The idea that God is acting sovereignly, rather than having some obligation to set up equal chances and opportunities). Are you telling me that you can read scripture and come up with the idea that God somehow gives everyone an equal chance and then each person, with a free, unencumbered will not influenced by anything but their own freedom can properly choose which way to go?

How do we know that? That as you say is just a calvinist invention. Actually we see just the opposite. God desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of Him and the Holy Spirit convicts the whole world. It is not a matter of circumstance it is a matter of how they respond to the Holy Spirit’s conviction. Each person has the ability and opportunity to accept or reject God.

That is my whole point. You have John Owen saying that. This is the most highly regarded Calvinist in history. And you are attaching his statement with you agreeing with it - to a statement about Calvinism missing that bit of logic. All I am suggesting is that maybe it would be worth looking into what these guys were saying a little closer.

You seem surprised that I would say that a person exercising their free will to reject salvation is the greatest sin. That concept is all through the bible.
Now what I should have included is that for a calvinist that is an irrational statement. Remember under calvinism all man’s choices are determined by God, no free will allowed. So yes calvinist do seem to miss that bit of logic.

Some hold to an absolute determinism that goes beyond my understanding of the term. But sometimes you guys who are against all things Calvinism seem to be willingly playing ignorant. If God said "Silverhair, you are going to be in Michigan next Tuesday". Would you still have to go? Not according to the logic you are using. You would just somehow be there, whether you go or not. Yet that's the charge you make against any assertion of God acting in a sovereign manner.

You have just pointed out one of the many things calvinist that are illogical. Absolute divine determinism is absolute divine determinism unless you have a different meaning for the words. Which is another problem I see in calvinism, they like to put their own special meaning on words.
You once called yourself a one point calvinist, possiblely in jest, but even on this board it seems those that hold to calvinism can not agree on what being a calvinist means.

God is sovereign and if He said I was going to be in place X on day X then I would be there. Just as He foretold the crucifixion. But what calvinist’s seem to forget is that God is sovereign and He has given man a free will and He is still sovereign.

 

[DaveXR650]

MLJ was not a Puritan, rather he was a Calvinist Methodist… think about that! Blending Calvinist doctrines to Methodist practice. My Welsh family mostly went to and identified with the Calvinist Methodists of the day.

Indeed! MLJ headed an annual conference that took place at Westminster Chapel I think from 1959 through 1978. It was this group that played a huge part in the rediscovery of English Puritan writings which led to the publishing of paperback Puritan works and then the later reformed resurgence in the U.S.

MLJ said that Calvinism without Methodism tended to become cold and lifeless. I have his book "The Puritans" and it's one of my most valued books. In that book MLJ spends a lot of time praising Richard Baxter and Charles Wesley, and it's true that MLJ seemed to have no problem with making use theologians who didn't agree with him on all points. If more people listened to MLJ this site would be less toxic for one thing.

 

[Silverhair]

Per your interpretation of scripture. You appear not to see Calvinists and their own interpretation as having any validity and so your alienating fellow Christian brothers rather than trying to find common ground… and May I say this, that is a bad look for you in my eyes. Luckily God knows the hearts of his children.

The common ground is scripture. When calvinist insist that black is white with regard to scripture where do you find common ground. Have you seen any attempt from calvinists to find common ground? No, just the opposite. Look at the many terms that have been used by calvinist's when referring to me.

Actually just look at your post. How is my pointing someone back to scripture alienating my fellow Christian brothers? As I have said more than once it is calvinnism not calvinists that I disagree with. Calvinism is a man-made philosophy that comes from pagan roots, that is historical fact. Should I just to ignore that, no.

So I am sorry that you feel I am alienating anyone by pointing out what I see as error but what is the alternative?

 

[DaveXR650]

If one wants to humble themselves before God how does that equate to boasting.

It doesn't. How many times do I have to say that. But with a view of free will that has the individual totally uncoerced and able to neutrally and correctly evaluate the information on an equal basis with all others - the determining factor in such an informed decision is the result of your wise choice. A Calvinist on the other hand knows there is more to it than that. Like in Philippians ch. 3 where Paul talks about "being apprehended" by Christ. I'm just saying that if the decision to be saved is all of you then it's all of you. I'm not saying that you then don't come humbly - just that your coming humbly was totally a result of your proper and wise decision Is not that what you are saying?

How do we know that? That as you say is just a calvinist invention.

Because we see it and experience it. Saul, a person who hates Christians suddenly does an about face and becomes the Apostle Paul. A guy sits in church 20 years and one day at a sermon starts crying and becomes a Christian. A guy from an ignorant and rough background gets saved while another man goes all the way through Bible college without ever understanding a thing about salvation. Things happen all the time that cannot be explained simply by an informed free will capable of making a contrary decision. And it's all through scripture. You cannot reduce it to a response to a set of proposals that everyone has equal access to.

Absolute divine determinism is absolute divine determinism unless you have a different meaning for the words. Which is another problem I see in calvinism, they like to put their own special meaning on words.

Of course things like that will have different meanings. Like "free will" or "total depravity". Why would you only blame Calvinism for this if all the theologies have multiple views on all these subjects.

You seem surprised that I would say that a person exercising their free will to reject salvation is the greatest sin. That concept is all through the bible.

I am surprised that modern Calvinists who are extreme in their concept of divine meticulous determinism have apparently not read these things written by the most famous Calvinists. I am thankful I spent years reading Puritan sermons and teachings before being dragged into the Calvinism debates that the modern kids were engaged in.

You once called yourself a one point calvinist, possiblely in jest, but even on this board it seems those that hold to calvinism can not agree on what being a calvinist means.

It is true that there is not one point of the TULIP that I would not want to modify or at least comment on before signing off on it. Sproul himself modified 3 of the points. TULIP is not the gospel and I think it is unfortunate that it has come to represent Calvinism. When I look at different systems of theology Calvinism looks pretty good and well thought out. But I have no problem with other Christians who reject it and view them as true fellow believers.

 

[Silverhair]

If I told you I find the points of Sovereign Grace to be biblical you’d just say they are not and then Segway into a diatribe about Augustine and his taking stuff from pagans blah blah. So your stuck in your particular belief system without any quarter, how open minded is that.

when I first visited the Baptist Bible Forum they were replete with many different beliefs all at war with others kinda reminds me of a bar I used to go down town for a pool game and a beer or two… mostly three or four! Fights were guaranteed in both situations and it made for an exciting activity. Today I see some of you fellas as remnants of the past… nothing ever gets accomplished except everyone being pissed. It’s probably time to leave this place because nobodies growing! Honestly, do I have to move to Facebook to get content?

How open minded is it to say just trust the calvinist point of view and ignore what the root is? If a person actually checked out the basis of that view and still held to it then that is their choice but to say just ignore the root is foolish.

My only reason in posting on here is so that people will trust the actual inspired word of God. When people cherry pick verses to support their view and ignore context then they can make the bible support just about anything they want. We see this in the cults and health and wealth preachers and rightly condemn it. When someone in a mainline christian tradition does it are we supposed to overlook it?

We are told to contend for the faith, that is what I attempt to do. I am not asking people to trust in what I say but rather to trust in what the Holy Spirit said in the word of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Exactly. ALL of that NONSENSE comes from the Pharisaic Philosophy of the antichrist Saul of Tarsus.

You joined as a Baptist? I guess you learn something new every day.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The common ground is scripture. When calvinist insist that black is white with regard to scripture where do you find common ground. Have you seen any attempt from calvinists to find common ground? No, just the opposite. Look at the many terms that have been used by calvinist's when referring to me.

Actually just look at your post. How is my pointing someone back to scripture alienating my fellow Christian brothers? As I have said more than once it is calvinnism not calvinists that I disagree with. Calvinism is a man-made philosophy that comes from pagan roots, that is historical fact. Should I just to ignore that, no.

So I am sorry that you feel I am alienating anyone by pointing out what I see as error but what is the alternative?

The simple alternative is to quit vilification toward peoples beliefs and simply state your understanding and allow it to sink in. Again I believe in reaching collaboration where you can and agree to disagree when we reach an impasse. That way you will partner with other Christian believers vs splitting into fractions. I’m certain and will tell you that @Kentuckyredneck, he wasn’t always a Monergistic believer… that he was raised one way, questioned that movement and eventually evolved into his present beliefs. I also have had many many modifications in my beliefs history… including agnostic atheist (where I truly considered life as a professional criminal, a low point in my life) to bouncing around from Roman Catholic, to Presbyterian & Covenantal to exploring Methodist beliefs to Baptists… what a journey but one where I learned from each experience. And you are right, they all have their zealots & there genuine Christian believers… so look for the genuine believers and accept them in spite of your perceived discrepancies. I don’t think that anybody will tell you that their beliefs are 100% correct but it’s the complete faith & belief in God the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit that earmarks us as Christians, don’t you agree?

The alternative brother is to slide into secularism and that can’t be the spiritual legacy we want to lead our children & grandchildren into. I will tell you that my wife, who was raised Dutch Reformed (a belief system very predominant in North Jersey and New York is now on life support) Anyway, my wife tells me they were strict Calvinists… so strict that people began looking for alternatives and the Dutch Reformed church crumbled. She recently told me that she sees value in reading Catholic authors. Well that’s where she is right now, that’s intellectual curiosity. Am I going to vilify her for that? Bottom line, she is committed to Christ as her Lord & Savior… so we are moving in the right direction.

 

[DaveXR650]

And I really hope you DO learn something new today. Maybe it'll draw you to Yahweh.

Not much surprises me any more. But something like this:

ALL of that NONSENSE comes from the Pharisaic Philosophy of the antichrist Saul of Tarsus.

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you but are you referring to Paul, even after he was converted, the one who wrote most of the New Testament?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I grew up as one and none of the other choices fit. The Way isn't listed. Nor the ekklesia. And saying 'not Christian,' when I certainly follow the Christ, is deceptive. "Christianity" should just be called "Paulism," then people wouldn't confuse them with followers of Christ. And I really hope you DO learn something new today. Maybe it'll draw you to Yahweh.

Paul was a disciple of Christ who most certainly taught Christ as Lord & Savior, so to extract his contributions to the Christian movement is impossible to do.

 

[Silverhair]

It doesn't. How many times do I have to say that. But with a view of free will that has the individual totally uncoerced and able to neutrally and correctly evaluate the information on an equal basis with all others - the determining factor in such an informed decision is the result of your wise choice. A Calvinist on the other hand knows there is more to it than that. Like in Philippians ch. 3 where Paul talks about "being apprehended" by Christ. I'm just saying that if the decision to be saved is all of you then it's all of you. I'm not saying that you then don't come humbly - just that your coming humbly was totally a result of your proper and wise decision Is not that what you are saying?

How many times must I repeat, The Holy Spirit convicts before you understand that? God has provided all the information and holds man responsible for how they handle it. But man still has to decide what they will do with the information. You seem to think that if man actually has a free will then he has made himself sovereign over his salvation. Strange that the bible is clear that that is actually what God expects man to do. Eph 1:13, Rom 1:16, Joh 3:18 God saves those that trust in His son but that is the condition, they must believe God will not do it for them. So for the calvinist to insist that man doing what God requires somehow makes man sovereign is just a foolish argument.
I must ask where do you get this silly idea that man freely believing in God means they save themselves?

Because we see it and experience it. Saul, a person who hates Christians suddenly does an about face and becomes the Apostle Paul. A guy sits in church 20 years and one day at a sermon starts crying and becomes a Christian. A guy from an ignorant and rough background gets saved while another man goes all the way through Bible college without ever understanding a thing about salvation. Things happen all the time that cannot be explained simply by an informed free will capable of making a contrary decision. And it's all through scripture. You cannot reduce it to a response to a set of proposals that everyone has equal access to.

Man has a God given free will, to say that he does not goes against scripture. Even your examples show mans free will. It is exactly what you claim it is not, an informed free will capable of making a contrary decision.
Do you think that God was mistaken when He said He desires all to be saved, I don't. But I also do not believe that God will force man to believe in Him. Even Paul had to make the choice to trust in Christ, Paul had to change his mind as to the reality of who Christ was. Does God choose certain people for service, yes but that is the exception not the rule.
God provides the means to know Him but He does not force people to trust in Him.

Of course things like that will have different meanings. Like "free will" or "total depravity". Why would you only blame Calvinism for this if all the theologies have multiple views on all these subjects.

Because we are discussing calvinism are we not. Calvinists have attached their own meaning to both "free will" and "total depravity" have they not?

I am surprised that modern Calvinists who are extreme in their concept of divine meticulous determinism have apparently not read these things written by the most famous Calvinists. I am thankful I spent years reading Puritan sermons and teachings before being dragged into the Calvinism debates that the modern kids were engaged in.

It is true that there is not one point of the TULIP that I would not want to modify or at least comment on before signing off on it. Sproul himself modified 3 of the points. TULIP is not the gospel and I think it is unfortunate that it has come to represent Calvinism. When I look at different systems of theology Calvinism looks pretty good and well thought out. But I have no problem with other Christians who reject it and view them as true fellow believers.

That is the point I have been truing to make, neither calvinism or arminianism is not the gospel. That is why I do not hold to either one. To my mind all these man-made theologies need to be thrown on the trash heap and just trust what the bible says in clear language. I have a number of commentaries and books by various authors but I do not use them to inform be of my faith.
I was taught long ago that the bible is it's own best commentary and that has proven to be true.

 

[Silverhair]

Exactly. ALL of that NONSENSE comes from the Pharisaic Philosophy of the antichrist Saul of Tarsus. Jesus is NOT a Calvinists: he demands HOLINESS and PERFECTION and he said it's NOT A BURDEN TO KEEP THE COMMANDS OF GOD. His perfect Life and Death was to teach us this possibility and also to remove the blood sacrifice requirement for forgiveness (like Catholics with their priestly confession, Israelites had to wait until they could go to the temple and make a sacrifice if they stumbled, living in fear until then.). He in no way abrogated any Law or commandment of Yahweh, He commanded His disciples to keep the Law, and reiterated that the Law is for ALL TIME. Saul, that figure of Balaam (Jesus warned you!), was cast out from the real apostles (he admits this) after his repeated attempts to "change laws and times and seasons" and his teaching that Jesus' death allowed for the eating of unclean meats and lying and fornicating. Come to Jesus and start serving Yahweh, not the Synagogue of Satan and their Roman cohorts.

Are you reading a different bible than the rest of us have? Where do you get your ideas from because they are not scriptural.

 

[Silverhair]

The simple alternative is to quit vilification toward peoples beliefs and simply state your understanding and allow it to sink in. Again I believe in reaching collaboration where you can and agree to disagree when we reach an impasse. That way you will partner with other Christian believers vs splitting into fractions. I’m certain and will tell you that @Kentuckyredneck, he wasn’t always a Monergistic believer… that he was raised one way, questioned that movement and eventually evolved into his present beliefs. I also have had many many modifications in my beliefs history… including agnostic atheist (where I truly considered life as a professional criminal, a low point in my life) to bouncing around from Roman Catholic, to Presbyterian & Covenantal to exploring Methodist beliefs to Baptists… what a journey but one where I learned from each experience. And you are right, they all have their zealots & there genuine Christian believers… so look for the genuine believers and accept them in spite of your perceived discrepancies. I don’t think that anybody will tell you that their beliefs are 100% correct but it’s the complete faith & belief in God the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit that earmarks us as Christians, don’t you agree?

The alternative brother is to slide into secularism and that can’t be the spiritual legacy we want to lead our children & grandchildren into. I will tell you that my wife, who was raised Dutch Reformed (a belief system very predominant in North Jersey and New York is now on life support) Anyway, my wife tells me they were strict Calvinists… so strict that people began looking for alternatives and the Dutch Reformed church crumbled. She recently told me that she sees value in reading Catholic authors. Well that’s where she is right now, that’s intellectual curiosity. Am I going to vilify her for that? Bottom line, she is committed to Christ as her Lord & Savior… so we are moving in the right direction.

I would enjoy civil discourse with fellow Christians even those that view the way to salvation differently that I do. While you and KY have moved around in your faith journey I have always been a Baptist. My bedrock is scripture, so while I will read commentaries that present various views I do not use them to inform my faith.

None of us has theology all figured out. We will continue to grow until the day we are with Christ. There are many genuine believers on this board and we all hold strong views. We all, by times, can be a bit harsh but then again family members do tend to be harder on each other than they are to strangers. At the end of the day we are still family.

We all have challenges in our lives, you it seems more that most, my prayers for you and your wife that God will strengthen you both.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Holy Spirit convicts before you understand that? God has provided all the information and holds man responsible for how they handle it. But man still has to decide what they will do with the information.

True, but you are speaking of two things here. Having all the information is not conviction. Conviction is supernatural power and is not an equal substance given to everyone at all times. Scripture is clear on that, whether talking about the denseness of the natural man, or of Satan snatching away the word, or of Jews being blinded while gentiles are brought in and so on. We observe it in times of revival and mass evangelistic successes and then times of coldness - with the information being available all the time.

Now, my own view is that God is sovereign in the spreading of the information (the gospel message) and sovereign in the enlightening by the Spirit. Everyone does not get an equal chance at this. But I do think that there is judicial activity going on during this process and it is possible to resist the grace you are given to the point of messing it up for yourself. And I think that strict Calvinism overlooks that. That is why I took notice of what all the great Calvinist preachers seemed to actually preach - "Don't trifle with the conviction you feel or the calling you experience because it may be withdrawn, leaving you with no ability to repent on your own. (Because you will not want to, not because it would be physically impossible.)

There is a branch of Calvinism that teaches that to the non elect, God has nothing to say, the gospel is not for them, they have to part in any of the means of salvation, Christ did not die for them anyway. I do not believe that. I believe, as Owen taught, that you have the expressed promise of God that regardless of any theology, if you come to Christ you have God's promise to save you. If you desire to come it has come from a conviction or a call from God and it is possible for you to mess that up. (The fact that it will turn out later that you were not elect makes no difference here. The fact that if you do come to Christ it means the call to you was "effectual" or the "I" in TULIP means nothing either.) But it does mean that more was going on than you simply evaluating the claims of the gospel and then taking a decision. Scripture does not support that.

 

[DaveXR650]

But no wonder: even the devil appears as an angel of light! (He was speaking about Paul here!)

Keep it coming. I reported you to the moderators but in case I didn't fully articulate what you are doing - keep going.

 

[Silverhair]

True, but you are speaking of two things here. Having all the information is not conviction. Conviction is supernatural power and is not an equal substance given to everyone at all times. Scripture is clear on that, whether talking about the denseness of the natural man, or of Satan snatching away the word, or of Jews being blinded while gentiles are brought in and so on. We observe it in times of revival and mass evangelistic successes and then times of coldness - with the information being available all the time.

Strange that the bible says God will hold man responsible for the information they have and that the gospel is the power of God for conviction. But what do we see, men reject the conviction of the gospel and deny God creation. Well it is obvious that having all the words does not convict all people and just as obvious those that trust in God were convicted by the information that they had or they would not have trusted in Him would they. No one is saying that all people are under the same conviction all the time but we do know that all men are at some point convicted of their sin or you have to say the Holy Spirit was being disingenuous and that God really did not mean what He said re a being saved.
I ask you Dave, do you have the same religious fervor all the time? If not why not? Does that mean that God does not care if you are trusting in Him at those times?

Now, my own view is that God is sovereign in the spreading of the information (the gospel message) and sovereign in the enlightening by the Spirit. Everyone does not get an equal chance at this. But I do think that there is judicial activity going on during this process and it is possible to resist the grace you are given to the point of messing it up for yourself. And I think that strict Calvinism overlooks that. That is why I took notice of what all the great Calvinist preachers seemed to actually preach - "Don't trifle with the conviction you feel or the calling you experience because it may be withdrawn, leaving you with no ability to repent on your own. (Because you will not want to, not because it would be physically impossible.)

God is sovereign and He will accomplish all that He intends to do. He will draw all men to Himself through various means and those that trust in Him will be saved, and those that trifle with the conviction they are feel or the calling they experience will be lost. Not because God did not want them to be saved but because they rejected the offer gift.

There is a branch of Calvinism that teaches that to the non elect, God has nothing to say, the gospel is not for them, they have to part in any of the means of salvation, Christ did not die for them anyway. I do not believe that. I believe, as Owen taught, that you have the expressed promise of God that regardless of any theology, if you come to Christ you have God's promise to save you. If you desire to come it has come from a conviction or a call from God and it is possible for you to mess that up. (The fact that it will turn out later that you were not elect makes no difference here. The fact that if you do come to Christ it means the call to you was "effectual" or the "I" in TULIP means nothing either.) But it does mean that more was going on than you simply evaluating the claims of the gospel and then taking a decision. Scripture does not support that.

Dave why do you have to resort to the calvinist buzz words to say what the bible clearly says? God draws all men not just some. The Holy Spirit convicts the whole world. The gospel is the power of God for salvation. All are called in one way or another and life shows that many do resist and reject God. There are no special pre-selected ones as calvinism seems to thing. Those that freely trust in Christ Jesus are called the elect because they are in Him. What is going on is that God has provided all the necessary information and given the ability to evaluate that information and the free will to choose how to respond to the information.

 

[DaveXR650]

God is sovereign and He will accomplish all that He intends to do.

That is actually a good, working definition of sovereignty as a Calvinist would describe it.

There are no special pre-selected ones as calvinism seems to thing.

Your problem is that you won't deal with the fact that indeed everyone is not treated the same. You cling to the concept because of an honest attempt I think to make sure God cannot be charged with unfairness. But that is not what we observe. The ancient Israelites were taken, chosen, separated out and vigorously trained by God to be his people. At the same time there were other groups wiped out for their sin, even though they were no worse than the Israelites. Yes, everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong, and creation shows us that there is a God, but to try to make that into an equal chance for everyone to believe the gospel is silly. Some people like Paul were struck down by Jesus and blinded while others quietly lived out their lives with no hint that they were on the road to perdition. This would be unfair if we were all neutral before God but is it fair if we are all truly guilty and only suffer what we deserve - that God doesn't rescue all of us equally. You know, you get offended if I say that you would have a right to boast if we were all given an equal chance and you chose wisely - yet you turn around and say that a Calvinist, who thinks it's an amazing thing that he would be rescued by by God when others no worse than him were not - is somehow guilty of thinking highly of himself because of an undeserved special blessing?

 

[Marooncat79]

The TULIP is a disgrace to the love and character of God, if you can not wrap your head around that then you will never see the truth of scripture.

actually, it is a testimony to the goodness and love of God.

We all deserve hell. Again, we all deserve hell

God chooses to save some, and I am glad that he does

if God does not elect us to salvation then no one would be saved

 

[Marooncat79]

I have said many times that God has provided all the information necessary for one to trust in Him. But man can either accept or reject that information. It is only because of the acceptance of the information and trusting in God that one can become part of the elect and have access to the blessings that the elect are predestined to have.

I am curious as to why you would think humbling yourself before God would give one reason to boast.

When you think about it would not the idea that one was chosen before the foundation of the world cause one to think they must be special and give them reason to boast? They must have been special for God to pick them over all the others.

When any group runs to the far ends of the logic pool they fall into error. That is why were are to hold to the full teaching of God as found in scripture.

What about passages which teach that “salvation is not by the will of man, but of God who shows mercy”

 

[Marooncat79]

When you think about it would not the idea that one was chosen before the foundation of the world cause one to think they must be special and give them reason to boast? They must have been special for God to pick them over all the

Not even

it’s very humbling and you see the wickedness of your heart and how close to hell you really were knowing that hell is what you deserve

the fact that God chooses to justify sinners is a very humbling experience