As a ‘Calvinist’, How did you come to believe?

[AustinC]

We get it. @Van posts on a thread regarding how a person came to Reformed belief and he tells us how he doesn't believe the Bible teaches these 5 truths.

1) All humans are, at their core, corrupt and in need of a Savior.
2) God chose His children by His will not by human merit.
3) The spilled blood of Jesus only effectively saves those who God chose to believe.
4) God's elect cannot resist His will to save them so that they will not die in their sins.
5) The evidence of one's election is the full perseverance in faith until death or Jesus return.

Van says he rejects the above, which would therefore mean that Van believes:
1) Man is by nature good.
2) Man's works merit God saving individuals.
3) Jesus blood effectively paid for all sins (100% of all humans)
4) Humans are not elect and can resist God's will even to their death.
5) Perseverance is not any indication of salvation. Say the prayer and you are saved.

Since @Van is not Reformed in any way, shape, or form, he should not post here, but he does anyway.

 

[37818]

The spilled blood of Jesus only effectively saves those who God chose to believe.

That evil is not true. God is not at fault.

 

[Alan Gross]

(1) Material False Statement: Conversion Involves Turning From Sin, and Man By Nature Is Unable To Do This.
Note no citation actually supports this falsehood. Here is the citation provided: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil." Here the false assertion is the person accomplishes "conversion" (being born anew) when obviously God accomplishes that "conversion." Actual conversion is based on God crediting a person's faith as righteous faith, which in part says I am a wretched sinner, unable to do anything to save myself, and I am relying solely on you Lord, for my salvation.


(2) Material False Statement: Conversion is Pleasing to God, and the Natural Man Cannot Please God.
Note no citation actually supports this falsehood. Here is the citation provided:

Romans 8:8 (NASB)
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.​

Here we have "in the flesh" redefined as meaning "unregenerate" rather that an unregenerate with their mind set on fleshly desires. So yet another example of building false doctrine upon vague and ambiguous phrases to pour man-made doctrine into scripture.

(3) Material False Statement: Conversion is a Good Thing, and no Good Thing Can Proceed from the Natural Heart.
Note once again, the argument is based on the human, rather than God accomplishing "Conversion."

(4) Material False Statement: Conversion Involves Subjecting Oneself to the Will or Law of God,
and This is Impossible to the Natural Man.
Note here is the verse cited as support for this false claim:

Romans 8:7 (NASB)
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,​

Here we have the false claim that an unregenerate cannot set his or her mind on some spiritual things (spiritual milk) some of the time. Yet Paul spoke "as to men of flesh" using spiritual milk.

The remaining numbered claims in post #29 are just as false and not worth the time to address as they all have been addresses many times in the past.

I had a choice, believe in the TULIP or believe in the Bible, but since they are irreconcilable, I could not see how to believe in both.

I asked for a testimony and got:

Actual conversion is based on God crediting a person's faith as righteous faith

 

[kyredneck]

That evil is not true. God is not at fault.

You're so cliche'.

That evil is not true.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Ro 9

God is not at fault.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Ro 9

 

[AustinC]

AustinC wrote:
The spilled blood of Jesus only effectively saves those who God chose to believe.

That evil is not true. God is not at fault.

How, in God's name, would God be at fault if God only shed his blood for His children and not for the slaves of hell?
I do not understand your strange words. They seem utterly senseless to me.

 

[37818]

How, in God's name, would God be at fault if God only shed his blood for His children and not for the slaves of hell?
I do not understand your strange words. They seem utterly senseless to me.

Your problem. Your unbelief not mine.
Hebrews 2:9, ". . . But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. . . ." Etc.
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. . . ."
1 John 5:9-13, ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. . . ."

 

[AustinC]

Your problem. Your unbelief not mine.
Hebrews 2:9, ". . . But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. . . ." Etc.
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. . . ."
1 John 5:9-13, ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. . . ."

It is not my problem when you are ignorant of what those verses are saying because you couldn't care less about the context of the letters.

I have repeatedly shown you the context. You repeatedly ignore the context and cling to a false interpretation of your own making that is entirely contradictory. I cannot help you when you live in willful ignorance. That is entirely on you. Own it.

 

[37818]

It is not my problem when you are ignorant of what those verses are saying because you couldn't care less about the context of the letters.

You are being unhelpful on the assumption you even have a correct understanding. You do not understand the truth as you think you do.

Unless you can show me my view as I see it, how do you have any clue how to correct my understanding?
Two things.
I see from Scripture, one's election begins at one's new birth.
I see from Scripture the redemption bought the gift of eternal life for all the ungodly. Now to me the denial of this is denial of the gospel of Christ.
Bear in mind I presume we believe the same Scriptures. I cannot cause you to hear my view. Now I have been a Christian since 1962.

Do you want to deal with me? First don't make false statements as to how I believe.

Pick one point of disagreement. Set my view side by side with your view and one or two relevant Scripture.

 

[AustinC]

You are being unhelpful on the assumption you even have a correct understanding. You do not understand the truth as you think you do.

Unless you can show me my view as I see it, how do you have any clue how to correct my understanding?
Two things.
I see from Scripture, one's election begins at one's new birth.
I see from Scripture the redemption bought the gift of eternal life for all the ungodly. Now to me the denial of this is denial of the gospel of Christ.
Bear in mind I presume we believe the same Scriptures. I cannot cause you to hear my view. Now I have been a Christian since 1962.

Do you want to deal with me? First don't make false statements as to how I believe.

Pick one point of disagreement. Set my view side by side with your view and one or two relevant Scripture.

"show me my view as I see it"
That says it right there.
You are functioning as a Book of Judges Israelite..." doing whatever seems right in your own eyes."

 

[DaveXR650]

The namby-pamby 'explanation'. Wrong, and lame, and redundant....

That was a brilliant refutation. I'm glad you settled that. I am flattered that you follow me that close though.

 

[37818]

You are functioning as a Book of Judges Israelite..." doing whatever seems right in your own eyes."

What did you just do?

 

[DaveXR650]

Folks, take the justification argument elsewhere please.
Moderators please remove all comments only talking about justification.

I disagree. This was in the OP:

Feel free to explain how (experientially) you or anyone else comes to believe. God draws and God changes hearts and Jesus saves without needing our help or permission … but how? What is the experience like? A process or an instant? Supernatural or via means?

You simply cannot have this type of a conversation without some basic agreement on what being saved is. If you have a view of justification that demands a series of some type of works then you need to share that but no one has so far shared in that way. So when someone ridicules a common way of looking at justification as discussed in James then it is relevant. Especially if they do it in a smart aleck way and give no reference of anyone else holding to the same school of thought.

 

[kyredneck]

the idea that James was talking about a justification before men is also solid.

Wrong. ICYMI:

Before God:
12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. Gen 22

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Ja 2

Before Christ:
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Mt 25

27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Ja 1
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ja 2

That was a brilliant refutation. I'm glad you settled that. I am flattered that you follow me that close though.

Thanks. Don't know what it is, man...guess you just have one of those faces...

 

[kyredneck]

So when someone ridicules a common way of looking at justification as discussed in James then it is relevant. Especially if they do it in a smart aleck way and give no reference of anyone else holding to the same school of thought.

Lol. In case you didn't notice the bulk of all my posts are scripture. I love love love the brevity and directness of scripture. No bloviating.

 

[kyredneck]

a common way of looking at

"It's called herd mentality, but not everyone is a conformist, there's still a few Bereans around."
Faith and Hope ...

 

[AustinC]

Wrong. ICYMI:

Before God:
12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. Gen 22

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Ja 2

Before Christ:
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Mt 25

27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Ja 1
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ja 2



Thanks. Don't know what it is, man...guess you just have one of those faces...

Bravo on plucking verses out of context in an attempt to make them fit your theology.
The Berean will go read the passages surrounding the verse and realize that your bloviating is hot air.

 

[kyredneck]

plucking verses out of context

???

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Ja 2

12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. Gen 22

Lol...

 

[kyredneck]

...waiting for @AustinC's usual robotic response accusing me of being a Catholic operative and peddling the council of Nicene.

Guess I can add "plucking verses out of context" to the list now.

 

[AustinC]

...waiting for @AustinC's usual robotic response accusing me of being a Catholic operative and peddling the council of Nicene.

Guess I can add "plucking verses out of context" to the list now.

Well, let's see...
The RCC teaches justification by faith plus works. @kyredneck, do you teach justification by faith plus works? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

 

[kyredneck]

Well, let's see...
The RCC teaches justification by faith plus works. @kyredneck, do you teach justification by faith plus works? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Lol, that didn't take long...

Tell you what, if you can produce just one itsy bitsy teeny tiny passage from scripture that states that 'justification is by faith ALONE' I'll answer your silly question.

In the meantime, here's one that plainly states that justification is NOT by faith alone:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 3

...and as has been shown from scripture, that justification is before God and Christ, not man.