Calvanism Application

[GordonSlocum]

Isaiah 6 records an interesting conversation between God and Isaiah. God instructs Isaiah to prophesy to the nation, to warn them of judgment and call them to repentance. Isaiah accepts the call.

Then God tells Isaiah, they're not going to listen. And the reason they're not going to listen is that I have blinded their eyes and clouded their understanding.

This is confirmed is John 12:40, where John quotes the Isaiah passage in connection with Israel's unbelief in the Messiah. John said they could not believe because (now quoting God from Isaiah 6) "I have blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes or understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them."

Recall that by the 53rd chapter, isaiah is complaining, "Who has believed our report?" Which is another way of saying, nobody believes what I'm preaching.

I wonder how many preachers would surrender to God's call if God told them, I want you to preach, but nobody will ever be saved under your preaching. They won't, because I've fixed it so they can't.

John 12:40 is troubling. But there is another soteriological truth there. It is that no one will be saved unless God opens their eyes, changes their heart, and opens their understanding. That God does this for anyone is true salvation by grace.

II Thess. 2:10-14
10. and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

EVERYONE PLEASE LOOK AT THIS CAREFULLY

11. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, (Hardening of the heart)
12. in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

When we hear of God hardening a man’s heart it is not because it starts with God. God takes a person who first does what is here quoted, “did not received the love of the truth so as to be saved.” and after the person has rebelled sends the deluding influence so that they will believe what is false. It is a process.

Don’t let Calvinist have the “so called high ground” on their miss representations of the truth. They only focus on passages that, in isolation, support their view. If you are not careful you too will believe the same lie they buy into because they refuse to accept the whole counsel of God’s word.

I do not speak to their love for God and zeal nor do I challenge their salvation, so don’t read into what I say these things. I love my Calvinist friends but they are dead wrong in there efforts to twist the Scripture.

Secondly, consider the following:

What is the actual sequence?

13. But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation (1) through sanctification by the Spirit and (2) faith in the truth.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Calvinist say the egg came first as they have been doing for a long time.

Stop for a minute: What does Peter say?

I Peter 1:1b and 2 - “
who are chosen 2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, (1)by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, (2) to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood:

What is “chosen” based upon? What is chosen? It is election to salvation. Paul does use to different words, and Calvinist will try to say they don’t mean the same thing again by twisting them. But a simple answer is illustrated in the following statement: Is a car the same as an automobile, as a vehicle, as a horseless carriage. So don’t let the jerk you around with endless references to this and that because this is the way they work to confuse and wear you out with endless situational theology.

Two things: 1.sanctification by the Spirit (and 2. faith in the truth

Called by the Gospel
Elected / Chosen because of sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the Truth.
Election based upon God’s foreknowing you would believe.

14. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Gordon,

You really need to edit your posts before you post them. The spelling errors are maddening. lol

 

[annsni]

Well that is hardly anywhere close to the truth.

Calvinist consistently redefine "ALL" and "World"

Calvinism is situational not Scriptural.

Calvinist force God to violate His own Holiness.

Calvinist refuses to accept God's foreknowledge by redefining it.

Calvinist refuse to accept R11:32

Calvinist refuse to accept J1:9

Calvinist refuse to accept I T2:4

Calvinist refuse to accept 2P3:9

and others. Don't worry PL I have heard all the twist of these verses by the Calvinist. Nothing new under the sun and your Calvinism is as you have labeled non Calvinist is more or less words - simply butting God in a box. Calvinist forces man's view on God's word.

Calvinism does not redefine anything.

Calvinism also does not refuse to accept any Scripture.

I'm assuming "R11:32" is actually Romans 11:32. That reads:

"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

Are you saying that this means that God will save everyone? No. Read IN CONTEXT (so many don't read in context - the Bible was not written with chapter and verse divisions) that God is speaking of Israel. Read verse 26 which states "And in this way all Israel will be saved".

J1:9 is John 1:9? That read:

"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world."

Again, read the CONTEXT. It goes on to read:

"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15( John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."

This does not say that everyone will be saved - but that the light has shown on everyone. They are without excuse.

1T2:4 (this is the weirdest Scripture reference method I've ever seen):

"who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Yes, God desires that all people be saved. But are they? No. So there must be something more important than the desire that all might be saved.

2P3:9:

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. "

Once again, you forget the following verses:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed."

Yes, God does not wish that any should perish, but we know that many will. That is fact. There is a reason for that.

I've never seen a Calvinist refuse to accept any Scripture whatsoever. Why don't you show me one who does? You made a claim. Prove it.

 

[annsni]

Wait until one of them interprets Amos 3:6, Is. 45:7, and Lam. 3:38 then you will see convenient situational theology.

Amos 3:6 "Is a trumpet blown in a city,
and the people are not afraid?
Does disaster come to a city,
unless the LORD has done it?"

Isaiah 45:7 "I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things"

Lamenations 3:38 "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that good and bad come?"

(but I love the verse that follows - "Why should a living man complain,
a man, about the punishment of his sins?"


OK - Posted the verses. What does that have to do with Calvinism and the salvation and election of man?

 

[annsni]

When you possses "Foreknowledge" of choices people will make, it's no problem to make "plans" within the parameters of that foreknowledge without having to "predestine" those choices.

Those you "foreknow" will chose salvation can be used to "preach the Gospel",

Those you "foreknow" who will reject the gospel, can be used as an example of God's wrath.

One of the concepts many people find hard to believe is that the future is not set in stone, it can be changed.

God repeatly warned Israel to turn from their wickness and he would turn from his wrath, so Israel's future was determined by their choice, not God's.

And the same choice is our's today.

""Predestination/Sovereign will" can't be used to describe the plan of salvation, God not willing any perish, yet many do, clearly contradicts any predestination by Sovereign will.

With "foreknowledge", man is free to make his choice, God can know what is going to occur and still say to man it occurred because of man's will, not mine.

Foreknowledge can't be defined/interpreted as predestination or Sovereign will,

I think that is the problem.

So God only predestines those whom He foreknew would choose to be saved? How is that predestination?

Flight 132 will be going to gate 6.

I will then predetermine that the passengers will disembark from gate 6.

HUH?

That makes no sense. God foreknew us. He knew us before we were born. We know that is consistent from Scripture. But how do you say that He predestined us because of what we will do in light of Romans 9? "10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

 

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon,

You really need to edit your posts before you post them. The spelling errors are maddening. lol

Thank you for your concern. I don't have a problem with anyone pointing out my spelling. I have had problems with spelling all my life and I doubt it will end today.

Is there something in my post, apart for a few spelling errors, that you would like to address?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thank you for your concern. I don't have a problem with anyone pointing out my spelling. I have had problems with spelling all my life and I doubt it will end today.

Is there something in my post, apart for a few spelling errors, that you would like to address?

I was trying to inject some humor, and I am glad it was taken that way.

I do disagree with your theology and the motivations you seem to ascribe to calvinists. I don't they or you are trying to twist the Scirptures. I just think there are different understandings, but both cannot be true.

I have refrainded from debating with you because I am still trying to feel you out. Do you really want to dialogue or no? I have no problem with debate. But I tend to like it on the side of what we saw between Wesley and Whitefield. Have you ever read that exchange?

RB

 

[Jerome]

"We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinistic; but we do not regard those five points as being barbed shafts which we are to thrust between the ribs of our fellow-Christians." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[webdog]

So God only predestines those whom He foreknew would choose to be saved? How is that predestination?

Flight 132 will be going to gate 6.

I will then predetermine that the passengers will disembark from gate 6.

HUH?

That makes no sense.

True, that would make no sense. It would be better to state that those predestined to fly to Jamaica need to be on flight 132 which can be caught at gate 6. It has been predetrmined the role flight 132 and gate 6 play into the outgoing flight.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Calvinism does not redefine anything.

Calvinism also does not refuse to accept any Scripture.

I'm assuming "R11:32" is actually Romans 11:32. That reads:

"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

Are you saying that this means that God will save everyone? No. Read IN CONTEXT (so many don't read in context - the Bible was not written with chapter and verse divisions) that God is speaking of Israel. Read verse 26 which states "And in this way all Israel will be saved".

1. Your Calvinist mindset gets in your way. You are trying to put words into my mind that were not used. You ask a question that I did not address and you answer your own question. R11:32 is a conclusion verse. The conclusion sums up the previous verses which I have read hyperbole here "a million times". I am in context and you have violated the context because you fail to recognize that r11:32 is the conclusion. It is the answer to all the verses previous to this conclusion.

J1:9 is John 1:9? That read:

"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world."

Again, read the CONTEXT. It goes on to read:

2. I did read it and I pointed out where you are wrong. It is you that fail to keep things in context by cut and paste method of theology. It is just who Calvinist are. I am who I am and you are who you are. Someone is wrong and it is not me, I kept it in context you did not.

"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15( John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."

This does not say that everyone will be saved - but that the light has shown on everyone. They are without excuse.

3. FOLKS - I want everyone to notice that my friend here is not answering what I posted but is answering his own twist to what I said. He reframed the post I made so that he could but his spin on it. You are a true blue Calvinist. This is what they are good at, twisting the argument to their view, situational theology. You did a very good job avoiding the truth and putting your spin on it. You are just piling bricks on top of your own head. :tonofbricks:

1T2:4 (this is the weirdest Scripture reference method I've ever seen):

"who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Yes, God desires that all people be saved. But are they? No. So there must be something more important than the desire that all might be saved.

4. Really! Are you calling this verse insignificant and that God should not have expressed His desire. I am not willing to be so bold to tell God what he can desire and what He can not desire. You are telling God that His theology is wrong by denying God the desire He has to save the lost. Now that takes the cake, my friend. More bricks piled on
:tonofbricks:.

2P3:9:

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. "

Once again, you forget the following verses:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed."

Yes, God does not wish that any should perish, but we know that many will. That is fact. There is a reason for that.

5. There you go again answering our own question you impose on me that you assume I made. You are framing the discussion based upon what you said in an answer and I hope all posters see the Calvinist tendency to avoid the truth by reframing the post so that they can make a case for their situational theology. LOL and more LOL - You continue to :tonofbricks: on yourself.

I've never seen a Calvinist refuse to accept any Scripture whatsoever. Why don't you show me one who does? You made a claim. Prove it.

There you go again saying something I did not say. Folks, take note of how they read into what is said so that they can reframe the argument. That was slick indeed, but normal Calvinist rhetoric. More bricks for you but can add it here because I excede my limit of icons. You may need to do this :BangHead:

And I said everything in Love.

 

[GordonSlocum]

removed, double post

 

[annsni]

And I said everything in Love.

You said nothing, honestly. You said I'm wrong, you did not explain the verses yourself. Show me where I'm wrong. YOU are misinterpreting the verses - even read commentaries and you can see so.

Oh - and I'm not a he. I don't know many men named Ann.

 

[GordonSlocum]

You said nothing, honestly. You said I'm wrong, you did not explain the verses yourself. Show me where I'm wrong. YOU are misinterpreting the verses - even read commentaries and you can see so.

Oh - and I'm not a he. I don't know many men named Ann.

Sorry about that. I have read tons of commentaries and this and that and I did explain it in my first post.

 

[GordonSlocum]

I was trying to inject some humor, and I am glad it was taken that way.

I do disagree with your theology and the motivations you seem to ascribe to calvinists. I don't (??) they or you are trying to twist the Scirptures. I just think there are different understandings, but both cannot be true.

I have refrainded from debating with you because I am still trying to feel you out. Do you really want to dialogue or no? (I am here to enjoy dialogue, and no I have not read Wesley and Whitefield that I recall unless I did years ago of which if I did I don't recall) I have no problem with debate. But I tend to like it on the side of what we saw between Wesley and Whitefield. Have you ever read that exchange?

RB

Post an example of W and W

Where am I coming from: I am 100 percent anti Calvinist, and that was said in love by the way:love2:, for I don't burn those who are different at the stake. I could be persuaded to lock then in a room and throw away the keys. That would be more loving and kind. I don't think I would shed any :tear: but I would pray for them to recant the error of the Tulip and be CURED. You have heard on TV, no doubt, the statement, "Be Healed" Well my statement to Calvinist is "Be Cured"

 

[annsni]

That is too bad Gordon. The doctrine of grace is very clearly taught in Scripture. I'm not a hyper-calvinist, nor am I a dyed in the wool calvinist - nor am I an arminian. I do believe that the truth encompasses both thoughts since both God's sovereign grace and man's free will in Scripture.

Oh - and to say that you would lock up Calvinists, throw away the key and not shed a tear is not said in love. You deceive yourself when you say that (but do not deceive others since I know we can see through that).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Post an example of W and W

Where am I coming from: I am 100 percent anti Calvinist, and that was said in love by the way:love2:, for I don't burn those who are different at the stake. I could be persuaded to lock then in a room and throw away the keys. That would be more loving and kind. I don't think I would shed any :tear: but I would pray for them to recant the error of the Tulip and be CURED. You have heard on TV, no doubt, the statement, "Be Healed" Well my statement to Calvinist is "Be Cured"

Here is Whitefield's reply to Wesley: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htm

Here are some examples:

"Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning of the world. The great day will discover why the Lord permits dear Mr. Wesley and me to be of a different way of thinking. At present, I shall make no enquiry into that matter, beyond the account which he has given of it himself in the following letter, which I lately received from his own dear hands:" -Whitefield (Calvinist)

"Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our course with joy. I am, my dearest brother,
Ever yours,

J. WESLEY" (Universal Redemption)

What I think this shows is the warm love these men had toward one another, even though they sharply disagreed on the subject at hand. What I and Ann are saying is we don't read into your writings the same warmth of love that these men showed one another.

I think both groups can take a good lesson from these men and how they engaged one another by the pen.

-RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

One more:

Thus my honoured friend, I heartily pray God to hasten the time, for his being clearly enlightened into all the doctrines of divine revelation, that we may thus be closely united in principle and judgment as well as heart and affection. And then if the Lord should call us to it, I care not if I go with him to prison, or to death. For like Paul and Silas, I hope we shall sing praises to God, and count it our highest honour to suffer for Christ's sake, and to lay down our lives for the brethren.

What great love Whitefield had for Wesley.

 

[GordonSlocum]

That is too bad Gordon. The doctrine of grace is very clearly taught in Scripture. I'm not a hyper-calvinist, nor am I a dyed in the wool calvinist - nor am I an arminian. I do believe that the truth encompasses both thoughts since both God's sovereign grace and man's free will in Scripture.

Oh - and to say that you would lock up Calvinists, throw away the key and not shed a tear is not said in love. You deceive yourself when you say that (but do not deceive others since I know we can see through that).

Tongue in Cheek :thumbs: and In Love :love2:

 

[GordonSlocum]

One more:



What great love Whitefield had for Wesley.

And where does this take us?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

And where does this take us?

To a reasoned, calm, honest discussion of the Bible we both love.

Are you denying the Bible to be God-breathed, infallible and inerrant? Neither am I.