Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far

Van,

Regardless of anyone's answer to this post. YOu may want to reconsider your Post Title. I don't think "Taking Biblical truth too far" is anyone's problem. Interpreting in correctly, maybe. I would say a big problem in our current churches is that were are not willing to take biblical truth far enough.

 

I would call Calvinism half-truth.

It is true we have a "flesh" nature that tempts us to sin (you call this sin nature). That is true. But unregenerate man can comprehend God, as shown in Rom 1:18-32.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

These verses are speaking of unregenerate man, but they are not oblivious to God. They hold the truth, they can clearly see creation and have understanding.

But we also see they did not derive this knowledge of themselves, the scriptures clearly say God has SHEWED it unto them.

So, it is true that man has no ability of himself to know and conceive God, but it is not true that unregenerate men are ignorant of God, for God has shown them, and they have understood, and are therefore without excuse.

Calvinism only tells half the story.

 

Did Christ die for the church? Yes. This truth is taught in several passages. But Calvinism took this truth and added “only” claiming Christ died only for the supposed individuals chosen before creation. However, scripture is clear, Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the whole world, i.e. becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind, 1 John 2:2. So the issue is not whether Christ died for the church, He did, but that in dying for all mankind, it included the church, i.e He died for both the church and all mankind.

Finally, is God’s saving grace irresistible? Yes. But what Calvinism does is claim this irresistible grace falls of those without faith because they were chosen before creation individually, and they were without faith because faith in impossible before regeneration.
However scripture teaches the opposite. As fallen men of flesh we can understand the milk of the gospel, therefore we can both seek God and trust in Christ. Note, this action was taken by 3 of the 4 soils of Matthew 13. However, the second and third soil fell away because God did not credit their faith as righteousness. If God had credited their faith, He would have put them in Christ, and protected their faith, 1 Peter 1:3-5. Bottom line, God’s revealing grace, hearing the gospel, can be resisted, i.e. not heeded, or it can be understood and accepted, i.e. learning from the Father, John 6:45. But once God credits our faith, as worthless as it might be, as righteousness, God puts us spiritually in Christ by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, 1 Peter 1:1-2. Hence we are saved by irresistible grace through God’s acceptance of our faith, and not of works which we have done.

God Bless.[/QUOTE]

 

Again....

A demonstration of shadow-boxing at its finest.

It is truly interesting to see those seething with hatred against Calvinists going to great lengths to erect and fight caricatures. It is nothing more than boxing the late-day shadows.

This whole exercise is nothing more than a Quixotic episode. It is interesting, but very, very sad to watch.

The Archangel

 

Amazing that Van uses Scripture and you refute none of it.

 

You must be ignorant of the past discussions.

I've argued, convincingly so, those scriptures with Van in the past.

As Newt Gingrich is fond of saying (a paraphrase): in order to have a discussion you must first agree on the meaning of terms. It does no good for someone who believes 2+2=4 to argue with someone who believes 2+2=5.

Van likes to proclaim that his understanding jives with the Greek. Yet, he readily admits he knows no Greek. Not to mention, it is plain that his usages of the many texts he cites are way off the normal understanding and do not (and cannot) be reconciled with the Greek grammar--no matter how he tries to gerrymander the text.

So, what he says is quite the textbook definition of Quixotic. He's chasing windmills in his own imagination that do not really exist in reality.

The Archangel

 

Exactly correct once again....sad to say...it is strange to see this non -stop jihad against biblical truth:thumbs:

Robert Snow.......have you ever posted a bible verse ???Of all people to question Archangel or anyone else about posting verses.....it is not as though you have extended yourself with verses in most all of your posts

Are you secretly hoping to learn more....and so you are looking for calvinists to supply verses?

 

Think that you again err in not realise just how devastating the fall of Adam was to mankind, as we were 'tagged" with his judgement and the curse of sin!

 

:laugh:My dear brother......you never said a truer word.:thumbs:

 

I don't have to quote verses when I am commenting on verses someone else has posted.

I think Archangel is correct concerning definitions. As long as we cannot agree with what "all" means, it is probably useless to continue the discussion. You might have noticed that I have posted less and less concerning Calvinism.

I believe the totality of Scripture shows gaping holes in Calvinism. That is not to say that everything about it is wrong, much is correct. As Van has pointed out, there are still many problems with this doctrine.

I have been told by several pastors that the truth lies somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism. One pastor, years ago, said to learn to eat the nuts and spit out the shells. It seem with Calvinism, I do more spitting than eating!

 

Robert.....do you realize that the last sentence is in itself a condemnation? How would you like it if I said that about your own belief system?

 

He has the right to reject (and condemn) your belief if he sincerely believes it unscriptural. I reject Calvinism because I believe it very unscriptural. I have probably posted hundreds of verses that I believe refute Calvinism.

It's not like we reject it without valid (according to our interpretation of scripture) reason.

You don't see non-Cals writing mini-novels to explain how the first "all men" in Rom 5:18 means 100% of mankind, while the second "all men" means only the elect few. Only Calvinism has to resort to mental gymnastics like this for the system to work. How you can overlook this is astounding.

 

Bob, you can't explain nor apologize against Calvinism scripturally. I've not witnessed you do this once on the BB.

I'm certain you cannot even name the doctrines concisely, nor apologize against TULIP or DoG soundly as you are marching oblivious to such teachings uninformed in maladroitness.

I recall in the past you've stated even Swindoll is reformed and therefore cast him off as in error, stating such reason as to why you don't listen to him or something to that effect.

Please provide proof Swindoll as Calvinistic or reformed.

Also, please show why you are against each point of TULIP, while describing what each point actually does teach, with Scriptures. Show also the totality of Scriptures showing gaping holes within Calvinism, with Scriptures of DoG and your passages showing the alleged gaping holes.

Perhaps also your pastor should've told you the difference between the nuts and the shells. You've been spitting out the nuts my friend. :wavey: :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

Robert,
Thanks for your response and a clarification of your view of the teaching.
Yes, I have noticed you have not posted as much on these issues recently.
If in the future you would like to take another look at these teachings, i would attempt to help remove some obstacles that hinder you. You know by now that I see the teaching as extremely biblical.....not in between.
I have tried to see what are the main concerns expressed by the non-cals on this forum. It seems to me that as Archangel posted to Van....they are more imaginary than real.
In the meantime I can only suggest you serve the Lord with all your strength,and do not be hesitant to revisit the verses offered and try to see what we see in them.:thumbs::wavey:

 

Good for you speaking out of turn & answering for my brother Robert. Id prefer him to speak for himself thank you.

 

I meant no disrespect. I would think you feel the same way about what I believe. I did not condemn Calvinism, I spoke from my experience, as I would expect you to speak from yours.

Now, if I said Calvinism is heretical, which I did not you would have a point. The fact is that I don't view Calvinism as heresy, there is much truth in it, I just don't think it is altogether correct.

 

Thank you brother. :love2: I really appreciate you concern. :wavey: