• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvanism Application

Status
Not open for further replies.

GordonSlocum

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

Here are some examples:





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

I like that. I am use to Calvinist being mean spirited and hateful toward those outside their view.

I like words such as "this is how I see it" "I have not heard that before" "that is interesting" "how did you come to that conclusion" etc.

All to often it does move into a mud slinging contest.

That is very good and the way it should be. Agree
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"The nearer we come to him who is the salvation of God, the more plainly we see that among the children of God the basis of agreement is far wider than the ground of division. Andrew Fuller well and pithily said, "There are, I conceive, four things which essentially belong to the common salvation; its necessity, its vicarious medium, its freeness to the chief of sinners, and its holy efficacy." We may differ on the "five points," but we are agreed upon these four points. Ask any true Christian if it be not so." ---Charles Spurgeon
 

GordonSlocum

New Member
"The nearer we come to him who is the salvation of God, the more plainly we see that among the children of God the basis of agreement is far wider than the ground of division. Andrew Fuller well and pithily said, "There are, I conceive, four things which essentially belong to the common salvation; its necessity, its vicarious medium, its freeness to the chief of sinners, and its holy efficacy." We may differ on the "five points," but we are agreed upon these four points. Ask any true Christian if it be not so." ---Charles Spurgeon

Common Salvation
Its necessity
Its vicarious medium
Its holy efficacy

Agree, but as soon as anyone tries to define "Salvation", "efficacy", and even "necessity" the differences are obvious.
 

Me4Him

New Member
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?

God didn't "predestine", the choice was left up to man, but God "foreknew" what choice the person would make.


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."

God loved the whole world, Jesus died for sin of the whole world that they might be saved, because God's not willing any should perish.

Where do you find Esau, or anyone else, "excluded" from the above plan.

You don't, Esau "SOLD" his Birthright for a morsel of meat,

people today sell the "born again birthright" Jesus offered them for a "morsel of meat", the "FLESH", they refuse salvation.

Esau's action can't be blamed on God or predestination,

God "Foreknew" Esau's action and made his plans within the Parameter of what he foreknew was going to occur.

We reap what we sow, Time and again, Israel future could have changed had they listened/obeyed God,

That's not possible where "Sovereign will" has "predestine" something to occur.

We make plans all the time according to foreknowledge,

Fargo ND sandbagging the river is a good example,

I'm sure they didn't "predestine" the flood. :laugh:
 

Me4Him

New Member
I like that. I am use to Calvinist being mean spirited and hateful toward those outside their view.

I am acquainted with more "Calvinist" than "Baptist", having worked with them for over 20 years in VBS.

And quite a few of them don't agree 100% with Calvin.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
God didn't "predestine", the choice was left up to man, but God "foreknew" what choice the person would make.

That is not predestination. That is foreknowledge. You do not understand predestination, apparently. Seeing a choice that someone is going to make is not predestination.



God loved the whole world, Jesus died for sin of the whole world that they might be saved, because God's not willing any should perish.

Yet not everyone is saved. Or are you saying they are?

Where do you find Esau, or anyone else, "excluded" from the above plan.

You don't, Esau "SOLD" his Birthright for a morsel of meat,

people today sell the "born again birthright" Jesus offered them for a "morsel of meat", the "FLESH", they refuse salvation.

Esau's action can't be blamed on God or predestination,

God "Foreknew" Esau's action and made his plans within the Parameter of what he foreknew was going to occur.

Wow - you haven't read Scripture have you? Once again, read Romans 9.

We reap what we sow, Time and again, Israel future could have changed had they listened/obeyed God,

That's not possible where "Sovereign will" has "predestine" something to occur.

We make plans all the time according to foreknowledge,

Fargo ND sandbagging the river is a good example,

I'm sure they didn't "predestine" the flood. :laugh:

Once again, you do not understand the doctrine of grace - or the sovereignty of God or else you wouldn't be laughing about it.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
God didn't "predestine", the choice was left up to man, but God "foreknew" what choice the person would make.

That is not predestination. That is foreknowledge. You do not understand predestination, apparently. Seeing a choice that someone is going to make is not predestination.



God loved the whole world, Jesus died for sin of the whole world that they might be saved, because God's not willing any should perish.

Yet not everyone is saved. Or are you saying they are?

Where do you find Esau, or anyone else, "excluded" from the above plan.

You don't, Esau "SOLD" his Birthright for a morsel of meat,

people today sell the "born again birthright" Jesus offered them for a "morsel of meat", the "FLESH", they refuse salvation.

Esau's action can't be blamed on God or predestination,

God "Foreknew" Esau's action and made his plans within the Parameter of what he foreknew was going to occur.

Wow - you haven't read Scripture have you? Once again, read Romans 9.

We reap what we sow, Time and again, Israel future could have changed had they listened/obeyed God,

That's not possible where "Sovereign will" has "predestine" something to occur.

We make plans all the time according to foreknowledge,

Fargo ND sandbagging the river is a good example,

I'm sure they didn't "predestine" the flood. :laugh:

Once again, you do not understand the doctrine of grace - or the sovereignty of God or else you wouldn't be laughing about it.
 

Me4Him

New Member
That is not predestination. That is foreknowledge. You do not understand predestination, apparently. Seeing a choice that someone is going to make is not predestination.

Yet not everyone is saved. Or are you saying they are?

Wow - you haven't read Scripture have you? Once again, read Romans 9.

Once again, you do not understand the doctrine of grace - or the sovereignty of God or else you wouldn't be laughing about it.


I "assume" you refer to these verses.

Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted 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 hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Most calvinist interpret these verses to mean that God created/predestine some people for hell so that God could get "some kind of glory" out of destroying them in front of the saved.

First, Hell was created for Angels, no "image of God" (man) was predestine to hell.

Second, it contradicts God's will none perish.

Third, the "type of vessel" (honor/dishonor) man wants to be is left up to man, a "cistren" (vessel) that will hold Jesus's water (doctrine) or one that won't.

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

When you interpret these verse within the context of the whole scriptures, you'll find they are an "example/warning" to the lost rather than any "predestination" of some to perish, which would be a contradiction of "God's will".

"Abraham's believed", and "HIS FAITH" was counted as Righteousness,

Man, knowing Good/evil, has the ability to chose between them, same as Adam/Eve, those who choose the Good, (faith) God will save,

There's a purpose in God requiring a person to believe before he'll save, a purpose that doesn't exist under the doctrine of predestination.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

"NO PART" of Sin, Man's condemnation, or scripture describing such, can be interpreted as having been "Predestined" by "God's will",

Now read Roman 9 again. :wavey:
 

DreamSlayer

New Member
Deuteronomy 30

11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.
12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'

13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'

14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;
16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.

Moses sets life and death before the Israelites for their consideration. There is no intimation there that he was speaking to people utterly incapable of complying with the commands. He presents the prospects of life and death as genuine options for them to ponder. - Steve Jones
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
That is a very strange question.

God doesn't go backward or forward in time. .

That is right. He too obeys times.

So when he talks of the past...1960, that means he WAS there. When he speaks of the furture, that means he WILL BE there.

He is not back in 1960 because 1960 is long gone.
 

GordonSlocum

New Member
CURED - I like it.

Thanks,

I, personally, am not a Calvinist or Arminian. Calvinist like to label me as an Arminian but that again is because anyone not like them must be Arminian, it is a narrow mind set. Arminians do not believe in once saved always saved, I do.

I personally see the election of those saved as in Christ and that because God desires all to be saved that this desire would be violated under the teaching of Calvinism, because I see their view as violating the Holiness of God in this regard. They, on the other had do not see it as violating the Holiness of God.

It is a valid argument to posit that if God desires all to be saved and only saves a few of the many then it becomes a mockery of God and opens up Pandora’s Box for liberals and legalist to assault God and His Word.

 

Jarthur001

Active Member
What is time? When you answer that question then you will be able to answer your own question.

I am waiting for one correct interpretation from any calvinist of Amos 3:6, Is. 45; and Lam 3:38. Is it possible that they are unableto because their rationalistic theology does not coincide with what scripture directly teaches? Is it true that their view of God's sovereignty is limited to less than what scripture actually teaches?

Time is a measurement of Change.

I have addressed your verses and we have talked about them. You even replied to them.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
So you're claiming that he (at least Luther) is Passive Reprobation. That the Nature began as sin and thus God does nothing to begin with to change mans condition save for the elect. Then how does "God desires that all men be saved." fall into Calvin's paradigm? If he acts on behalf of a man then that man is saved. If God chooses not to act that man is not saved? God is not a liar yet it would seem so here by Calvin based purely on God's good pleasure.

This is one reason I don't post as often as I use to post.

"God desires that all men be saved" has been addressed so many times its not funny. Just read the full chapter and you will get the meaning as a Calvinist sees it. Calvinist are not to "hip" (do they still say hip?) in just pulling one quote out of context.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Thanks,

I, personally, am not a Calvinist or Arminian. Calvinist like to label me as an Arminian but that again is because anyone not like them must be Arminian, it is a narrow mind set. Arminians do not believe in once saved always saved, I do.

I personally see the election of those saved as in Christ and that because God desires all to be saved that this desire would be violated under the teaching of Calvinism, because I see their view as violating the Holiness of God in this regard. They, on the other had do not see it as violating the Holiness of God.

It is a valid argument to posit that if God desires all to be saved and only saves a few of the many then it becomes a mockery of God and opens up Pandora’s Box for liberals and legalist to assault God and His Word.


I have read over 15 books by men that claim they are not Calvinist nor are they Arminian. They go on to try to show a new system. 100% of them were Arminian when you read through the smoke. ALL OF THEM.

If anyone has a book that is not one or the other I would like to read it, because I have found this is just not the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top