Is Calvinism a False Doctrine?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If we are saved the same way as those in the OT, i.e. by faith, would not it be reasonable to assume that we are lost in the same manner as those were in the OT? Again we are looking for the cause of sins malady as recorded in the OT or that speaks to those in the OT. Can anyone show us one verse fromn the OT that states or implies that the Gentiles were lost due to their rejection of Jesus Christ?

How were the Gentiles to hear of the Messiah, being banned from the temple and not even being an object of the covenant God gave to the Jews? If God desired to give the gospel to the Gentiles in the OT, He sure had a peculiar way of showing it. Listen tho the passage in Amos. Am 3:2 "You ONLY have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."

Doesn’t Ephesians paint an opposite view of that purported by some that state God grants to all men the opportunity of salvation and that the damning sin is the rejection of that offer?
Ephesians 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Does not this passage state clearly that the Gentiles, at least as a whole, were alienated from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God? Where do we find that God offered all the Gentiles in the OT the right to partake of his covenant with the Jews? If an uncircumcised Gentile even tried to enter the sanctuary he would have been killed, would he not? Again, a strange way to offer the same hope to all as some proclaim is the case.

If the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ, how were the Gentiles to be blamed eternally for rejecting an offer that they had specifically, as a whole, been alienated from according to Scripture?

 

[Amy.G]

HP: You as well miss the point. We all agree that if one does not believe in Christ he will die condemned in his sins. That is NOT the issue at stake. The issue is whether or not the ONLY reason we are condemned is due to the rejection of Jesus Christ as DHK stated.

Amy, if you believe DHK is correct, set forth the Scripture that makes that claim. The Scripture you mention does not state or imply any such thing. It does not say why all are condemned, but rather only what a sinner has to do to be saved, i.e., believe in Christ. This verse does not claim that all have or all will even have the opportunity to believe in Christ, but rather that all will be condemned if they do not have the opportunity to believe, or if they refuse to believe having had the opportunity. Again, it does not state or imply that failure to believe is the ‘only reason’ the sinner is condemned. That is plainly an unsupported presupposition of the Calvinist.

I don't know of any other condemnation except the rejection of the Savior.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

We have the wrath of God abiding on us until we put our faith in Christ. If we reject Christ, the wrath remains. The condemnation remains. We stand condemned because we sinned against God. Christ is the only way out.
I do not know the answer to what happens to people who have never heard of Christ. I trust God to do the right thing. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

So, how do you answer the question?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: We stand condemned because we sinned against God.

HP: There you have it! :thumbs: That is the condemnation all have without question. ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It is our sins that we stand condemned for. Certainly IF we have the opportunity to hear the gospel and reject it, or hear the gospel respond to it but reject it in the end, we will be condemned for that as well. Just the same, our sins have separated us from our God. The rejection of the cure seals ones fate but is not the ‘cause’ of the sinful malady we all possess.

Even if we look at our first parents it clearly proves DHK wrong. Their 'sins' separated them from God, NOT the rejection of any proffered cure. If God had NEVER offered a cure for sin, they would have still stood condemed for ther sins, just as Satan and the fallen angels do today.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: There you have it! :thumbs: That is the condemnation all have without question. ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It is our sins that we stand condemned for. Certainly IF we have the opportunity to hear the gospel and reject it, or hear the gospel respond to it but reject it in the end, we will be condemned for that as well. Just the same, our sins have separated us from our God. The rejection of the cure seals ones fate but is not the ‘cause’ of the sinful malady we all possess.

Isn't that basically what I said?

If you do not believe, you will die in your sins?

If you reject Christ you will die in your sins.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AMY: Isn't that basically what I said?

If you do not believe, you will die in your sins?

If you reject Christ you will die in your sins.

HP: Follow this closely. Why were Adam and Eve condemned?

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Follow this closely. Why was Adam and Eve condemned?

I understand. I'm really not trying to argue with you. Our sins have separated us from God and brought His wrath upon us. Christ is the only escape. He took my punishment.

As I said, people go to hell because of their sins. Their sins remain and the wrath of God remains unless they put their faith in Christ.

But it's because they have rejected Christ that their sin remains. I think that is what DHK is saying.
I'm sure he will be along to answer for himself.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AMY: But it's because they have rejected Christ that their sin remains. I think that is what DHK is saying.
I'm sure he will be along to answer for himself.

HP: DHK has stated, and I quote, “The rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, and his work on the cross, is the only thing that will damn a person to hell.” That is what I am addressing. I believe Scripture is clear in stating that what damns man to hell is their sins. The rejection of the cure, Jesus Christ, will indeed seal their fate if the have the opportunity to hear and they reject it.

Eating from a forbidden tree was the damning sin for Adam and Eve. Killing his brother Able was the damning sin for Cain, etc. etc. Whether or not any cure is ever offered, and regardless if in fact one ever hears of the cure, all will stand accountable to God for the cause of the malady, which is their sins, NOT the rejection of the cure. The rejection of Christ will indeed seal the fate of any and all that hear and reject, but again it is NOT the malady that lies at the root of their estrangement from God. “Your sins have separated you from your God.”

 

[DHK]

HP: What would you say to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. when he tells us that he is not a liberal? :smilewinkgrin:

Your statement is in response to my statement:

I am not a Calvinist

Taken in that context, it is a libelous false accusation.
Do you have any good reason for not believing my testimony?

 

[DHK]

HP: DHK has stated, and I quote, “The rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, and his work on the cross, is the only thing that will damn a person to hell.” That is what I am addressing. I believe Scripture is clear in stating that what damns man to hell is their sins.

I have given you Scripture; you have given your opinion. I will go with Scripture. You are wrong in your view. It is simply your opinion without any Scriptural support. John 3:18,36 are enough evidence. Why don't you believe them?

Eating from a forbidden tree was the damning sin for Adam and Eve.

You do err, not knowing the Scriptures.
Their sin did not "damn" or condemn them to Hell. In fact I am quite sure that I will see Adam and Eve in Heaven. Do you think that God would put an unbeliever in the genealogy of Jesus Christ? Adam was a child of God, created as a child of God. He sinned, as we all do. His sin put him out of fellowship with God. It did not condemn him to Hell. God Himself offered a blood sacrifice for their sin when he made coats of skins and offered up an animal--killed by the hand of God. Their sin was atoned for.

Killing his brother Able was the damning sin for Cain, etc. etc. Whether or not any cure is ever offered, and regardless if in fact one ever hears of the cure, all will stand accountable to God for the cause of the malady, which is their sins, NOT the rejection of the cure.

No, the murder of Abel was not a damning sin for Cain.
Again, You do err not knowing the Scriptures.
Cain had already been warned of God to do right long before killing Cain. The murder of Cain was the last step in a line of many wrong-doings.

Genesis 4:5-6 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

1. Cain did not offer the proper offering--that offering that God demanded--a blood offering.
2. His attitude in bringing an offering was not right.
3. Cain was angry.
4. The look on his face had changed, and the Lord questioned him about all of these things.

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
--God gives him a warning here.
The sin of murder was not a damning sin. It was the rejection of God; and the rejection of God's commands, which ended up in murder. Long before murder happened, anger took place. Anger led to murder. Before anger took place, Cain had offered the wrong sacrifice, and in self-righteous rebellion against God thought his offering was just as good as his brother's. There was his sin--the rejection of God and his commands.

The rejection of Christ will indeed seal the fate of any and all that hear and reject, but again it is NOT the malady that lies at the root of their estrangement from God. “Your sins have separated you from your God.”

You do err not knowing the Scriptures.
You have taken that last phrase out of context.
"Your sins have separated you from your God." Note the your God. The verse is written to believers. Sin separates believers from God, that is our fellowship with God. It does not affect our salvation. We are secure in the hand of God--eternally secure.
The only thing that will condemn a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour. Jesus has said that in many places. Why don't you believe him? What do you think he meant when he said:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

He is the only way. Reject that way and you are condemned for all eternity. There is no other way but through Christ. Rejection of Christ condemns one to Hell.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: He is the only way. Reject that way and you are condemned for all eternity. There is no other way but through Christ. Rejection of Christ condemns one to Hell.

HP: If you would have simply made this statement at the first I would have given you a thumbs up and told you to preach it.:thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

The only thing that will condemn a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour. Jesus has said that in many places. Why don't you believe him?

Even though I am considered a dreaded Calvinist I still hold that rejection of Jesus Christ is not the ONLY reason for sinners to be condemned to everlasting condemnation . Those who have never heard of Christ or have never been presented with the Gospel in any form will be sent to perdition for their sins . Romans 2:12 : "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law , and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law ."

It is false that every single individual is bound to savingly believe in Christ unless everyone has been instructed to do so . It is untrue that multiplied millions who have never heard of the Lord are duty-bound to believe in Him . Many will be condemned only for sinning against the light of nature -- faith in Christ is not required of them .

 

[eightball]

It appears to me here that this debate has two basic premises of what entails true salvation.

We have one side that believes that "total repentance" of all sin is mandatory. The other side expresses that faith in Christ is the total answer to receiving salvation. Sins of past a present do not need to be recalled in conscience, but our covered, and part of God's overall grace through Christ.

The problem or point that seems to be the stickler is this area of "sins repented" versus "faith in Christ's total propitiation" of the sins, upon man's repentant condition with faith in Him and His work at Calvary.

One side seems to concern a "process" to salvation in some ways, the other seems to express that all known and unknown personal sin is remedied through "belief"/"faith" in the biblically revealed Christ and not the personal accounting/repentance of every "jot and tittle" of one's sinful life.
********
My concern after reading page after page of this debate, is that, the very basic, down-to-earth, message that Christ is "all in all" to salvation is being "side skirted" and not addressed by one of the debating factions. Instead this side or faction seems to concentrate on accounting of all sins, and repenting of all........as a "process" leading or proving true "conversion/salvation".

In some ways this "process" goes "cross hairs" with their belief that there is a pre-determined "select-elect" before the foundations of the earth and creation itself.

If one is already elect, before even germination in the physical/maternal womb, then the concern of recalling sins past/present as an avenue or expectation of the elect is overlooking the finished work of Christ. As the elect are already in the "fold" so to speak, their need to prove/express their eternal identity with the Savior is moot.

Remember also that one of their great present-day proponents, John MacArthur is a strong, "one naturist", and expresses clearly that sin is not coming from a resident "old nature" but is a result of the "power of sin" that dwells in the universe and works on both non and believers. With the non-believer via their "old man" or "unredeemable adamic nature", with the saved via their "unredeembable flesh". So sin has access, to both but has power over only the unredeemed. The latter or saved has the "free will" to ignore or abide in sin, or in Christ from moment to moment.

Here's the "but" part of the last paragraphy. The person who has Christ, still optionally can sin, but not by "nature" but by choice, and they do. This seems to go contrary to "perserverance".

Trully, there is a change in the area of "perserverance" with the converted, but sin still can be volitionally chosen over "perserverance". This does not remove the saved or redeemed from being in God's fold through Christ's work of redemption, but only causes one's life to enter a state of miserableness, as they are living contrary to their "new identity" in Christ.

If I may use a parable or story of Christ's, "The Prodigal". This young man belonged to his father. When he wandered off into a foreign land he was still his father's son, but he chose to live a life contrary to his true identity, and ultimately lived in squalor and misery. He came to senses, and realized that his life with his father and family was always the best, but his rebellion or "choice" to do otherwise led to mishap and misery. His father literally waited at the "portals" to glimpse his son returning back into the "fold" so to speak. Now allegedly the son had squandered his inheritance, but in reality he was bathed, and cloaked in the finest and given a precious feast by his father upon return. I find this not unlike the Christian that falters into sin or the "flesh", and comes back to abiding in Christ again.

In so many ways, the Christian life mimics this travail of the prodigal. You have the son that stayed home, but really was the "ill" one, while you have the one that went out and tested everything, yet came to his senses, and realized that his original identity was always the best.

The one that stayed home, based his relationship with his father on "works" or following the process as best as possible to "be", yet all along didn't realize that he was already in the "best place" or position with respect to he and his father. The stay-at-home one didn't understand the spirit of the father-son relationship, but concentrated on the "peripheral" in order to maintain or prove his sonship to this wonderful father. He really didn't understand the full unconditional acceptance and love that abounded while living in his father's household. He didn't understand his sonship in terms of relationship through flesh and blood, but determined to maintain the relationship via works of being the "good, obedient son". The stay-at-home some didn't see or understand the contrast between lost and saved or lost and found. He never experienced the release and relief of faltering and being redeemed.......All this by the prodigals, "free will". Was the Prodigal filled with pride because he "chose" to come home? I can't find it in the text/scripture. I find a young man or soul falling and asking for mercy, and filled with humility, at the prospect of being received back into the fold.

God already knows that being the "goody two shoes" is not something we can maintain for long. We may have spurts of good works or works that appear good on the outside, but our motivations are not pretty if one was to look deep inside. Often our service reeks of personal needs to be fullfilled, and not out of a servants heart. God knows it already. Does that negate our relationship with God..........By no means! Christ secured that relationship, as we "received" His work on our behalf and person by faith.

The rich young ruler, hopefully learned an important point here. He followed God's commandments to every "jot and tittle" yet he really, wasn't far away either. Christ expressed sorroy at this man and not condemnation. In essence, we are all "rich young rulers" to some extent.

"Essau He hated" has been totally taken out of context, as the "hated" translation is not the type of separation from eternity-type hate. This has been clearly explained by theologians of good credentials.

Now for those that believe that every aspect of "dirty laundry" must be repented in order to prove that we are trully "elect"......along with faith in Christ of course.............this is a new "Gospel" for me.

Recollection of sin is the H.S.'s job, and it most likely is evident in every true Christian's life at various times in their lives. It is evidence of the indwelling. The "but" to this, is that there are times,when, and places and situation where we have sinned as Christians, and we will not realize or repent of sin as God is still working in our lives to bring us more and more to the point of realizing those areas as abhorring to Him. Never the less.........we are saved while this continuing process goes on till the day we give up this earth-suit and see Him face to face. There are sins in my life that I can't publically repent, yet I know that my Saviour has taken them upon Himself and they are not mine to burden me with guilt any longer. No doubt their are myriads of other sins in my life that God has mercifully not brought to my attention as it would beat me down as a Christian. He is trully merciful, and compassionate, to the nth degree!
*********
(continued on following page)

 

[eightball]

My last comment is the area where one side seems to express strongly that big letter "P" pride will and has to be associated with the belief in man's free will to choose or reject the "Gospel". In other words, man's free-will in some way means that "man" is contributing to his salvation and it isn't a"God-only" work of salvation.

A "gift" is not "wages", is it? A gift is not "earned" is it? A gift is not deserved, is it?

Salvation is not the result of "wages". Salvation is not the result of earning it by any behaviour. So it is not deserved. Does the Father desire that we have it? Most assuredly!

Now at Christmas time we find a gift with our name on it. It lays under the tree and doesn't come into our possession unless we physically/willfully retrieve it, and tear off the bow and ribbons and paper, and accept it as ours.

One "camp" seems to equate the "package opening and taking possession" action as some how the "gift recipent" contributing to the actual value, and creation of that gift. I'm really stumped and stupified by this assertion.

How can receiving, and owning an underserved gift equate to or create pride????? I suppose it could, but that is trully the fleshly side of humanity, and not the human response under the guidance and abiding H.S., is it?

Actually, to accept the premise that I was "selected" from eternity-past by God as one of the "elect", weakens, the thankfulness of the gift of salvation when it is presented. In fact to be an "elected" without having to receive and open that "package" (receive Christ's propitiation) steals away all the awe, of God's mercy to the weak, sinning, trapped, human soul. God wants us to be excited, and most-thankful for His merciful gift, and when we willfully accept it, we participate, but do not create our salvation. This creates and perpetuates a loving human soul/God's Spirit bond that the natural man cannot understand or appreciate.

If one studies human nature.......as even a lay person and not a counselor, it is a pretty obvious, that "grace" is going to be understood, and appreciated by the one that has the faculties of free will to accept or reject, than the one that is "robotically" compelled to receive it. Man signs his condemnation papers by his act of rejection, not God's mysterious, eternity past, pre-selection of determination. Yes, God is mysterious, and Him mind can only be fathomed finitely with our minds through the H.S.'s work.

Their is no mystery when it comes to why some our saved and some are not! Humanity's ability to accept or reject is what makes the salvation experience and position before God so dramatic and permanent in the soul. God, presents the Gospel, his creation is endowed with this mysterious ability to choose or reject outside of His dominion to force it.

Even in our own human lives, we as parents appreciate the love of our children that is not given to us robotically, but as a response to our parental love to them. We also hurt so badly when our progeny reject our parental relationship with them, and strike out to unknown and dangerous destinys. So goes mankind in relationship to His heavenly Father/Creator. God doesn't want pre-determined, Stepford children........He wants a relationship with children that "picked" Him volitionally.

Pre-determination goes flatly in the face of the very nature of God, who was succincly expressed in Christ. Christ weeped with compassion over Jerusalem; The rejection of both the religious, and the unreligious.........the wealthy, the poor and the zealots.......

Many here have presented scripture...........Not out of context, but very clear, and discernable, that God desires all mankind to be saved, and have eternal communion with him.

Bottom line, is........Faith does come by hearing(a human act of choice), and hearing (a human act of choice) by the Word of God/Christ.

Why in the world should man be puffed with pride because he chose Christ? I suppose even human pride is a choice...........? Pride that one was chosen by God's mysterious, unrevealed wisdom, is rather scarey, and makes one wonder what else might be unpredictable with this God.

 

[webdog]

Good stuff, their 8-ball. Well thought out.

 

[DHK]

Even though I am considered a dreaded Calvinist I still hold that rejection of Jesus Christ is not the ONLY reason for sinners to be condemned to everlasting condemnation . Those who have never heard of Christ or have never been presented with the Gospel in any form will be sent to perdition for their sins . Romans 2:12 : "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law , and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law ."

It is false that every single individual is bound to savingly believe in Christ unless everyone has been instructed to do so . It is untrue that multiplied millions who have never heard of the Lord are duty-bound to believe in Him . Many will be condemned only for sinning against the light of nature -- faith in Christ is not required of them .

That is your own human reasoning. Who is right? Jesus or you?
It is Jesus who said:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That doesn't leave much room for argument, nor does leave any room for your own human reasoning. Christ is the only way.
Rejection of him is everlasting condemnation.

 

[Rippon]

You Are Still Not Listening

That is your own human reasoning. Who is right? Jesus or you?
It is Jesus who said:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That doesn't leave much room for argument, nor does leave any room for your own human reasoning. Christ is the only way.
Rejection of him is everlasting condemnation.

Read my post carefully . Those who have never heard of Christ are not rejecting Christ . They are going to be condemned for their sin , not a rejection of Christ as Savior .

My 'human reasoning' ?! I guess you conveniently ignored Romans 2:12 which I cited .

 

[DHK]

Read my post carefully . Those who have never heard of Christ are not rejecting Christ . They are going to be condemned for their sin , not a rejection of Christ as Savior .

My 'human reasoning' ?! I guess you conveniently ignored Romans 2:12 which I cited .

Whatever way you put it that is your human reasoning. Your argument is with God not me. John 14:6 still argues against your human reasoning. If you are truly concerned about "those that have never heard or had a chance to hear" the gospel, then go, fulfill the Great Commission and take the gospel to them that they might hear.

When Christ left this earth, he gave the Great Commission initially to 12 men. He sent them out with the command to: "Go and preach the gospel to all the world." The entire fate of the world was in their hands. What if they would fail? Did God have a back up plan, a plan B or even C? No! There is only one plan, and it was put into the hands of just 12 men.

That same plan is still in effect today. He does not use angels. He uses men: you and I. If others die without Christ, then their blood will be upon our hands.

 

[BobRyan]

Now at Christmas time we find a gift with our name on it. It lays under the tree and doesn't come into our possession unless we physically/willfully retrieve it, and tear off the bow and ribbons and paper, and accept it as ours.

One "camp" seems to equate the "package opening and taking possession" action as some how the "gift recipent" contributing to the actual value, and creation of that gift. I'm really stumped and stupified by this assertion.

How can receiving, and owning an underserved gift equate to or create pride????? I suppose it could, but that is trully the fleshly side of humanity, and not the human response under the guidance and abiding H.S., is it?


....

Their is no mystery when it comes to why some our saved and some are not! Humanity's ability to accept or reject is what makes the salvation experience and position before God so dramatic and permanent in the soul. God, presents the Gospel, his creation is endowed with this mysterious ability to choose or reject outside of His dominion to force it.

Even in our own human lives, we as parents appreciate the love of our children that is not given to us robotically, but as a response to our parental love to them.

What a GREAT post!!

Thank you for sharing it.

As God tells us in John 1 "Christ is the light that coming into the World ENLIGHTENS every man" but then as we see in John 3 "Men LOVED DARKNESS rather than light".

The problem is not "the shortness of God's arm" to reach the lost for he says "I WILL DRAW ALL unto ME" John 12:32 - the problem is that the lost have the choice to accept or reject the free gift and some willingly choose to reject it -- though it is easly obtainable by them and the choice to receive it well within their grasp.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: Those who have never heard of Christ are not rejecting Christ . They are going to be condemned for their sin , not a rejection of Christ as Savior .

HP: I could not agree with you more on this issue. :thumbs:

The idea that all have received or that all will receive the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel is not founded upon the Word of God. Those that have or will not hear will not be judged for the rejection of a Messiah they have never heard of, but as you say, they will be judged according to the light they had of right and wrong.

There is far more going to come to light when those 'Books' are opened on judgment day than most would like to consider. Everyman shall stand before the Living God and give an account for every deed done in the flesh, whether good or evil, including every idle word spoken. Anyone that believes he can possess and evil conscience consisting of unrepented sins and still be covered by the blood is self-deceived.

It is that 'other camp' that consistently brings up the notion of purported sins that one cannot remember, to the overlooking of repenting and turning from those sins they indeed can remember.

Let there be no mistake. It is impossible to repent for something one cannot remember, and God requires no impossibilities out of man. What God does require for salvation to be accomplished in ones life is to repent of all sins that are past that one can remember and that the Holy Spirit brings to our minds, and to have a change of heart to sin in general. “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eightball, I am not just trying to be critical, but your post is far too large and covers far too much ground for me to comment much on it. Pick out a single issue or two that you feel are the most important and post them by themselves. Then we can discuss and debate more effectively without boring the listener.