Leaning Calvinist, Push me in, or Pull me back

[Iconoclast]

"glad4mercy,

You didn't bother to answer

I did answer it was short and can be expanded...

the sincere and not rhetorical question I asked you, but...

you say the question is sincere...I will take you at your word.

In Calvinism, (as I understand it,

I do not think this teaching is meant to be difficult at all.
We are to learn it solidly and move forward reaching the lost as quickly as possible.

correct me where I am wrong)

,
Most times it is a matter of staying away from emotional and philosophical reasonings that obscure the truth.

the means God has ordained in time only bring the Elect to salvation.

God employs many means...but they are often a two edged sword...like here:
2cor2
14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

And they are saved unconditionally, which means that the means infallibly succeed. They cannot fail

This is why I said you simplified it too much.
The same preaching is a means of life, or confirms someone in their death.

And in unconditional election, it is God who makes our election sure in the sense of being made true and immutable

God elects the elect....they do not elect themselves....the verse being discussed is not only speaking of the certainty of election, but professed saints are being urged to make their CALLING AND ELECTION sure.

So iF I was a Calvinist, I would interpret this to be referring to ASCERTAINING (making sure of) our calling and election

,
yes...it does have to do with assurance of faith...but that was not how I was using it...with Pastor Bob.

 

[prophecy70]

Pastor Bob, Tcass...

I see both points,

Pastor Bob is saying its not the "work" of them putting the blood on the doorpost, but the faith that the blood will cause the angel of death to passover. Correct?
Therefore its not the doorpost that is US, it is the people inside the house. That now all we have to do is accept the offer of blood given to us....
But was this offered to the Egyptians? Or just the Elect (Israelites)


Tcass, I don't understand the doorposts being us. What significance do the doorposts have besides the object the blood was on? The blood did not effect them any, what are they saved from? explain please...

 

[prophecy70]

How can any Christian defend Conditional Election. They would have to believe they met the condition of absolute holiness, or that God was unaware of who would be saved until he looked down the ages of time and learned who those people would be. And if God is not immutably Omniscient He is not God! (He can never have lacked knowledge, and His knowledge can never have changed.)

Thats what I don't understand on what they say about that.

If you looked at who would choose him, isn't that saying at one point God lacked knowledge which is impossible for God. But then they just say he is timeless....

 

[TCassidy]

Tcass, I don't understand the doorposts being us.

Bob was talking about the APPLICATION of the blood. In the OT type the blood was APPLIED to the door post, not to the people inside.

 

[glad4mercy]

"glad4mercy,


I did answer it was short and can be expanded...


you say the question is sincere...I will take you at your word.


I do not think this teaching is meant to be difficult at all.
We are to learn it solidly and move forward reaching the lost as quickly as possible.

,
Most times it is a matter of staying away from emotional and philosophical reasonings that obscure the truth.


God employs many means...but they are often a two edged sword...like here:
2cor2
14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.



This is why I said you simplified it too much.
The same preaching is a means of life, or confirms someone in their death.


God elects the elect....they do not elect themselves....the verse being discussed is not only speaking of the certainty of election, but professed saints are being urged to make their CALLING AND ELECTION sure.

,
yes...it does have to do with assurance of faith...but that was not how I was using it...with Pastor Bob.

We were talking about ELECTION, so I assumed that when you mentioned means employed by God, you were speaking of means of saving Grace, so I replied accordingly.

So you bring up those confirmed in death. Is the command to make your calling and election sure written to those whom the preaching of the Gospel has confirmed in death? If not, what is the relevance of your reply to what I asked? If yes, how do those who are confirmed in death make their calling and election sure

So I was correct that the verse would mean to ascertain if you are truly one of His. Absolutely nothing was simplified. Your charged that I oversimplified was not accurate.

And no, I do not resort to philosophical or emotional reasonings, everything I have said is based on Bible. Bringing up emotionalism and philosophy is a straw man

And the preaching confirms some in life and others in death because God chose who would live or die unconditionally. So there it really does not matter much if the non elect don't make their calling and election sure, (that would be impossible), so why bring up stuff that is irrelevant to the passage?

 

[Iconoclast]

We were talking about ELECTION, so I assumed that when you mentioned means employed by God, you were speaking of means of saving Grace, so I replied accordingly. What does being confirmed in death have to do with the verse about making your calling and election sure? So no, I didn't oversimplify anything.

And no, I do not resort to philosophical or emotional reasonings, everything I have said is based on Bible. Bringing up emotionalism and philosophy is a straw man

you did...you have not followed the flow of the thread. You are not understanding the responses. I was not necessarily speaking of you, but you are misreading everything.

 

[glad4mercy]

you did...you have not followed the flow of the thread. You are not understanding the responses. I was not necessarily speaking of you, but you are misreading everything.

you did...you have not followed the flow of the thread. You are not understanding the responses. I was not necessarily speaking of you, but you are misreading everything.

You quoted the verse in 2Peter 1. It was that verse I was addressing. If the verse is out of flow with the thread, then the fault is not mine, for I did not mention it.

 

[glad4mercy]

Thats what I don't understand on what they say about that.

If you looked at who would choose him, isn't that saying at one point God lacked knowledge which is impossible for God. But then they just say he is timeless....

No. The same faulty argument can be used against election. It's like saying "if God chose people, there must have been a time when they were not chosen". Totally fallacious, because God is IMMUTABLE, meaning that His knowledge is just as immutable and from everlasting to everlasting as His choosing of His elect.

God's knowledge is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And it has been through eternity past and will be in eternity future, before time and beyond time. Ther is no looking down corridors of time. That is an anthromorphism, like saying "God came down to see..."

 

[Iconoclast]

You quoted the verse in 2Peter 1. It was that verse I was addressing. If the verse is out of flow with the thread, then the fault is not mine, for I did not mention it.

My response was to the content of post12......

 

[robycop3]

God is perfect in His justice. ALL sin has been or will be punished. But a Christian believes JESUS bore the punishment for our sins, although He Himself never sinned.

And in His perfect judgment, God never made anyone predestined for hell. Everyone has the chance to come to Him thru His Son Jesus. As Doc Cas said, God did predestinate some people for SPECIAL SERVICE TO HIMSELF, such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Paul, among others. but it'd be GROSSLY UNJUST for Him to have created a person with no chance for salvation.

2 Peter 3:9 says,
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.

 

[Rippon]

God is perfect in His justice. ALL sin has been or will be punished. But a Christian believes JESUS bore the punishment for our sins, although He Himself never sinned.

And in His perfect judgment, God never made anyone predestined for hell. Everyone has the chance to come to Him thru His Son Jesus. As Doc Cas said, God did predestinate some people for SPECIAL SERVICE TO HIMSELF, such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Paul, among others. but it'd be GROSSLY UNJUST for Him to have created a person with no chance for salvation.

Don't tell God what to do. You are not His judge --He is the Judge.

‘Who are you O man, to talk back to God."

2 Peter 3:9 says,
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.

He doesn't want His own (the elect) to die in their sins. He will arrange for His sheep to come into the fold.

Don't use words like chance or opportunity when it comes to the Lord choosing His own.

Their isn't a lick of Scripture supporting that kind of language and faulty theology.

 

[glad4mercy]

My response was to the content of post12......

Yes, I have been following the flow. Observe.

A. Rev Bob said he questions Unconditional Election

B. You quoted the passage in 2 Peter to support ELECTION, saying it presupposes election

C. As far as I know, Rev. Bob never said he doesn't believe in election. If he did earlier, I apologize. I must have missed that post.

D. Questioning the U in tulip is not the same as questioning election any more than questioning irresistable grace is questioning grace. Both are strawmen

E. I mentioned that in Unconditional Election, make your calling and election sure could only mean that we need to ascertain our election, that is, to make sure we are in the faith I asked you if this is how you read the passage

F. You mentioned the means that God uses means in calling the elect, the same means also confirming the non elect, which I already knew and did not answer the question.

G. The question I asked was a yes or no question. I don't know what all the outlayers are about.

 

[prophecy70]

No. The same faulty argument can be used against election. It's like saying "if God chose people, there must have been a time when they were not chosen". Totally fallacious, because God is IMMUTABLE, meaning that His knowledge is just as immutable and from everlasting to everlasting as His choosing of His elect.

I do not see how they can be the same, foreknowing someones libertarian free choice, vrs actually decreeing it....

The complete history and future of this world is already over/is present to God. So either way the drama has been played out...

 

[prophecy70]

God never made anyone predestined for hell. Everyone has the chance to come to Him thru His Son Jesus.

So what happens when someone has never heard the gospel?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, I have been following the flow. Observe.

A. Rev Bob said he questions Unconditional Election

B. You quoted the passage in 2 Peter to support ELECTION, saying it presupposes election

C. As far as I know, Rev. Bob never said he doesn't believe in election. If he did earlier, I apologize. I must have missed that post.

D. Questioning the U in tulip is not the same as questioning election any more than questioning irresistable grace is questioning grace. Both are strawmen

E. I mentioned that in Unconditional Election, make your calling and election sure could only mean that we need to ascertain our election, that is, to make sure we are in the faith I asked you if this is how you read the passage

F. You mentioned the means that God uses means in calling the elect, the same means also confirming the non elect, which I already knew and did not answer the question.

You know when a person tells a joke and the other person does not understand the joke......and you have to go about trying to explain the joke...it never comes out right.......this is like that
A]....PB....questions 3 of the five points
B]Yes....2pet without question plainly refers to the biblical doctrine of unconditional election......now pay attention,
No one verse is going to cover the full scope of what is involved in the doctrine.3 times I mentioned I offered it to Pastor Bob....(He has not responded yet).....if he responds he could agree, or disagree by redefining the whole doctrine in an unbiblical way.....that was the design of my question to PB......you missed that and seek to take it somewhere else...
C]I was not looking for your speculation on what you think PB might believe about election....no....I was looking for PB to answer in his own words...he is very capable of doing that.....when and if he responds , then you could enter in.
My purpose would be to try and remove obstacles he may or may not be having, or he might be able to offer correction to me.
D] no....biblically election is unconditional .Because some seek to pervert the teaching does not change it.
E] unconditional election is a fact that gives evidence in all of those listed in 2pet1:1-10.....they all become manifest to some degree in the life of a believer,the idea being that they blend together , and the result is a measure of assurance of faith.......however.....that was not why I offered that to Pastor Bob....which I have stated 4 x now....get It?
F] no....I mentioned only one example of one means God uses...period.
It was mentioned to demonstrate to you in particular that you cannot just rush through and conflate these things , and expect to get it right...it will not happen if you insist on rushing over it.

 

[Iconoclast]

So what happens when someone has never heard the gospel?

What happens to them is they perish in their sins unless God does something according to His hidden decreed purpose.[elect infants dying in infancy perhaps]
What happens on these message boards is a denial of the actual condition of fallen men.....a sort of mystical Pollyanna answer about multitudes being mystically saved without hearing the gospel.
No basis in fact at all, and a denial of Romans 10.

 

[glad4mercy]

I do not see how they can be the same, foreknowing someones libertarian free choice, vrs actually decreeing it....

The complete history and future of this world is already over/is present to God. So either way the drama has been played out...

First of all, I never said anything about libertarian free will.

Secondly, While our act of believing is decreed by God, the perishing of a sinner is not an unconditional decree. It is a judicial decree

A. Damnation is a judicial decree based on a believer's sin.

B. Justification is a judicial decree based on the IMPUTED righteousness of Christ.

C. Imputed by faith

D. Reprobation is not unconditional. They are reprobate because they do not believe. John 3:18

So you have Election based on the will of God alone and reprobation based on the will of man. For God is not the cause of their unbelief. Therefore they perish because THEY WILL NOT BELEVE, not because God decreed their damnation in any way other than a JUDICIAL decree

If we can agree on this, it will suffice for me

 

[Iconoclast]

God is perfect in His justice. ALL sin has been or will be punished. But a Christian believes JESUS bore the punishment for our sins, although He Himself never sinned.

And in His perfect judgment, God never made anyone predestined for hell. Everyone has the chance to come to Him thru His Son Jesus. As Doc Cas said, God did predestinate some people for SPECIAL SERVICE TO HIMSELF, such as Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Paul, among others. but it'd be GROSSLY UNJUST for Him to have created a person with no chance for salvation.

2 Peter 3:9 says,
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.

Again the tragic misuse of 2 pet3.....along with a denial of the Covenant nature of the atonement leads to perpetual error and a theology built on sand.
God elected and predestined every single sheep....multitudes of them, and they will all be saved...He is not willing that anyone of them perish.
Jesus seeks and save all who are lost....not one more, not one less.

 

[glad4mercy]

You know when a person tells a joke and the other person does not understand the joke......and you have to go about trying to explain the joke...it never comes out right.......this is like that
A]....PB....questions 3 of the five points
B]Yes....2pet without question plainly refers to the biblical doctrine of unconditional election......now pay attention,
No one verse is going to cover the full scope of what is involved in the doctrine.3 times I mentioned I offered it to Pastor Bob....(He has not responded yet).....if he responds he could agree, or disagree by redefining the whole doctrine in an unbiblical way.....that was the design of my question to PB......you missed that and seek to take it somewhere else...
C]I was not looking for your speculation on what you think PB might believe about election....no....I was looking for PB to answer in his own words...he is very capable of doing that.....when and if he responds , then you could enter in.
My purpose would be to try and remove obstacles he may or may not be having, or he might be able to offer correction to me.
D] no....biblically election is unconditional .Because some seek to pervert the teaching does not change it.
E] unconditional election is a fact that gives evidence in all of those listed in 2pet1:1-10.....they all become manifest to some degree in the life of a believer,the idea being that they blend together , and the result is a measure of assurance of faith.......however.....that was not why I offered that to Pastor Bob....which I have stated 4 x now....get It?
F] no....I mentioned only one example of one means God uses...period.
It was mentioned to demonstrate to you in particular that you cannot just rush through and conflate these things , and expect to get it right...it will not happen if you insist on rushing over it.

But in the start, I merely asked a yes or no question. All of the rest of this was wholly unnecessary. I was merely looking for, yes I see it this way or no I see it that way. I was not answering for Rev Bob, I was asking a question for my own clarification. Nice talking to you

 

[kyredneck]

It was faith that spared the first-born that night. Their faith was demonstrated by applying the blood to the doorpost

I see the type this way: It was the father that took action and shed and applied the blood for the firstborn, who was passive. The firstborn's faith had zilch to do with whether the blood worked that night, but their faith had everything to do with how they rested that night.

...course I'm one of them hypers, you know....