Featured Does God Always Get His Way With Man?

Van said
Disagree!!!! The chosen/elect are those whose faith, chosen by their own volition, has been credited as righteousness by God.​

The issue is not that the fallen choose by their own volition to trust in Christ.

The issue is that choice does not necessarily result in salvation. God must credit that faith as righteousness. He knows who believes and who are the lip service folks.

 

What you call a "nit-pick" is a fundamental doctrinal divide. It does not go without saying. You still have not said it.

The issue is that choice to put our trust in Christ does not necessarily result in salvation.

It is God who puts us into Christ, we do not put ourselves into Christ when we profess belief, no matter how sincere and deeply rooted. God can choose not to credit a person's "faith" as in Matthew 7, where people said "Lord, Lord" but that profession did not result in salvation.

 

The Easy Believism of "if you say the right prayer" you will be automatically saved is false doctrine.

God knows who believes, (John 6:44) and it is His call as to whom to save. Romans 9:16.

 

A total misrepresentation of Scripture, Romans 10:13-14, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

 

...that wasn't very nice...

 

Matthew 11:28-30, Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

 

I believe my view of a total depravity is Biblical.
You can believe my view is not Biblical. But don't just accuse! Explain why. Or make explicit it is your reasoning.

 

I agree, ky. I was a little surprised, considering the poster.

 

I am addressing what I have underlined for edification purposes only.

Peter is wring his epistle to the strangers who are in the region we now know as Asia Minor. It was not just to strangers, generic, to whom he wrote, but to THE strangers in that region. These were strangers because they were of the "circumcision" who for the past 700 years were dispersed out of their own land in northern Palestine because of the judgement of God and for his eternal purposes. They were not going to be estranged from God forever but they would not be reclaimed nationally until every one of them were saved and were called "children of God." Until then, they were cut off from the national covenants of Israel, the people of God and considered by God as gentiles, being under the physical rule of the gentiles and partakers of many of their customs. These are the same people and gentiles of Romans 9.

The Judean Jews were a hindrance to these people and attempted to impose the Jewish laws on those who became Christians, which was anathema to both God and Paul, who wrote the epistle to the churches of Galatia where much of their activities were centered. There were real gentiles there as well and they too was led astray by these Judaizers.

Now, there is a body of study in the scriptures for what I am saying here and the Jewish Christian epistles is a dangerous place to build ones church doctrine on because Peter is emphasizing national and family promises in the context of the church of Jesus Christ.

I will give a couple verses to be pondered in this context.

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

No one in that day and age would have agreed that they were a nation at that time in history and it was not the intent of Peter to have them believe they were. Why? Because he called them "strangers." The church is not a nation, but at some point these people will be and as God sees them they are.

The Ephesian church was in this same area and here is what Paul said to them that he never said to a European church group.

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.

One should study the division of the Nation of Israel into two nations and consider the prophecies to each. I encourage the reading of the prophet Hosea who was contemporary with Isaiah, who addressed his prophecy to Jerusalem and Judah.

Here is an excerpt from Hosea to these people that Peter is addressing.

6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

These are those to whom Paul referred in Romans about having no mercy, and God did not until Jesus came and now every one who is born again is called a son of God.

 

Yes. And @kyredneck did cite what I did post.

 

No. I did use the word "Liar."
See Post #78.
Does God Always Get His Way With Man?

 

See when you come on and simply declare that a passage written by Owen as part of his own works doesn't apply then how can we have a two way discussion. Your mind is made up. The thing you and all those who hate Calvinism are missing is the fact that what Owen said there in my quote is the way they preach and operate. All the hateful rhetoric against Calvinism stems from a starting idea that there is the possibility of people wanting to come to Christ but can't because God won't let them. If that isn't true then you have to drop the whole straw man argument.

Calvinist theology starts with two main points. One is that all of us start out guilty before God to the point where we could justifiable be damned. We are in that condition from birth by nature and confirm our membership in that inclusive club as soon as we are able to willfully sin. The second point is that our problem of not being "able" to come to God on our own stems from a defective will. It is a moral inability and therefore is blamable to us. All this talk about our free will is therefore useless because our free will is our main problem.

I have said before that you don't have to be a Calvinist. Don't give up the benefit of their literature and sermons because of disagreements over the more minor issues. Now I have been on here a few years and during that time I would say that Calvinists usually dish out abuse way more than they take it so I fully understand your animosity. I have been on the receiving end of it too. There are Calvinists who believe that you are probably not saved if you are not a Calvinist. And there are non-Calvinists who believe that the theology is blasphemous. And there are good people who after taking so much lash out in unhelpful ways, for example Wesley's sermon "Free Grace" #128. I would just say, don't do that.

 

Dave, I have said before that I respect you as a man with a sociable and moderate temperament. Because you are we can discuss issues. Having said that, you want to view every Calvinist as approaching it as you do when I think few Calvinists are as moderate as you are. That which, in my mind at least, defines Calvinism is the T.U.L.I.P. The Calvinists developed this acrostic to define and summarize their doctrinal system. Some people will call extreme Calvinists "hyper" but I do not think it is because of the acrostic but the emphasis on other doctrines that are unique to false religions like the doctrine of "determinism" or "sovereign grace" or election of a few prechosen elect like maybe 144,000. But, I think the agreement on the TULIP is near total among the Reformed of all stripes. This makes me separate from this reasoning because there is no part of this that I think is scriptural. I reject all 5 points and a man who accepts this as defining his fundamental belief of God on which all other doctrines rest has really nothing to say that I want to hear.

Does Owen and these others believe the TULIP? I know I read somewhere from one of Spurgeon's sermons where he said, "Calvinism is the gospel." Does he mean the TULIP is the gospel? I do not approach this as a minor issue. I do not intend to be hateful and mean about this and try to insult you and brow beat you but I am holding firm as it being a system that i do not want to fellowship with or to support.

 

...that wasn't very nice either...