A Question for Calvinist here

[convicted1]

Just curious, C1, but I'm trying to comprehend this statement. The way I've read the scriptures, Jesus might have a disdain for the actions of people, but He still loved them. He still desired them to repent. If He displayed such disdain for the Pharisees, then how did Nicodemus come to have such a relationship with Jesus that he came by night to hear the Lord's words, that he defended Jesus before the Pharisees, and that he came with spices for anointing the body of Christ? How was Saul/Paul a "chosen vessel," as he admits publicly to being a Pharisee?

I really don't understand how Calvinists can see God limiting His love to only a select few when I don't see that in scripture. I see scriptures stating that Christ died for all men, or for the whole world. Why would God refer only to the physical planet earth as being what He loved when the scripture plainly reveals that the earth is saved to a melting with a fervent heat?

Where was God's love for Pharaoh in Moses' day? Where was God's love when he utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

God chose Noah and seven other souls and destroyed all other flesh and started over. God chose Abram and his lineage. In Israel's wonderings in the desert, where was God's love for the Hittites, Perizites, Jebusites, Philistines?

In regards to love, I mean His electing love. God chose Noah's family and destroyed the rest. God chose Abram and his lineage, and the rest were left out. God made a covenant with Israel, the twelve tribes of Jacob. He did not make a covenant with everyone who has ever lived.

People who say God isn't impartial, better read their bible again, imo...

 

[PreachTony]

People who say God isn't impartial, better read their bible again, imo...

I wanted to move this quote to the beginning, because it will inform the rest of my reply. In Acts 10:34-35, we read "34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Where was God's love for Pharaoh in Moses' day? Where was God's love when he utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

The implications of the scripture listed above, to me, speaks to a stiuations surrounding Pharoah and the world of Noah. Pharoah's heart was hardened by God, yes...but only after Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart. It is akin, I believe, to God turning people over to a reprobate mind. They are so hardened against God that God allows them to depart. But there is a level of impartiality with God, as Peter noted that God did not respect the nationality, or gender of a person, but rather looks inwardly at the individual, and note also that there were works to be done by the individual to gain acceptance.

As to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible is silent on any possible attempts at making in-roads toward repentance with the people therein. Could attempts have been made? We just don't know. It's shortsighted to say that, since the Bible doesn't say anything about it, then nothing ever happened. By that logic, the rest of the world was just sitting idle while Abram was moving about. (Not that you have, C1, but it's an argument I've heard too many times.)

God chose Noah and seven other souls and destroyed all other flesh and started over. God chose Abram and his lineage. In Israel's wonderings in the desert, where was God's love for the Hittites, Perizites, Jebusites, Philistines?

We are told that, in Noah's day, the heart of man was given over to wickedness. Noah is called a preacher of righteousness. But it seems no one believed his message. Paul tells the Romans that man has basically always known of God, but through man's own sinfulness we have turned from God and given more glory to the creation than the Creator, and have devised our own wicked imaginings of what God is.

As to God's love for the Hittites, Perizites, Jebusites, Philistines? Where was God's love for those who died in the collapse of the Tower of Siloam? Jesus delivered a pretty straightforward message to the people about the condition of those who died in that accident. They didn't die because God did not love them. They did not die because they were guilty of greater sin. They died. People die all the time. It does not mean that God harbors some sort of hatred for them. The physical body has to die, per the scripture.

In regards to love, I mean His electing love. God chose Noah's family and destroyed the rest. God chose Abram and his lineage, and the rest were left out. God made a covenant with Israel, the twelve tribes of Jacob. He did not make a covenant with everyone who has ever lived.

So are the Elect are direct descendants of the twelve tribes? After all, that was who God's covenant was with. Remember, C1, that you're talking about the old covenant. Hebrews 8:13 states "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." And Hebrews 12:22-24 states "22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

 

[Yeshua1]

It is sad but true that a few who joined this board many years ago have left the Baptist faith and have joined the RCC's. "God allowed them to believe that doctrine???"
While here some left Calvinism. "God allowed them to become non-Cals??"
Some, on their own accord chose to believe Calvinist doctrine. It was their choice. And yet, "one cannot become a Calvinist unless God allows them to believe the doctrine??"

How do you sort through all of this and yet still be consistent in your position?

Would say that the Holy Spirit will bring to every sincere Christian, one who is studying and applying the principles of the scriptures to really know and use the truths in there better...

Would also say that we will NEVER all agree on all things of the scriptures, as some of us are closer to what the Bible really teaches on certain issues, but none of us have it sully understood, much less fully applied!

 

[Yeshua1]

I wanted to move this quote to the beginning, because it will inform the rest of my reply. In Acts 10:34-35, we read "34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."


The implications of the scripture listed above, to me, speaks to a stiuations surrounding Pharoah and the world of Noah. Pharoah's heart was hardened by God, yes...but only after Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart. It is akin, I believe, to God turning people over to a reprobate mind. They are so hardened against God that God allows them to depart. But there is a level of impartiality with God, as Peter noted that God did not respect the nationality, or gender of a person, but rather looks inwardly at the individual, and note also that there were works to be done by the individual to gain acceptance.

As to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible is silent on any possible attempts at making in-roads toward repentance with the people therein. Could attempts have been made? We just don't know. It's shortsighted to say that, since the Bible doesn't say anything about it, then nothing ever happened. By that logic, the rest of the world was just sitting idle while Abram was moving about. (Not that you have, C1, but it's an argument I've heard too many times.)


We are told that, in Noah's day, the heart of man was given over to wickedness. Noah is called a preacher of righteousness. But it seems no one believed his message. Paul tells the Romans that man has basically always known of God, but through man's own sinfulness we have turned from God and given more glory to the creation than the Creator, and have devised our own wicked imaginings of what God is.

As to God's love for the Hittites, Perizites, Jebusites, Philistines? Where was God's love for those who died in the collapse of the Tower of Siloam? Jesus delivered a pretty straightforward message to the people about the condition of those who died in that accident. They didn't die because God did not love them. They did not die because they were guilty of greater sin. They died. People die all the time. It does not mean that God harbors some sort of hatred for them. The physical body has to die, per the scripture.


So are the Elect are direct descendants of the twelve tribes? After all, that was who God's covenant was with. Remember, C1, that you're talking about the old covenant. Hebrews 8:13 states "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." And Hebrews 12:22-24 states "22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

Would you not agree that from the very beginning of human historym God has chosen to work in and thru the lives of those whom he chose for the purpose of salvation though?

That He was the one bringing them to Himsel, not that all were seeking and searching after Him?

And that He has always reserved unto Himself a faithful remnant of humanity to be known by him, and to be saved unto His purposes?

 

[PreachTony]

Would you not agree that from the very beginning of human historym God has chosen to work in and thru the lives of those whom he chose for the purpose of salvation though?

Absolutely God has always worked through people. I can't necessarily say that I hold to final part of your statement, as I do not hold to Calvinism. I just happen to believe in a general, universal call to repentance. I believe that the Word was meant for Israel from the beginning, but it was also noted that after a set time the Word would go to the Gentiles as well. There are instances, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, where the Word went out prior to that time. Peter was shown a vision of a sheet let down from Heaven, and through that vision, I believe, recognized that the Word was now fully commissioned unto the Gentiles.

That He was the one bringing them to Himsel, not that all were seeking and searching after Him?

And that He has always reserved unto Himself a faithful remnant of humanity to be known by him, and to be saved unto His purposes?

My only issue with this, Y1, is that it renders man as nothing more than a puppet acted upon by the will of God. If that is so, then why provide a list of commandments to us? If we have no free will, then if we sin some higher power had to make us to sin. However, if we have free will, then we have the freedom to choose to sin or not. I believe this is the condition of mankind as shown in the Bible.

Or do you believe that Christ drew the young rich man unto Himself, just so He could turn him away? That's not the Jesus I read about.

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely God has always worked through people. I can't necessarily say that I hold to final part of your statement, as I do not hold to Calvinism. I just happen to believe in a general, universal call to repentance. I believe that the Word was meant for Israel from the beginning, but it was also noted that after a set time the Word would go to the Gentiles as well. There are instances, such as the Samaritan woman at the well, where the Word went out prior to that time. Peter was shown a vision of a sheet let down from Heaven, and through that vision, I believe, recognized that the Word was now fully commissioned unto the Gentiles.


My only issue with this, Y1, is that it renders man as nothing more than a puppet acted upon by the will of God. If that is so, then why provide a list of commandments to us? If we have no free will, then if we sin some higher power had to make us to sin. However, if we have free will, then we have the freedom to choose to sin or not. I believe this is the condition of mankind as shown in the Bible.

Or do you believe that Christ drew the young rich man unto Himself, just so He could turn him away? That's not the Jesus I read about.

Do you understand the scriptures to teach that we all still have real free will as Adam once had, or not then?

 

[The Archangel]

Just curious, C1, but I'm trying to comprehend this statement. The way I've read the scriptures, Jesus might have a disdain for the actions of people, but He still loved them. He still desired them to repent. If He displayed such disdain for the Pharisees, then how did Nicodemus come to have such a relationship with Jesus that he came by night to hear the Lord's words, that he defended Jesus before the Pharisees, and that he came with spices for anointing the body of Christ? How was Saul/Paul a "chosen vessel," as he admits publicly to being a Pharisee?

I really don't understand how Calvinists can see God limiting His love to only a select few when I don't see that in scripture. I see scriptures stating that Christ died for all men, or for the whole world. Why would God refer only to the physical planet earth as being what He loved when the scripture plainly reveals that the earth is saved to a melting with a fervent heat?

But... think of the context of "World." I don't in any way agree with the idea that "world" means "elect." There is no textual connection that makes that statement correct. But, there is no way "world" can be "all men without exception."

The way John uses Kosmos is of great interest throughout his writings. But, in this instance, John is reporting on Jesus interaction with Nicodemus--a Jew. Jews of Jesus' day could not and would not fathom that God would have any regard for a Gentile. The Jews of Jesus' day were suffering from a hyper-nationalistic fervor that presupposed that God loved the Jews unconditionally and hated the Gentiles. Of course, the blessings of Christ were always to be for "the whole world" (See Genesis 12, etc.)

So, when, John (who is likely commenting here; it isn't likely that this is Jesus' talking) says "for God so loved the world" he's saying that the sending of the Son is for all, not just the Jews. The statement is repulsively revolutionary for the Jew--God loves the Gentiles, too. And, for the Jew, it is further problematic that a Gentile who believes in the Savior can be saved.

Context matters.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

steaver

Are you sure you read what he said????

Yes Steaver...I read what he posted;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
AA offered a good post and response offering his view on how I express my view.

He has described how he thinks some of what I say is a stretch and he is not comfortable with my explanation...

I do not see where he has "spoken out" against what i say. The issue being discussed has some nuance.I am not a spokesmen for all persons. If I ask AA some questions we will agree on many things...the two issues are
Does God reveal truth to a believer?

Are what is called Calvinism the truths revealed by God?

Are you sure you read what he said????


Quote:
Misrepresenting?

I might think that Icon gets it wrong--that he is mistaken--but "misrepresenting" is far too harsh of a word.

Icon is sharing his understanding which, IMO, is flawed for a number of reasons. However, there is a very low likelihood that he's intentionally seeking to lead people away from the truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by steaver
Icon says that the Calvinist camp agree with his comments and his scripture proof text which he gives for such comments. I have yet to see one other Calvinist chime in and declare Icon correct or incorrect. The closest we have to an agreement is Willis, but he agrees with everything Icon says and doesn't give it any consideration...if Icon says it is so, then it is Divine Truth.

Some, I'm sure, do agree with him. I'm one who does not.


The Archangel

Steaver..
I always read what AA.posts and enjoy his posts. He has every right to post his opinion. He has every right to differ from me.

If he differs and offers correction...I will pay attention. I am not immune from correction, and many times in the past I have been corrected.
If I respect and enjoy AA's posts..for example when he corrected plain and simple and DHK on their false ideas on the greek text...[and he really did so in a gracious and loving manner] his correction was designed to help them see truth....Why would I doubt that he would not do the same for me.
I post often enough where I can error. Why would I resist someone who would attempt to get me on the right path?

From what I can see from his posting and if you looked into it a bit more... I think you would find he and I agree on much doctrinally, but he might feel I am going to far in my application of the doctrine.
he might defend and agree with my doctrinal stance on the five points for example, and yet when I apply them and connect the theological dots so to speak...he and others might be very uncomfortable with How I connect those dots.
He might not agree at all with my conclusions on the APPLICATION of the doctrine. He might partially agree on my application and partially disagree.

He is a gifted brother and very gracious in his posting. That being said...he does not have to agree with what I or any other Cal post.
He might have worked through these things and learned something I have not.
He might not be correct on his application of these things because of whatever reason.

I have occasionally read his posts and thought...I agree in part, but I would not say it that way because I would not want to defend how he expressed that thought. We are different . I did not bring those issues out in public because his wording has been used and defended by other Cals...solid ones like Sam Waldron. We can differ and be on the same page overall.

Let him go and post what he is comfortable with and I will do the same.

You desire responses but I am thinking you want someone to aid your cause as you have not really answered any of the verses I have asked you to offer on.
a few posts ago, I asked you to comment on the verses as well as when I had several from psalm 119 and 1 cor 2.
feel free to offer your ideas on them Steaver:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Yeah, sure..

You are one confused puppy:laugh:
brother Rippon spotted this first and already answered it...Of Course cals believe God saves all ...everyone believing worldwide. You really show you are without understanding. You showed it when you tried to suggest Spurgeon was Arminian because he urged men to repent and believe the gospel and used language to urge them to consider their soul.

John Calvin on John 3:16
Clear enough. Is this what you believe?

Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all,

Yes...faith In Christ does bring life to ALL.....all who have saving faith that is.

Those who do not have a God given saving faith...do not have life. This is not hard is it DHK?
All who have saving faith have life
All who do not have saving faith go to second death.

and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish

God does have a love for the Human race, that is why He has given to the Son people from every tribe tongue and nation...salvation is worldwide, not of the jews only.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I am not a Calvinist. But I point out the inconsistencies of those who follow this man instead of the scriptures.

Most "Calvinists"....have not read Calvin. Most believe Calvinism but could not tell you anything about Calvins teaching so this again is your famous DHK strawman.

As you just posted, he believes that "Life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ."

All cals believe this, all other believers believe this.

Icon, if you are honest with yourself, you don't believe that.

I have already posted that I do. You can speak for me if you want and make me say things that I did not say or believe...that makes it easier for you to insist I am wrong, rather than dealing with what I actually say and believe:thumbs:

Yes, he clarifies himself. Even as an Arminian would--"still faith is not common to all," only we would state it another way

.

He did clarify it..not that I am bound by Calvins word. He spoke in his day and offered what he did at that time. You can rewrite history if you want to also.
next you will claim that A.W.Pink was a follower of Charles Finney.

He still states that salvation is for all. It is universal. It is unlimited in its scope.

The free offer of the gospel is universal and made to all men. All men alive today on 12/22/14 might be the elect of God. We do not know for sure so we preach to all men everywhere as we know God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. After all...you even said that you are elect.

I am not going to answer the rest of your posts on Calvin. That is not what this thread is for.

sometimes you scold a person and say...do not derail this thread, and yet,, you bring up Calvin.....interesting:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

[PreachTony

I really don't understand how Calvinists can see God limiting His love to only a select few when I don't see that in scripture.

To see it....you need to answer some simple questions scripturally.

1] Was the cross work perfect? Heb 10

2] Did the perfect work of the Cross accomplish redemtption ? heb9

3] Does God have an Eternal purpose.. A Covenant that the Godhead has decreed?eph3

4] Has God made this known to the Church?

5] Does scripture say the Father gave a multitude of sinners to the Son in order that the Son could save all of those given where none of them are lost?
,
6] If Jesus sacrifice is perfect[and it is} and it accomplished redemption.{and it does].. does it follow then that All men everywhere were not given to Jesus to save as we know for sure that multitudes go into second death?

7] The scripture states many times who Jesus did die for. ie, I lay down my life for the SHEEP, He died for the CHURCH.....why would it need to state this if he died for all men everywhere? it would go without saying, but Scritpre says behold I and the children who God hath given me.

8] Do you believe that Jesus ACTUALLY SAVES...or just made a potential salvation that saves no one , unless something is added to it?

9 ] Do you see the Apostles defending a potential salvation?

there are many more such questions...but you get the idea:thumbs:

 

[Van]

Of course all Calvinists believe they believe in Calvinism because God caused that belief. They are all exhaustive determinists, where God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Then they engage in cognitive dissonance, because they say God is not the author of the sin He caused us to commit.

Is there any support for this man-made doctrine in scripture? Nope

 

[Iconoclast]

Of course all Calvinists believe they believe in Calvinism because God caused that belief. They are all exhaustive determinists, where God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Then they engage in cognitive dissonance, because they say God is not the author of the sin He caused us to commit.

Is there any support for this man-made doctrine in scripture? Nope

Another blame God for mans sin post.. not helpful T.M.

 

[The Archangel]

I wanted to move this quote to the beginning, because it will inform the rest of my reply. In Acts 10:34-35, we read "34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

The phrase "respecter of persons" is a Hebrew idiom expressed in Greek which literally says: lift a face.

John Polhill comments:

The idiom “lifting a face” pictures God as an oriental monarch lifting the face of a petitioner. To lift the petitioner’s face is to receive him or her with favor (cf. Esth 4:11; 5:2, where the custom is different but the import is the same).

John B. Polhill, vol. 26, Acts, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).

Polhill further comments on the passage:

Peter’s vision had led him to this basic insight that God does not discriminate between persons, that there are no divisions between “clean” and “unclean” people from the divine perspective. The Greek word used for favoritism (v. 34) is constructed on a Hebrew idiom meaning to lift a face. Peter saw that God does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic background, looking up to some and down on others. But God does discriminate between those whose behavior is acceptable and those whose attitude is not acceptable. Those who reverence God and practice what is right are acceptable to him (v. 35; cf. Luke 8:21).

Ibid., 260.

So, with apologies to "The Princess Bride," I do not think that means what you think it means.

The Archangel

 

[DHK]

What Calvinist would deny that life, (eternal life,) is promised universally to all who believe in Christ?

We do believe, contrary to your theory, that belief and repentance are given to those who are His elect ones. No one is capable of manufacturing faith. It has to be God-given. I know that blessed biblical truth goes against your grain.

Calvin specifically said:

Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

Is that what you believe?
That the Father loves the entire human race, through faith in Christ brings life to all, and is willing that no one should perish.
This is his commentary on John 3:15.
There is no mention here of him just dying for the elect. There is no mention of a limited atonement. That concept is hard to find in this passage. I find that most of the answers here are being "read into" the passage from their own pre-conceived ideas.

 

[DHK]

brother Rippon spotted this first and already answered it...Of Course cals believe God saves all ...everyone believing worldwide. You really show you are without understanding. You showed it when you tried to suggest Spurgeon was Arminian because he urged men to repent and believe the gospel and used language to urge them to consider their soul.

What did Calvin say:

Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

This is his commentary on John 3:15. There is no restriction, no addition, such as "everyone believing." The heavenly Father loves the human race and wishes that they should not perish."
Not exactly the Cal point of view that he loved and died for the elect.
Previous to that Calvin said: "that faith in Christ brings faith to all." He never qualified himself in that statement either. Today's Calvinists don't believe that either.

As for Spurgeon you don't know what Spurgeon believed. Perhaps you need some education. Spurgeon was conflicted over Calvinism. Sure, you can find one sermon where he admits to Calvinism. But most of his sermons were evangelistic with a burden for souls. In fact he had such a burden for winning the lost that he prayed (and I paraphrase), "if this is election, then God elect some more." To pray that God would elect some more is not a Calvinist belief. In the end his evangelistic zeal won over the prederterministic Calvinism of the day.
That is quite evident when one reads sermons like this:

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my system of theology needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, dare not, allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind; it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all this world, but ten thousand worlds,...Having a divine person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work. In the atonement of Christ Jesus there is "bread enough and to spare;"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/spurgeon_charles/sermons/1000.cfm
Here is the real Spurgeon. His heart is in the lost soul's of men, in the love of God for them. He will not allow a man's system of theology to interfere with that.

Yes...faith In Christ does bring life to ALL.....all who have saving faith that is.

No one disagrees with that statement. Not even a non-Cal disagrees with that statement. The one who believes will be saved.

Those who do not have a God given saving faith...do not have life. This is not hard is it DHK?

The Bible does not teach that God gives faith to the unregenerate. That is a fable, a myth. It is found in story books, but not in the Bible. The Philippian jailer was told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He had to believe. God wasn't going to believe for him, as you incredulously imply.

All who have saving faith have life
All who do not have saving faith go to second death.

There is no one who disagrees with that. They may disagree with your definition of "saving faith," but not with the statement you posted.

God does have a love for the Human race, that is why He has given to the Son people from every tribe tongue and nation...salvation is worldwide, not of the jews only.

He loved the world; died for the world, paid for the sins of all the people of all generations of the world. Yes he loved the world. That whosoever of all the world should believe in him might have eternal life. See how easy it is to understand the Bible if you just read it as it is written.

 

[The Archangel]

As for Spurgeon you don't know what Spurgeon believed. Perhaps you need some education. Spurgeon was conflicted over Calvinism. Sure, you can find one sermon where he admits to Calvinism. But most of his sermons were evangelistic with a burden for souls. In fact he had such a burden for winning the lost that he prayed (and I paraphrase), "if this is election, then God elect some more." To pray that God would elect some more is not a Calvinist belief. In the end his evangelistic zeal won over the prederterministic Calvinism of the day.

Just a point of information here...

You've set up a false dichotomy between being a Calvinist and having an "evangelistic...burden for souls." It should be noted that William Carey--the founder of the modern Baptist missionary movement--was, himself, a 5-point Calvinist.

To hold to the Doctrines of Grace does not affect one's evangelistic zeal. Certainly some of the "Hyper-Calvinist" crowd are wrong by suggesting that one doesn't need to engage in missions." The typical Calvinists--like Piper, Mohler, Mark Dever, etc.--are VERY evangelistic in that they work, pray, evangelize, plead, etc. with the lost to come to Christ.

Get your facts straight and don't paint false pictures.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

Steaver..

From what I can see from his posting and if you looked into it a bit more... I think you would find he and I agree on much doctrinally, but he might feel I am going to far in my application of the doctrine.
he might defend and agree with my doctrinal stance on the five points for example, and yet when I apply them and connect the theological dots so to speak...he and others might be very uncomfortable with How I connect those dots.
He might not agree at all with my conclusions on the APPLICATION of the doctrine. He might partially agree on my application and partially disagree.

Brother Icon, you desperately want to turn this OP into a general application of a text. It ain't happening! The OP is specific, and it pertains specifically to two issues; (1) Your declarations that the reason one does not believe Calvinism/TULIP is because of Matt 13 and John 10, which of course means because they are not saved/sheep. (2) Your declaration that the "camp" agrees with you.

With that said, AA does not agree with you on this OP and he said so clearly. So where does that leave AA in your world of applying Matt 13 and John 10 to those who do not agree with your understanding of scripture? Has the Holy Spirit failed to teach AA correctly? Or is it as you like to say, because of Matt 13 and John 10 that he does not believe the doctrine application as you do?

He is a gifted brother and very gracious in his posting. That being said...he does not have to agree with what I or any other Cal post.
He might have worked through these things and learned something I have not.
He might not be correct on his application of these things because of whatever reason.

I have occasionally read his posts and thought...I agree in part, but I would not say it that way because I would not want to defend how he expressed that thought. We are different . I did not bring those issues out in public because his wording has been used and defended by other Cals...solid ones like Sam Waldron. We can differ and be on the same page overall.

Let him go and post what he is comfortable with and I will do the same.

According to your declarations, AA, or any other professing Christian for that matter, does not have the luxury of "working through" or disagreeing with you, or not believing the scriptures as you see them. If one does not believe as you do, then one falls under Matt 13 and John 10.

I had asked if the Holy Spirit is failing to teach His children seeing how not all believe in TULIP, and you declared He did not fail, that folks don't believe TULIP because of Matt 13 and John 10. So I will ask you this, is the Holy Spirit failing to teach AA the correct understanding and application of Matt 13 and John 10 to those who do not embrace Calvinism???

You desire responses but I am thinking you want someone to aid your cause as you have not really answered any of the verses I have asked you to offer on.
a few posts ago, I asked you to comment on the verses as well as when I had several from psalm 119 and 1 cor 2.
feel free to offer your ideas on them Steaver

You have a couple quotes brother Icon, which may haunt you for the rest of your life here on the BB. You have created a position that unless one interprets scripture as you do, one has not been taught of the Holy Spirit and this you proof text with Matt 13 and John 10, and have added a few others as well. This places anyone who is in disagreement with you outside the grace of God.

Question is, will you continue doubling down and digging in your heels, even when a fellow Cal brother you respect has declared you are mishandling the application of this Scripture when it comes to applying it to those who do not embrace TULIP?

 

[Van]

Another blame God for mans sin post.. not helpful T.M.

Another blame and deflect post, but all Calvinists still believe in exhaustive determinism, and therefore God caused each and every sin. But watch the shuck and jive folks. They will not deny that God exhaustively determines whatsoever comes to pass, but then say God is not the author of sin. Cognitive dissonance.

 

[DHK]

[PreachTony


To see it....you need to answer some simple questions scripturally.

1] Was the cross work perfect? Heb 10

Carefully scripted references don't always give the correct answers to the questions posed.
In John 19:30, Jesus said, "It is finished." His work on the cross was finished, complete. The Greek word in Hebrews 10 is teleios, or complete. It was a completed sacrifice.
Perhaps Heb.9 will be more helpful here:
[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:[/FONT]
--He appeared to put away sin. What sin? All the sin of the world! Not just the sin of the elect, but all sin. And when he comes, he will judge men on that basis. He will judge all men.

2] Did the perfect work of the Cross accomplish redemtption ? heb9

Again, it is the completed work of the cross, and it accomplished redemption for all men, all who would accept it by trusting Christ, by receiving him.

3] Does God have an Eternal purpose.. A Covenant that the Godhead has decreed?eph3

Exact references would be better Icon. Of course God has a purpose.
God's covenants are with Israel. The only covenant He has made with us is the one at salvation when we were born again and His Spirit came to dwell within us.
I assume you are referring to verses 9 and 10:
[FONT=&quot]Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,[/FONT]
--In verse 9, it is better put "and to reveal what is the plan [arrangement] of the mystery, for it has been hidden for ages by God who created all things."

[FONT=&quot]Ephesians 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;[/FONT]
--God gave Paul this grace or ability for two reasons:
1. to preach among the Gentiles the gospel (unsearchable riches of Christ).
2. to disclose God's plan for implementing this Jewish-Gentile "mystery" in human history. (vs.10).
This simple mystery (also explained in chapter two) is simply that the Jews and Gentiles are now one in Christ. There is no more division between believing Jews and Gentiles. That is the mystery that was not previously know (hence mystery) to the Old Testament saints.

4] Has God made this known to the Church?

1. There is no such thing as a universal church.
2. Within evangelical Christianity in general, I believe we would accept a saved Jew into our membership as much as we would a saved Gentile, and not discriminate between the two. That is what Paul was speaking about in the above passage. So, yes, God accomplished that purpose in His churches.

5] Does scripture say the Father gave a multitude of sinners to the Son in order that the Son could save all of those given where none of them are lost?

The Scriptures say that Christ came into the world to save sinners.
The Scriptures say that "Whosever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
NO, the scriptures do not say what you have said.
You have stated a perversion of what was said.

6] If Jesus sacrifice is perfect[and it is} and it accomplished redemption.{and it does].. does it follow then that All men everywhere were not given to Jesus to save as we know for sure that multitudes go into second death?

A false premise leads to a false conclusion. In this case your first premise is true, but your conclusion, based on a former false premise is thus false.

No, it does not follow that, "All men everywhere were not given to Jesus to save as we know for sure that multitudes go into second death."
--The proper conclusion is that those who rejected Christ will go into the second death. Those who did not believe will go into the second death.

[FONT=&quot]Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.[/FONT]
--Can't get any clearer than that, can it?

[FONT=&quot]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.[/FONT]
--The Bible does not teach your man-made theology.

7]

The scripture states many times who Jesus did die for. ie, I lay down my life for the SHEEP, He died for the CHURCH.....why would it need to state this if he died for all men everywhere? it would go without saying, but Scritpre says behold I and the children who God hath given me.

What a foolish statement. You oppose your man-made system to the Bible:
Here it is:
[FONT=&quot]Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:[/FONT]
--Christ commanded all men every where to repent because Christ died for all men every where. He expects all men every where to believe in him. And if they don't they will be condemned.
Only the most cruel capricious God, ever, would teach that He as Creator would ultimately Create His own Creation for ultimate eternal destruction and eternal torment. That is not a God of love. But that is what you are teaching here.

[FONT=&quot]1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.[/FONT]

8] Do you believe that Jesus ACTUALLY SAVES...or just made a potential salvation that saves no one , unless something is added to it?

"It is finished." What did Christ say? Salvation is finished. And then he was buried and rose again. The penalty had been paid. It was not potential in any way. Faith is not a work. Salvation is a gift to be received by faith. Unless it is received by faith there is no salvation. Eph.2:8 teaches that salvation is the gift of God. It must be received. He saves all those who believe,
[FONT=&quot]Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.[/FONT]

9 ] Do you see the Apostles defending a potential salvation?

Do you? Answer your own silly question.