Flaws of Calvinism

[cjab]

Thanks for your responses, Cjab. I understand where you are coming from now. I would encourage you to reread scripture until you can believe all of it. Selecting some verses and explaining away others until you do not believe them anymore is not healthy.

I exposed a gaping sink hole in your ideology, of failing to distinguish the mind from the flesh, and you have nothing to say. The usage of the word "reprobate" in the bible concerns the mind in contradistinction to the flesh (Rom 1:28). Thus, you cannot use "reprobate" to allude to the flesh as "possessing no good thing," which is what can be alleged of all infants.

It is you who need to re-read the bible, because what you say is repugnant to true biblical theology, as even Christ himself discloses.

 

[cjab]

Good move

There is nothing worth responding to in your Gordian (k)"nots," which add zero to the world's sum of knowledge. Myriads of bible commentaries oppose any other meaning to the answer that I gave you. It is you, who would change "the whole world" into "not the whole world," who must give a full justification for excluding the "reprobate," as Calvin himself does, into which category your colleague @Zaatar71 has anyway consigned every infant who was ever birthed, as if it even made any logical sense (let alone theological sense).

Answer this: how can you be culpable before God if you were never offered the grace of God because Christ didn't die for you, which has as its corollary, AND because Moses never came to educate you?

How can Christ criticize a man if, on the one hand, man can only live by the word of God, but on the other hand, God never "enabled" a man to receive it?

 

[Brightfame52]

There is nothing worth responding to in your Gordian (k)"nots," which add zero to the world's sum of knowledge. Myriads of bible commentaries oppose any other meaning to the answer that I gave you. It is you, who would change "the whole world" into "not the whole world," who must give a full justification for excluding the "reprobate," as Calvin himself does, into which category your colleague @Zaatar71 has anyway consigned every infant who was ever birthed, as if it even made any logical sense (let alone theological sense).

Answer this: how can you be culpable before God if you were never offered the grace of God because Christ didn't die for you, which has as its corollary, AND because Moses never came to educate you?

How can Christ criticize a man if, on the one hand, man can only live by the word of God, but on the other hand, God never "enabled" a man to receive it?

God owes nobody Grace

 

[David Lamb]

God owes nobody Grace

I agree. It wouldn't be grace if it were something that God owed.

 

[Zaatar71]

I exposed a gaping sink hole in your ideology, of failing to distinguish the mind from the flesh, and you have nothing to say. The usage of the word "reprobate" in the bible concerns the mind in contradistinction to the flesh (Rom 1:28). Thus, you cannot use "reprobate" to allude to the flesh as "possessing no good thing," which is what can be alleged of all infants.

It is you who need to re-read the bible, because what you say is repugnant to true biblical theology, as even Christ himself discloses.

You might think that. What you exposed looked like unbelief in crucial teaching of scripture, that will not allow you to discover truth.I think that is what you exposed, I just did not comment on it at that time.

 

[Van]

Evaded my question

Note not one word concerning the fact the elect were once not a people and had not received mercy. Thus no individual could be elected before creation.

 

[Zaatar71]

Note not one word concerning the fact the elect were once not a people and had not received mercy. Thus no individual could be elected before creation.

you still do not understand the verses in Hosea, until you do, you will not find truth

 

[Van]

you still do not understand the verses in Hosea, until you do, you will not find truth

Here we see another mindless "taint so" post, addressing my supposed flaws rather than the topic.
Note not one word concerning the fact the elect were once not a people and had not received mercy. Thus no individual could be elected before creation.

 

[Zaatar71]

Here we see another mindless "taint so" post, addressing my supposed flaws rather than the topic.
Note not one word concerning the fact the elect were once not a people and had not received mercy. Thus no individual could be elected before creation.

We explained this to you three times now. You do not want to accept truth. You make up your own reality like it was a twilight zone episode. Rod Serling would be quite impressed; however those who know scripture are aghast at your outer limits ideas. Are you a sci fi buff?

 

[Van]

We explained this to you three times now. You do not want to accept truth. You make up your own reality like it was a twilight zone episode. Rod Serling would be quite impressed; however those who know scripture are aghast at your outer limits ideas. Are you a sci fi buff?

Ah, the ol victory in the unreferenced past routine once again from the springs without water posters. It never ends folks, now we get the ol "you made it up" routine just like what was claimed about God granting something can mean God allowing something. They claimed that was made up too.

The mindless taint so posts will continue from the Calvinists. That is literally all they have, as their false doctrine is never actually found in scripture.

 

[Van]

"Doctrines of Grace. "

General offer of Reconciliation
Resistible Grace
Ability to believe
Conditional Election
Eternal Security

 

[Van]

Let us consider various translations of Acts 13:48:

KJV = ordained
NKJV = appointed
LEB = designated
TLB = wanted
NOG = prepared
TLV = inscribed
WE = before chosen

Clearly those who believe individuals were chosen for salvation individually before creation read into this verse a prior election by God. So setting that agenda driven mistranslation aside, we are left with appointed, designated and wanted.

Now lets look at the actual Greek word, "tasso" (G5021):

Here is how the KJV translates the word:
Matthew 28:16 = appointed
Luke 7:8 = set
Acts 13:48 = ordained
Acts 15:2 = determined
Acts 22:10 = appointed
Acts 28:23 = appointed
Romans 13:1 = ordained
1 Corinthians 16:15 = addicted

However, if we consider all 8 usages of the word, they always refers to an arrangement mutually agreed upon. For example, if the gospel says the way to eternal life is to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, then, those that agree and accept that revelation presented by Paul, made the appointment. Just like when we accept the time and place our Doctor specifies, we make an appointment with our doctor.

By the numbers:

In Mathew 28:16 the disciples agreed to meet Jesus at the specified place.
In Luke 7:8 the officer agrees to use the authority specified.
In Acts 13:48 as many as had accepted the specified way to eternal life believed.
In Acts 15:2 Paul and others accepted the arrangement to go to Jerusalem.
In Acts 22:10 Paul accepts the things that were specified for him to do.
In Acts 28:23 people accepted the arranged day to hear Paul preach
In Romans 13:1 we are to accept the governing authority's direction established by God.
1 Corinthians 16:15 the household had accepted the ministry to the Saints.

 

[Van]

How does scripture actually present the order of divine actions accomplishing individual salvation in Christ?

1) God provides the revelation in the form of the gospel
2) The person's heart has not been hardened, thus they hear and respond to the draw of the gospel
3) God, who knows their heart either rejects or accepts the person's faith and if He accepts, credits the person's faith as righteousness.
4) On the basis of his or her credited faith, God transfers the person spiritually into Christ, where they undergo the washing of regeneration.
5) Once established (born anew) in Christ they are sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever.​

These are the truths being denied by Calvinism.

 

[Brightfame52]

Note not one word concerning the fact the elect were once not a people and had not received mercy. Thus no individual could be elected before creation.

You continue to evade

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1630 FMT - 830 EDT

 

[JonC]

Note not one word concerning the fact the elect were once not a people and had not received mercy. Thus no individual could be elected before creation.

This is an interesting fact of Scripture. In the Bible being "elect" is positional to being "in" the Elect (in "God's Ekect", "in Christ").

Calvinists often lift parts of Romans 8 to defend their theories, but they ignore that this "foreknowledge" is based on the Elect (Christ) and these predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ.

Nowhere in the Bible are "the elect" lost.

 

[Charlie24]

This is an interesting fact of Scripture. In the Bible being "elect" is positional to being "in" the Elect (in "God's Ekect", "in Christ").

Calvinists often lift parts of Romans 8 to defend their theories, but they ignore that this "foreknowledge" is based on the Elect (Christ) and these predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ.

Nowhere in the Bible are "the elect" lost.

Jon, I understand your purpose in this post and I know your intentions are good. But for the benefit of all we should understand the Biblical use of the word "elect."

95% of the time in Scripture the context reveals the word "elect" to be those in Christ. But there is another use of the word "elect" referring to the lost of His chosen people Israel.

Isaiah 45:4

“For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.”

Israel is God's elect in the same way as being chosen in Christ, but with a different purpose than salvation. They were chosen through the faith of their father Abraham to accept their Messiah and announce Him to the Gentile world. They failed in that calling and still to this day they are His Elect but not saved.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I understand your purpose in this post and I know your intentions are good. But for the benefit of all we should understand the Biblical use of the word "elect."

95% of the time in Scripture the context reveals the word "elect" to be those in Christ. But there is another use of the word "elect" referring to the lost of His chosen people Israel.

Isaiah 45:4

“For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.”

Israel is God's elect in the same way as being chosen in Christ, but with a different purpose than salvation. They were chosen through the faith of their father Abraham to accept their Messiah and announce Him to the Gentile world. They failed in that calling and still to this day they are His Elect but not saved.

I agree that most of the time the Bible uses "the elect" to mean those who are "in Christ".

I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I worded it poorly (my bad).

The "elect" are those "in the Elect" (those "in Christ"). We are chosen "in Him".

My point is that this is often misapplied to mean that those who do not believe. But in the Bible nobody is called "the elect" except that they are saved.

Christ Himself is the criteria.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Charlie24]

I agree that most of the time the Bible uses "the elect" to mean those who are "in Christ".

I think you misunderstood my point, probably because I worded it poorly (my bad).

The "elect" are those "in the Elect" (those "in Christ"). We are chosen "in Him".

My point is that this is often misapplied to mean that those who do not believe. But in the Bible nobody is called "the elect" except that they are saved.

Christ Himself is the criteria.

Does that make more sense?

In the context of salvation, yes, it makes perfect sense.

 

[JonC]

In the context of salvation, yes, it makes perfect sense.

That is what I meant. I know Abraham, Moses, Jacob, etc. were elected for specific purposes.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.