Calvinism's fatal flaw

[Grasshopper]

It would be nice to see a thread by those who support Calvinism, in which they focused on the LOVE OF GOD and the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

My Gosh, what are you talking about? Election is the greatest expression of love.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by qwerty:
I will insert this into this thread. Hopefully, it applies.

I have another reason for a "fatal flaw".

Calvinism is an attempt to understand God, and His thinking, and His motives, and His methods.
Calvinism is an attempt to explain how people are "saved", or become elect.

God tells us straight forward a lot about this.
LOVE - God loved the world. Key motivation.
JESUS - Jesus was the Divine Method.

When I read most of the posts by those who support Calvinism, they are usually devoid of LOVE and JESUS. There are lots of words about lots of things, but very little about the LOVE OF GOD and the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

It would be nice to see a thread by those who support Calvinism, in which they focused on the LOVE OF GOD and the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

I might, after reading a thread like this, think that Calvinism had something going for it.

You hoped that your thread would apply, but unfortuately it doesn't. Calvinists believe as do Arminians that God loves all of his creation. And believe me, Calvinism puts much more emphasis on Christ's work in regard to their salvation than does Arminianism. To assert that Calvinists don't believe and teach about JESUS and God's LOVE is a misrepresentation of their system of belief and has absolutly nothing to do with this discussion. Though I disagree with some of the Calvinistic presumptions, I regard most Calvinists as well meaning, educated, Christians who not only believe in JESUS but rely on God's grace for the purpose of displaying God's LOVE to the world.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[William C]

I'm still waiting for a response to my last several posts. I understand that many of you are busy, as am I, answering other posts; however, I can assure you no other Arminians on this board are going to present you with any arguements as original as the one that has been presented in this post. They are all trying to reinterpret passages to mean something they obviously don't. I agree with most of your interpretations, but I disagree as to how you choose to apply them. Please respond to the arguements presented in my last 3 or 4 posts on the previous page when you get a chance.

Thank you,
Bro. Bill

 

[TomMann]

Calvinists interpret texts that are in reference to the first apostles of Christ as being applicable to all believers. Bro. Bill [/QB]

Should I assume that since these next two verses were directed to the apostles that they are not applicable to other believers....?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Calvinism is a synonym for love. The Arminian doctrine of Unlimited Atonement reduces the love of God to nothing. In Ephesians 2:4, Paul wrote,

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,"

In Revelation 1:5, John wrote,

"...Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

The love of God, according to Calvinism manifests itself. It is not love that tries and begs, and pleads, but always fails as with Arminianism.

In Ephesians 5:25, Paul wrote,

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

Husbands, I have a question for you in particular. If you told your wife that you loved her so much that you, if called upon, would give own self in her room and stead, how would she feel? She would probably be happy. However, after you told her this, you said, "Of course, I would do it for every other woman in the world, too." Now, tell me how that sounds?

 

[Jacob]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Calvinism is a synonym for love.

And HATE...seems that there's many more Esau's in this world than Jacobs...

Jacob.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by TomMann:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Calvinists interpret texts that are in reference to the first apostles of Christ as being applicable to all believers. Bro. Bill

Should I assume that since these next two verses were directed to the apostles that they are not applicable to other believers....?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, now you're catching on. This was addressed to the first apostles in regard to their commission, which continues through us today. We follow their examples as our firstfruits much like Christ was their example to follow. But your assertion that this text was meant for the apostles is correct, does that mean that it is not "applicable" to us as well. I don't think so. How will they know unless someone tells them?

I assume that the arguement your trying to make is this: If I believe the scriptures that have to do with Sovereign Election are only applicable to the apostles then I must also believe other scriptures are only applicable to them. Is that true?

Yes and no. Yes, the passages that have the "firstfruits" of salvation in view as it's audience should be interpreted with that in mind. If Jesus gives them a particular gifting such as, "you will perform many greater miracles in my name." Or if he says to them, "You did not choose me but I chose you." Or if he gives them specific instructions concerning their mission. We should understand that Jesus may not be directing his statements to all future believers.

No, we shouldn't ignore Christ's teaching and instructions to his disciples because he teaches some very applicable principles for everyday life, both then and now. These principles transcend time and are very practical to the apostle and to the modern day believer. For example, Jesus instucts his followers to love their enemies and do good to those who hate them. This principle works as well now as it did then, it is a timeless truth that is most definiately applicable to our lives.

Someone may ask, "Then why do you think the passages concerning divine election are not applicable to us?" Because, as I stated in a previous post, the unique divine method by which the apostles were chosen by the Father and given to the Son is what sets them apart as being authorative in their God ordained mission to usher in the New Covenant of Grace which is applied to all who believe. I believe that can be clearly deduced from the text when your view is not clouded by assumptions that are brought to the text.

Admittedly, when I first began to study this I was a staunch 5 point Calvinist, highly educated in greek and very set in my system of belief. I debate TULIP with the best of them, converting many wayward Arminians who were trying to explain away very clear passages of divine election. It was only when I forced myself to defend this view scripturally that I saw it from a different perspective. Slowly, over many years, I became less sceptical of this viewpoint, but my destain for Arminianism was very difficult to overcome. My pride would not allow me to admit that I might be bringing false assumptions to the text, a practice that I was taught by both Arminians and Calvinists all my life.

The truth about scripture that I had to grasp is simply this: It aint always about me! Or, It aint always addressing my question! I had to come to terms with the fact that most of the scriptures were not written with me as the subject for consideration, I'm not always the center of attention. God and His plan of redemption is the central theme. The NT is informing us as to how God ushered in that plan of redemption and it never claims to be a modern day systematic theology book.

You may not believe me concerning this view of scripture, that's ok. But notice how the Calvinists on this board have not really come up with any good arguements that fully refute mine. That's unusual for Calvinists, don't you think? Why am I not getting hammered like the rest of the Arminians on this board? Maybe, just maybe, I'm right.

Or, maybe you all are just getting warmed up.

Bro. Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Brother Bill,

Do you use the title 'Brother Bill' because you are trying to influence us to believe that you too are saved? {although I am reasonably sure you are}

Does your medical doctor write Dr. Robert Smith,l when he signs his checks when he goes to the shopping center? If you did not have a bad case of 'sour grapes' you might value those who have gone through the 'theological mill.' Would you rather trust the souls of your family with someone who just walked into your church with a brand new Bible? Having a reasonable amount of respect for an elder may be the rule of the day. [I Timothy 5:17]

I am not looking for your affirmation because numbers of people believing in something or lack thereof is hardly proof of correct theology. As far as Spurgeon the documentation has been duly noted.

Brother Ray, I don't want to get into an arguement with you about who is "more educated" or who has spent more time in your so called "theological mill." The fact is, if either one of us was as smart as we think we are we would be out publishing our own commentaries or travelling around the world speaking in conferences about our beliefs instead of typing them on a internet message board, so let's stop kidding ourselves.

That said, let's discuss the issues instead discussing our level of education. How do you know how old I am, or how much education I have received? You don't, and you never will because I don't want to be guilty of belittling someone else's arguement because their level of education may not be as high as mine. So, let's move on.

Have you read through the arguements I have presented on this posts? What are your thoughts?

Bro. Bill

 

[Frogman]

I would even say that scripture clearly reveals these differences by specifically referring to the firstfruits or the apostles when the subject of "Predestination" or "effectual calling" is in focus.

Your presimse is disregarding the Apostolic usage of "we"

Romans 8.22-23: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body."

Your question is: "What is the 'firstfruits of the Spirit?'

Your answer says that this firstfruits is a kind of special position the apostles were elected to and none since those in that office.

Yet in context of this scripture Paul does not make your distinction.

Your argument also declares that only the apostles may enjoy the blessing of prayer and intercession.

1 John 5.14-15: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us. And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know we have the petitions that we desired of him."

Now you may say this argument is true because John opens this epistle: "That which was from the beginning, which we heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us"

John does open the epistle by declaring his position as an eyewitness. But your argument leads one to believe that the apostles will suffer because of the handling of the truth by those who hear them:

"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."

We could take scripture and prove all kinds of things, such that we would have men to be cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes, but the interpretation of scripture is not left to you, nor to me, but rather it is left to scripture alone.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I would even say that scripture clearly reveals these differences by specifically referring to the firstfruits or the apostles when the subject of "Predestination" or "effectual calling" is in focus.

Your presimse is disregarding the Apostolic usage of "we"

Romans 8.22-23: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body."

Your question is: "What is the 'firstfruits of the Spirit?'

Your answer says that this firstfruits is a kind of special position the apostles were elected to and none since those in that office.

Yet in context of this scripture Paul does not make your distinction.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that because Paul doesn't spell out what "firstfruits of the Spirit" are in this particular text that he must be referring to all of us? Dallas are you a "firstfruit"?

Your arguement about "we" sounds like Bill Clinton's response to the defination of "is". Paul is talking to firstfriuts and he says, "we". Who else would he be considering? Do you really believe that he was expecting his letter to the Romans to be canonized as scripture for all humanity to adopt as a doctrinal manuscript? Even if he did, don't you think he would expect his readers to understand that he was addressing a particular audience during a very special time in human history?

What is your defination of "firstfruits" if it is not a special position reserved for those who were first to know Christ and experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Your argument also declares that only the apostles may enjoy the blessing of prayer and intercession.

1 John 5.14-15: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us. And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know we have the petitions that we desired of him."

No, I never said that. Prayer is spoken of in reference to those who come to believe through the message of the apostles. You might want to read my previous post concerning this same arguement. Someone quotes the great commission in Matthew's gospel and I answer that arguement sufficently there.

We could take scripture and prove all kinds of things, such that we would have men to be cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes, but the interpretation of scripture is not left to you, nor to me, but rather it is left to scripture alone.

I'm not sure I followed your arguement concerning John's epistle, but I think your trying to make the same arguement as you did above which is answered in a previous post as well.

How does people's overly literal interpretation of the scripture relate to my arguements?

And your wrong. when you say, "the interpretation of scripture is not left to you, nor to me, but rather it is left to scripture alone." Yes, scripture should assist us in interpreting other scripture, I think that is the point you're trying to make. But, it is still left to you and me to actually do the interpretation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be on this board all debating our differences of interpretation. This is why we have hermeneutics to assist us in proper biblical interpretation. Most Calvinists and Arminians alike fail to apply the most basic hermeneutical principle: KNOW THE AUDIENCE!

You're correct; anyone can make the scripture say whatever they want it to say. Like you; who is trying to make the scripture apply to all believers when all believers are not in focus of the passage. You are the ones trying to make scripture apply to people it is not addressing, not me. The burden is on you.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
But notice how the Calvinists on this board have not really come up with any good arguements that fully refute mine.

I won't speak for others, but I am not motivated to refute your opinions because that's all you've offered so far. I have seen you provide scriptures you interpret to be meant for so-and-so vs. so-and so. But I have yet to see you provide a single scripture that even infers that God made or planned a change in strategy. That's even weaker than the Arminian approach, which at least presents inference for its views -- unsupportable inference, perhaps, but inference even Calvinists can see. When you present a verse like, "In these days God chose apostles, but in the latter days it will be up to man to choose..." and then perhaps your view will be worth more than a shrug.

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Bill,

I believe the firstfruits of the Spirit is the knowledge of personal salvation and because of this possessing the hope of the adoption of our resurrected body.

I don't equate my arguement concerning "we" as being the same as the celebrated arguement of "is" our former President was engaged in making sin to be nothing more than an abstraction which is relative to each persons perception as to whether or not they think it is sinful.

On your analysis of interpretation of scripture you also seem to be strong. But scripture tells us there is a way which seemeth right unto man. So, when we factor in the humanity we possess naturally we can do nothing but harm to the scripture. WE must continually compare scripture to scripture and from this formulate our beliefs.

Your argument that Paul had no knowledge of the future position of the letter to the Romans also sounds sweet; but the same arguement can be applied to his first and second letter to Timothy. Whereas 2 Tim. 3.14-17 would apply only to Timothy. It makes no difference how Paul perceived the future of his writing, the truth is that God knew the relevance and thus these writings have been preserved. I sense a bit of not accepting scripture as the inerrant, inspired word of God. I may be wrong, but that is how your arguement comes off.

No. I cannot see your point.

Consider

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10.14-16 [emphasis mine].

Also;

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17.20-21

Your arguement is not simply that the Apostles were elected to their respective office; but that they alone were elected. This (in all respect) ties the hands of God. This view removes the Glory of a Sovereign God and replaces it with that of one who is capable of guiding the affairs of men in only certain instances, but not in all. My view of God is such that He is in full control and though things may look to me as if they are out of His control or beyond His reach, this is but proof of my finite mind's ability to comprehend the works of God. (One group is elect, but none other. To accept this arguement means I must believe God has lost His Sovereignty, this is not different than the arguement from free-will that would teach me that God has died but that this must be accepted of men. That some how men must approve of God.)

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[rufus]

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN HIS GRACE

God could have justly left all mankind to perish in their sin and misery, as He left the angels which kept not their first estate, but according to the good pleasure of His will, He chose in Christ, before the foundation of the world, all whom He purposed to save. "According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Ephesians 1: 4,5). "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified them He also glorified" (Romans 8: 28-30). These verses from among many which could be quoted, and the whole scheme of redemption from Genesis to Revelation, afford infallible and unqualified proof that salvation is of free and sovereign grace.

The ninth chapter of Romans is the Holy Spirit's commentary on the eternal decrees of God. In connection with these sublime mysteries it becomes us, as sinful finite creatures, to be still and to know that He is God, just in all His ways, holy in His works all, that His judgments are unsearchable and His ways past finding out. As the election of all whom He purposed to save flows from His sovereign good pleasure, so the passing by the rest of mankind has also its source in the unsearchable counsel of His sovereign will, in all the actings of which He is holy, just and true. "Election is the expression of the divine mercy; reprobation of the divine justice. Whoever hold the doctrine of election must hold the doctrine of reprobation. Reprobation implies that God simply passes by the sinner leaving him as he is. In election He makes choice of the sinner in His sovereign grace. Both are acts of the sovereignty of God." (Rev. D. Beaton, Free Presbyterian Magazine, Vol. 35: p. 244). The non-elect are ordained of God, according to the unsearchable counsel of His will "to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice" (Confession of Faith, Ch. 3, sec. 7). It is not for their being passed by that they are punished, but for their sins. Their being passed by is a sovereign act: their condemnation is a judicial act of God in His capacity as a judge. "Salvation is all of grace, damnation all of sin. Salvation of God from first to last -- the Alpha and the Omega; but damnation of men not of God: and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required" (C. H. Spurgeon).

"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will" (Jonathan Edwards).

"All God's people, sooner or later, are brought to this point -- to see that God has a 'people,' 'a peculiar people,' a people separate from the world, a people whom He has 'formed for Himself, that they should show forth His praise.' Election sooner or later, is riveted in the hearts of God's people. And a man, that lives and dies against this blessed doctrine, lives and dies in his sins; and if he dies in that enmity, he will be damned in that enmity (J. C. Philpot).

"The Arminians, on the other hand, hold and teach conditional election on a ground of foreseen faith. This is contrary to the Truth. As long as men are unregenerate, they are in a state of unbelief, without hope in God and without faith in Christ. When saved by grace, they have faith, but that not of themselves. It is not of their own power or free-will, but the gift of God through the efficacious teaching of the Holy Spirit. Faith, therefore, cannot be the cause of election. It is the effect of it and is insured by it. 'As many as were ordained to eternal life believed' (Acts 13: 48). 'For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Ephesians 2: 8-10).

The text quoted by Arminians in support of their doctrine of conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, is 'Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate, etc.' (Romans 8: 29). Such a view is superficial and untenable. "The word 'foreknow' in the New Testament usage, as pointed out by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, is employed in the sense of the Hebrew yada (know) which denotes love and favour. 'Not foreknowledge as bare prescience,' says Calvin, 'but the adoption by which God had always from eternity distinguished His children from the reprobate.' The Scriptures represent election as occurring in the past, irrespective of personal merit. 'The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 11-13). The sovereignty of God's choice comes out clearly in the Pauline statement that Christ died for His people while they were yet sinners (Romans 5: 8). It has been well said that Arminians take the choice out of the hands of God and place it in the hands of men" ('The Reformed Faith' by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 24). 'But of Him and through Him and to Him are all things to whom be glory for ever. Amen' (Romans 11: 36).

Another subterfuge resorted to by the Arminians in order to explain away the particular election of individuals, is to say that the text 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 13) means a national election, not particular persons, but Jacob's children and Esau's children -- the children of Israel and the children of Edom. "Now, we ask them by everything reasonable," comments C. H. Spurgeon, "is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation, but the election of so many units, of so many people? -- and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if -- which we do not for a moment believe -- there be any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in choosing one nation and not another. No! The difficulty cannot be got rid of thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God's Word. Besides here is the proof that it is not correct: read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations; it says, 'For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth: It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger referring to the children, not to the nation. Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But the text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the persons mentioned. 'Jacob' -- that is the man whose name was Jacob -- 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' Take care, my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God's Word. I have heard of folk altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God's grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and fast as the throne of God. If a man wants to enjoy a delightful prospect, and a mighty mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the only means of obtaining the end in view. So must we do; we cannot bring down the truths of God to our poor finite understanding; the mountain will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher in our preception of divine things and in this way only may we hope to obtain the blessing." (From sermon on 'Jacob and Esau' by C. H. Spurgeon).

 

[rufus]

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

The Truth of God teaches that man through the Fall is in a state of spiritual death and alienation from God. He is depraved and defiled in his nature. His understanding, will and affections are under the power and love of sin. 'Out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness' (Mark 7: 21-22). 'The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no not one' (Psalm 14: 2, 3). "The whole human race," in the words of Dr. Charles Hodge, "by their apostacy from God are totally depraved. By total depravity is not meant that all men are equally wicked, nor that any man is as thoroughly corrupt as it is possible for a man to be -- but there is common to all men a total alienation of the soul from God so that no unrenewed man either understands or seeks after God: no such man ever makes God his portion, or God's glory the chief end of his being. The apostacy from God is total or complete. All men worship and serve the creature rather than, and more than, the Creator. They are all therefore, declared in Scripture to be spiritually dead. They are destitute of any principle of spiritual life." That is man's condition as he is before God. 'The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God' (Romans 8: 7, 8). 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee: Ye must be born again' (John 3: 6,7). 'The heart is deceitful above all things; and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17: 9).

Arminians deny the total depravity of man, in that they hold that the will of man is free and has the ability to choose Christ and the salvation that is in Him. Such teaching is false and delusive. The will of man is free only to choose according to his moral nature, and as his nature is under the dominion of sin, man chooses accordingly. "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation-, so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." ('Confession of Faith,' Ch. 9, Sec. 3). 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (I Cor. 2: 14). 'No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6: 44). 'Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of My Father. From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him' (John 6: 65, 66). All who are born again are said to be 'born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God' (John 1: 13). The "evangelism- of decisionism, coming forward to the front, or standing up to make a decision for Christ, or signing decision cards, is purely Arminian. It is not of God, but of the will of man and can only end in delusion and eternal despair.

This "evangelism" of decisionism is based on another false and erroneous doctrine held and propagated by Arminians, that of a Universal Atonement. "There is in every mind, containing any acquaintance with gospel truth," said the eminent Dr. John Kennedy of Dingwall, "the idea that an interest in Christ's death is essential to safety. There is in every unrenewed heart a desire to avoid the necessity of dealing with a personal Saviour, and to attain to hope, through the gospel, without being 'born again.' The figment of a universal atonement, has been produced to meet this craving. It is ,just the gospel perverted to suit the taste of proud carnal man. 'Christ died for all, and therefore for me; I believe this, and therefore I shall be saved,' are the short stages of an easy journey to the hope of peace. To believe that Christ died for me, because He died for all, is to 'believe a lie'; but even if it were true, of what advantage could this faith be to me? His dying for me, because for all, secures nothing for me. And to believe this, is something else than to believe in Christ Himself. It is, in effect, making His death a substitute for Himself. But instead of looking on the death of Christ as it refers to you, look, in the first instance, on its bearing on His own fitness to save, and on the prospects of all who are one with Him. To view it thus, is to see Christ commended instead of superseded by His death. The first thing, I require to be assured of, is Christ's fitness to save me, a sinner. It is in Him I am called to trust. Ere I can do so, I must be persuaded that He is worthy of my confidence. This I cannot be assured of, unless I know Him as a sacrifice for sin. The merit of His sacrifice I cannot appreciate, but in the light of His personal glory. And I cannot appropriate the benefits secured by it, till I have first taken hold of Himself by faith, What I discover in the light of the cross is, that He can save me in a way that shall be to the glory of God. This is His great recommendation as a Saviour to me. If this were not true regarding Him, I could never confide in Him. And in the light in which I realise the infinite merit of His sacrifice, I know His love to be such as 'passeth knowledge.' To connect that love and the death by which it was commended, with those whom the Father gave to Him, does not deprive me of hope. It only assures me of how certain, and therefore how desirable the redemption is, which was purchased by His blood. The Person, in all His power and love, is presented to me; and the authority of God shuts me up to the acceptance of Him, in order to my salvation. It is light, revealing the glorious person, the infinite merit, and the ineffable love of Christ, and a call requiring me to come to Him; and not any supposed reference of His death to me, that encourages me to receive Him that I may be saved."

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
But notice how the Calvinists on this board have not really come up with any good arguements that fully refute mine.

I won't speak for others, but I am not motivated to refute your opinions because that's all you've offered so far. I have seen you provide scriptures you interpret to be meant for so-and-so vs. so-and so. But I have yet to see you provide a single scripture that even infers that God made or planned a change in strategy. That's even weaker than the Arminian approach, which at least presents inference for its views -- unsupportable inference, perhaps, but inference even Calvinists can see. When you present a verse like, "In these days God chose apostles, but in the latter days it will be up to man to choose..." and then perhaps your view will be worth more than a shrug. </font>[/QUOTE]You never addressed my scripturally based arguement addressed to you posted February 04, 2003 06:21 PM.

Don't you see, that I'm Arminian when it comes to our salvation? So, you've just admitted that Calvinists can even see Arminian's inference in the scripture. It's that inference, of man's responsiblity, man's choice, man's faith in God that also supports my view, I have not expounded on it, because I was not addressing those issues that I'm sure you have heard before. I was addressing Calvinism's error in hermeneutics, which has gone unrefuted to this point.

In other words, I'm an "Arminian" who, to this point, has refuted your application of key Calvinistic support texts, which no one has really addressed.

The reason you "shrug" at such arguements is because you say I have yet to produce a passage that clearly lays out my claim that God saves people in different ways. My previous post does address this scripturally and you have ignored it.

Were you saved in the same manner as Paul?
Moses? Abraham? Jacob? Peter? Thomas?

Your answer is obviouly, yes, I was (But you might say the circumstances or experiences were different with me as it was with all of these men, Right? Ok, I'll admit the circumstances surrounding each of these men's salvation was very different, as your's was different)

But, there is one thing that is the same with all of these men. They were divinly selected for a unique purpose in salvation history. They were given unique gifts, abilities and missions to accomplish within God's divine plan. I guess you would say that you are as uniquely called out as were these divinely inspired men? You would say that you too were set apart from birth, like Paul, David or Jeremiah. How prideful to make that assumption, God doesn't treat all his people alike (which Calvinism has proven many times over). So, to insist that God saves you like he saved the Prophets and the apostles is a burden that you must prove, not a burden that I must disprove.

npetreley, you think you don't have to prove this burden because you've always believed it your way and you have many other's who believe like you. But, imagine if you grew up reading the Bible from my perspective and you joined a message board with dozens of people who agreed with this perpective as well. Then one person came on the board and said, "We are saved just like Paul was, by a divine sovereign call." Imagine the response, this idea would be new to everyone on the board, some might even ask, "What's this new doctrine called?" or, "Where is your biblical support for that?" or, "Where does the Bible say we are saved in the same way the Apostles were saved?" The burden would be on the new guy to prove that the text concerning divine election is applicable to all believers.

Imagine that you are that new guy and you have to prove that the scriptures concerning divine election are applicable to all future believers. Imagine that everyone else disagreed with you and viewed the text as I do. How whould you prove them wrong? That's all I'm asking for here, a fair burden of proof for both sides, I've presented several posts that have yet gone unanswered. I await your response.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[npetreley]

You never addressed my scripturally based arguement addressed to you posted February 04, 2003 06:21 PM.

I see no scripturally based argument in that post. I see you quote some scripture, and then go off on an imaginary tour of why it might have something to do with your hypothesis. It does not even imply that your hypothesis is true.

Your imagination may satisfy you, and that's fine. But I was quite clear in what I consider to be a scriptural argument for your hypothesis. When you provide one that comes within a few light years of that description, I'll respond.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:

On your analysis of interpretation of scripture you also seem to be strong. But scripture tells us there is a way which seemeth right unto man. So, when we factor in the humanity we possess naturally we can do nothing but harm to the scripture. WE must continually compare scripture to scripture and from this formulate our beliefs.

I agree, my analysis of scripture does seem strong, doesn't it. And it does seem right unto man, but to assert that this passage is in reference to my being right isn't good hermeneutics. Again, I hate to keep calling you on this but you must ask, "What was the author addressing?" Do you really believe from the context that he was addressing my hermeneutical system? That's a stretch most Arminians wouldn't even try to make.

Your argument that Paul had no knowledge of the future position of the letter to the Romans also sounds sweet;

Well, thank you. It does sound sweet doesn't it.

but the same arguement can be applied to his first and second letter to Timothy. Whereas 2 Tim. 3.14-17 would apply only to Timothy. It makes no difference how Paul perceived the future of his writing, the truth is that God knew the relevance and thus these writings have been preserved.

Yes, this letter was written to Timothy. Does that mean that the principles set forth for Timothy's life are not applicable to our lives? No. I've never claimed that. Scripture is very profitable to us for teaching and correction. That in no way addresses my points. The apostles were taught practical "how to live" principles throughout the scripture, do they apply to us. Of course, because we have to live life too. But, to assume that the method by which God appoints them must be the same method by which He appoints us is not acceptable, I don't see how the two are linked.

I sense a bit of not accepting scripture as the inerrant, inspired word of God. I may be wrong, but that is how your arguement comes off.

You would just love it if I would just admit I'm not a believer in "inerrancy" wouldn't you? Then you could just dismiss my arguements as the ramblings of a liberal who doesn't believe the bible. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I believe my high view of scripture is more supported than yours. Afterall, you apparently believe that you are on the same level as the apostles since you were divinely appointed just as they were. The Bible is the apostolic record of God's complete revelation in Christ. But your view reduces the apostles to being "appointed" or "saved" in the same manner as every other common believer. My view supports the Apostolic Authority and therefore supports their writings as being authorative as well. How does your view support Apostolic Authority since the apostles are apparently "called" in the same way you were? And why aren't you still writing the bible, since you were divinely elected and all. Like Paul, you apparently were "set aside from birth" so you too must have apostolic authority, right?

No. I cannot see your point.

Do you just not agree with my point, or do you not understand my point. Can you be more specific as to which point I need to clarify. Thanks.

Consider

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10.14-16 [emphasis mine].

Perfect verse. Notice that Christ separates to two different kinds of sheep. Those who come in during the Apostolic age and those that come in later. It doesn't specify as to the manner in which the sheep will come in, but we know from other texts that it will be through faith which come from the hearing of the word. (Rom. 10)

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17.20-21

Another great verse. Notice his prayer for the apostles earlier in this chapter is different than his prayer for those who believe through their message. He refers to them as "being given to Him by the father" he does not say that about us. He does pray for us to be one with Him and the Father, which is done through faith in the message of those who have gone before us. These passages only support my view that God treats future believers differently than the apostles.

Your arguement is not simply that the Apostles were elected to their respective office; but that they alone were elected. This (in all respect) ties the hands of God. This view removes the Glory of a Sovereign God and replaces it with that of one who is capable of guiding the affairs of men in only certain instances, but not in all. My view of God is such that He is in full control and though things may look to me as if they are out of His control or beyond His reach, this is but proof of my finite mind's ability to comprehend the works of God.

Yes, the apostles were sovereignly elected to their respective offices which is what gives their offices unique authority. If we were all sovereingly elected as were the apostles, what uniqueness would their election hold and what authority could they claim?

How does this "tie God's hands." If it is the plan He has chosen, it is perfect, even if you perceive it as limiting his Sovereignty. Did Jesus limit his sovereignty? Yes. Did God limit himself in his revelation to Moses on the mountain? Yes. God has a history of self limiting his intervention in order to accomplish his purposes within the course of human history. Does he allow all things, yes. Does that mean that he necessarily controls all things. I don't think so, Your view of Sovereignty seems like it ties God's hands forcing him to control and thus take responsibility for all the actions of his creation. God allowed for man to respond to Him and thus man are held responsible for those actions. Calvinism, when taken to this extreme, trys to force God to be "in control" over things he has given over to the control of other beings. Who does the Bible say rules over this world? Hint, it's not God. (Eph. 6:12) How can God be Sovereign with others ruling this dark world, unless he himself gives that control over to another?

(One group is elect, but none other. To accept this arguement means I must believe God has lost His Sovereignty

Ironic that you say this being a Calvinist. It sound's like your not willing to accept the fact that God elects some and not others either, especially when the one he may not be electing is you. Its tough when the arguement is turned on you isn't it?

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You never addressed my scripturally based arguement addressed to you posted February 04, 2003 06:21 PM.

I see no scripturally based argument in that post. I see you quote some scripture, and then go off on an imaginary tour of why it might have something to do with your hypothesis. It does not even imply that your hypothesis is true.

Your imagination may satisfy you, and that's fine. But I was quite clear in what I consider to be a scriptural argument for your hypothesis. When you provide one that comes within a few light years of that description, I'll respond. </font>[/QUOTE]So, that's how your going to handle this arguement? Ignore it. The longer I support this view the more convinced I am that it is true because of responses like this.

My arguement is based upon your falsely applied hermeneutic, therefore their can't be a burden placed upon me to find scripture that supports my hermeneutical principle. The Bible is not a Systematic Theology that instucts us how it should properly be interpreted.

Let me place the same burden on you; you find in scripture where it says that all verses dealing with divine election should be applied to all believers. Arminians have been refuting that premise for years (usually by trying to reinterpret the text instead of properly apply them, which is their error) But, the refutation is still there. You "recognize" their arguments as being worthy of your debate, but not mine? It makes no sense! I agree that God elects some and not others. And I agree with most of your interpretations, but somehow my arguements are "less scripturally" supported than the other Arminians on this board? Please explain?

Divine election is unique to certain individuals. Even Calvinists believe that and apparently find support for it in the text of scripture. Right?

Who are you to say who those individuals are? No one and neither am I, we are merely believers in their message. We would both agree that you have to let the scripture (an Apostolic record) tell you who the "elect" are. Look at the scriptures, do they tell you who the elect are? Yes, his first disciples are clearly in view when these matters are in question. You are the one with the burden to prove a link to all future believers. Where is your scripture!

With Respect, but great frustration,
Bro. Bill

 

[sturgman]

Again bro billy,

You are doing nothing more than saying we are wrong, and your only evidence is your viewpoint. When we present scripture, you deny those scriptures and say "maybe they were not written to us?" but other than that you have no evidence to prove us wrong. The burden of proof lies with you. And by the way, I haven't even heard your position. What is it anyway? How does God elect then?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You never addressed my scripturally based arguement addressed to you posted February 04, 2003 06:21 PM.

I see no scripturally based argument in that post. I see you quote some scripture, and then go off on an imaginary tour of why it might have something to do with your hypothesis. It does not even imply that your hypothesis is true.

Your imagination may satisfy you, and that's fine. But I was quite clear in what I consider to be a scriptural argument for your hypothesis. When you provide one that comes within a few light years of that description, I'll respond. </font>[/QUOTE]So, that's how your going to handle this arguement? Ignore it. The longer I support this view the more convinced I am that it is true because of responses like this.</font>[/QUOTE]Whatever floats your boat. But I could easily post the hypothesis that Jesus was a time traveller or alien and provide some scriptures which are consistent with this theory. If enough people ignore me, will that convince you these hypotheses are true? Well, IMO, your hypothesis is about on par with those. If you want to interpret my lack of response your way, however, be my guest.