Leaning Calvinist, Push me in, or Pull me back

[utilyan]

I once knew a foreign exchange student, who didn't know english well....when he tried to explain things, he knew what he was trying to say but it just came out unclear...... Thanks for the memories.


Again... why not exegesis some texts and prove all these "mean" Calvinists wrong?

Piece of cake.

1 Timothy 4

10For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.


The exegesis is.....it means exactly what it says.

 

[glad4mercy]

"Pastor_Bob,


We are not told to read hearts pb....however we are told indeed commanded to do this:
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
PB...do you make your calling and ELECTION sure?
Have you preached sermons instructing your congregation to do this...

It pressupposes biblical election.

But unconditional election presupposes that if a person is non elect, there is nothing they can do to change that, and if a person is elect there is nothing they can do to change that either. So if election is unconditional, God alone makes our calling and election sure. SO what is this verse talking about? Assurance of salvation?

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

I agree with all of them, I went into this with know prior knowledge of either side besides the tradition I was taught so when I read the bible I assumed free will and therefore read it into the bible, I never really thought about it. I actually got involved during a dispensational/covenant theology debate.

I listened to almost 20 debates read some books, and most importantly studied the bible and the passages presented in each debate.

I am not a greek scholar I haven't even mastered my own language , Tcass can you explain the word "Foreknowledge" to me... biblically used in the Greek.

The thing I've noticed is Calvinists are consistent, Arminians are not....they accuse Calvinists of picking out scripture to fit, and then respond with Matthew 23:37 1st Timothy 2:4 and 2nd peter 3:9 by doing the same thing!

Adrian Rogers says God looked down the corridors of time and knew who would choose... I can't grasp how that is not "learning" in one way or another.....

I have heard this line from Adrian Rogers often. I admired him for his zeal for the Lord. The thing is, most don't want to continue this statement to its inevitable conclusion. If we conclude that God acts solely on what he sees in the future, then why allow them to born to hellfire?

In the book, The Sovereign Grace of God by James White, he provides an explanation of the New Testament usage of foreknowledge. It starts on page 41.

God Bless

 

[Iconoclast]

But unconditional election presupposes that if a person is non elect, there is nothing they can do to change that, and if a person is elect there is nothing they can do to change that either. So if election is unconditional, God alone makes our calling and election sure. SO what is this verse talking about? Assurance of salvation?

You over simplified the whole process.
You are ignoring the means God has ordained in time.
My use of this verse was to show election as a presupposed biblical reality.

 

[prophecy70]

What about the defense of Conditional Election? "The drama is predestined but the actors are not"

 

[Pastor_Bob]

But you said you had perfect obedience just like the OT saints.

Now you're only quoting a small part of what I said and changing it to fit your argument. I never said I had perfect obedience just like the OT saints. I said, "The same level of perfect obedience that was met by the Children of Israel when they applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts." God said "do this," they obeyed perfectly and were saved. Today, God says, "do this'" I obeyed perfectly and am saved. It really is that simple.

And you used Hebrews 6:18 to support your assertion. The problem is that the Jews being spoken of in that passage were "heirs of the promise." Not lost people! When you were lost you were the enemy of God. Not an heir of the promise made to Israel. So there is no possible way you met the condition.

So, God only keeps His word to saved people? It is possible for Him to lie to lost people? Is that what you're saying? Because that it the application that I used to support my point - God cannot lie. He said "if thou shalt...." and I did what He said; so, unless it is possible for Him to lie, He had to keep His word and save me.

I explained my response in the part you edited out. And you edited because you can't respond to it.

I don't dodge bullets, Tom. I did answer the question, apparently just not the way you anticipated.

But not all humans. Only those who believe will be saved. Nothing dishonest about it. Just pointing out what you actually believe.

Not all humans will be saved but all humans can be saved. If that is what you're calling limited atonement then, yes, I believe that.

No. The Atonement is never offered to us. It is offered to the One Who was offended. It was offered to God and, like the blood on the door post in Egypt, placed there on behalf of the household.

I actually agree with this. It was most certainly offered to God for us. We are the beneficiaries of the atonement.

The door post was not offered the Atonement. The door post did not accept or reject the blood. The door post had nothing to say about the matter.

I agree. You're answering an argument I did not make.

The Atonement was not offered to us to accept or reject. It was offered to God. Unless you think God offended us and owes us an atoning sacrifice, which I suspect you don't believe.

You are correct.

How can it be when the door post, us, has nothing to say on the matter?

We're not the doorposts, Tom. We are the occupants of the house. We are the father who applied the blood to the doorpost. The application of the blood to the doorpost of each house typifies our faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The doorpost was never in danger. The doorpost was never the recipient of God's judgement. God could have given them any instruction for the blood; He told them to put it on the doorpost. That in no way pictures us, Tom.

And this is the problem with thinking the atonement is "available" to us. It has never been offered to us.

The problem is, "offered to" and "available to" are not the same thing.

Every once in while one of my students will make me a big plate of oatmeal raisin cookies (which I believe was the manna that fell in the wilderness). They bring the cookies to me. They made the cookies for me. They present the cookies to me. Most of the time, I take the cookies around at lunch time and make them available to whoever would like one. They were "offered to" me but I made them "available to" anyone who wanted one.

Once we come to an in depth understanding of what the atonement is and to Whom it was offered, all this confusion goes away.

I hold you in the highest regard, Tom; but, the "in depth understanding" card need not be played here. It is quite simple to understand. That is why God gave us so many practical pictures in the OT to illustrate this very issue. Even a child can understand.

No. The Atonement is applied TO believers, the door posts, by the One Who received it, God.

Take out "the door posts" and I can agree wholeheartedly. Would you also agree that anyone in Egypt that night could have killed a lamb and applied the blood to their doorposts?

You are correct except for your inclusion of the word "universal." If it is universal, it saves everyone. If it does not save everyone, it is not universal. It is limited.

This is the point on which we'll always disagree. "Universal" simply means "available to all," not "applied by all."

 

[Pastor_Bob]

God was forced to save you? Wowzers!

Kudos for the use of "wowzers!" Haven't heard that one in a while.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If I "confess with my mouth the Lord Jesus," and "believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead," God said He would save me. It doesn't say "might be saved;" it says "shalt be saved."

So, unless you believe that it is possible for God to lie, then, yes, God has an obligation to save anyone who, by faith, submits to His plan of salvation.

 

[1689Dave]

So, unless you believe that it is possible for God to lie, then, yes, God has an obligation to save anyone who, by faith, submits to His plan of salvation.

This is salvation by works. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” (Romans 4:4) (KJV 1900)

 

[TCassidy]

Today, God says, "do this'" I obeyed perfectly and am saved.

So, you seem to be saying that you earned your salvation by obedience. Is that really what you want to say? That your good works of obedience earned your salvation?

So, God only keeps His word to saved people?

I didn't say that. This type of thing is so unlike you, Bob. What has happened?

It is possible for Him to lie to lost people?

Again, this is so unlike you.

Is that what you're saying?

You know it's not.

God cannot lie. He said "if thou shalt...." and I did what He said; so, unless it is possible for Him to lie, He had to keep His word and save me.

So, you are saying that God was obliged to save you because of the good works you did?

We're not the doorposts, Tom.

Of course we are. That is where the blood is applied.

We are the father who applied the blood to the doorpost.

But the blood was not applied to the people. It was applied to the door posts. And we are not God the Father, who applied the blood. We are the door posts, who through no merit of our own, had the blood applied to us.

That in no way pictures us, Tom.

Of course it does. The blood was applied to the door posts, not to the people.

The problem is, "offered to" and "available to" are not the same thing.

Yeah, they are.

They were "offered to" me but I made them "available to" anyone who wanted one.

That is a nice offer you made, to share your cookies with the kids.

It is quite simple to understand

That seems not to be the case, or we would not being having this discussion.

That is why God gave us so many practical pictures in the OT to illustrate this very issue. Even a child can understand.

Yes, children can understand it. The blood was applied to the door posts not to the people. It seems to be adults who try to introduce their own good works of obedience into the discussion.

Take out "the door posts" and I can agree wholeheartedly.

Take out where the blood is applied? Why would we want to change what the bible says? Unless the bible does not fit your doctrine?

This is the point on which we'll always disagree. "Universal" simply means "available to all," not "applied by all."

Universal means "everybody without exception."

The Atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, efficient only for believers. Not everybody. Not Universal. Limited.

 

[utilyan]

Kudos for the use of "wowzers!" Haven't heard that one in a while.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If I "confess with my mouth the Lord Jesus," and "believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead," God said He would save me. It doesn't say "might be saved;" it says "shalt be saved."

So, unless you believe that it is possible for God to lie, then, yes, God has an obligation to save anyone who, by faith, submits to His plan of salvation.

If someone submits to his plan they already saved. Sorta presenting a doctor for the righteous scenario.


When Paul gave a reason why he was saved:

Because he was Elect? NOPE.
Because of works? Nope.
Because of his faith? Nope.

1 Timothy 1

13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

He was absolutely disqualified in every manner to be saved. Yet he was shown mercy for being a IGNORANT UNBELIEVER.

 

[TCassidy]

What about the defense of Conditional Election?

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.)

 

[utilyan]

So, you seem to be saying that you earned your salvation by obedience. Is that really what you want to say? That your good works of obedience earned your salvation?

I didn't say that. This type of thing is so unlike you, Bob. What has happened?

Again, this is so unlike you.

You know it's not.

So, you are saying that God was obliged to save you because of the good works you did?

Of course we are. That is where the blood is applied.

But the blood was not applied to the people. It was applied to the door posts. And we are not God the Father, who applied the blood. We are the door posts, who through no merit of our own, had the blood applied to us.

Of course it does. The blood was applied to the door posts, not to the people.

Yeah, they are.

That is a nice offer you made, to share your cookies with the kids.

That seems not to be the case, or we would not being having this discussion.

Yes, children can understand it. The blood was applied to the door posts not to the people. It seems to be adults who try to introduce their own good works of obedience into the discussion.

Take out where the blood is applied? Why would we want to change what the bible says? Unless the bible does not fit your doctrine?

Universal means "everybody without exception."

The Atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, efficient only for believers. Not everybody. Not Universal. Limited.

The greatest sin unbeliever/reprobate commits is say "Christ did not die for me".

Are they telling the truth or a lie?

 

[glad4mercy]

You over simplified the whole process.
You are ignoring the means God has ordained in time.
My use of this verse was to show election as a presupposed biblical reality.

You didn't bother to answer the sincere and not rhetorical question I asked you, but...

In Calvinism, (as I understand it, correct me where I am wrong),the means God has ordained in time only bring the Elect to salvation. And they are saved unconditionally, which means that the means infallibly succeed. They cannot fail

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

So iF I was a Calvinist, I would interpret this to be referring to ASCERTAINING (making sure of) our calling and election, and that would be consistent with TULIP. If you disagree, let me know how you understand it. Telling a person they are wrong without explaining doesn't profit them or others who are reading

I am trying to better understand Calvinism. Help me out here...

 

[glad4mercy]

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.)

No, they would only have to believe that CHRIST met the condition of perfect holiness, and that righteousness is imputed to them through faith. (Romans 4). And that faith is the means of receiving the gift of salvation as defined by Calvin in a sermon on Ephesians 2:8-10

And God doesn't have to look down corridors of time, having perfect, IMMUTABLE omniscience. If He had to look down the corridors of time, He would be neither Omniscient nor Immutable. But verily He is BOTH

 

[glad4mercy]

No, they would only have to believe that CHRIST met the condition of perfect holiness, and that righteousness is imputed to them through faith. (Romans 4). And that faith is the activity of receiving, as defined by Calvin in a sermon on Ephesians 2:8-10

And God doesn't have to look down corridors of time, having perfect, IMMUTABLE omniscience. If He had to look down the corridors of time, He would be neither Omniscient nor Immutable. But verily He is BOTH

Continued from above...So basically I agree with you on God's immutable foreknowledge, but the argument that conditional election somehow negates this does not follow, as far as I can see.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So, you seem to be saying that you earned your salvation by obedience. Is that really what you want to say? That your good works of obedience earned your salvation?

Of course not. It was faith that spared the first-born that night. Their faith was demonstrated by applying the blood to the doorpost. They weren't saved by works, but they would not have been saved without meeting God's condition. Phrase that anyway you want, but that is not salvation by works - it is salvation by faith.

That is a nice offer you made, to share your cookies with the kids.

I'm just that kind of a guy....

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, Tom. You are masterful at twisting words. Like you said above, that is unlike me...I do not enjoy debating with those tactics. When we get to heaven, we'll have all of eternity to laugh about these petty semantics. Feel free to drop in any time.

 

[TCassidy]

They weren't saved by works, but they would not have been saved without meeting God's condition.

And what was that condition of perfection that merited heaven?

I'm just that kind of a guy....

Yes, who OFFERED the cookies to the kids.

The cookies were not just sitting on your desk, available to the kids to steal one, but were sitting on your desk and offered to the kids to have one. An offer. Not just available, but an offer.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, Tom.

That is probably a good decision. You just keep getting deeper and deeper into the hole.

You are masterful at twisting words.

Shame on you. I haven't twisted anything.

Like you said above, that is unlike me...I do not enjoy debating with those tactics.

That was why I was so surprised you resorted to such falsehood. That is very unlike you.

When we get to heaven, we'll have all of eternity to laugh about these petty semantics.

I don't think a right understanding of redemption is either petty or semantics. I think it is important for us to understand that salvation is of the Lord and is all about Him and not about us.

 

[Rhetorician]

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

It doesn't appear that you are leaning too far into Calvinism. My advice would be to let the Word of God convince you.

I would agree with Pastor Bob. If someone convinces you, and another comes along with better arguments you can be changed again.

Whereas, if you come to your own conclusions by a preponderance of the Biblical evidence, your tradition, your reason, and your experience then it will be "your own theology" when you decide.

Think about it.

sdg!

r

 

[Rhetorician]

Where, then, do you stand on the 5 tenets of Calvinism?

I can go along with Total Depravity; although, I would probably define it different than my Calvinist friends (I would say brothers but I'm not sure if they think I'm one of the elect or not ). I can also go along with Perseverance of the Saints under the same caveat.

I would have significant disagreement regarding Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace.

Again, where do you stand on these issues?

Pastor Bob,

May I offer one caveat on what you said about the "5 tenets of Calvinism?"

I do not think anyone on the BB would baptize infants. I do not think anyone on the BB would want a state-church. I do not think anyone on the BB would want a Presbyterian-Elder Led style of church government.

So I propose, and have emphasized in my little circle of influence, that we call what we are discussing Particular Redemption or Soteriologic Doctrines of Grace. RC Sproul said that theology is done on a "razor's edge."

Just saying.

sdg!

rd

 

[Iconoclast]

Pastor_Bob,,

yes, God has an obligation to save anyone who, by faith, submits to His plan of salvation.[/QUOTE]
And when good looked down to see anyone who would as you say...."submit"
to His "plan".....He saw no one who would, in and of themselves submit....

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

So...there was no obligation.....until he swore by Himself to save a Covenant people...

heb613 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

God obligates Himself to save everyone He purposes to save.

Pastor_Bob,


We are not told to read hearts pb....however we are told indeed commanded to do this:
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
PB...do you make your calling and ELECTION sure?
Have you preached sermons instructing your congregation to do this...

It pressupposes biblical election.

I would be interested in your response here PB.