Biblical Election

[Rippon]

In Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology he says the following on page 478 .


If Christ by his death actually propitiated God's wrath , reconciled God , and paid the penalty for sin ... and if he sacrifically substituted himself for , on behalf of , for the sake of , and in the stead and place of sinners , then it follows that for all those for whom he substitutionally did his cross work he did all that was necessary to procure their salvation and thus guarantee that they will be saved . But since Scripture , history , nor Christian experience will tolerate the conclusion that all men have become , are becoming , or shall become Christians , we must conclude that Christ did not savingly die for all men but for some men only -- even God's elect .

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Hello again Whatever. That handle is hard to get use too.
I think that in the fact that they think they have a lock on the truth, yet many more disagree.
The fact that they mis-represent those who disagree with the teachings of calvin.

OK. Read the above statement made by Timtoolman. Now read the very next sentence in the same post.

I do not have pride becasue I ask what about others Lord. I am saved, I don't concentrate on "why me" but "why not others" I would not want to see my worst enemy go to hell.

Talk about misrepresenting someone's positions. I don't know any Calvinist that wants to see his worst enemy, let alone his best friend, go to hell.

But it gets better!

When calvinist say "no a sov. God would not give man choice " that too me is them telling God how to be sov.

What Calvinist says "God would not give man a choice?" We say the choice is out there, but man is incapable of making the right choice unless God regenerates them. If you're going to misrepresent us, please don't do it in a post, the main point of which, is that we misrepresent you.

It really appears to me that there is a manual of answers too certain questions

I'll let you in on our secret: our manual is called the Bible.

Or even a term that they use that does not even agree with what you are proclaiming. For instance arminian or calvinist. Its not right. There is much more out there.

Strangely enough, I agree with you on this one. An Arminian believes you can lose your salvation. I don't think you go that far. So, then, I will CHOOSE to use the term "synergist."

It is not honest to debate a perosn and not listen to what THEY are saying.

Oh, this one is just toooo beautiful. On our last 22 page thread the three of you that disagreed with me not once listened to the verses I included, nor my rebuttals of your use of Adam and Eve as a proof-text of man freely choosing God, nor my defining of theological terms, nor my basic word studies of the words "whole world," "world," and "all." Should I go on?

I coud go on and on but I think you are getting my pt.

No, because I don't listen to a thing you say when I debate you.

 

[Timtoolman]

Calvibaptist you are a wild man. You took insult to something that was not meant as insult. I was trying to explain what goes on really in the minds of some non calvinist. And that the strawmen that calvinist buid that we are putting ourselves above God is really not true.
You said you wer through yet you rant and ramble on. Your out of control, How about a truce? This post was too Whatever and was sincre. If you can't leave and walk away, which I hope you can, then we will deal with that later.

Calvibaptist:
No, because I don't listen to a thing you say when I debate you.

And yet you take the time to answer my post line by line. You don't see the humor in that. Just do what you said and give up, walk away Cal. I do not wish to carry on a debate with you either.

[ February 22, 2006, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Timtoolman ]

 

[Hope of Glory]

I choose to emulate Paul who was neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Both are correct in some points and both are wrong in some points, when compared to Scripture.

 

[Rippon]

What are some wrong points about Arminianism HoG ?

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Hello again Whatever. That handle is hard to get use too.
I think that in the fact that they think they have a lock on the truth, yet many more disagree.
The fact that they mis-represent those who disagree with the teachings of calvin. I do not have pride becasue I ask what about others Lord. I am saved, I don't concentrate on "why me" but "why not others" I would not want to see my worst enemy go to hell.
Another is that since I disagree with calvinist over choice and man that I am declaring God not soveriegn. That is nothing but an out right lie or a bonehead statement. Bonehead being all bone no brain. I believe God is sov. When calvinist say "no a sov. God would not give man choice " that too me is them telling God how to be sov. It would be no different If I said God, while reading the Bible, and seeing that He wanted to gather Isreal as a Hen and her chicks. And the fact that didn't happen I now declare God not sov.
God has picked how man is too be saved and it is his choice. Now I believe I can see how it works and why God chose to do it that way. Give man choice.
It really appears to me that there is a manual of answers too certain questions and if you ask some other question they try to lump yhou in with some strawman. Or even a term that they use that does not even agree with what you are proclaiming. For instance arminian or calvinist. Its not right. There is much more out there. It is not honest to debate a perosn and not listen to what THEY are saying.
I coud go on and on but I think you are getting my pt.

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. I think you make some good points, but I would first respond that there is plenty of pride to go around for all sides of the debate.

I don't think it is necessarily prideful to think that one knows the truth. If I thought I was wrong then I would change my mind.

But one can (and should) do that without exhibiting a proud spirit, and if one exhibits a proud spirit it does not make their beliefs wrong.

I don't want to see anyone go to hell either. Most Calvinists don't, and I'm really not sure where this objection came from. But, I think it is more likely that my lost friend and relatives will eventually be saved if the choice is left to God than would be saved if the choice is left up to themselves. To say it another way, I trust God to do "the right thing" far more than I trust my lost friends to do "the right thing".

As far as "telling God how to be sovereign", I think it would be better stated that we try to define God's sovereignty the way the Bible does. Some people would have God turning over the outcome of certain events into the hands of man. I don't think that's a proper interpretation of the Bible but if we disagree over this point we still ought not be prideful or mean-spirited about it.

As for the terms, I've heard it said before that whoever defines the terms will win the debate, and I think that's true. Yes, many people have different shades of belief all along the spectrum, but that's even more reason that we ought to listen to each person and answer his questions and statements and concerns, rather than answer questions that he is not asking and argue against points that he is not arguing for. Both sides could do better at that.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Calvibaptist:
No, because I don't listen to a thing you say when I debate you.

And yet you take the time to answer my post line by line. You don't see the humor in that. Just do what you said and give up, walk away Cal. I do not wish to carry on a debate with you either. [/QB]

Timtoolman, you forgot to put the smiley-face I left at the end of my sentence. That meant that I was finding humor with what I was saying.

I hope I didn't upset you. I was just having a little fun.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Calvibaptist:
No, because I don't listen to a thing you say when I debate you.

And yet you take the time to answer my post line by line. You don't see the humor in that. Just do what you said and give up, walk away Cal. I do not wish to carry on a debate with you either.

Timtoolman, you forgot to put the smiley-face I left at the end of my sentence. That meant that I was finding humor with what I was saying.

I hope I didn't upset you. I was just having a little fun. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes but I am getting over it. I didn't see the face, sorry.

 

[Calvibaptist]

This little incident does bring up a point, though. One thing we all have to remember, myself included, is that we are all friends here. We are not debating with unbelievers. As far as we know, we are on the same team.

I hope to continue discussions with you, and others, in a friendly manner (with room for a little sarcasm occasionally).

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Rippon:
What are some wrong points about Arminianism HoG ?

Loss of salvation is the main one.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Fools will not learn , and therfore they must again and again be told the same thing

Is that why we have to continually explain to the Calvinist's that they are wrong?

let us tell our enemies to their faces that they fight against God and destiny , when they strive to overthrow our souls.

I would say it is the Calvinist's trying to overthrow all non-calvinist souls.

Calvinism teaches nothing but a prideful and arrogant doctrine. Modern day Pharisees. 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'

Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. </font>[/QUOTE]And arminianism teaches that you thank God you had enough goodness to save yourself.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
GeneMBridges said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

God was speaking to the Israelites, God's chosen people. We have to remember, the Israelites rejected His Son, so therefore, Salvation was offered after the cross, to every Gentile man, woman, and child. </font>[/QUOTE]According to the johnny come lately doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Calvinism teaches nothing but a prideful and arrogant doctrine. Modern day Pharisees. 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'

You have really mangled this text.

The problem with the Pharisee is that he believes he is righteous, not that he believes he has been chosen over "that sinner over there". He believes he is better than "that sinner over there" because that person over there IS a sinner, and he is not. The man who Jesus says is justified is justified because, unlike the Pharisee, he recognizes his sinful state and asks for mercy.

But since you raised the issue of "sinners", let me ask the question, if one person leads a better life than another, who made that difference? If we made the difference, then we have the right to take credit for it. If God made the difference, then we have NOTHING about which to boast. So even if we were to compare ourselves to "those sinners over there", we have only God to credit for anything that makes us better than another person. None of it came from ourselves. That is unlike the Pharisee, who not only was blind to his sin, but attributed his righteousness to his own works.

Spurgeon put it better than I can. The part that illustrates the verse best is the second part, but I included the first part because it is extremely relevant to the real issue.

From "Sum and Substance of All Theology":

I do not care to argue upon this point, except I put it thus: If any say, "It is man himself who makes the difference," I reply, "You are involving yourself in a great dilemma; if man himself makes the difference, then mark—man himself must have the glory." Now, I am certain you do not mean to give man the glory of his own salvation; you would not have men throw up their caps in heaven, and shout, "Unto ourselves be the glory, for we, ourselves, were the hinge and turning point of our own salvation." No, you would have all the saved cast their crowns at the feet of Jesus, and give to Him alone all the honour and all the glory. This, however, cannot be, unless, in that critical point, that diamond hinge upon which man's salvation shall turn, God shall have the control, and not the will of man. You know that those who do not believe this truth as a matter of doctrine, do believe it in their hearts as a matter of experience.

I was preaching, not very long ago, at a place in Derbyshire, to a congregation, nearly all of whom were Methodists, and as I preached, they were crying out, "Hallelujah! Glory! Bless the Lord!." They were full of excitement, until I went on to say in my sermon, "This brings me to the doctrine of Election." There was no crying out of "Glory!" and "Hallelujah!" then. Instead, there was a great deal of shaking of the head, and a sort of telegraphing round the place, as though something dreadful was coming. Now, I thought, I must have their attention again, so I said, "You all believe in the doctrine of Election?" "No, we don't, lad," said one. "Yes, you do, and I am going to preach it to you, and make you cry 'Hallelujah!' over it." I am certain they mistrusted my power to do that; so, turning a moment from the subject, I said, "Is there any difference between you and the ungodly world?" "Ay! Ay! Ay!" "Is there any difference between you and the drunkard, the harlot, the blasphemer?" "Ay! Ay! Ay!" Ay! there was a difference indeed. "Well, now," I said, "there is a great difference; who made it, then?" for, whoever made the difference, should have the glory of it. "Did you make the difference?" "No, lad," said one; and the rest all seemed to join in the chorus. "Who made the difference, then? Why, the Lord did it; and did you think it wrong for Him to make a difference between you and other men?" "No, no," they quickly said. "Very well, then; if it was not wrong for God to make the difference, it was not wrong for Him to purpose to make it, and that is the doctrine of Election." Then they cried, "Hallelujah!" as I said they would.

 

[4His_glory]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Calvinism teaches nothing but a prideful and arrogant doctrine. Modern day Pharisees. 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'

That is a gross mis-characterization. I guess then you think that Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson and many other men through out chruch history are proud and arrogant. Oh, we might as well through in the Apostle Paul too. </font>[/QUOTE]I am still waiting for an answer to this. SFiC do you believe that these men and many others were prideful and arrogant?

 

[Rippon]

Many Arminians do not believe they can lose their salvation . But they are still Arminian in their core convictions ,if not downright Pelagian .