Are You A Calvinist?

[ajg1959]

If he chose all, wouldn't all be saved? Of course. God chooses his elect.

But even though He chooses, dont we have a free will to reject?

AJ

 

[webdog]

But at least admit that's not what the verse says.

The verse says nothing about "based on." It says "God chose you for salvation" and then tells us how that salvation comes. This is the unanimous testimony of Scripture.

Your comments are indicative of arriving at a position, and then saying whatever necessary to show that the Bible doesn't say the opposite. Your position is not based on the verse. You have "exegeted" the verse in light of the conclusion that you must arrive at. You can't arrive at any other conclusion, so you must explain away the part of the verse that contradicts your position. And that continues to be the problem I have with the explanation you give. It simply isn't what the verse says.

Let's see what you said...

God chooses us for salvation, and brings that salvation

I believe someone arrived at a position, and then said whatever necessary to show that the Bible doesn't say the opposite.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But even though He chooses, dont we a free will to reject?

God having chosen us, he gives us a new nature with the free will to accept.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe someone arrived at a position, and then said whatever necessary to show that the Bible doesn't say the opposite.

Yes, I demonstrated that with your statement. You have not done that with my statement. Are you denying that salvation comes through the setting apart of the Spirit and belief in teh truth? Of course not. So you agree with what I said. You simply deny that God chooses us for salvation, even though that is exactly what the verse says. In the verse God chooses "us." He does not choose a method (sanctification/faith). Those are means.

Let me ask you this: Why are you (all of you) so concerned to protect man's free choice but not God's? Does God have the free will to choose who to save or not to save? You seem to say he does not, that he is obligated to save those who choose him ... that once man chooses to be saved, God has to saved him. Yet you do not want to apply that to man. That seems to say that you value man's free will over God's, does it not?

 

[John of Japan]

I appreciate you and your ministry and your commitment to the gospel. But I think at some points you don't believe what the Bible says.

Thank you for your appreciation, but I still resent being told I don't believe what the Bible says at some point.

But I finally get it. By using this kind of rhetoric, you show that you don't want to convince anyone. You just enjoy discussing it, never mind trying to help anyone with their doctrine. Am I right?

Otherwise you would say, "Oh, okay John, if that offends you I'll back off with it and we'll discuss it in a gentler way and see if I can convince you." Once again, this kind of rhetoric is why I don't participate in the C/A debates. I'm out of here. Sayonara.

 

[Benjamin]

Sorry for this interruption:

Let me ask you this: Why are you (all of you) so concerned to protect man's free choice but not God's?

Nice strawman premise. But God’s choice to create a world in the way in which He did, with free will creatures, does not call for (all of us) to concern over protecting His free will.

Does God have the free will to choose who to save or not to save?

Yes, and He does it in a way that is in accordance to His Nature and Divine design of the world that man will be morally responsible for his own actions if he does not choose salvation in truth.

You seem to say he does not, that he is obligated to save those who choose him ... that once man chooses to be saved, God has to saved him.

You seem to say He is not obligated to be true to His Word or His Nature and has determined in creation that some will be evil and have no hope because of being made that way. AH, I think you know the implications on His Nature in that respect, doesn’t seem to be a problem for (all of you) but I guess that is another tread, one which I won’t care to get into the drawn out illogical rhetoric. Shoot away here though if you think your quick answer will really settle this issue in a nut shell.

Yet you do not want to apply that to man. That seems to say that you value man's free will over God's, does it not?

Well, back to the strawman, but I guess I already answered this in my second sentence.

Carry on:

 

[Dale-c]

But I finally get it. By using this kind of rhetoric, you show that you don't want to convince anyone. You just enjoy discussing it, never mind trying to help anyone with their doctrine. Am I right?

I am not Pastor Larry but I believe you are decidedly wrong.

How in the world can you persuade someone to a new position without telling them that their current position is wrong?

It is not rhetoric. The gospel is offensive!
If there is an element of the Gospel that you do not believe then you do not believe or understand the bible in that area.
If that offends you then it is the Gospel that offends you and not our words.
We consider you to be our brother in Christ and sincerely want you to believe the truth of the Gospel in it's entirety.

If you believed the Bible perfectly in every point there would be no error for us to point out.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thank you for your appreciation, but I still resent being told I don't believe what the Bible says at some point.

You shouldn't resent it. That's an unfortunate response. I didn't attack you in anyway or say anything that shouldn't be self-evident given the different perspectives we have. Notice that I said "I believe you don't believe ..." thereby making it clear that it is my perspective, and I said "at some points" making it clear that I was not making a dogmatic categorical statement but a finely nuanced one. So I wouldn't resent it at all. I know you believe the same thing about me, and I am fine with that.

The fact is that we disagree on what the Bible says, and that means one of us doesn't believe what it says. That is not a statement of motive or heart. It is a statement that A (what the Bible says) does not equal B (what one of us believes). The reason for it (rebellion, knowing rejection, mistaken interpretation, lack of knowledge, etc) is irrelevant. Personally, I think our differences is that you have a mistaken interpretation that omits some key verses. The fact remains that on a particular Bible statement, we disagree, and that means one of us doesn't believe it. I am convinced that is you.

But I finally get it. By using this kind of rhetoric, you show that you don't want to convince anyone. You just enjoy discussing it, never mind trying to help anyone with their doctrine. Am I right?

Not really, no. I have spent literally thousands of posts addressing this topic. But in the end, I can't convince anyone. I used to enjoy discussing it though not so much now. But the fact is that you or anyone else won't answer to me for what you believe, so I really don't get bent out of shape when someone disagrees. It is an intramural debate that, for the most part, is not a denial of the gospel. I don't really care what anyone else believes.

Otherwise you would say, "Oh, okay John, if that offends you I'll back off with it and we'll discuss it in a gentler way and see if I can convince you." Once again, this kind of rhetoric is why I don't participate in the C/A debates. I'm out of here. Sayonara.

For the most part I quit participating in these debates long ago as well. Every now and then I get involved (and always hate myself for it) and I realize how counterproductive is for the most part. No one is being convinced, and the truth gets lost in rhetoric and misunderstanding of what the other side believes. I have long been a proponent of banning the topic and referring people to the archives if they have questions. But no one else agrees.

I am not sure how to be more gentle with it. The fact is that we disagree. I don't think we need to step softly on that. We are both preachers of the gospel who share a common commitment to it. I didn't say anything harsh or out of line. I didn't say anything that you or someone else wouldn't say to me, whether or not you would express it in the same way.

But for sake of illustration let's say that the Bible says A (whichever that is) and you say B. You don't believe what the Bible says at that point. Let's say that I say C. I don't believe what the Bible says at that point.

For the life of me, I can't understand why that is either confusing or problemmatic, but perhaps I have simply been around long enough to know better and not take things personally.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Nice strawman premise.

Me thinks you don't understand the argument, but that is fine. At least you made an attempt.

But God’s choice to create a world in the way in which He did, with free will creatures, does not call for (all of us) to concern over protecting His free will.

I think this is a straw man response in that it really doesn't address the issue.

[quote[]Yes, and He does it in a way that is in accordance to His Nature and Divine design of the world that man will be morally responsible for his own actions if he does not choose salvation in truth. [/quote]This is exactly what Calvinism affirms.

You seem to say He is not obligated to be true to His Word or His Nature and has determined in creation that some will be evil and have no hope because of being made that way.

I have said no such thing, and I am not sure where you get this from.

Shoot away here though if you think your quick answer will really settle this issue in a nut shell.

I don't think my response will settle it, but I think it points out an insurmountable problem.

 

[Marcia]

I am not Pastor Larry but I believe you are decidedly wrong.

How in the world can you persuade someone to a new position without telling them that their current position is wrong?

It is not rhetoric. The gospel is offensive!
If there is an element of the Gospel that you do not believe then you do not believe or understand the bible in that area.
If that offends you then it is the Gospel that offends you and not our words.
We consider you to be our brother in Christ and sincerely want you to believe the truth of the Gospel in it's entirety.

If you believed the Bible perfectly in every point there would be no error for us to point out.

I know you said this to John, but I find it astonishing you would say this to a fellow believer.

The gospel is offensive to those who are perishing, according to scripture, not to believers!! I don't see how you can say this to a believer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know you said this to John, but I find it astonishing you would say this to a fellow believer.

So fellow believers do not need to be confronted with truth when they are wrong? How do you reconcile that with Galatians 2 where Paul takes a fellow believer ... even a fellow apostle to task for his compromise of the gospel?

 

[Marcia]

So fellow believers do not need to be confronted with truth when they are wrong? How do you reconcile that with Galatians 2 where Paul takes a fellow believer ... even a fellow apostle to task for his compromise of the gospel?

The fact that you believe Calvinism to be true does not mean that those who disagree are denying an essential of the faith, unless you believe that non-calvinists are heretics. I find it amazing you consider someone who disagrees with Calvinism to be the same as those teaching salvation by works in Galatians.

 

[Marcia]

Let me add (because this came up on another thread as well), that if the BB is now allowing Calvinists to say that non-Calvinists are heretics, I will have to think about leaving the BB. It was my understanding that this was not allowed.

 

[Marcia]

And btw, it's 24 Calvinists to 30 who are not Calvinists.

 

[rdwhite]

Therefore if you are not a calvinist in belief (whether you hold to the name or not) you are not Biblical in this area. It may be ignorance or it may be willful rejection or it may be tradition (most likely) getting in the way.

Contrary to your assessment, I was raised in Calvinistic churches. Believed and even preached those teachings, yet with reservation because of several verses. I believed it because of tradition, I taught it because I lacked understanding, and I purposefully ignored scriptures that spoke contrary to it. Finally I was burdened about those texts which speak contrary to Calvinistic teachings and I studied them out, I prayed for wisdom and understanding, and began to understand certain truths that had been hidden away from me by traditionalism.

Standing for God's words has cost me dearly. Studying God's words led me away from tradition, to what I believe is a Biblical position. Your assessment is judgmental, arrogant, and caustic.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not Pastor Larry but I believe you are decidedly wrong.

How in the world can you persuade someone to a new position without telling them that their current position is wrong?

Excuse me? You just don't get it do you! I told you exactly how you can tell someone they are wrong. You use something called "tact." Saying, "You don't believe the Bible" to a good Bible-believing Christian is not just telling someone their current position is wrong, it is an insult.

Telling someone their position is wrong without insulting them is easy. You just say (repeat after me), "Your position is wrong!" Say it often, say it emphatically. Don't say they don't believe the Bible.

It is not rhetoric. The gospel is offensive!
If there is an element of the Gospel that you do not believe then you do not believe or understand the bible in that area.
If that offends you then it is the Gospel that offends you and not our words.

So you want me to get saved, so you are explaining the Gospel to me? And if it offends me then it is my fault? So it's okay to explain the Gospel in an offensive way? I don't think so. It's as if you got in a sinner's face and shouted, "You're going to Hell, you dirty rotten sinner," and then wondered why he walked off.

Also, the Gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture (as proven by His burial) and rose again the third day (as proven by the many witnesses (1 Cor. 15:1-8). It is a huge mistake theologically to include the TULIP (or however you want to state your Calvinism) as "part of the Gospel" instead of presenting it as being concerned with the theology of the Gospel. There are many Calvinist theologians who know this. I recommend you get a good Calvinist book on soteriology and learn from it.

We consider you to be our brother in Christ and sincerely want you to believe the truth of the Gospel in it's entirety.

Sorry, I just can't believe this. Otherwise you would use tact and humility to convince me instead of beating me over the head with "You don't believe the Bible." There are Calvinists on the BB who have learned to be tactful. (Kudos to ReformedBaptist. See his post on this thread.) Why can't you and Pastor Larry learn to do it?

You say you love Scripture so much, and believe every word of it (though you say I don't). Then try this on for size: "24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

If you believed the Bible perfectly in every point there would be no error for us to point out.

And there you go again. How many times do I have to say, THIS IS AN INSULT!! What in the world is wrong with saying, "Your interpretation is wrong" or "Your position is wrong." Are you so totally opposed to being tactful?

For the last time, I believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. I believe every word of the Bible in the original languages. It hits me deep in my soul for anyone to say I don't believe the Bible just because I interpret it differently. Fortunately this is just the Internet, and I don't know you in the real world, so I'll not lose any sleep over it.

 

[rdwhite]

Let me add (because this came up on another thread as well), that if the BB is now allowing Calvinists to say that non-Calvinists are heretics, I will have to think about leaving the BB. It was my understanding that this was not allowed.

Minority Rule (Calvinists 25 v. Non-Calvinists 30) its the way of our society. Double standards are now standard. Pro-abortionists, pro-homosexuals, pro-socialists, et al can say anything about Christians they want, but anytime a Christian speaks up, they call it Hate Speech. I guess the same kind of preferred treatment is being applied to Calvinists on this board. They can call a non-Calvinist unbiblical, ignorant, traditionalists and nothing is said, but what if a non-Calvinist were to behave in that same uncharitable manner toward a Calvinist...

 

[Amy.G]

I am just appalled at what I am reading here.

Non-Cals don't believe the Bible??

I would like to ask Dale and Pastor Larry if they believe this:

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

There is no way to get around free will in this one.

Jesus wanted them to believe Him, but they....were....not....willing.


Perhaps you could explain this to me.

 

[John of Japan]

I am just appalled at what I am reading here.

Non-Cals don't believe the Bible??

I would like to ask Dale and Pastor Larry if they believe this:

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under [her] wings, but you were not willing!

There is no way to get around free will in this one.

Jesus wanted them to believe Him, but they....were....not....willing.


Perhaps you could explain this to me.

Add to that Luke 7:30, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." The word "counsel" here is the Greek boule, or God's determinate "counsel" in Acts 2:23, where it occurs with proginosko, or foreknowledge. Edited in: boule also occurs in Eph. 1:11 along with proorizo, "predestinate."

But no matter what they believe about these two verses, I believe it would be wrong to say a Calvinist doesn't believe the Bible simply because they interpret these verses with a Calvinist hermeneutic. I still call upon Pastor Larry and Dale c to change their tone and humbly admit this kind of insult is wrong.

 

[Rippon]

Let me add (because this came up on another thread as well), that if the BB is now allowing Calvinists to say that non-Calvinists are heretics, I will have to think about leaving the BB. It was my understanding that this was not allowed.

You must not be very familar with several posters ( including some mods)who are very anti-Calvinistic and have used the word heresy quite freely with respect to Calvinists.