Calvinists

[JonC]

BYW....there is a reason Calvinists often flock to echo chambers. There they can compare their faith against John Knox, John Murray, John Owen, etc. without having to be burdened by God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Also, @Zaatar71

You could easily settle this by providing a verse that actually calls a person or persons "ekect" while they are "dead in their sins".

You could settle it by providing a verse that simply states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God decreed the salvation of some.

You coukd settle it by providing a verse that states God ounished Jesus instead of punishing us.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God must punish sins to allow the guilty escape His wrath.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states not all men have an opportunity to repent and believe.

You could settle it by providing a verse that bases "forgiveness" on punishment.

There are so many ways you could settle this issue. But you can't, which actually settles the issue against you.

 

[Zaatar71]

The difference is I understand "what is written", so I easily think that what the Bible teaches IS what is written in the Bible.

Me too. So do all the Calvinists on here.WE believe what is written, and we can explain what it means.

You believe that the Bible teavhes what is not actually written in its text.

No, that is the same error you repeat over and over. We believe what is written, and can explain it!

Maybe if what was written seemed lacking to me I'd agree with you.

No,once again you are mistaken, if you read with understanding you would no doubt agree with actual Calvinists.

But God's Word, the text of Scripture, makes srnce. No need to add to it or change it.

Exactly right! it is clear to all with eyesight!

You still have not defended your faith by Scripture.

I have quite often as well all all The Calvinist brothers. They will help you if you let them!

You posted some passages, but you never posted a passage that states what you believe

Sure I have jn 6:37-44 is plain as day, what is written as Jesus taught it!
There it is;
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Do you murmur about these verses like those in verse 43? You should not do that.

You do not know what I believe because you never asked and I never volunteered.

I have seen you are in unbelief about the teachings known as Calvinism. I think you started a thread about your unique ideas. I do not think many followed you on that, did they? I align with truth and would like to help others who might struggle with these truths. You do not seem to welcome such help, so I feel no need to offer to you. You think you have got it. Good for you. I do not want unbiblical ideas, or poor teaching to cloud my mind. In another thread I think it was you who causally dismissed Prof. Murray, and Albert N. Martin, who are respected worldwide on these issues. I learn from them and build up my understanding as they have seen the same exact things, plus more that I could. If you humble yourself, maybe you could see it also!

All you know is I insist that Scripture teaches what is written in its text rather than what men think it may teach.

And once again, where do you find the teaching of the Trinity in any one text of scripture, or are you going to claim there is no Trinity now?

 

[Zaatar71]

Also, @Zaatar71

You could easily settle this by providing a verse that actually calls a person or persons "ekect" while they are "dead in their sins".

We have done that!

You could settle it by providing a verse that simply states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

We have done that many times!

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God decreed the salvation of some.

We have done that!

You coukd settle it by providing a verse that states God ounished Jesus instead of punishing us.

We have done that!

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God must punish sins to allow the guilty escape His wrath.

We have done that!

You could settle it by providing a verse that states not all men have an opportunity to repent and believe.

We have done that!

You could settle it by providing a verse that bases "forgiveness" on punishment.

We have done that!

There are so many ways you could settle this issue. But you can't, which actually settles the issue against you

We have done it, It is a sure thing. You could repent and believe these truths also. that might help!

.

than what men think it may teach.

Many saints have believed and confessed these truths. Others have not believed, that is why some will learn at the White Throne judgment!
We all would urge them to repent and believe before that time!
I hope truth finds a resting place in you also! thanks for posting and raising important questions to think about. All of these issues are listed in the 1689 Confession of Fath, The 1644, and all the other solid confessions. I do not see your peculiar thoughts listed anywhere, but on your own posts, why is that?

 

[Zaatar71]

Has anyone noticed that those who object fit right in to the original post that started this thread.
Objections without substance! Notice how those who oppose these truths cannot begin to address scriptures offered on thread after thread? They think that just denying the truth will make it disappear!

 

[JonC]

Me too. So do all the Calvinists on here.WE believe what is written, and we can explain what it means.

No, that is the same error you repeat over and over. We believe what is written, and can explain it!

No,once again you are mistaken, if you read with understanding you would no doubt agree with actual Calvinists.

Exactly right! it is clear to all with eyesight!

I have quite often as well all all The Calvinist brothers. They will help you if you let them!

Sure I have jn 6:37-44 is plain as day, what is written as Jesus taught it!
There it is;
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Do you murmur about these verses like those in verse 43? You should not do that.

I have seen you are in unbelief about the teachings known as Calvinism. I think you started a thread about your unique ideas. I do not think many followed you on that, did they? I align with truth and would like to help others who might struggle with these truths. You do not seem to welcome such help, so I feel no need to offer to you. You think you have got it. Good for you. I do not want unbiblical ideas, or poor teaching to cloud my mind. In another thread I think it was you who causally dismissed Prof. Murray, and Albert N. Martin, who are respected worldwide on these issues. I learn from them and build up my understanding as they have seen the same exact things, plus more that I could. If you humble yourself, maybe you could see it also!

And once again, where do you find the teaching of the Trinity in any one text of scripture, or are you going to claim there is no Trinity now?

First, regarding the Trinity - I do mot expect ti find an entire doctrine (whether Calvinism, the Trinity, Oenal Substitution Theory, Ransom Theory, ) in one verse or place. That woukd be a passage, not an entire doctrine.

What I asked was about specific beliefs of Calvinism. Very small statements one eoukd expect to find in the Bible if it is true.

To answer your question, yes, I can apply this biblical standard to the Trinity.

Second, you do offer verses but none of those verses actually support your theory.

I am not a Calvinist. I know nobody comes to Jesus except the Father draws them.

That was why I did not ask "must we be drawn by the Father?". That is not unique to Calvinism . It is a belief Calvinism borrows from Christianity.


Again, you can settle this by going to Scrioture (to what is written, not what men tell you "what is written" really means).

You could settle it by providing a verse that simply states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God decreed the salvation of some.

You coukd settle it by providing a verse that states God ounished Jesus instead of punishing us.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God must punish sins to allow the guilty escape His wrath.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states not all men have an opportunity to repent and believe.

You could settle it by providing a verse that bases "forgiveness" on punishment.


Can you really not find even one verse that states what you believe so we can discuss it????

 

[JonC]

Has anyone noticed that those who object fit right in to the original post that started this thread.
Objections without substance! Notice how those who oppose these truths cannot begin to address scriptures offered on thread after thread? They think that just denying the truth will make it disappear!

My objection is actually a request.

Do not give me a verse then explain what men have taught you it "really" means.
I believe God's Word actually means what is in the text of Scripture.

Provide a verse that actually states what you believe the Bible teaches.

You could settle it by providing a verse that simply states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God decreed the salvation of some.

You coukd settle it by providing a verse that states God ounished Jesus instead of punishing us.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states God must punish sins to allow the guilty escape His wrath.

You could settle it by providing a verse that states not all men have an opportunity to repent and believe.

You could settle it by providing a verse that bases "forgiveness" on punishment.

 

[JonC]

Me too. So do all the Calvinists on here.WE believe what is written, and we can explain what it means.

No, that is the same error you repeat over and over. We believe what is written, and can explain it!

No,once again you are mistaken, if you read with understanding you would no doubt agree with actual Calvinists.

Exactly right! it is clear to all with eyesight!

I have quite often as well all all The Calvinist brothers. They will help you if you let them!

Sure I have jn 6:37-44 is plain as day, what is written as Jesus taught it!
There it is;
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Do you murmur about these verses like those in verse 43? You should not do that.

I have seen you are in unbelief about the teachings known as Calvinism. I think you started a thread about your unique ideas. I do not think many followed you on that, did they? I align with truth and would like to help others who might struggle with these truths. You do not seem to welcome such help, so I feel no need to offer to you. You think you have got it. Good for you. I do not want unbiblical ideas, or poor teaching to cloud my mind. In another thread I think it was you who causally dismissed Prof. Murray, and Albert N. Martin, who are respected worldwide on these issues. I learn from them and build up my understanding as they have seen the same exact things, plus more that I could. If you humble yourself, maybe you could see it also!

And once again, where do you find the teaching of the Trinity in any one text of scripture, or are you going to claim there is no Trinity now?

Lol...."WE can explain what it means".

God has given His Word. It means what it says. Stop pretending God is a mentalky challenged child.

The Spirit illuminates "what is written". The Spirit does not add to "what is written". You are listening to the wrong Spirit.

 

[Zaatar71]

Lol...."WE can explain what it means".

God has given His Word. It means what it says. Stop pretending God is a mentalky challenged child.

The Spirit illuminates "what is written". The Spirit does not add to "what is written". You are listening to the wrong Spirit.

The Spirit has illuminated truth to millions already, more everyday. Some of the men on this board have offered each of these truths verse by verse.
You reject what is offered. You offer non biblical thought and your own carnal ideas. I will stick with the Calvinists who offer truckloads of scripture.
You talk about what is written, but never offer a biblical explanation. You give general thoughts based on your own understanding, unfortunately.

 

[cjab]

Hello Cjab.,
These teaching are described in several ways in scripture;

1] Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

2] John 7:
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

3] 2tim3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Calvinists understand what is written and as Godly men have expounded it. They are still growing in these truths.
There are others who are still learning. They see in part, but are still learning.
There are others who resist Godly teachers and drift-like here; Eph4:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Thanks for your post, and contribution to this thread!

Thank you for your reply, but you haven't really addressed the question.

This is the doctrine of God concerning grace: Jhn 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by (διὰ) Jesus Christ."

Does this mandate that Jesus Christ (the human) is the only way that grace comes?

No, for the grace of Jesus Christ represents "grace for grace" (Jn 1:6), showing that grace was also available to the Jews (and others) before He came in the flesh.

_______

However, I believe Calvinists teach grace derives from "Unconditional election." I don't find this in the bible.

Rom 11:5 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Here grace is said to be causal of election. That is, election is derived from, and consequential on grace. So election is never "unconditional" but derives from man's willingness to receive "the grace of God.....by (διὰ) Jesus Christ."

 

[Zaatar71]

Thank you for your reply, but you haven't really addressed the question.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking?

This is the doctrine of God concerning grace: Jhn 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by (διὰ) Jesus Christ."

Grace is all through the 66 books of the bible.

Does this mandate that Jesus Christ (the human) is the only way that grace comes?

not sure what you mean, let me ask you ,what does this mean? Ge,6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Where did that grace come from, that will help me understand what you are saying!

No, for the grace of Jesus Christ represents "grace for grace" (Jn 1:6), showing that grace was also available to the Jews (and others) before He came in the flesh.

_______

However, I believe Calvinists teach grace derives from "Unconditional election." I don't find this in the bible.

No, Calvinists believe that The Covenant of Redemption is the fountain of all grace that comes to fallen mankind. The Father, Son, and Spirit covenanted together to redeem a multitude from fallen mankind, before the world was...2tim1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

How do you understand this verse, CJAB?

Rom 11:5 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

okay, I agree with this clear verse.

Here grace is said to be causal of election. That is, election is derived from, and consequential on grace. So election is never "unconditional" but derives from man's willingness to receive "the grace of God.....by (διὰ) Jesus Christ."

I am sorry but that is a mistake, look at Jn.1:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Again, God is the source of election, and grace. There is no condition, God loved the elect while they were still sinners, and ungodly, he elected a multitude of them, not based on anything in them , that could commend itself to God!

maybe this can help you understand;

Paragraph 5​

Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love,11 without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto.12

---

11 Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; I Thess. 5:9
12 Rom. 9:13,16; Eph. 2:5,12

 

[cjab]

I am not sure I understand what you are asking?

Grace is all through the 66 books of the bible.

not sure what you mean, let me ask you ,what does this mean? Ge,6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Where did that grace come from, that will help me understand what you are saying!

I think I posted not long ago that men are born into the grace of God. If they respond to that grace, they get given more grace. Such was Noah, Abraham and their lineage. The teachings of Christ and his parables encapsulate the biblical doctrine of grace, culminating in "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but whoever has not, from him even what he has shall be taken away." Matt 13:12. So if you sin, you fall out of grace, unless you repent, but certain sins such as causing others to sin will not be easily forgiven.

I really don't know what TULIP has to do with Christ's messgage, or his grace.

No, Calvinists believe that The Covenant of Redemption is the fountain of all grace that comes to fallen mankind. The Father, Son, and Spirit covenanted together to redeem a multitude from fallen mankind, before the world was...2tim1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Why "No?" Nothing I said conflicts with scripture. Peter also concedes that election depends on remaining in God's grace: 2 Pet 1:10. Of course, if you insist on taking God's eternal perspective, per 2tim1:9 then you get a different angle, but Paul is there distinguishing the true religion of faith in God, which relies on and receives his grace, from the false religion of works without faith that doesn't receive God's grace, and misinterprets it as de facto favoritism.

How do you understand this verse, CJAB?

Unconditional election is at best is a meaningless tautology, as we know God doesn't rely on men for his purposes. Election in this world comes from men receiving grace through Jesus Christ. However, God is not partial in the administration of his grace, that obeys the rules of Christ I identified above.

okay, I agree with this clear verse.

I am sorry but that is a mistake, look at Jn.1:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Again, God is the source of election, and grace. There is no condition, God loved the elect while they were still sinners, and ungodly, he elected a multitude of them, not based on anything in them , that could commend itself to God!

Of course God is the source of election, just because God is the source of grace. If election were not of grace, then men could elect themselves without God's grace as the pharisees sought to do. What you're missing is that the real world dynamics of God electing men through grace (which takes into account God's foreknowledge of how men respond to his grace) doesn't infer that men elect themselves, but it does mean that men are part of the equation when it comes to election.

The condition is how mankind responds to grace. When God said "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" (before they were born), God wasn't looking at himself, but rather, he was looking at Jacob and Esau and their responses to God's grace.

The incessant attempt to justify "unconditional election" by saying that "God loved men whilst they were still sinners" is missing the point that God still discriminates between sinners, even though he loves all sufficiently to provide universal justifictation.

maybe this can help you understand;

Paragraph 5​

Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love,11 without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him thereunto.12

---

11 Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; I Thess. 5:9
12 Rom. 9:13,16; Eph. 2:5,12

Even Paul would refute you, when he suggested that God had mercy on him because his sins, although "the worst of the worst," were not of such a nature as to conclude that he, i.e. Paul, was incapable of repentance, just because he was really ignorant of Christ when he committed them (unlike the Jews who knew Jesus personally who received no mercy because they were witnesses of Jesus's good works and "blasphemers of the Holy Spirit." Such could "never be forgiven."

 

[Zaatar71]

I think I posted not long ago that men are born into the grace of God. If they respond to that grace, they get given more grace. Such was Noah, Abraham and their lineage. The teachings of Christ and his parables encapsulate the biblical doctrine of grace, culminating in "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but whoever has not, from him even what he has shall be taken away." Matt 13:12. So if you sin, you fall out of grace, unless you repent, but certain sins such as causing others to sin will not be easily forgiven.

I really don't know what TULIP has to do with Christ's messgage, or his grace.


Why "No?" Nothing I said conflicts with scripture. Peter also concedes that election depends on remaining in God's grace: 2 Pet 1:10. Of course, if you insist on taking God's eternal perspective, per 2tim1:9 then you get a different angle, but Paul is there distinguishing the true religion of faith in God, which relies on and receives his grace, from the false religion of works without faith that doesn't receive God's grace, and misinterprets it as de facto favoritism.


Unconditional election is at best is a meaningless tautology, as we know God doesn't rely on men for his purposes. Election in this world comes from men receiving grace through Jesus Christ. However, God is not partial in the administration of his grace, that obeys the rules of Christ I identified above.


Of course God is the source of election, just because God is the source of grace. If election were not of grace, then men could elect themselves without God's grace as the pharisees sought to do. What you're missing is that the real world dynamics of God electing men through grace (which takes into account God's foreknowledge of how men respond to his grace) doesn't infer that men elect themselves, but it does mean that men are part of the equation when it comes to election.

The condition is how mankind responds to grace. When God said "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" (before they were born), God wasn't looking at himself, but rather, he was looking at Jacob and Esau and their responses to God's grace.

The incessant attempt to justify "unconditional election" by saying that "God loved men whilst they were still sinners" is missing the point that God still discriminates between sinners, even though he loves all sufficiently to provide universal justifictation.


Even Paul would refute you, when he suggested that God had mercy on him because his sins, although "the worst of the worst," were not of such a nature as to conclude that he, i.e. Paul, was incapable of repentance, just because he was really ignorant of Christ when he committed them (unlike the Jews who knew Jesus personally who received no mercy because they were witnesses of Jesus's good works and "blasphemers of the Holy Spirit." Such could "never be forgiven."

Thanks for offering your understanding. It is not close to truth, but I think I see how you think about it. Thanks for trying.