Calvinists: Best Argument?

Deleted post by me

 

I don't know about all that, but I appreciate the complement.

 

Welcome to the board, jcjordan.

Along those lines mine would be this: Christ did not die on the cross because of what WE hold to, or what WE believe about God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, or the negatives of these things.

He died on the cross because His name is Jesus, and His name is Jesus because "HE shall save HIS people from their sins" (which incidentally does not agree with the 'whole mankind' theology").

He saved His people from their sins because it was His Father's will for them.

And this will was from eternity past, before God created the world, which, according to the Bible is when He wrote His people's names in the Book of Life.

And NONE of those whose names He wrote in that book will ever be lost, because the blood of the Lamb of Calvary covered them already before the foundation of the world, which is why He is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Therefore, the eternal security and eternal salvation of God's elect people from all ages and all tongues and all kindred is dependent solely and purely upon God's mercy and will and action, not on the elect's theology, doctrine, action, will, or philosophy which are all tainted with sin and imperfection.

Their eternal salvation was and is a done deal from eternity past, illustrated and taught in God's national people Israel who typifies His elect, and sealed with the Lamb's physical blood here in time, recorded in the Bible for the information, learning, and benefit of His people wherever the gospel reaches them.

 

Welcome to the board, jcjordan.

Along those lines mine would be this: Christ did not die on the cross because of what WE hold to, or what WE believe about God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, or the negatives of these things.

He died on the cross because His name is Jesus, and His name is Jesus because "HE shall save HIS people from their sins" (which incidentally does not agree with the 'whole mankind' theology").

He saved His people from their sins because it was His Father's will for them.

And this will was from eternity past, before God created the world, which, according to the Bible is when He wrote His people's names in the Book of Life.

And NONE of those whose names He wrote in that book will ever be lost, because the blood of the Lamb of Calvary covered them already before the foundation of the world, which is why He is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Therefore, the eternal security and eternal salvation of God's elect people from all ages and all tongues and all kindred is dependent solely and purely upon God's mercy and will and action, not on the elect's theology, doctrine, action, will, or philosophy which are all tainted with sin and imperfection.

Their eternal salvation was and is a done deal from eternity past, illustrated and taught in God's national people Israel who typifies His elect, and sealed with the Lamb's physical blood here in time, recorded in the Bible for the information, learning, and benefit of His people wherever the gospel reaches them.

 

Pinoy, if I'm not mistaken you hold do you not, that man need not do anything for salvation, which includes to believe/repent, because that makes salvation to have preconditions to it, right?

And your belief (I think) can best be summed up from a post of yours in a discussion months earlier in the thread "Can you be saved and not know it" -

emphasis mine.

So faith is not necessary but most definately benificial in a persons life who is saved already. Thus it is your opinion that a person can be saved and not know it just as a person who believes might not be saved. No one will know until the Judgment Seat of Christ in your opinion.

I am making reference to this since we are speaking salvation and the role of faith in it.

If I was wrong on any point above, please correct me, I have no problem recanting anything I might have stated in the above that is incorrect in your view.

 

She's right...you put into words much of what I'm thinking, but cannot get down to my finger tips

 

What do you disagree with?

 

Actually He came to save His people and they rejected Him,
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
So He became the propitation for the sins of the whole world instead to make His people Jealous.
Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
He died for the whole world because He is the Propitation for the sins of the whole world.
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Actually there were very few of His people saved and His people at the time were Jews not Gentiles. Most of who still do not believe in Christ.

Scripture please????

This is because man depends on men of the past instead of depending on God.

If this were true you would have backed it up with scripture. This is like saying you were never a born sinner.

Then why can't you prove all this is from scripture?
MB

 

Yes. I understand that. I should have asked what specific things about Allan's post don't make sense to you?

 

Allan:

I believe that NOT everytime the Bible speaks of salvation, that it is in reference to ETERNAL salvation.

Eternal salvation is all of grace, all of God, and all of mercy.

It has no preconditions attached to it. It encompasses and includes all of God's people wherever they are, whatever they hold to in regards to theology, doctrine, or creed. When Christ redeemed His people He redeemed everyone of them whatever their color, race, tongue, custom, geographical location, or political affiliation or system may be.

I believe that God's elect are all over the earth, have always existed, and will continue to be on this earth until such time that He metes out judgment on the wicked ones.

However, contrary to what MB said I am implying, they were not born without sin. Every human being, every member of the Adamic race is fallen, and is at enmity with God because of their fallen condition, and that is exactly why Christ shed His blood for them, and which is why God must, in the person of the Holy Spirit, and the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerate them, and He does this regeneration without means.

Eternal salvation required no input from the elect, it required zilch. Not according to our righteousnesses, but according to His mercy, He saved us, was Paul's statement.

Now, I also believe that the Bible speaks of a second aspect of salvation, and this requires INPUT from the elect child of God, and here is where gospel preaching, gospel instruction, gospel baptism and membership in a gospel church comes in.

Obviously, not all of the elect will hear the gospel, much more hear the TRUE gospel. Therefore, not all will be able to come to gospel obedience, nor a public display of their repentance and faith in Christ thru baptism or membership in a gospel church.

And equally obviously, God has His elect even among those we Christians generally refer to as heathen, such as Muslims, Buddhists, Confucianists, because to say that He does not have people in these groups is to hack away at His inheritance because the Bible clearly states that He has His people from ALL kindreds, tongues, and tribes.

And equally very obviously, ALL is not ALL if God started saving people only AFTER the cross because the gospel is there to be preached already.

 

You know I've heard this from so many Calvinist and not one of them has any scripture to back it up. Where do you get such notions? Certainly it isn't from scripture. Man is always able to rebel. There is no such thing as irresistable grace found in scripture nor is there any such concept ever taught in scripture. Which of the men of the Past thought this one up?
MB

 

Why doesn't the believer exchange the Truth for a lie? What is different about Him? Is it because he is smarter? Wiser? More spiritual? What is the root of the difference?

 

Gotcha. :thumbs:

Glad to see you're back on the BB. I know you've got your hands full with that new baby and her big brother.