Calvinism -TULIP

[webdog]

But then what about these Scriptures?

Romans 11:7-8 - What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day."

1 Peter 2:8 - They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

The greek for "gave" (didomi) has the meaning to grant or give over to. God is not the first cause, as Claudia pointed out, to disobedience...what not seeing and hearing boils down to.

As far as 1 Peter 2:8 goes, God being omnipresent (not bound by time) and omniscient knows the final destiny of everyone. The act of disobedience, again, is not caused by God, but allowed; given over to (didomi).

 

[Eric B]

Likewise, nobody ever asked you or anybody here what they thought of Calvinism. Yet you and others keep blurting it out on your own, in a very uncalled for fashion. Get over it. I don't have to be asked what I think to give an opinion on an open forum. If you can't handle honest discussion, might I suggest some other forum such as Beliefnet and Thinking Baptists where using one's emotions instead of their brains exclusively is a prerequisite to posting there?

I was responding to your statement "If you don't want an honest answer, you probably shouldn't ask the question." The entire discussionand title of the thread is about Calvinism, and I and most others have said nothing uncalled for, because we are not accusing Calvinism of worshipping of false god. You're tying to be such a smart aleck, you don't even know what you're saying. And don't think your beliefs are not driven by emotion or some other internal blinding factor, including just "brains" by themselves, apart from scripture! (i.e reading preconceived notions into scripture!

If I were, none of this would even matter to me since I would be an enemy of God. The lost don't care about their spiritual condition and don't love God. That is where the grace of God (unmerited favor) comes in.

It does matter to some who are unsaved. Many struggle with issues like that, but then give up, or whatever, and die lost. And then, as I keep mentioning, the reprobates that God gives false faith to. They go through the whole process of "caring" about their spiritual condition and [apparently] converting, but don't persevere, because God took away their faith to fulfill them being preordained to damnation. (Now, if you dont believe this much, as many Calvinists will disclaim, then maybe it is you'rejecting things based on emotion. If Calvin was right on TULIP, then this would follow).

The difference is that, like the old hymn, "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" says, my boasting is not meant to glorify myself and the wisdom of my free will, but to glorify God and his holy and just choice to save me from my sin. It magnifies the grace of God, not myself.

2 Corinthians 12:9-10

Joseph Botwinick

And everybody here believes that as well, but you reject that, and tell us we believe we are boasting in ourselves. So what is the dispute between the two doctrines? The reprobation of the lost. "Why does one believe and not the other" (itself a rationalistic argument devoid of scripture, except for being read into a verse or two) is made the decisive issue of truth. So then "the Glory of God", and His grace to save you have no meaning apart from unconditional reprobation. If it is just our choice of one or another to either receive or reject the grace that has been provided, then it is all meaningless; "God" is "weak" (again, no scripture for this ratioanlization). Only if grace is witheld from others are you satisfied. And then you do come boasting about you being "chosen", compared to others going to Hell, (at least, that is what youe whole approach seems to convey) and then how other Christians here believe in a false God, and only your side holds the truth; only you use brains while the other side uses emotions, etc. So you are very much boasting of yourself, and only masking it with God's name, just like anyone else out there with a false doctrine they attribute to God. Sorry, the Calvinists do not have a monopoly on that tactic. It is the oldest religious trick in the book.

 

[Eric B]

See, I'm reading that verse totally differently! I read it as Israel refusing God's prophets and thus refusing God's protection. I don't see that as turning away God's direct calling of an individual.

Romans 9:14-24 is pretty clear -

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Grudem's Systematic Theology says:
"This objection of unfairness takes a slightly different form when people say that it is unfair of God to save some people and not to save all. This objection is based on an idea of justice among human beings that we sense intuitively. We recognize in human affairs that it is right to treat equal people in an equal way. Therefore it seems intuitively appropriate to us to say that if God is going to save some sinners he ought to save all sinners. But in answer to this objection it must be said that we really have no right to impose on God our intuitive sense of what is appropriate among human beings. Whenever Scripture begins to treat this area it goes back to God's sovereignty as Creator and says He has a right to do with His creation as He wills (see Romans 9:19-20). If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was HIs sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can insist that it was not fair" (Chapter 32, Election and Reprobation, page 683)

In addition to what the scriptures the others have just pointed out; this one is the most torn out of context of all. It was discussed back on p.9.

 

[Claudia_T]

Claudia, has your question ever taken a life of its own, or what??? If you are serious in your questions (and I believe you are), I would suggest that you read a lot on your own. R.C. Sproul has two excellent books on the topic -- Chosen by God and Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will.

Has my question ever taken a life of its own... what do you mean by that? I dont get it?

 

[webdog]

I was responding to your statement "If you don't want an honest answer, you probably shouldn't ask the question." The entire discussionand title of the thread is about Calvinism, and I and most others have said nothing uncalled for, because we are not accusing Calvinism of worshipping of false god. You're tying to be such a smart aleck, you don't even know what you're saying. And don't think your beliefs are not driven by emotion or some other internal blinding factor, including just "brains" by themselves, apart from scripture! (i.e reading preconceived notions into scripture!


It does matter to some who are unsaved. Many struggle with issues like that, but then give up, or whatever, and die lost. And then, as I keep mentioning, the reprobates that God gives false faith to. They go through the whole process of "caring" about their spiritual condition and [apparently] converting, but don't persevere, because God took away their faith to fulfill them being preordained to damnation. (Now, if you dont believe this much, as many Calvinists will disclaim, then maybe it is you'rejecting things based on emotion. If Calvin was right on TULIP, then this would follow).
And everybody here believes that as well, but you reject that, and tell us we believe we are boasting in ourselves. So what is the dispute between the two doctrines? The reprobation of the lost. "Why does one believe and not the other" (itself a rationalistic argument devoid of scripture, except for being read into a verse or two) is made the decisive issue of truth. So then "the Glory of God", and His grace to save you have no meaning apart from unconditional reprobation. If it is just our choice of one or another to either receive or reject the grace that has been provided, then it is all meaningless; "God" is "weak" (again, no scripture for this ratioanlization). Only if grace is witheld from others are you satisfied. And then you do come boasting about you being "chosen", compared to others going to Hell, (at least, that is what youe whole approach seems to convey) and then how other Christians here believe in a false God, and only your side holds the truth; only you use brains while the other side uses emotions, etc. So you are very much boasting of yourself, and only masking it with God's name, just like anyone else out there with a false doctrine they attribute to God. Sorry, the Calvinists do not have a monopoly on that tactic. It is the oldest religious trick in the book.

I wouldn't expect a reply...:thumbs: :applause:

Joseph_Botwinick

Banned


Props go out to the moderators for not putting up with his constant vitriol and demeaning posts anymore. Great job!

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Has my question ever taken a life of its own... what do you mean by that? I dont get it?

By this I meant that you had few helpful comments (either pro or con). Instead, there was a smattering of mischaracterizations of what TULIP is and the OP went off into a lot of side discussions -- some not so nice.

However, there were some exceptions. For example, Webdog's post on page one with the links to www.faithalone.org was excellent. While I don't necessarily agree with this view, the articles are well written and worth reading.

My comment was that serious reading & study (on both sides) on your own will probably be of much help. God's best to you, FOS

 

[Dustin]

By contrast God flatly denies the doctrines of 5 Point Calvinism (at least a few of them) when He says

"God so Loved the WORLD" John 3:16 -- yes REALLY
"God is not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance"
2Peter 3
"God sends the Spirit to CONVICT THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16
God "DRAWS ALL MANKIND" unto Him John 12:32

John 3:18 has nothing at all to do with the atonement, it just states the fact that God so loved the world. Yes, I do believe that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and whosoever BELIEVES in Him WILL NOT PERISH, but have everlasting life.

2 Peter was an epistle written to Christians - to the Church , so how does the world figure into this letter to the Church? Indeed it is man's responsibility to repent and believe in Christ, but not all do. What's the difference between one who believes and one who doesn't? God is the difference. That's the beauty of the new covenant, God declared it AND fufilled it, free of man's actions. If it was up to us, we'd fall. If the epistle was written to the Church, and God was not willing for any of them to perish but ALL to come to repentence, then is God will thrwarted? Certainly not, because all that the Father gives to the Son WILL come. Do you not believe that Bob? If it was God's will that the whole world come to repentence, then all would be saved. That's just not the case. You misunderstand the covenant, and you misunderstand the atonement, you place the will of men over the will of God, and you seem delighted in that.

John 16 Indeed the Holy Spirit does convict the world of sin, rightousness, and judgement. I wonder where you get the idea those verses have anything to do with the atonement or prevenient grace? Just because He convicts them, doesn't mean He converts them. I don't see anything in those verses supporting your position. Out of context as usual.

It's one thing to disagree on non-essential issues, but you're picking and choosing verses out of context, to support a position that is clearly not biblical. Either Christ died for the whole world and failed because most go to hell, or He died for His people, and secures every one the Father gives Him. Either His blood meant something, or it was lacking. Those are the choices Bob.

For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church,
Dustin

 

[Dustin]

I wouldn't expect a reply...:thumbs: :applause:

Joseph_Botwinick

Banned


Props go out to the moderators for not putting up with his constant vitriol and demeaning posts anymore. Great job!

I object to his ban. I'm officially protesting it. Why ban Joseph for what he says, and let others post things that are bluntly unbiblical? If others can deny biblical doctrine and keep posting, then why can't Joseph post what he thinks? It's IS a discussion board after all. I can understand if his tone was a problem, but if that was the case, then a lot more bans are in order. A dog's breakfast, and sad at best.

In protest,
Dustin

 

[Claudia_T]

I must've missed something because I didnt see anything wrong with what Joseph was posting... I mean, to me it was doctrinally wrong ...but then again I probably didnt read each and every one of his posts... he wasnt demeaning to me though

... but then again Im not the Moderator and he/she is the one who gets to decide if someone gets banned or not.

 

[webdog]

I object to his ban. I'm officially protesting it. Why ban Joseph for what he says, and let others post things that are bluntly unbiblical? If others can deny biblical doctrine and keep posting, then why can't Joseph post what he thinks? It's IS a discussion board after all. I can understand if his tone was a problem, but if that was the case, then a lot more bans are in order. A dog's breakfast, and sad at best.

In protest,
Dustin

All you have to do is go through his many posts to see him call anyone not a five pointer a "heretic" who worships another god. He wasn't banned for his beliefs, but his repeated violations of BB rules.

 

[Dustin]

There are people who don't hold his view who do the same thing. They are free to post whatever it is they want to say about five pointers, with no rebuke at all. They're also violating the rules of this board. That's the point, if you ban him, you must ban the others who do the same. That's my beef.

Still protesting,
Dustin

 

[webdog]

There is a difference between attacking someone's beliefs and attacking the person. Joseph attacked the person and the beliefs. He was banned for attacking people, not beliefs.

 

[Dustin]

Again, there are others who still post who do the exact same thing. On a personal note webdog, how would it have looked if YOU got banned, and I went and posted what you did about Joseph about you. We shouldn't glory in such things. That was out of line. You are just doing what you think he was doing. What profit is there from that? What kind of example does that set? My protest still stands.

Dustin

 

[Rippon]

I agree with Dustin . I see no reason for Joseph being banned . He stood for biblical truth . He may have stated it too strongly for the sensibilities of some . But on the other side of the aisle there have been some serious distortions of Bible doctrine . And along with much sub-biblical thought a graet deal of uncalled-for venom .
Back to the OP -- Calvinism is the Gospel .

 

[Claudia_T]

well anyway it doesnt matter at this point, maybe he was just banned for a few days. I got banned for 10 days one time.


anyway maybe we just need to get back to the topic...


...cause its not really our decision to make, its the Moderator's decision. Its their Board.

 

[Claudia_T]

P - Perseverance of the saints. Those who are saved WILL persevere FIRM and steadfast to the end - never backsliding or falling away from the truth. (If ten years from today you do fall away - then your salvation today is retro-deleted).


Now THAT seems really strange to me because all over the New Tetament it says people fall and fail and some fall out of the truth.

Eph:6:18: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints

I dont understand about the part where Bob says "If ten years from today you do fall away- then your salvation today is retro-deleted"


The Bible says to take heed lest we fall...


2Pt:3:17: Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

 

[annsni]

P - Perseverance of the saints. Those who are saved WILL persevere FIRM and steadfast to the end - never backsliding or falling away from the truth. (If ten years from today you do fall away - then your salvation today is retro-deleted).


Now THAT seems really strange to me because all over the New Tetament it says people fall and fail and some fall out of the truth.

Eph:6:18: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints

I dont understand about the part where Bob says "If ten years from today you do fall away- then your salvation today is retro-deleted"


The Bible says to take heed lest we fall...


2Pt:3:17: Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Well, the entire 2 Peter passage says:

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

In this passage and the Ephesians passage, I don't see either one as speaking of losing salvation but to lose our 'stability' - that we don't loose the truth from Scripture and insteadf going to some of the twisted teachings that some teach - and that we "keep alert with all perseverance' - again, not saying anything about salvation.

I've seen the arguments on both sides and I side on the "perseverance of the saints" side. It's not that if you fall away that you will be "retro-deleated". God tells us that our names are written in the palm of His hand and that no one can pluck us from His hand. I think that's pretty clear to me. We CAN, however, stray from the narrow road but that doesn't mean we lose our salvation - or maybe it means that we were never truly saved. Hey, all sinners sin - but as believers, we have the Holy Spirit in us to sanctify us - but sometimes we war with our flesh and we allow the flesh to win. But that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit leaves us when we do that. I just don't see that in Scripture.

 

[Claudia_T]

no wonder I dont like those other Bible verses, it doesnt say stability it says steadfastness.


and even if it did mean "unstable" look what happens to those:

"which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction"


its interesting that it says "lawless" in the place of "the wicked" in that Bible version

 

[Claudia_T]

you know Jesus said no body can pluck them from His hand... meaning no other person... but it also says YOU can deny Him and if you do He will deny you

 

[webdog]

Again, there are others who still post who do the exact same thing. On a personal note webdog, how would it have looked if YOU got banned, and I went and posted what you did about Joseph about you. We shouldn't glory in such things. That was out of line. You are just doing what you think he was doing. What profit is there from that? What kind of example does that set? My protest still stands.

Dustin

I respect your opinion, Dustin, but I hardly am doing what he did. For the year I have been on here, he has attacked me and everyone who doesn't think like him. He spreads vitriol...not debate or discussion. I do glory in the fact that the BB administrators realized this, and did something about it. The profit from that is keeping the BB free from that kind of un-christian like garbage. What does that look like to a lost person reading this forum? Did Jesus go around calling everyone "heretics" and idolaters?