Doctrines of Calvinism denying the offer of salvation to the world

[liafailrock]

I'm not Mormon, I don't believe in second chances, and I did not say half of the stuff you are accusing me of, so please, cool down. And I am posting in the right area as this is a section for differing views. It's what I believe the bible teaches. The problem is that everything stopped at the feast of Pentecost as if there is nothing beyond that. The other feasts are yet future. Such as the millennium and Great White throne. And they all portray God's redemptive plan and salvation.

 

[JonC]

I have questions about "irresistible grace." I honestly have not understood your answers about it. I understand you to say that irresistable grace can be resisted. That honestly confuses me.

The wording is not the best, but it means that the work of the Holy Spirit in those who are being saved overcomes man’s natural resistance to it.

I think that your disagreement ultimately is with the idea of God choosing individual people out of a world are already condemned for their rejection of God (to include refusing to repent and turn to God so that they would be saved).

 

[Reynolds]

The wording is not the best, but it means that the work of the Holy Spirit in those who are being saved overcomes man’s natural resistance to it.

I think that your disagreement ultimately is with the idea of God choosing individual people out of a world are already condemned for their rejection of God (to include refusing to repent and turn to God so that they would be saved).

Thanks.
I am not trying to get to the point of accepting Calvinism, just understanding it. With a thorough understanding, acceptance either will or will not come. I understand this guy. T.U.L.I.P. or, The Five Points of Calvinism

I don't understand some of the views on here that seem to be compromising on the hard points if the doctrine.

 

[Reformed]

Thanks.
I am not trying to get to the point of accepting Calvinism, just understanding it. With a thorough understanding, acceptance either will or will not come. I understand this guy. T.U.L.I.P. or, The Five Points of Calvinism

I don't understand some of the views on here that seem to be compromising on the hard points if the doctrine.

Reynolds, there is only one view of irresistible grace in Reformed theology. God's elect will respond to the effectual call each and every time. Some people will call themselves Calvinists and reject definite atonement (limited atonement), and irresistible grace, but they are anything but Calvinists. I think what you were confused about in previous threads was "double predestination". Does God choose who is going to be saved and who is going to be damned. Did you read that short article I posted? That is the real debate among Reformed theologians, not irresistible grace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not Mormon, I don't believe in second chances, and I did not say half of the stuff you are accusing me of, so please, cool down. And I am posting in the right area as this is a section for differing views. It's what I believe the bible teaches. The problem is that everything stopped at the feast of Pentecost as if there is nothing beyond that. The other feasts are yet future. Such as the millennium and Great White throne. And they all portray God's redemptive plan and salvation.

First, the Bible doesn't teach what you believe. Let's just clear that upfront.
Second, nothing stopped at the feast of Pentacost. God has always saved his chosen ones by grace.
Third, God will continue to choose others until He has crossed off each name written in the Lambs book of life. Those names were written down at the beginning.
Fourth, all the elect will be saved before they die on this planet.
Fifth, this planet is going to have sinning humans on it for a very long time. Over that time God will continue to save by grace.
Sixth, the Bible doesn't teach what you believe.

 

[Reynolds]

Reynolds, there is only one view of irresistible grace in Reformed theology. God's elect will respond to the effectual call each and every time. Some people will call themselves Calvinists and reject definite atonement (limited atonement), and irresistible grace, but they are anything but Calvinists. I think what you were confused about in previous threads was "double predestination". Does God choose who is going to be saved and who is going to be damned. Did you read that short article I posted? That is the real debate among Reformed theologians, not irresistible grace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I read it. I am still digesting it.

Are you and Cassidy saying the same thing about irresistible grace?

 

[JonC]

Thanks.
I am not trying to get to the point of accepting Calvinism, just understanding it. With a thorough understanding, acceptance either will or will not come. I understand this guy. T.U.L.I.P. or, The Five Points of Calvinism

I don't understand some of the views on here that seem to be compromising on the hard points if the doctrine.

I think it important to understand that when we speak of “Calvinism” we are not dealing with an entire soteriological system (normally). What we are dealing with is the response of the Calvinist church to the Articles of the Remonstrance. The issue was one of predestination and whether or not this made God the author of evil. So when we speak of Calvinism in terms of Baptist doctrine (most of us here are Baptists, I think) we are only dealing with a distinctive. And within this distinctive there are many positions.

I believe that there is a form of Calvinism that is wrong. I think that this form comes from building theology upon theology. And I have run across “Calvinists” on discussion boards that I truly believe worship a god they have created in their own image (or at least in the image of their philosophical leaning). I have run across non-Calvinists I’d say this about as well.

My suggestion is not to get caught up in the “Calvinism vs. Arminianism” thing. It is fun to discuss but I have seen people take it too far. That said, I believe that there is a great benefit to be gained for anyone willing to engage the topic honestly and openly. Just look at how a person treats other people before you get too deep into placing value on their beliefs.

 

[TCassidy]

I have questions about "irresistible grace." I honestly have not understood your answers about it. I understand you to say that irresistable grace can be resisted. That honestly confuses me.

As I have said several times, the term "irresistible grace" is a confusion begging choice of words. It was probably chosen to provide an "I" in "TULIP."

The better choice, in my opinion, would be "Efficacious Grace" but "TULEP" doesn't spell anything!

God's redeeming Grace is efficacious. That simply means that it accomplishes exactly what God intended it to accomplish. God's efficacious Grace never fails.

When I am forced to defend the term "irresistible" I do so in this way. Irresistible Grace is like that last piece of Pecan Pie in the refrigerator. I was looking for a late-night snack and just couldn't resist that last piece of pie. It looked so delicious. Smelled so delicious. Not only didn't I resist, I didn't want to resist!

God, through His Efficacious Grace, makes Christ so magnificent, so compelling, so desirable, that we not only don't resist, we no longer want to resist.

Remember the Hornet Song?

When the Canaanites hardened their hearts against God
And grieved Him because of their sin,
God sent along hornets to bring them to time,
And help His own people to win.

The hornets persuaded them that it was best,
To go quickly, and not to go slow;
God did not compel them to go 'gainst their will,
But He just made them willing to go.

Chorus

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.

And that is what Efficacious Grace is.

 

[Reformed]

I read it. I am still digesting it.

Are you and Cassidy saying the same thing about irresistible grace?

Speaking only for myself, I believe so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TCassidy]

Speaking only for myself, I believe so.

And speaking only for myself, I believe so too.

 

[Iconoclast]

The answers I receive are broad. I am trying to get down to specifics. The answers run in a broad circle.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3;Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

 

[Iconoclast]

What is the implication of not being "elect in Christ"?

They continue on in sin and death and go on to the second death...
14 How then shall they call upon [him] in whom they did not believe? and how shall they believe [on him] of whom they did not hear? and how shall they hear apart from one preaching?

15 and how shall they preach, if they may not be sent? according as it hath been written, `How beautiful the feet of those proclaiming good tidings of peace, of those proclaiming good tidings of the good things!'

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Iconoclast]

Election of individuals to salvation is a great mercy...no one deserves it.
Our perfect God is a perfect judge,and A PERFECT SAVIOUR.

 

[Reformed]

As I have said several times, the term "irresistible grace" is a confusion begging choice of words. It was probably chosen to provide an "I" in "TULIP."

The better choice, in my opinion, would be "Efficacious Grace" but "TULEP" doesn't spell anything!

God's redeeming Grace is efficacious. That simply means that it accomplishes exactly what God intended it to accomplish. God's efficacious Grace never fails.

When I am forced to defend the term "irresistible" I do so in this way. Irresistible Grace is like that last piece of Pecan Pie in the refrigerator. I was looking for a late-night snack and just couldn't resist that last piece of pie. It looked so delicious. Smelled so delicious. Not only didn't I resist, I didn't want to resist!

God, through His Efficacious Grace, makes Christ so magnificent, so compelling, so desirable, that we not only don't resist, we no longer want to resist.

Remember the Hornet Song?

When the Canaanites hardened their hearts against God
And grieved Him because of their sin,
God sent along hornets to bring them to time,
And help His own people to win.

The hornets persuaded them that it was best,
To go quickly, and not to go slow;
God did not compel them to go 'gainst their will,
But He just made them willing to go.

Chorus

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.

And that is what Efficacious Grace is.

The only thing I would add to this (to avoid any wiggle room) is that efficacious grace is, indeed, irresistible. Not only does the pecan pie look good, and you do not want to resist it, you cannot resist it.

 

[Reynolds]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE]

The only thing I would add to this (to avoid any wiggle room) is that efficacious grace is, indeed, irresistible. Not only does the pecan pie look good, and you do not want to resist it, you cannot resist it.

Thanks. Now, if Cassidy agrees with the above statement, I will be happy and stop asking questions.

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks. Now, if Cassidy agrees with the above statement, I will be happy and stop asking questions.

I thought that was what I said. You not only can't resist it, you don't want to.

That is what the preaching of the Gospel is for. To present Christ to the lost in such a way that they find Him irresistible. (Gospel preaching being one of the means of Grace).

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks. Now, if Cassidy agrees with the above statement, I will be happy and stop asking questions.

Sincere questions are good. The truth delights to be investigated.
The more we get on the same page it is easier to move forward and learn more with a view to perform kingdom service and worship.

 

[liafailrock]

First, the Bible doesn't teach what you believe. Let's just clear that upfront.
Second, nothing stopped at the feast of Pentacost. God has always saved his chosen ones by grace.
Third, God will continue to choose others until He has crossed off each name written in the Lambs book of life. Those names were written down at the beginning.
Fourth, all the elect will be saved before they die on this planet.
Fifth, this planet is going to have sinning humans on it for a very long time. Over that time God will continue to save by grace.
Sixth, the Bible doesn't teach what you believe.

Well I agree with all your points except 1 and 6 (which are the same) LOL. That's otherwise what I've been saying but at the times that the feasts depict fulfilled in an actual historical fulfillment. My whole point in contributing to this thread was reconciling of the two seemingly incompatible doctrines of God's choosing and free will, that they both work and both are right. But perhaps we all only see one facet, thus my blind men and elephant fable.

 

[MennoSota]

Well I agree with all your points except 1 and 6 (which are the same) LOL. That's otherwise what I've been saying but at the times that the feasts depict fulfilled in an actual historical fulfillment. My whole point in contributing to this thread was reconciling of the two seemingly incompatible doctrines of God's choosing and free will, that they both work and both are right. But perhaps we all only see one facet, thus my blind men and elephant fable.

The difference is that the doctrine of God's Sovereign choice is biblically established, while man's free-will is a philosophical idea unsupported by scripture.

In your fable, only the free-will camp is blind and the predestination camp is seeing.

 

[liafailrock]

The difference is that the doctrine of God's Sovereign choice is biblically established, while man's free-will is a philosophical idea unsupported by scripture.

In your fable, only the free-will camp is blind and the predestination camp is seeing.

You severely misunderstand what I am saying, so I will say no more to you. If I am to debate in a loving and Christian manner, I must answer to you what I believe in. Not what you think I believe in. The real fable is defending what I don't believe in because you think I do. I can't do that. Shalom. שלום