Calvinistic Contradictions

I do wish you would study Calvinism.

You said,
"I now read on this board, and in Calvinistic publications, that, if an "elect" person were to die before they believed (had faith), that they would be eternally lost."

The question is illogical. Calvinism teaches all the elect will be brought to Faith. It is not possible for an "elect" person to die before they believed.

Please, give a reference or a link to this Calvinist publication.

Go read some Calvinist books if you are going to try to be an apologist against Calvinism for I cannot take this thread serious and I doubt many other Calvinists can either.

 

Well said, Kiffen. His remarks about "this board" probably refer to his misunderstanding of what I said in another thread about 2 Peter 3:9. Icthus questioned why God would be patient to save the elect. My response was that if Christ returned right now, the elect who are not yet saved would perish, and God is not willing for that to happen. This time is, as PEter says, to be regarded as time for salvation.

He tried to make it sound like I said some of the elect would be lost when Christ returned because they wouldn't yet be saved.

I have told Icthus many times he needs to find out what we actually believe and the respond to that.

 

Mistaken foundational assumption leads to mistaken conclusions. Calvinists don't believe "Jesus died only for the elect." They, for the most part, believe the atonement was only applied to the elect. Christ's death brought many benefits to each and every person who ever lived.

And, of course, you have been told this same thing several times right here on this board but it seems to go in one ear and out the other. </font>[/QUOTE]The truth is Cassidy, the "once-in-eternity (past, present, and future) atonement for sin" cannot be applied only to "an elect". And that is where we take exception to Calvinism on this matter.

The atonement for sin is just that, Atonement for SIN and it must apply to All sin or it is not atonement for sin, but rather atonement for people, and that is not scriptural!

 

Icthus,
It seems to me that Cassidy and Larry, equate sin with the sinner. The sinner has never been a problem for God. Sin, because of its God imposed penalty, is what prevented the sinner from receiving everlasting life by having faith in God.

The atonement removed the penalty so that Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Now, that IS NOT universal salvation, that is universal atonement which enables absolutely anyone out of ALL who does believe through hearing the word, to have everlasting life which we call salvation. Salvation is the Gift given by God to those who come to and hold onto faith while God's grace is present. And, if they persevere to the end, they shall indeed have the promised salvation because they Shall not be judged, but pass from death into life, while those without faith are not found in the book of life and get cast into the Burning lake!

Yes, I know you know that Icthus, and I am not intending this for you because you indeed hold the truth in this matter.

 

Based on what? Election is to salvaiton. Why in the world would you think that God would elect someone to something and then not fulfill it? And you think we are the crazy ones ...

No it's not. The Bible talks of the 'fulness of the Gentiles.' What do you think that is? And how will we know?

Your problem is that you have denied the biblical teaching on election and are trying to force us into that with you.

No, that is not really what it teaches. This gets back to knowing what you are talking about. You don't.

And unconditional election agrees with this, which you would know if you knew what you were talking about.

Without seeing the rest of this, it looks at first glance like they are right.

No it doesn't. You have been told this is not true before and you continue to misrepresent what we believe. Why?

Every person has teh duty of faith and repentance. They reject of their own free will, which you would know if you understood what you were talking about.

]Actually we have ... His sovereign glory.

No, which is the proof of Calvinism. If your belief was the initial issue, then you would be betteer than Joe down the street, and God would be a respecter of those who were smart enough to believe. God teaches differently than you believe.

God's sovereign choice to show his mercy and glory.

I don't buy the premise. I don't know that he does.

If you have studied your Bible, then you know that the election you speak of here is not election to salvation. So your point is irrelevant to this discussion.

That is exactly why Calvinists have no reason to be proud ... Because God chose us based on onthin in us. If God chose you and saved you bcause of your faith, then you would have reason to be proud. We don't, because we understand that none of it is about us. It is all about God, and the difference between the saved and the unsaved is God alone, not man.

 

No one here has suggested that you do. We suggested that you learn about Calvinism so you can at least talk intelligently about it. The fact taht you think it is heresy shows just how much you don't know.

 

Pastor Larry, I really do not understand that statement. I though there was no such thing as "their own free will" in Calvinism. I'm not looking for an argument, just an explanation. You say we don't know what we're talking about - that may be, so please clue me in.

 

I saw this the other day:

From the book, titled:
Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport

Jake, a pious Calvinist elder (played by George C. Scott in the film Hardcore)
(speaking about Calvinism)

“Well, I admit it’s a little confusing when you look at it from the outside.
You have to try to look at it from the inside.”

Larry has given the suggestion that non-calvinists learn about Calvinism so we can talk intelligently about it. The only way that one can talk about Calvinism is to totally accept it, whatever it means. If you disagree with it, you don't understand it.

I am one who has never had to give TULIP up. I never took up the habit to begin with. So, in the mind of a Calvinist, I will never be able to understand what Calvinism is all about.

Am I blessed, or what!

 

Natters, the point of "their own free will" is that unbelievers are freely sinning and freely rejecting Christ. No one is forcing them to. They are doing what they want to do.

Qwerty, I thought Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport was an excellent defense of Calvinism and shows how the technical stuff here sounds strange to people who are unfamiliar with it. It proves the very point I have been trying to make. When you have people who don't understand it trying to refute it, it is hilarious, and it is a mess. Mouw's point is that we need to simply explain the gospel and Calvinism will take care of itself. It is a book worth reading.

You don't have to accept Calvinism to understand it. But you do have to understand to argue properly against it.

 

Not true qwerty. You do not have to believe Calvinism in order to not be dishonest or wrong about what Calvinists believe.

In fact, many here have made it pretty simple. Non-calvinists make charges. Calvinists correct the false charges, explain what Calvinists actually believe.... then the non-calvinists wait awhile and post the same false charges again usually with different phrasing.

I am calvinistic. I don't buy all of the explanations given by other calvinists on every point. I certainly believe that man has free will... and that any exercise of that will outside the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit will result in sin, self-centeredness, self-glorification, etc....

If one were able of their own, natural free will to make the decision to accept Christ then their salvation would be based at least partly on their own goodness and not wholly on the absolute sufficiency of God's grace.

 

i don't believe unsaved people have even a rudimentary understanding of the love of Christ until they are converted. This is a 'get on the inside and you'll understand' sort of thing. it is much the same way with Calvinism.

 

Scott J,
Clever how you, from your calvinist point of view, see that the Non-calvinists are the OFFENDERS, while the Calvinists are the DEFENDERS!

A decision to Accept Christ is not necessarily out of one's "own goodness". It is based on what one hears and believes, and that often happens while one is in their greatest "BADNESS".

What you posted is a case in point of how Calvinists skew the truth!

 

So it is a "bad" decision?

You didn't demonstrate that anything was skewed. In fact, the inconsistency evident within your own post leaves your response and accusation without merit.

Either the decision was a good one born of something within the hearer or it was a good one resulting from the Spirit's regeneration of the hearer.

If it was a born of something within the hearer then it is partly their goodness that saved them.

There is nothing inconsistent nor dishonest about this contention. Either the decision was caused by man's "good" will or God's. I contend it was God's.

 

I don't see non-calvinists as offenders. I see them simply as being wrong about this subject. In varying degrees, they assume part of the glory for their salvation for themselves rather than recognizing it all belongs to God.