Jarthur001
Active Member
So said a poster.
Is this good theology?
What is wrong with it for those that see it as wrong?
What is right about it for those that support it?
Please use Bible verses for your support.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I believe in predestination and free will.....??
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
Is this good theology?
What is wrong with it for those that see it as wrong?
What is right about it for those that support it?
Please use Bible verses for your support.
Goodness this has been dealt with time and time again. Are we going to have another thread with multiple pages where your general reply is, "you don't get it" or "you just don't understand Calvinsim," or "you are misrepresenting Calvinsim," or this is "another unfounded attack on Calvinsim?" You are a staunch Calvinist who likes to beat dead horses. Great. I'm proud for you. But, enough is enough.
christianyouth
New Member
It's pretty easy to believe in both. You can just define the T to be Total Unwillingness, and it fills all the same functions as Total Inability, while keeping man responsible.
Salamander
New Member
Since God offers salvation for man to receive the gift, it would make the Lord look stupid to have the Gospel preached to every creature so only some could be saved.
I think that calvinism tries to bring God's reason down to man's intellectual reasoning. This same aspect goes against Isaiah 55.
Man has to see a program to understand his questions as answered, while God still would have every man to be saved. Yet every man will not accept the Gospel. This does not reflect upon God's ability, it leaves all responsibility upon man.
The "elect"? Israel is elect, Jacob is not: explain this according to core calvinits's beliefs?
The Gentiles have a door opened unto them which no man can close, this is the same door opened to the Jew. If this weren't true then Eph 2:14 wouldn't be in the Bible.
I think that calvinism tries to bring God's reason down to man's intellectual reasoning. This same aspect goes against Isaiah 55.
Man has to see a program to understand his questions as answered, while God still would have every man to be saved. Yet every man will not accept the Gospel. This does not reflect upon God's ability, it leaves all responsibility upon man.
The "elect"? Israel is elect, Jacob is not: explain this according to core calvinits's beliefs?
The Gentiles have a door opened unto them which no man can close, this is the same door opened to the Jew. If this weren't true then Eph 2:14 wouldn't be in the Bible.
Jarthur001
Active Member
.sag38 said:
Really?
Please show me a thread that covers the Jews are elect Gentiles are not.
Time and time again you would think there would be tons of them. Just one would do.
If Calvinist is misrepresented I will. To this point you are the one that has brought it up. Lets see if others will.
.
The best thing for you to do is to stay away from dead horses. That way you will not have to see the beating.
At the moment of this deep honor, I would like to take this time to thank my 1st grade teacher, Miss Toten.
If you would like for me to get after the person that keeps forcing you to read my post, just let me know who it is and I'll see what I can do. It's going to cost you. But I'll do just for you.
Jarthur001
Active Member
so.... which are the elect?christianyouth said:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Jacob is not the elect?Salamander said:
In light of many passage (Romans 9 for one) why do you say this?
Though I disagree with him as well.. and will not presume to speak FOR him, I think he might be refering to the name change aspect or maybe even the Nation itself.Jarthur001 said:
I have heard some say that Jacob was not elect but Israel is.
Now Jacob is Israel but they place 'electness' on when one becomes saved.
I have heard others state that election is not individual but national .. or something to that effect. Thus the nation of Israel is elect (though not all in the Nation are saved) and the Gentiles are now elect in the same sense.
So in short, I have no real idea what he means but I am bored sitting here at work (for the moment anyway) and am just as currious to know what he meant. :laugh:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is sheer nonsense!
stilllearning
Active Member
It was said.......
If you believe the Bible, you have to believe in both of these;
Because both are taught throughout the Word of God.
The problem that some people have, is that if they can’t explain it, then they can’t accept it. (I can’t explain the trinity, but I accept it.)
I can’t explain how God can be Sovereign, and yet at the same time, He allows us to exercise our free will. Just like I can’t explain Romans 8:28.....
The problem that I think John Calvin had, was he went to seed on “God’s Sovereignty”.
And started trying to squeeze the Bible’s teachings, into a box, that could fit into his understanding of God’s Sovereignty.
No matter what “we” do, we will never be able to make the Bible, fit into our understanding.
If you believe the Bible, you have to believe in both of these;
Because both are taught throughout the Word of God.
The problem that some people have, is that if they can’t explain it, then they can’t accept it. (I can’t explain the trinity, but I accept it.)
I can’t explain how God can be Sovereign, and yet at the same time, He allows us to exercise our free will. Just like I can’t explain Romans 8:28.....
--------------------------------------------------
The problem that I think John Calvin had, was he went to seed on “God’s Sovereignty”.
And started trying to squeeze the Bible’s teachings, into a box, that could fit into his understanding of God’s Sovereignty.
No matter what “we” do, we will never be able to make the Bible, fit into our understanding.
stilllearning said:
Do you have any specific quotes of his that demonstrate where he "went to seed"?Or is it possible that you are relying on urban myths?
If anything Calvin's teachings on God's sovereignty stayed within the biblical box.But that box is much more liberating than the narrow confines of much evangelical thought on the subject.
Maybe This Should be In The Games Forum
You stiff as a board Arminians out there who like to toss around red herrings all day.
You fossilized non-Cals who destroy non-living matter (strawmen) for a living.
You hard-nosed semi-Pelagians out there who have set up shop with your daily manufacture of non-sequitors.
sag38 said:
You stiff as a board Arminians out there who like to toss around red herrings all day.
You fossilized non-Cals who destroy non-living matter (strawmen) for a living.
You hard-nosed semi-Pelagians out there who have set up shop with your daily manufacture of non-sequitors.
stilllearning
Active Member
Hi Rippon
You asked.......
No, I can’t give any quotes, nor did I get this idea from anyone else.
This is just my observation, of the TULIP.
These appear to be, 5 areas where John Calvin was trying to justify “his” idea of God’s Sovereignty.
You asked.......
No, I can’t give any quotes, nor did I get this idea from anyone else.
This is just my observation, of the TULIP.
These appear to be, 5 areas where John Calvin was trying to justify “his” idea of God’s Sovereignty.
stilllearning said:
Yes,well,you need to do more research.Do you realize that John Calvin had died 55 years prior to the conclusion of the Synod Of Dort?The Canons of Dort are severely abbreviated into the TUIP configuration -- John Calvin didn't come up with them.There were five specific things that the Remonstrants put into propositional form.The Canons delved into the Bible and diametrically opposed what they (the Remonstants or Arminians)taught.