Calvinism in a White Ford Van

Bill Brown · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Good job as dispelling those false assertions that people make about Calvinists. There certainly are false assertions and misconceptions about Calvinism. What I have found is that most of these misconceptions are based on hearsay. It is the bandwagon approach. It is easy to go with the crowd and attack Calvinism. Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

ARMINIANISM: Man is not completely fallen. He is able to understand the gospel and can accept or reject it by free will.
SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[/QUOTE]This passage, of course, is talking about the wickedness of almost all mankind right before the flood. God chose to save Noah's family who He counted as righteous. It is NOT a general statement about man. Otherwise none of us would be here today. [/QUOTE]Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho.

Calvibaptist · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho.

But, even Noah and his family were only righteous because of the grace of God, not because of their own free-will decisions or anything inherant in themselves.

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Bill Brown · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho.

But, even Noah and his family were only righteous because of the grace of God, not because of their own free-will decisions or anything inherant in themselves.

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. [/QUOTE]Considering the title of the thread and my theological bent, I thought that would be assumed.

Bill Brown · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho.

But, even Noah and his family were only righteous because of the grace of God, not because of their own free-will decisions or anything inherant in themselves.

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. [/QUOTE]Of course, which strengthens my point. Noah was saved by grace which is a sovereign act of God. The remainder of mankind was still in their sins and were not the recipients of saving grace.

Bill Brown · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho.

But, even Noah and his family were only righteous because of the grace of God, not because of their own free-will decisions or anything inherant in themselves.

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. [/QUOTE]Of course, which strengthens my point. Noah was saved by grace which is a sovereign act of God. The remainder of mankind was still in their sins and were not the recipients of saving grace. [/QUOTE]Oh, and thank you for pointing that out.

StraightAndNarrow · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Good job as dispelling those false assertions that people make about Calvinists. There certainly are false assertions and misconceptions about Calvinism. What I have found is that most of these misconceptions are based on hearsay. It is the bandwagon approach. It is easy to go with the crowd and attack Calvinism. Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

ARMINIANISM: Man is not completely fallen. He is able to understand the gospel and can accept or reject it by free will.
SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[/QUOTE]This passage, of course, is talking about the wickedness of almost all mankind right before the flood. God chose to save Noah's family who He counted as righteous. It is NOT a general statement about man. Otherwise none of us would be here today. [/QUOTE]Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho. [/QUOTE]Your premise was that all men are completely depraved (fallen). The way to refute that statement is to identify one or more men who were not. That's what I did.

Bill Brown · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />

Good job as dispelling those false assertions that people make about Calvinists. There certainly are false assertions and misconceptions about Calvinism. What I have found is that most of these misconceptions are based on hearsay. It is the bandwagon approach. It is easy to go with the crowd and attack Calvinism. Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

ARMINIANISM: Man is not completely fallen. He is able to understand the gospel and can accept or reject it by free will.
SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[/QUOTE]This passage, of course, is talking about the wickedness of almost all mankind right before the flood. God chose to save Noah's family who He counted as righteous. It is NOT a general statement about man. Otherwise none of us would be here today. [/QUOTE]Yes, I agree that it was a general statement about mankind pre-flood. But it is necessary to note that no one else except Noah and his immediate family were saved. It is therefore not a leap of faith to conclude (from the text) that Noah (and possibly members of his family) was the only righteous man (by faith) on the earth. If that is accurate than the general statement becomes more specific. Of course, as always...imho. [/QUOTE]Your premise was that all men are completely depraved (fallen). The way to refute that statement is to identify one or more men who were not. That's what I did. [/QUOTE]Consider this: Noah was saved by grace through faith. The elect are no longer totally depraved because they now are alive in Christ. It was the same for Old Testament saints. It is the same today. All humankind, apart from Christ, are totally and utterlly fallen...depraved in their nature. Now, you and I may disagree on total depravity. You state that the way to refute total depravity is to find one or more men who were not fallen (depraved). You can find one or more who were not. They were all covenant children of God (saved).

npetreley · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
They provide quotes like:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />all

whosoever

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]I would rather have single words in their correct context than half quotes taken out of context, as the likes of some of the calvinists post. [/QUOTE]Yes, it's very important to put small words into context. For example, 1 and 2 Peter:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect...

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you [the elect]...

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you [the elect]...

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us [the elect], not willing that any [of us, the elect] should perish but that all [of us, the elect] should come to repentance.

webdog · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by npetreley:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by webdog:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
They provide quotes like:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />all

whosoever

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]I would rather have single words in their correct context than half quotes taken out of context, as the likes of some of the calvinists post. [/QUOTE]Yes, it's very important to put small words into context. For example, 1 and 2 Peter:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect...

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you [the elect]...

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you [the elect]...

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us [the elect], not willing that any [of us, the elect] should perish but that all [of us, the elect] should come to repentance.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]Exactly. Who were God's elect here? Jews.

npetreley · Apr 11, 2006

Originally posted by webdog:
Exactly. Who were God's elect here? Jews. [/QB]

WoW!!! What a stretch that was! There are three eensy weensy problems with that statement.

1. Nowhere in the letter does it indicate that Peter is addressing only Jews.

2. It totally invalidates the free willer's claim that 2 Peter 3:9 refers to "all people without exception".

3. There's a little more that comes next...

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Paul wrote to them, too? That's funny. I thought Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

This is also the second letter to these people. And the first letter starts out with...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia...

Galatia? Isn't that where the Judaizers were trying to impose the law on Gentiles?

Like you said, context is everything. And your fabricated context (that it refers only to the Jews) doesn't exist anywhere in the epistles.

webdog · Apr 11, 2006

1. Nowhere in the letter does it indicate that Peter is addressing only Jews.

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you
Did the prophets speak that grace was for the gentiles or jews? Hmmmmm.....

2. It totally invalidates the free willer's claim that 2 Peter 3:9 refers to "all people without exception".

According to you, as you were the one who added to God's Word "the elect" and "all of us, the elect". Quit adding meaning to words that aren't there.

Paul wrote to them, too? That's funny. I thought Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

Now you're stretching it if this means that Paul never spoke to anyone besides gentiles.

Galatia? Isn't that where the Judaizers were trying to impose the law on Gentiles?

Not all gentiles, gentile believers. Notice that God's elect here (jews) were strangers in the world, scattered about. These are jews.

Like you said, context is everything. And your fabricated context (that it refers only to the Jews) doesn't exist anywhere in the epistles.

It doesn't have to. The context dictates these were jews. You want to talk about fabricated?

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us [the elect] , not willing that any [of us, the elect] should perish but that all [of us, the elect] should come to repentance.

Bill Brown · Apr 11, 2006

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...ever if Peter's two epistles were written to Jews and even if he referred to Jews as elect, it does invaldiate election. God has always had one people of God that are elected and predestined by Him. Jewish believers are elected and predestined and Gentile believers are elected and predestined.

npetreley · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by webdog:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you
Did the prophets speak that grace was for the gentiles or jews? Hmmmmm.....

They spoke of both. Read your Bible.

Bill Brown · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...ever if Peter's two epistles were written to Jews and even if he referred to Jews as elect, it does invaldiate election. God has always had one people of God that are elected and predestined by Him. Jewish believers are elected and predestined and Gentile believers are elected and predestined.

Typo in my own post. It does NOT invalidate election. Election still stands.

npetreley · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...ever if Peter's two epistles were written to Jews and even if he referred to Jews as elect, it does invaldiate election. God has always had one people of God that are elected and predestined by Him. Jewish believers are elected and predestined and Gentile believers are elected and predestined.

This is true, because it is specifically talking about election with respect to salvation -- NOT the other ways the Jews were elected (to be the bloodline of the Messiah, to preserve the written law, etc.).

I guess I'm just irritated by the lame attempt at derailing the point by making outrageous claims like this based on so little knowledge of what the Bible (OT and NT) actually says.

Bill Brown · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by npetreley:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...ever if Peter's two epistles were written to Jews and even if he referred to Jews as elect, it does invaldiate election. God has always had one people of God that are elected and predestined by Him. Jewish believers are elected and predestined and Gentile believers are elected and predestined.

This is true, because it is specifically talking about election with respect to salvation -- NOT the other ways the Jews were elected (to be the bloodline of the Messiah, to preserve the written law, etc.).

I guess I'm just irritated by the lame attempt at derailing the point by making outrageous claims like this based on so little knowledge of what the Bible (OT and NT) actually says. [/QUOTE]Brother, all we can do is faithfully proclaim the word of God and allow it to effect it's changing work. It takes time. I was an Arminian for 20 years! I believe us Calvinists become too impatient. We believe in God's sovereignty, right? Let's allow Him to work out His plan.

npetreley · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by Bill Brown:
Brother, all we can do is faithfully proclaim the word of God and allow it to effect it's changing work. It takes time. I was an Arminian for 20 years! I believe us Calvinists become too impatient. We believe in God's sovereignty, right? Let's allow Him to work out His plan.

Well said. Thanks.

jw · Apr 12, 2006

MISCONCEPTION: Calvinists always steer the conversation to Calvinism.

A friend and I were talking about this just Sunday. I am a Calvinist, he is an Arminian. We get along great, but we noticed all our theological discussions seem to lead to Calvinism.

We talked over why that was, and decided it was probably because your view of Salvation effects every single other area of theology and practice.

For example, that day we were talking about "What motivates a Christian to serve" in Sunday School. He leaned more toward it being out of thankfulness for what Christ has done for us. I said it was an outworking of our faith. The underlying theological views are We are Christians becase we do what Christians do vs. We do what Christians do because we are Christians. (Or to illustrate it, Lions are lions because the act like lions vs. Lions act like lions because they are lions)

Anyway, the point is, I think the reason people blame Calvinist for always bringing this up isn't so much because we always bring it up, but because our view of the Sovereignty of God leaks into our theological and world view in so many other areas and stands in contrast to the way they see things that it forces the subject to come up.

npetreley · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by jw:
Anyway, the point is, I think the reason people blame Calvinist for always bringing this up isn't so much because we always bring it up, but because our view of the Sovereignty of God leaks into our theological and world view in so many other areas and stands in contrast to the way they see things that it forces the subject to come up.

And free willism view leaks into every other aspect of a free willer's theology and world view, too.

I don't mean to paint with too wide a brush, but I think a common trait of Calvinists is that they are (for the most part) obsessed with at least two things:

1. The Glory and sovereignty of God.
2. Keeping our opinions out of scripture.

I think statements that rob God's Glory and unscriptural opinions like "God would not tell man to choose if He didn't give man the ability to choose (pelagianism)" really push our buttons.

But that's not always why the discussions lead back to Calvinism vs. Free Will. Like with Calvinism, free willism views spill over into almost every other aspect of a person's life -- their world views, etc. For the most part (in my opinion), free willism is just humanism dressed up in theological clothes. So it REALLY affects a lot of a person's world views.

So when we have obvious differences of opinions about world views, the longer you discuss them, the more likely you are to trace those differences back to the issue of God's Glory, sovereignty, etc. That's why (in my opinion) discussions keep leading right back to Calvinism vs. Free Will.

Let me point out that I rarely say "Arminian" because I don't know a single Arminian. If there are any Arminians here on this board, I don't see any evidence to support that assumption. What people espouse here on the free will side is everything from semi-pelagianism to open theism.

I point this out because statements that espouse semi-pelagianism and open theism are even more likely to push Calvinist buttons than something a true Arminian would say.

J.D. · Apr 12, 2006

Originally posted by jw:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />MISCONCEPTION: Calvinists always steer the conversation to Calvinism.

A friend and I were talking about this just Sunday. I am a Calvinist, he is an Arminian. We get along great, but we noticed all our theological discussions seem to lead to Calvinism.

We talked over why that was, and decided it was probably because your view of Salvation effects every single other area of theology and practice.

For example, that day we were talking about "What motivates a Christian to serve" in Sunday School. He leaned more toward it being out of thankfulness for what Christ has done for us. I said it was an outworking of our faith. The underlying theological views are We are Christians becase we do what Christians do vs. We do what Christians do because we are Christians. (Or to illustrate it, Lions are lions because the act like lions vs. Lions act like lions because they are lions)

Anyway, the point is, I think the reason people blame Calvinist for always bringing this up isn't so much because we always bring it up, but because our view of the Sovereignty of God leaks into our theological and world view in so many other areas and stands in contrast to the way they see things that it forces the subject to come up. [/QUOTE]I think you nailed there jw. The conversation is unavoidable.

Your use of the term "outworking" is dead on. Kind of explains why so much arminian preaching is based on works/effort/law. They see motivation as an external factor, something that must be pressed on the conscience. We see motivation as internal and inherent in the new birth. "for it is God that works IN you both to do and to will of his good pleasure".

Calvinism in a White Ford Van

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member