Calvinism Alone Gives fullest glory and honor to the Grace of God

[JonC]

so does this makes me dishonest. even though I reject all forms of Calvinism? Just asking,, not sure what your feelings is on this

I was not calling you, or anybody, dishonest.

I was talking about Calvinism (which stands apart from Scripture) claiming sola scriptura.

What I mean is one cannot reject "what is written" in the Bible as being what the Bible teaches and honestly claim sola scriptura.

Even among those of us who believe the Bible teaches what is written in the text there can be disagreements in application and interpretation. But these disagreements are about what is actually written in God's Word.

Others, like Calvinists and Roman Catholics, believe that when properly understood the Bible teaches what is not actually in the biblical text.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I was not calling you, or anybody, dishonest.

I was talking about Calvinism (which stands apart from Scripture) claiming sola scriptura.

What I mean is one cannot reject "what is written" in the Bible as being what the Bible teaches and honestly claim sola scriptura.

Even among those of us who believe the Bible teaches what is written in the text there can be disagreements in application and interpretation. But these disagreements are about what is actually written in God's Word.

Others, like Calvinists and Roman Catholics, believe that when properly understood the Bible teaches what is not actually in the biblical text.

ok this makes more sense, thank you for clarifying. and I would agree here

 

[JonC]

ok this makes more sense, thank you for clarifying. and I would agree here

I am sorry my comment was not worded well before.

I believe that it is important in any discussion to agree on our authority for doctrine.
This is where sola scriptura comes in.

If I discuss doctrine of Christ's work with a Calvinist then nothing can be accomplished because we hold different authorities (I hold Scripture itself as our standard while Calvinists hold what they believe is taught by the Bible as theirs). The only thing of benefit is some may read the discussion and choose God's Word.

That was, BTW , why I abandoned Calvinism. I was trying to hold both sola scriptura and Calvinism but realized the contradiction and chose God's Word. Others choose Calvinism.


BUT between you and I, we can have a good discussion over disagreements because we hild the same standard for doctrine. We may disagree, but we can understand o e another's positions and agree to disagree because we are talking about interpretation and application of what is written in God's Word rather than extra-biblical authorities.

Even if we do not agree we can both benefit from discussing topics and understand different interpretations. But this is because we have a common authority for our doctrine and faith.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I am sorry my comment was not worded well before.

I believe that it is important in any discussion to agree on our authority for doctrine.
This is where sola scriptura comes in.

If I discuss doctrine of Christ's work with a Calvinist then nothing can be accomplished because we hold different authorities (I hold Scripture itself as our standard while Calvinists hold what they believe is taught by the Bible as theirs). The only thing of benefit is some may read the discussion and choose God's Word.

That was, BTW , why I abandoned Calvinism. I was trying to hold both sola scriptura and Calvinism but realized the contradiction and chose God's Word. Others choose Calvinism.


BUT between you and I, we can have a good discussion over disagreements because we hild the same standard for doctrine. We may disagree, but we can understand o e another's positions and agree to disagree because we are talking about interpretation and application of what is written in God's Word rather than extra-biblical authorities.

Even if we do not agree we can both benefit from discussing topics and understand different interpretations. But this is because we have a common authority for our doctrine and faith.

I do not even know why the term comes up. It is usually a catholic term because they are against it.. For most of us. lets just stick to the word.. Using Sola Scriptura as an argument of any type is really faulty in my view. it should be assumed for all Christians.. that Gods word, which is inspired. should be our sole authority..

 

[JesusFan]

Some of what they hold may be unbiblical.

I am also sure we all hold ideas that are wrong.

My point is our misunderstandings (we see dimly, now, as through a glass) should be misunderstandings of Scripture.

If you take Calvinism for where it departs from thr traditional faith and compare it (the Calvinistic distinction....Calvinism itself) with Scripture it is very easy to understand that Calvinism is unbiblical. Calvinism ignores God's Word in favor of what they think the Bible may be teaching (they deny Scripture teaches what is written in the text of Scripture).

The most foolish thing a Calvinistic has ever claimed is sola scriptura.

Have to disagree, as those of us who hold to a Calvinist Soteriology would see that we are indeed applying sola scriptura in the ultimate sense of the term

 

[JesusFan]

Most believers, not just Calvinists believe we were made sinners, Romans 5:19, and therefore we were conceived in iniquity, Psalm 51:5, and therefore we were brought forth is a spiritually separated state from God, thus spiritually "dead" in our sin, Isaiah 59:2.

The Opening post, therefore is unsubstantiated, and false.

Only through the washing of regeneration are we made spiritually alive, together with Christ. Ephesians 2:5

Not in Christ = Spiritually dead
In Christ = Spiritually alive

No verse says or suggest that while we are spiritually dead, we cannot seek God or put our trust in Christ, Luke 13:24. Not all, but many do seek God and eternal life in Christ.

How can dead people who hate God in their very natures want to even seek, much less submit to Him?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes

But Gods love proves he is really really good. not willing any should perish, but all come to truth, in fact he loved so much he died for the world.. so that everyone has the ability to be saved.

Where does it state though that Jesus died in order to secure a sure salvation for all lost sinners?

 

[JesusFan]

the most foolish thing any person who calls himself a child of God has ever claimed is that scripture is not our sole authority. Because it gives men the authority..

No real Calvinist would claim otherwise

 

[JesusFan]

I am sorry my comment was not worded well before.

I believe that it is important in any discussion to agree on our authority for doctrine.
This is where sola scriptura comes in.

If I discuss doctrine of Christ's work with a Calvinist then nothing can be accomplished because we hold different authorities (I hold Scripture itself as our standard while Calvinists hold what they believe is taught by the Bible as theirs). The only thing of benefit is some may read the discussion and choose God's Word.

That was, BTW , why I abandoned Calvinism. I was trying to hold both sola scriptura and Calvinism but realized the contradiction and chose God's Word. Others choose Calvinism.


BUT between you and I, we can have a good discussion over disagreements because we hild the same standard for doctrine. We may disagree, but we can understand o e another's positions and agree to disagree because we are talking about interpretation and application of what is written in God's Word rather than extra-biblical authorities.

Even if we do not agree we can both benefit from discussing topics and understand different interpretations. But this is because we have a common authority for our doctrine and faith.

No Calvinist would argue for the validity of their understanding regarding biblical soteriology from other the Bible as their ultimate source

 

[JesusFan]

I do not even know why the term comes up. It is usually a catholic term because they are against it.. For most of us. lets just stick to the word.. Using Sola Scriptura as an argument of any type is really faulty in my view. it should be assumed for all Christians.. that Gods word, which is inspired. should be our sole authority..

it is for all Calvinists

 

[JesusFan]

I was not calling you, or anybody, dishonest.

I was talking about Calvinism (which stands apart from Scripture) claiming sola scriptura.

What I mean is one cannot reject "what is written" in the Bible as being what the Bible teaches and honestly claim sola scriptura.

Even among those of us who believe the Bible teaches what is written in the text there can be disagreements in application and interpretation. But these disagreements are about what is actually written in God's Word.

Others, like Calvinists and Roman Catholics, believe that when properly understood the Bible teaches what is not actually in the biblical text.

One cannot claim that Calvinists misunderstand the scriptures in regards to our doctrines unless one has Apostolic authority to render such a verdict

 

[JonC]

I do not even know why the term comes up. It is usually a catholic term because they are against it.. For most of us. lets just stick to the word.. Using Sola Scriptura as an argument of any type is really faulty in my view. it should be assumed for all Christians.. that Gods word, which is inspired. should be our sole authority..

I agree that God's Word alone shoukd be the standard for our doctrine. At one time I thought it was. But over the past couple of decades I have learned that there is a sect on the BaptistBoard who holds what men have concluded the Bible teaches "when properly understoid" in place of the Bible teaching what is written (Scripture itself) as their authority.

The difference is where you and I can go to a verse and debate or discuss God's Word, they cannot. They will post a verse and a commentary from their sect explaining what that verse "realky means".


Let me show you what I mean (bear with me, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I get there).

A recent example is a discussion on 1 Jn 2:1-2.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

One may interpret that as saying as Jesus Advocates for us He Himself is the propitiation. Propitiation has God in focus (mediating with God on our behalf).

Another may argue it means "expiation" (the removal of our sins in focus).
Yet another may argue it means atoning sacrifice (both propitiation and expiation).

But this sect argued that 1 Jn 2:2:means that Jesus suffered the wrath of God due the elect.

The first three were legitimate interpretations of God's Word.

But the fourth was just a claim unsupported by the actual verse (unsupported by any passage). It was what some who claim Scripture as their authority believe is taught by that verse. The 4th was not even an interoretation or application of the verse. It was just a philosophy attached to a verse. But that is what this member thinks is taught ny the verse when John was actually talking about us, if we sin, having an Advocate in Jesus.


But I agree. We probably should simply say "what is written in the Scriptures?". That would be following Jesus' example.

 

[JonC]

One cannot claim that Calvinists misunderstand the scriptures in regards to our doctrines unless one has Apostolic authority to render such a verdict

We can because we have God's Word and God instructed us to test all doctrine.

I cannot say 1 Jn 2:2 should read "propitiation", "expiation", or "atoning sacrifice" because all are legitimate interpretations of that word snd fit the context. I can express my opinion, but not condemn the other two possibilities.

BUT any Christian who holds that God's Word itself is the authority of our faith and doctrine can pass such a judgment on Calvinism simply because it is not in the Bible (it is what men, relying on developing theology, decided Scrioture teaches. But it's teachings are not actually in the Bible).

Likewise, I can state that Mormon and Jehovah Witness doctrine is unbiblical.

That is what "sola scriptura" means. We have God's Word (Scripture) as the authority for our doctrine - not what men think is taught by the Bible but what God gave us as His Word.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Where does it state though that Jesus died in order to secure a sure salvation for all lost sinners?

John 3: 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

The thought that this only speaks to the elect is unfounded.

1. He was not sent into the world to condemn the world
2. But that the world MAY be saved.

if this was speaking of the elect. it would signify that the elect or world would be saved.

also in context. Jesus used the serpent and moses. Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness so everyone may be saved. But only those who in faiht looked were saved.

He who believed was not condemned (they were literally born again out of death) those who did not suffered the fate they already were under (they died)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

it is for all Calvinists

this is good. But it does not mean they are right.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

One cannot claim that Calvinists misunderstand the scriptures in regards to our doctrines unless one has Apostolic authority to render such a verdict

you just walked right into his trap.

You can not claim you are sola scripture then demand anyone who disagrees must have apostolic authority.. you just held the catholic stance that sola scripture is false.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I agree that God's Word alone shoukd be the standard for our doctrine. At one time I thought it was. But over the past couple of decades I have learned that there is a sect on the BaptistBoard who holds what men have concluded the Bible teaches "when properly understoid" in place of the Bible teaching what is written (Scripture itself) as their authority.

The difference is where you and I can go to a verse and debate or discuss God's Word, they cannot. They will post a verse and a commentary from their sect explaining what that verse "realky means".


Let me show you what I mean (bear with me, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I get there).

A recent example is a discussion on 1 Jn 2:1-2.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

One may interpret that as saying as Jesus Advocates for us He Himself is the propitiation. Propitiation has God in focus (mediating with God on our behalf).

Another may argue it means "expiation" (the removal of our sins in focus).
Yet another may argue it means atoning sacrifice (both propitiation and expiation).

But this sect argued that 1 Jn 2:2:means that Jesus suffered the wrath of God due the elect.

The first three were legitimate interpretations of God's Word.

But the fourth was just a claim unsupported by the actual verse (unsupported by any passage). It was what some who claim Scripture as their authority believe is taught by that verse. The 4th was not even an interoretation or application of the verse. It was just a philosophy attached to a verse. But that is what this member thinks is taught ny the verse when John was actually talking about us, if we sin, having an Advocate in Jesus.


But I agree. We probably should simply say "what is written in the Scriptures?". That would be following Jesus' example.

again in this topic. I see the wrath of God equaling the judgement of God. God judges sin, he must as he is a holy God. So when I see someone say that Jesus took the righteous judgment of God on our behalf. so we would not suffer the wrath of God on the last day.. or his wrath, It does not bother me any.

A greater example I would use is roman 9-11 specifically romans 9

there is a fatalistic interpretation

and then there is a National interpretation.

 

[Paleouss]

Calvinism alone starts with the assumption tahtw e aere all spiritually dead in Adam, and as such, it is impossible for us to do anything in and by ourselves to merit any kind of salvation

JesusFan, Thank you for your ministry on this site and your work for our Lord and Savior. I have not read any other post except your OP.

I myself am a little more close to the vest here which isn't a surprise since I don't think anyone has it all right. I would say that I think ...

Calvinism attempts to give the fullest glory and honor to the grace of God. For this, I thank Calvinism.

However, in our quest in seeking God and His truth...there is only one truth and that is God's truth. If by chance the Calvinist quest wonders off into error in the attempt to give all honor and glory to the grace of God, then no matter the intent one has the error and falseness is more egregious.

Clear evidence of this, imo, is Hyper Calvinism. It is a proper intent gone to far.

So my point is this, Calvinism isn't the end goal. The end goal is God's truth. Since I don't think anyone has it all right then being comfortable in thinking that one group has it all right only smothers the growth I think God intends for me. So what do I think that is true that is actually false? And am I willing to continually challenge myself and genuinely ask God to dispel those theologies that are false within me.


Peace to you brother.

 

[Zaatar71]

Except that reading and studying the scriptures, especially in the Greek text itself, has convinced me ever more that Calvinism Sotierology is the best way to understand salvation of God towards lost sinners, and that Pst atonement fits best those defined doctrines of Grace in the bible, and no, did not get that from calvin nor spurgeon

Of course you have come to the correct conclusions and that has led you to post against the errors being offered each day.

 

[Zaatar71]

JesusFan, Thank you for your ministry on this site and your work for our Lord and Savior. I have not read any other post except your OP.

I myself am a little more close to the vest here which isn't a surprise since I don't think anyone has it all right. I would say that I think ...

Calvinism attempts to give the fullest glory and honor to the grace of God. For this, I thank Calvinism.

However, in our quest in seeking God and His truth...there is only one truth and that is God's truth. If by chance the Calvinist quest wonders off into error in the attempt to give all honor and glory to the grace of God, then no matter the intent one has the error and falseness is more egregious.

Clear evidence of this, imo, is Hyper Calvinism. It is a proper intent gone to far.

So my point is this, Calvinism isn't the end goal. The end goal is God's truth. Since I don't think anyone has it all right then being comfortable in thinking that one group has it all right only smothers the growth I think God intends for me. So what do I think that is true that is actually false? And am I willing to continually challenge myself and genuinely ask God to dispel those theologies that are false within me.


Peace to you brother.

Yes, he is standing against the strawmen that the other posters offer. Just read the accusations and it is clear who has truth, and who are self righteous,.