Did a Calvinist say this?

[JonC]

Well the way you described those doctrines I hold to none of them. Further, I reject being labeled by men (i.e. calvinist, arminian) I see it as contrary to scripture. Paul was very clear on this.

I know you don't fit those labels (both sides seem dependent on the idea of individual election).

Insofar as Paul goes I don't believe that applicable here. Paul was speaking of those who follow other men and their doctrine. Calvinism and Arminianism refer to a set of beliefs and not really those men. It is no different than me referring to myself as a Baptist instead of just saying "Christian".

 

[SheepWhisperer]

It's common knowledge that Adam and Eve spoke in King James English...[emoji41] [emoji56] [emoji57]

I seriously doubt Adam and Eve were English speakers.

Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Psalm 12
6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God's Word and God's "words" were intended to be delivered to mankind. If God Almighty wasn't able to "preserve", and provide us with "very pure", "pure words" "purified seven times" enough to perfectly convey what He wanted each man to know, in his own language, without adding anything or leaving anything out, then He dropped the ball somehwere and the "words" above must be lies. But I do not believe that to be the case.

 

[Revmitchell]

I know you don't fit those labels (both sides seem dependent on the idea of individual election).

I reject it altogether

Insofar as Paul goes I don't believe that applicable here. Paul was speaking of those who follow other men and their doctrine. Calvinism and Arminianism refer to a set of beliefs and not really those men. It is no different than me referring to myself as a Baptist instead of just saying "Christian".

It is different. What Paul was referencing is exactly the same thing as this.

 

[Reformed]

I am a Calvinist, but I am not a follower of John Calvin. I disagree with his position on baptism and his ecclesiology. I agree with his position on predestination and election. Since those two doctrines are typically referred to as "Calvinism", I don't flee from the term, I qualify it. I have a good friend who who does not believe in Reformed theology. He gets irritated when I refer to him as a Synergist, but he readily admits he believes in the Synergist position. When I said to him, "Then what is the issue?" His response was, "I just don't like labels, even if the label is accurate." I had a good chuckle about that. So, when we talk theology, and especially predestination and election, I refer to him as "He who shall not be labeled (even if the label is accurate)."

Much to do about nothing, really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Revmitchell]

Much ado about Nothing to those who like the labels and see them as effective. It is a big deal for those who want to follow scripture.

 

[JonC]

It is different. What Paul was referencing is exactly the same thing as this.

I disagree on this point. I don't think Paul was referring to theological differences (Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Free-Will Theology, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Baptist, Methodist, Reformed, Anabaptist, ect) but to people who consider themselves disciples of men and allow this to divide them rather than being united as disciples of Christ. If you believe that Calvinists"follow John Calvin" and Arminians "follow James Arminius" and Dispensatinalists "follow John Darby" as some were saying they were disciples or followers of Apollos or Paul, then I think you may have misunderstood exactly what those distinctions are.

For example, from previous conversations I think it safe to say that you hold to Penal Substitution as articulated by John Calvin (a "sin debt" within a "criminal law" sense).Does this mean you are a follower of John Calvin? No, of course not. And those who hold to Calvinism are not either (what we call Calvinism is more Beza than Calvin anyway).

 

[Revmitchell]

I disagree on this point. I don't think Paul was referring to theological differences (Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Free-Will Theology, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Baptist, Methodist, Reformed, Anabaptist, ect) but to people who consider themselves disciples of men and allow this to divide them rather than being united as disciples of Christ. If you believe that Calvinists"follow John Calvin" and Arminians "follow James Arminius" and Dispensatinalists "follow John Darby" as some were saying they were disciples or followers of Apollos or Paul, then I think you may have misunderstood exactly what those distinctions are.

For example, from previous conversations I think it safe to say that you hold to Penal Substitution as articulated by John Calvin. Does this mean you are a follower of John Calvin? No, of course not. And those who hold to Calvinism are not either (what we call Calvinism is more Beza than Calvin anyway).

If the doctrines are named after them men then it is a given. You are following after the men.

 

[JonC]

If the doctrines are named after them men then it is a given. You are following after the men.

That's like saying Baptists follow John the Baptist.

"Calvinism" was taken to refer to John Calvin's doctrine of Communion as compared to Luther's. The reason we use the term is that the soteriological distinction is associated with the soteriological defense against Arminianism determining what was orthodox within Calvinism.

You are more than welcome to argue against the name used to refer to the doctrine, but saying Calvinists are followers of John Calvin is dishonest and I believe that you know this.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

"Calvinism" says that Man is so depraved that he cannot respond to the Gospel, that God determined who would be saved from the beginning of time, that God's atonement is "limited" and that a person cannot "resist" God's Grace. "
"Arminianism", as little as I know of it, teaches that a saved person can later become lost. I reject all of the "Tulip" "points" and the Arminian one (the one I know about)

 

[Yeshua1]

"Calvinism" says that Man is so depraved that he cannot respond to the Gospel, that God determined who would be saved from the beginning of time, that God's atonement is "limited" and that a person cannot "resist" God's Grace. "
"Arminianism", as little as I know of it, teaches that a saved person can later become lost. I reject all of the "Tulip" "points" and the Arminian one (the one I know about)

"Calvinism" says that Man is so depraved that he cannot respond to the Gospel, that God determined who would be saved from the beginning of time, that God's atonement is "limited" and that a person cannot "resist" God's Grace. "
"Arminianism", as little as I know of it, teaches that a saved person can later become lost. I reject all of the "Tulip" "points" and the Arminian one (the one I know about)

You have to hold to one of them as true!

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Calvinism or Arminian?
No sir, I do not hold to any point of the "tulip" and I believe in "once saved always saved".

 

[TCassidy]

I reject all of the "Tulip" "points"

Wow. That explains a lot.

1. Total depravity. What part of man, his body, soul, or spirit, do you believe escaped the effects of the fall and remained holy and pure enabling the person to come to Christ on his own merits rather than on the sacrifice of Christ?

2. Unconditional election. What condition of perfection do you think a person can achieve that gives him the right to come to God apart from the sacrifice of Christ?

3. Limited atonement. If the atonement is not limited to believers only, do you accept universalism and believe everyone, even the devil and his demons, will ultimately be saved?

4. Irresistible Grace. (Terrible word choice that only causes confusion.) Better called "Efficacious Grace." What part of God's grace do you think is so weak and defective that it will fail to achieve what God intended it to achieve?

5. Perseverance of the saints. (Better called "preservation of the saints.) A person is saved by grace, and kept by grace. So, what, in your opinion, will result of the genuinely saved person losing his salvation?

 

[Reformed]

Much ado about Nothing to those who like the labels and see them as effective. It is a big deal for those who want to follow scripture.

That is an arrogant statement. Since when are the two things mutually exclusive? Do honestly think that a label means a person does not want to follow scripture?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Wow. That explains a lot.

1. Total depravity. What part of man, his body, soul, or spirit, do you believe escaped the effects of the fall and remained holy and pure enabling the person to come to Christ on his own merits rather than on the sacrifice of Christ? The Bible says for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It says there is none righteous, no not one. and the Bible says in several places that we are "dead" in trespasses and sins. But, the Bible also says that the "dead" shall hear the voice of the Son of God and them that "hear" shall live. That last "hear" means to "give ear". On that day, when I was dead in my sins, I heard that same powerful thundering Voice of Psalm 29, the same one which cried "LAZARUS COME FORTH" and I obeyed that voice.

2. Unconditional election. What condition of perfection do you think a person can achieve that gives him the right to come to God apart from the sacrifice of Christ? None of us has "the right" to come to God. But God in his boundless mercy and grace gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.

3. Limited atonement. If the atonement is not limited to believers only, do you accept universalism and believe everyone, even the devil and his demons, will ultimately be saved? "Universalism says that God will save everyone, regardless. That is false doctrine. God has no limits except that He cannot sin. Neither is His atonement "limited".

4. Irresistible Grace. (Terrible word choice that only causes confusion.) Better called "Efficacious Grace." What part of God's grace do you think is so weak and defective that it will fail to achieve what God intended it to achieve? Nothing about God is "weak". God chose to freely give us the choice to accept Him or reject him. He could easily make everyone "choose" Him like robots but that is not His plan

5. Perseverance of the saints. (Better called "preservation of the saints.) A person is saved by grace, and kept by grace. So, what, in your opinion, will result of the genuinely saved person losing his salvation? If "Perseverance of the saints" means that the saints will automatically always walk after the Spirit, not conform to the world, and live completely holy lives until the end, then it is not Biblical. Again, we still have been allowed free will even in salvation. However, we who are saved will be chastised and judged in this life and in the next as to how we live in this world. God "scourgeth and chasteneth every son that He receiveth" the Bible says. God doesn't MAKE us live right, but He will make us wish we had.

 

[Reynolds]

First, consider the scope of God's will in 2 Peter 3:9. Leading up to verse 9, Peter is telling his readers that those who reject the imminent coming of the Lord forget that is the same Lord who created all there is, and the physical world is being maintained (by God) for the coming day of judgment. But it is also being maintained for another purpose. In 2 Peter 3:8 the Apostle writes, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The Apostle is putting things in perspective for the reader. God is not constrained by time. What may seem as an inordinate amount of time to us is a mere tick of the second hand to God. But why did the Apostle write those words? Because in the often quoted verse 9 he writes, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." So, does God, indeed, will that "any" should not perish? Yes. That is what the text says. But does "any" mean every person who ever lived or ever will live? I think the answer to that question is a qualified no.

Because of the context of the entire chapter, I believe the "any" in verse 9 is the entirety of the Elect, i.e. all those God has predestined for salvation. I also believe the text makes an unspoken appeal to the nature of God. God accomplishes everything He decrees. For God to decree something, and being unable to accomplish the thing He decrees, makes God less than omnipotent. At this point those on the Synergist side will say that God gave man free will, so therefore God desires that all come to Him, but He must allow them to make a choice. Where that view fails is that it creates a huge hole in God's nature. Is man's will greater than the desire of God? Is man's free will actually a self-autonomous free will that can act independent of God? Or could it be that man's free will (if that term is even accurate) is subservient to his nature; if dead in sin a distorted will that is in bondage to sin (Romans 6:6), or a will that has been liberated and free to serve God (Romans 6:18)? I believe scripture teaches it is the latter. God is having patience with this sinful, corrupt world until all of his Elect (the "any") are brought into the fold.

It is Gods will that only the elect are saved, but the invitation is to all men or just to the elect????

 

[Reformed]

It is Gods will that only the elect are saved, but the invitation is to all men or just to the elect????

That is a very good question.

We know that the Gospel is not proclaimed to all people, everywhere. There are tribal people who live and die without ever hearing the Gospel. That is problematic for those that believe God is universally fair. Some have gone so far to say that God will save those people based on how they live according to the light they have. If that is true then God is made a liar because the preaching of the Gospel is made obsolete. So, we cannot use the fairness argument when talking about salvation.

I believe the preponderance of scripture teaches that the gospel is freely proclaimed, but not everyone is able to respond in a positive manner towards it. No one is able to believe unless God makes them able to believe (c.f. Eph. 2:1; 5). This is a hard truth for a Synergist to accept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SheepWhisperer]

That is a very good question.

We know that the Gospel is not proclaimed to all people, everywhere. There are tribal people who live and die without ever hearing the Gospel. That is problematic for those that believe God is universally fair. Some have gone so far to say that God will save those people based on how they live according to the light they have. If that is true then God is made a liar because the preaching of the Gospel is made obsolete. So, we cannot use the fairness argument when talking about salvation.

I believe the preponderance of scripture teaches that the gospel is freely proclaimed, but not everyone is able to respond in a positive manner towards it. No one is able to believe unless God makes them able to believe (c.f. Eph. 2:1; 5). This is a hard truth for a Synergist to accept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Romans 1:20 says
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't know how all of that works but the Bible says it: it's pretty plain that God is "universally fair"

 

[Reformed]

Romans 1:20 says
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I don't know how all of that works but the Bible says it: it's pretty plain that God is "universally fair"

Just because a tribal person stands on a mountain top and credits a higher power with creating all that he sees is not sufficient enough to save. If it was, than why preach Christ? 1 Corinthians 1:21 states plainly that "the message preached" (the Gospel) is the means of salvation, not natural revelation.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

 

[MennoSota]

It is clear you do not have a good grasp of Calvinism because your statements agree with all the points of Calvinism. Why is this so? Because the doctrines of grace are biblical. Thank you for agreeing to scripture as Calvinists agree.

Why then such hostility to Calvinism when you clearly affirm its biblical teaching?

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Just because a tribal person stands on a mountain top and credits a higher power with creating all that he sees is not sufficient enough to save. If it was, than why preach Christ? 1 Corinthians 1:21 states plainly that "the message preached" (the Gospel) is the means of salvation, not natural revelation.

Sir, I never said that it was. But I still stand by what I posted.