Something I don't understand about Calvinism

Scott..if you're saved how on earth is there a possiblility of you perishing??? If you're of the "ELECT" how are you ever in danger of perishing?? </font>[/QUOTE]IMO it does refer to the elect, but not necessarily the immediate readers of 2 Peter. The lost sheep who belong to Jesus may be elect, but they are still lost until Jesus "finds" them.

So this passage makes perfect sense either way (whether you see it from the free-will perspective or predestination). In the former sense, it refers to anyone. In the latter, it refers to those elect that have not yet been brought into the kingdom.

 

Helen,

I am agreeing with the position you have given here. But I find it inconsistent with the position that you hold overall. I simply don't understand how you reconcile it. That's all

 

This has to do with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. St. Peter is telling them to make sure that they are really of the elect, not to just assume or to take things for granted. As has been stated innumerable times before, the Scriptures teach both sovereignty and responsibility. We must hold both. We must teach both. "Calvinists" always have, and always will.

Rev. G

 

Close to home? Scripture teaches both!

First, God does not save us without regard to our will. He liberates the enslaved will (without asking "permission"), which is in rebellion against Him, so that it is able to freely choose Christ.

Second, people are always responsible (as previously stated).

We DO choose Christ, after He enables us to do so (Jn. 6:65) and gives us faith.

Rev. G

 

Not quite rev. G. Your theology qualifies "whosover" by implication by quickly adding (whosoever) believes that was chosen to believe before the foundations of the world. Slight difference wouldn't you say..

You say that those that will believe are those that are chosen by God to believe. I do not buy your extreme concept of total depravity. I say that it is the Gospel, the word of God unto salvation. You say irrresistible grace, I say grace...

Grace is mentioned over and over again in the bible. Irresistible grace is a projection of your extreme view of total depravity. Never mentioned..

We may not know precisely what it is, but we know that it was not hidden from some and mercifully given to others. We know that we might not be right, yet we know that you are wrong..

All is of God, who is not stingy with his grace or his mercy.
2 Cor 4:15
15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. (KJV)

1 Pet 1:3
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (KJV)

1 Tim 1:14-15
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Abundant means that he has more than enough for all.

Notice that he said that he came to save sinners. He did not qualify it by adding, "only if they are the elect...

It describes a condition of the heart through which men gain access to the gift of salvation. A gift that your theology takes away from the greater part of creation because you attempt to call yourselves God's chosen people to the exclusion of others. That is one of the hurtful things of what you believe.

[ November 08, 2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

Quite, Chappie. Read it in the Greek. John 3:16 makes the statement that the one who / whoever believes shall be saved. The individual who does A (believes) receives B (salvation).

First, I personally do not like the term "irresistible grace," as I have stated several times elsewhere. I hold to the "doctrines of grace." And it is by grace alone that anyone is saved. It is God, in His loving grace who overcomes man's sinful, hard, cold, rebellious heart. It is not "my" concept of total depravity. The Scriptures declare that the heart is deceitful, that human beings are spiritually deaf, spiritually blind, hateful to God, etc. Look at your own posts, friend. You have set aside the Scriptures and placed your own personal experience above them (e.g., "I never hated God"). Others have done essentially the same ("Paul was just misguided").

Chappie, if it is not hidden from some, then why do the Gospels and Acts speak of this very thing? Every single Gospel and the Book of Acts state this. As for your statement, "We know that we might not be right, yet we know that you are wrong.." My! You've certainly covered all of your bases with that sttement, haven't you?

No, God isn't stingy with His mercy. We who are Reformed have consistently proclaimed that He is very generous with His grace. So much so that people from EVERY tribe and tongue and people on the face of the earth will be saved (Rev. 5:9).

How interesting that you quote 1 Peter 1:3. Notice what it says, Chappie. "According to His abundant mercy HATH BEGOTTEN US AGAIN..." Or, another way to translate it, "He has caused us to be born again." Pause and meditate.

Of course Christ came into the world to save sinners. Who else would He come to save, Chappie? However, you ARE ignoring numerous passages to make your claim. Mt. 1:21 for example.

Chappie:
Here is an example of the rhetoric I have been trying to work against. No "Calvinist" has ever claimed that "we" are "God's chosen people to the exclusion of others."

Chappie, "our theology" does not take away the gift of salvation from the greater part of creation. The one who believes will be saved. We affirm this. If anyone is lost, it is owing to their own rebellion, not anything else. How many times do we have to declare this until it sinks into your mind?

Chappie, do you want to seriously deal with the foreknowledge of God issue (rather than just mentioning it in passing)? Take YOUR theology to its logical conclusions. Are you willing to do that? You will end up wrestling with some of the same issues if you are honest about it.

Rev. G

 

What are the implicit indications of the word "whosoever/who ever"?

Is grace, then just grace? What (if any} adjectives do you use to describe grace?

We need to subject your comments to the confines of reality. The bible states that one must be born of the spirit and of water before one can be born again. My point being that nothing in scripture stands alone. Second point, if i volitionally come to Christ, asking, what must I do to be saved? Salvation would still be of grace and grace alone..

The new believer must be regenerated before he is saved, this i believe that you advocate. Subject to regeneration, one is still saved by grace and grace alone.

My point.
Grace is a process, not just a single act. I contend that frewill is an ingredient of the process of grace. One needs to experience the whole process. At the end of the process, it is Christ that makes the final decision. Therefore, in the manner that you suggest grace, and grace alone; in that reality, it is Christ, and Christ alone that saves.

My children are deceitful, but they can still hear my voice.

It is in our physical reality that God calls us to hear him. You know eyes that see, ears that hear, voices, words. Miracles that are visible to the naked eyes. Did he not become a human physical being. Why, because he knew that we could not understand spiritual thing. He became human that we may learn to understand spiritual things.

Rev., if it was my intention to say that Paul was misguided: You probably know by now that I am probably just stupid enough, and misguidely honest enough to say it.

Nevertheless, before Paul and before God, I stand unashamed to reassert what i did say. I have never taken the time to hate God, I have done many things in my life that were hateful to God. The passage in question leaves room to be intreperted that way. If scripture leaves me room to be honest, what advantage is gained by taking it away from me?

When you can change those comments to reflect that he has provided opportunity for people from every tribe and tongue to be saved. Then I can see it in the bible. The question is not that he redeemed out of every kindred and tongue, it's how he accomplished redemption. No infrence to salvational predestination

Paused and meditated. Salvation is all of God. Nothing that we do can effect salvation. We can reject it, but we cannot cause it. If we reject it, in this lifetime; we will justly suffer the consequences.

Although we come into this world in a state of rejection, it is in this lifetime that we are afforded the opportunity to end that rejection. If God does not give us that opportunity, there is no justice in punishing one for not doing so.

God could have just as easily zapped everyone of us into oblivion without a single negative thought about it. But he made it a matter of justice. God did that.

A good judge judges prudently, wisely, and justly. This is where election fails, it is in the heavenly halls of justice. It fails at the great white throne of J-U-D-G-E-M-E-N-T. Had God not decided to hold court, neither you nor i, neither my theology or your theology would be judged.

I have not ignored a single passage Rev., God is love, that is the truth through which all scripture must pass. If it is true, that God is love; them it is love through which his power, his sovereignty, and all else that we know about him must pass.

Implicitness, you are the elect. Elect = chosen. You are people. Elect, chosen; people. chosen people. Those that are not chosen are excluded. Two scenarios exist here. Chosen people, excluded people. Wheither you say it or not does not change what is implied.

Implicitness. Narrow is the gate and few there be that find it. Implicitness, the one that is caused to believe, will be saved. It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe.

If I can do "nothing" to save myself, is not my fate totally in the hands of someone or something else. If in this life, I have never had the power to do good, why am i judged accountable and eternally punishable for being the only thing that was ever possible for me to be.

How long will you have to tell me that, untill it makes some sense to me while dealing with everything that is implied. My prayer right now is that you or someone will explain to me how it is possible to be judged punishably guilty of being the thing that I was created. Adam was created innocent and sinned, i was conceived in sin and shappened in iniquity by my God. If he gives me the opportunity to change and I do not, THEN I AM GUILTY in reality. Not just declared guilty. I AM VOLITIONALLY GUILTY.

I have always been honest Rev. G. That's why I stay in trouble. What i write, i feel. Well with the exception of a few ocvcasions where i have had to apologize.

But yes, I would like to honestly explore it to it's conclusion.

 

By George, I think he's got it.

Conversely, if you had the power to do good, you would not need a savior. So whether or not you approach this from free will or predestination, you must admit you do not have the power to do good, or at least the power to do enough good consistently so as to be sinless and merit right standing with God.

At that point, what difference does it make if you have free will or not? We all start out in rebellion, therefore the ones who remain in rebellion are still being punished for being born the only way it was possible for them to be.

You seem to have this illusion that if you inject free will into this scenario, it somehow makes the whole system fair. It's not. Indeed, your scenario far more unfair than I think you realize.

I once used the analogy of kids and brocolli to illustrate that, left to their own free will, you won't get kids to eat brocolli simply by informing them of the benefits and then leaving it up to them to make a free-will decision. Why? Because they are inclined to hate brocolli.

But the reality is far worse. Assuming we're the children, we not only are disinclined to like brocolli, God cursed us to inherit an addiction to poisonous candy! So we eat candy all day long and never choose brocolli, and are happy in our "free-will" decision to love our candy addiction. Then along comes God and offers us a free will choice to eat brocolli. Yet if we prefer and choose of our own "free-will" the addicted condition into which we were born, a condition we did not receive by choice but inherited, He shrugs His proverbial shoulders and allows us to remained condemned for eternity! And He does this despite the fact that our choice is so heavily influenced by the very addiction that God cursed us with -- a curse we inherited just because some guy who didn't know right from wrong disobeyed Him 6,000 years ago!

What's worse, it sounds like you would have us believe that if someone chooses to stick with his God-given addiction to candy of his own free will, God would never violate that decision because God considers our free-will to be more sacred than our eternal destiny! And you say Calvinism is cruel?

The bottom line is that we don't know why God chooses to do things the way He does, and as He said in multiple places in the Bible (Isaiah 45 is one I've used recently), it is outrageous for us to pretend to be able to judge his plans to be fair or unfair. So, IMO, to foster the idea that free will is true just because you have a personal view that it's the only way salvation would be fair is reasoning that is completely without merit. None of us here has a clue as to what makes the system fair, no matter how it works. We don't see it from His perspective, so we have no way to know. But I trust that it is fair, however it works, because God is righteous, loving and just.

(Edited for consistency with our original condition.)

[ November 08, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

That it can't be used as a "whosoever will" passage in the sense of, "This disproves election. Everyone is able, because of the power of their own will, to place faith in Christ."

Grace is grace. Yes. If I do use an adjective, I'll use "overcoming." That adjective helps to show that God's grace overcomes sin and rebellion. But, I generally refer to grace as "grace."

I'm not sure that I understand everything that you are saying. However, I will assert that I DO believe that one must be born-again in order to exercise "free will" FOR Christ.

I agree that grace is a process. It doesn't end with justification, either. Salvation is all of grace. From beginning to end. And grace is based upon the work of Christ, and upon His work alone.

"My children," yes. Children of the evil one, no. Look at Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees on that point (in John). We have no problem perceiving the physical. The problem is the spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-9, etc.).

Is "hate" to be understood according to OUR definition, or according to God's? If I defined it in my way, I'd be right there with you. When I was lost I never felt like I "hated" God. But, that is what the Scriptures state. We have to understand it from God's perspective. In this same regard, I would never have considered myself an idolater. I never bowed down to a chunk of rock or a piece of wood. When you understand that the prohibition goes much deeper than that, that it has to do with loving God with every fiber of your being and not putting anything else before Him, you quickly see how we have all been guilty of idolatry.

How He accomplished it. Yes, that is an issue between us. I believe what I do because of Dan. 7:13-14, and the many passages in John (and elsewhere) where it speaks of those whom the Father has given to the Son.

Yes, everyone everywhere is commanded to trust Christ alone and repent of their sins. That command and that invitation are given to all. The problem, however, is that matter of the rejecting heart. Election does not fail at the judgment. At this point, from a historical referece, you are following the error of Pelagius. Absolute justice would mean this: everyone is sent to Hell without a "chance." No "Pass Go." No "Get Out of Jail" Card. Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace has to do with not getting what you deserve, but what another (Christ) deserves.

God IS love. We don't deny that. We do assert, however, that holiness is God's chief attribute. The Scripture declares God "is" two things: Love & Holy. Holy is declared three times. Love just once. So, if you want to deal with what should "filter" our beliefs - look first at holiness. When you begin with holiness, it affects the way you understand more gratefully God's great and marvelous love.

You are simply wrong here, Chappie. "We" ("Calvinists") have never claimed that "we" are "God's chosen people." We have claimed this only for believers - for the Church (which includes "Arminians" such as yourself).

EXACTLY!!!!! Salvation is all of grace - it is all of God!

Because the one who rebels against God WANTS to, and WILLINGLY does so, and because such an individual is a free moral agent.

Actually, people who are born in sin and who choose to sin are volitionally guilty. That is why the Scriptures declare, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Guilt has nothing to do with "opportunity." We are guilty by birth and by choice - and God holds us responsible for the choice.

Analogy (remembering that all analogies can break down at some point): A woman, who lives in a prison, gives birth to a baby boy. The boy grows up in the cell. It is impossible for him to leave the confines under his own power. Year after year he has resided in the cell - a place where he feels secure and "at home." The warden comes and opens the door and tells the man to leave the cell. The young man refuses because he loves his home and does not want to have anything to do with the "outside." The warden tells him that a fire is raging, and will soon consume the cell. The young man still refuses because he does not trust the warden. He perishes in the flames.

Who is responsible for the death? Is the warden responsible, or the young man? The young man, not the warden.

Same analogy, modified: The warden comes and opens the door. The young man refuses to leave. The warden, because of his concern for the young man. wraps his arms around him and picks him up. He takes him outside. For the first time the young man sees the sunshine, hears the birds, smells the flowers, and so forth. For the first time he is glad to be outside of his cell. He rejoices in the warden, who not only opened the door, but who actually brought him to freedom.

Get the picture?

Rev. G