Calvinism -TULIP

[webdog]

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

Claudia, the text states no one...not "no other person" besides you. We are included in "no one". Once in His grip, we are secure, regardless if we deny Him. Scripture tells us when we are faithless, He remains faithful. Peter denied Him...three times...and I don't doubt His salvation at all.

 

[Dustin]

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.

Once again, Bob is either misunderstanding or deliberatly mistaking the issue in an attempt to "refute" any doctrine that Calvinsts hold to.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitfull and wicked aboue all things, who can knowe it? (Geneva Bible)

Look at that..."wicked above all things". This speaks for itself. Bob's strawman of retro-deleted salvation has no biblical basis, as usual. If a person holds to some kind of profession of Christ for ten years and falls away, the Bible says that they never had the truth. Those who fall away are desribed here:

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

John says those who fall away never were Christians, because if they were, they would have NO DOUBT continued in the faith. You can argue with Calvin and "refute" the doctrine, but the Apostle John makes this clear.

The numerous acounts of people falling away show us this very fact, that not all those in the visible church are of Christ's Church. There are tares mixed in with the wheat. Contrary to Arminian doctrine, wheat cannot become tares, sheep cannot become goats, if one has been saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then they will NO DOUNT continue in the faith.

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

So the Calvinist postion is Biblical after all, all those the Father gave the Son will not perish. All those who leave the faith never had the faith. No sheep of his own will can override the will of God and turn into a goat. Such a position is foolish, and unbiblical. Indeed we should take heed lest we fall, it's a doctrinal issue. Doctrine matters, some fall away to bad doctrine and a false gospel and because of that, a false christ. They leave the true faith to show us that not all who were with us were ever of us. The Lord knows who are His, and will raise them up on the last day. Those with true faith, will persevere by God's grace, not by thier ability to persevere, because it's not within thier ability. With man, it's impossible, but with God, all things are possible.

For Christ, His Church, and His Gospel,
Dustin

 

[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?

Point taken, but at the same time, there are STILL others who do the same un-Christian garbage, who STILL post with reckless abandon, unbanned and unrebuked. I simply pose this question to the moderators: Why him and not them also if they do the same thing he did? Why ban him while it goes on so brazenly among others? My protest still stands.

Dustin

 

[Claudia_T]

So really, the Calvinists believe in the Perseverance thing, meaning that you are saved no matter what..

and then other Christians who dont claim to be Calvinists ALSO adopt this last point of Perseverance because they have the Once Saved always Saved thing, right?

 

[Claudia_T]

"wheat cannot become tares, sheep cannot become goats"


THAT seems like it is really the key to this Calvinist idea then, Im gathering


well hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[annsni]

So really, the Calvinists believe in the Perseverance thing, meaning that you are saved no matter what..

and then other Christians who dont claim to be Calvinists ALSO adopt this last point of Perseverance because they have the Once Saved always Saved thing, right?

See, if God has chosen you to be His, how can you leave that? That's why Calvinists believe in the perseverance thing.

And you're right - other believers think this too.

 

[Eric B]

Point taken, but at the same time, there are STILL others who do the same un-Christian garbage, who STILL post with reckless abandon, unbanned and unrebuked. I simply pose this question to the moderators: Why him and not them also if they do the same thing he did? Why ban him while it goes on so brazenly among others? My protest still stands.

I was shocked at him being banned for the very reasons you stated, but apparently, it is much more than just this discussion. Just looking elsewhere, on the MLK Memorial thread, PS104 33 made a good statement questioning the notion of "colored people"; not even attacking or criticizing anyone, and the guy comes out of nowhere telling him "get over yourself and get a life". That is way over the top, and not acceptable.
He has a very brash, attacking style, and thinks its good, just because it's his opinion (and justified as all for "the glory of God"), but every thought that comes into one's head is not something one has a right to spew out at others, especially as a Christian.

 

[Amy.G]

Point taken, but at the same time, there are STILL others who do the same un-Christian garbage, who STILL post with reckless abandon, unbanned and unrebuked. I simply pose this question to the moderators: Why him and not them also if they do the same thing he did? Why ban him while it goes on so brazenly among others? My protest still stands.

Dustin

Maybe Joseph refused correction. More probably went on with the moderators than we know. I have deliberately avoided any debate with him because of his harsh ways, so I can't say he was ever rude to me personally.

 

[Claudia_T]

See, if God has chosen you to be His, how can you leave that? That's why Calvinists believe in the perseverance thing.

And you're right - other believers think this too.

But what gets me is the "perserverance" means YOU are supposed to DO SOMETHING... namely you are supposed to persevere!

But you guys act as if God just kinda sticks a rope around you and forces you around without your consent.

 

[annsni]

But what gets me is the "perserverance" means YOU are supposed to DO SOMETHING... namely you are supposed to persevere!

But you guys act as if God just kinda sticks a rope around you and forces you around without your consent.

Nah - I see the 'perseverance' as what GOD is doing in me. My salvation is not based on something I do but what He does.

And I see it as rather than God dragging us around, God is holding us firmly to His side as our loving Father. 'Without my consent' - nah - because I think that when I saw God in His awesomeness and loveliness, how could I choose anyone BUT Him?

 

[Claudia_T]

Nah - I see the 'perseverance' as what GOD is doing in me. My salvation is not based on something I do but what He does.

And I see it as rather than God dragging us around, God is holding us firmly to His side as our loving Father. 'Without my consent' - nah - because I think that when I saw God in His awesomeness and loveliness, how could I choose anyone BUT Him?

you can because there's a devil out there, and there wouldnt of been any point for Jesus being tempted in the wilderness if not.


1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils


and to say well they just werent saved to begin with, thats pretty lame, guys

 

[annsni]

you can because there's a devil out there, and there wouldnt of been any point for Jesus being tempted in the wilderness if not.

Am I tempted by things outside of Christ now? Sure! But would I chose to follow anyone BUT Christ? Honestly - nope. You couldn't say or do anything that would make me follow another. (I'm not talking sin but actually turning away from Christ). But that's not because of me, but because of the Holy Spirit in me.

 

[Claudia_T]

The dangers of this eternal security doctrine is that Christians claim that its not a license for immorality.

Then they go on to say if one turns from the Lord he was never saved.

Then they will turn around two weeks later and announce that someone has been having an adulterous affair with another woman and is still going to heaven but will just have his rewards burn up.


If you remind them that they just said two weeks ago that they claimed this doctrine was not a license for immorality and that they are not being consistent they will then explain there are two types of adulterers—one type being a Christian bound for heaven and the other being an unsaved person.

But by contrast, the Bible speaks of only one type of adulterer, who is always unsaved 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Rev. 21:8

These ideas are very dangerous.


Claudia

 

[annsni]

The dangers of this eternal security doctrine is that Christians claim that its not a license for immorality.

Then they go on to say if one turns from the Lord he was never saved.

Then they will turn around two weeks later and announce that someone has been having an adulterous affair with another woman and is still going to heaven but will just have his rewards burn up.


If you remind them that they just said two weeks ago that they claimed this doctrine was not a license for immorality and that they are not being consistent they will then explain there are two types of adulterers—one type being a Christian bound for heaven and the other being an unsaved person.

But by contrast, the Bible speaks of only one type of adulterer, who is always unsaved 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Rev. 21:8

These ideas are very dangerous.


Claudia

If you read the entire passage, it's very clear who Paul is talking about in I Corinthians:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul is talking of the 'unrighteous' in that passage because then he says "such were some of you". There is a big difference in before and after.

 

[Claudia_T]

If those who teach eternal security say that someone who turns to immorality was never saved, then turn around and cite King David as an elect person who strayed into grevious sin for awhile...

How can they say then that one particular person was never saved because he turned to adultery but some other person was and still is saved while he is also committing adultery?This is so inconsistent.

If David remained saved while committing adultery and murder, then any Christian can do the same thing and likewise remain saved. And you could never claim that they went out from us and just must not have ever been a Christian.

 

[Claudia_T]

If you read the entire passage, it's very clear who Paul is talking about in I Corinthians:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul is talking of the 'unrighteous' in that passage because then he says "such were some of you". There is a big difference in before and after.

thats silly, it says such WERE some of you... so if you ARE doing that then the Bible says you arent a Christian and you arent going to heaven.

 

[tragic_pizza]

So really, the Calvinists believe in the Perseverance thing, meaning that you are saved no matter what..

and then other Christians who dont claim to be Calvinists ALSO adopt this last point of Perseverance because they have the Once Saved always Saved thing, right?

Claudia, the doctrine of the perseverence of the believer isn't OSAS. It is a promise that God will help the believer to persevere in the faith, and when the believer reaches the end of life, that perseverance will be eternally rewarded.

 

[Eric B]

thats silly, it says such WERE some of you... so if you ARE doing that then the Bible says you arent a Christian and you arent going to heaven.

The problem is, you're looking at the WORKS as detemining salvation; but it's all about the COVERING of the blood of Jesus. Without the covering, a person is charged as an adulterer, and everything else he did. With the covering, he is no longer charged as an adulterer, so such "were" some of us! So much is made of adultery, but all of our inner sins and things no one sees are just as much sin, and then you could ask the same question. Why would we go to Heaven doing those things and not others. Because we are covered, and they aren't. That's what it's all about. Now if a person claims to be covered, but then keeps doing those things, then we have to ask what the problem really is. Maybe he is fake, or maybe he is struggling with it. But what he DOES is not what makes one saved, it's what he IS in Christ.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

thats silly, it says such WERE some of you... so if you ARE doing that then the Bible says you arent a Christian and you arent going to heaven.

I think you hit upon the crux of the matter. From a Calvinist position, I am relying upon God and His grace alone for my salvation. I am saved to do good works, not because of them. I am saved because of what He did, not because of what I am or what I am doing or not doing.

From an Arminian position, one is first relying upon God's grace, but also relying on his/her initial faith and one's continued faith (and/or good works and/or continued holy living) to continue to be a Christian. No matter how you slice it, you then move to a works righteousness point of view.

 

[Amy.G]

I think you hit upon the crux of the matter. From a Calvinist position, I am relying upon God and His grace alone for my salvation. I am saved to do good works, not because of them. I am saved because of what He did, not because of what I am or what I am doing or not doing.

From an Arminian position, one is first relying upon God's grace, but also relying on his/her initial faith and one's continued faith (and/or good works and/or continued holy living) to continue to be a Christian. No matter how you slice it, you then move to a works righteousness point of view.

I think if you take parts of Calvinism and parts of Aminianism and combine them, you might come up with a Biblical truth. It seems to me that neither is 100% correct.