Featured The Eternal Purpose of Christ PT 3

You know better, but insist on misrepresentation. A Calvinist does "follow" John Calvin. A Calvinist follows Scripture. A Calvinist is one who is characterized by their soteriology --not other particularities.

Calvin did not believe in BR. Why say otherwise? In the Institutes Book 4,chapter 14,#17:The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.

In his commentary on Ephesians 5:26 there is an extract :"The grace of God is not confined to the sign...the Spirit is bestowed on none but the elect, and the sign, as we have said, has no efficacy without the Spirit."

John Calvin no more believed in BR than R.C. Sproul does today.

Such as...?

What in the world does that mean? He favored Protestant ideas before his conversion which was somewhere between Nov.of 1533 and May of 1534. He didn't try to "reform" Roman Catholics. He became a traveling evangelist for more than two years before coming to Geneva in August of 1536.

Much huh? Such as...?

Your free-willism is shared by classic Roman Catholicism, Mormons and JWs.
And those groups are stridently anti-Reformed -- just as you are.

 

Most non-Calvinists, if they are believers, are Semi-Pelagians/Arminians. You certainly fit the bill.

Actually, you are wrong. Many Arminians -semi-Pelagians do not think so.

In the Five Articles of Remonstrance 1610

it states"...whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or becoming devoid of grace --must be particularly determined from the Scriptures."

 

The elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined.

Are all these speaking of the same?

YLT James 1:18 having counselled, He did beget us with a word of truth, for our being a certain first-fruit of His creatures.

The words in bold which are plural; Are they, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined?

Did they become this by being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, that is the ones who have the first fruit of the Spirit, those spoken of in Acts 15:8,9 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Jews and Gentiles. BTW Whose faith purified their hearts.

Is that not where we presently are, even today, in God's plan for salvation? Is anything, salvation wise, presently going on other than God still visiting the Gentiles to take of them a people for his name Acts 15:14? Are they, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined? A certain (kind) of first fruit?

Are these, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined (plural), a certain first fruit of (singular)?

Does not the prefix of, "first," imply, fruit of a like kind at a later time?

Now consider:

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us (the first fruit of the Spirit, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined) the word of reconciliation.

Consider:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4,5
Having made known unto us ((the first fruit of the Spirit, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined) the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Eph 1:9,10

Does 2 Cor 5 19 and the passages from Eph say the same thing?


Correct me where I am wrong.

 

What does the Bible say about circumcision? Circumcision was so important to the Jews that they considered one who was not circumcised as outside the covenant and therefore unsaved. True enough?
In fact, God confronted Moses and told him if he didn't circumcise his child he would be killed. (Ex.4:24,25)

But here are some of the beliefs of Calvin from his Institutes IV: xvi, 3-6

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant.
But baptism is not. Calvin has it wrong. And Baptism does not confer any grace, as Calvin seems to imply.

In chapter 20 he argues against those who would administer baptism to adults on profession of their faith, and refrain from baptizing infants:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvii.html
His argument has no biblical basis at all. Mostly it is a rant against Baptists.

 

Your passages from Calvin don't negate the fact that he did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

You have very poor comprehension. he said:"The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace."

You're still not getting it. He did not believe in baptismal regeneration. Your contention is invalid.

Calvin certainly believed in what he called 'baptism" as a sign of the covenant for babies. But your quotes of his do not substantiate your claims that he believed in baptismal regeneration.

There were no Baptists in his era. Baptists didn't exist until the early years of the 17th century.

 

No, what I am saying is that the Bible teaches to us that we have the obligation to peach/preach Jesus as the risen Lord and Saviour, and that God's obligation at that point is to grant to those whom He intended jesus to save ther spiritual means to receive Him thru faith!

Do you hold the classical arminian views that states that God has granted sufficient grace towards all sinners, in order that they might freely decide to accept/reject him, and that his election is based upon Him seeing what they will decide to do?

 

Perhaps you will have to rephrase your question since I am not a "classic Arminian."

 

You are blind to history. This one thing the RCC, Calvin and Luther had in common, and that was the persecution of Baptists. You certainly haven't done your homework have you?

 

It may be the classical Arminian view but many who are not classical Arminians also hod to that. So it is not distinct of them alone. There are very few if any classical Arminian's on this board.

 

What else should a person conclude. Even the Judaizers of the NT concluded that a believer that was not circumcised was not truly saved. Circumcision was the sign of salvation. Calvin equated circumcision with salvation. That is apparent in the quotes I gave you. It was just as important as circumcision. If it was just as important as circumcision, and the Jews equated circumcision with salvation, then what should one conclude but that baptism is connected with salvation.
His uncouth language towards those who rebaptized after a confession of faith in Christ was made is very telling. It infers that salvation was at the point of baptism which is equal to circumcision (salvation). Read the entire chapter yourself.

 

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html

 

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey

 

DHK

Gotta love dispensational error everywhere....:thumbs:


Those Apostolic Calvinists:laugh::laugh: were at it again in Acts 4

really out of context:thumbs:

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

 

Yes, those "Chiliasts" were premillennial, that is most of the ECF. Those that learned from the pen of John and others close to him. That kind of puts you in the dark doesn't it?

These two verses:
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
--They refer directly to the death of Christ. Herod and Pilate were responsible for that, and the disciples mentioned that in their prayer. What was the purpose of their prayer? To pray about election?? Hardly!

Act 4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
--You totally missed out on the most important part of the prayer. What you quoted was simply a passing reference. They were praying for boldness to speak forth the Word of God, and God answered their prayer. Keep things in their context.

 

Where would you differ though?

If at eternal security issue, not even arminions state that it will happen, as many of them still hold to eternal security of some sense!

 

I am not a student of Arminius; I am student of the Bible.

 

:laugh: you totally avoided the psalm explaining that it was fulfilled :laugh:

Then you skip to the prayer and misunderstand that also...I will get to a keyboard later today.

 

I don't normally use the phrase, and to be consistent perhaps I shouldn't have.
The faith that saves has as its object Jesus Christ. Faith always has an object.
Thus when a person pus their faith or confidence in Christ they will be saved.
People put faith or confidence in all kinds of things and people every day, just not in Jesus Christ.

 

Then I didn't avoid the psalm did I?

I have no misunderstanding about their prayer. Their quotation of the psalm was a part of their prayer. It seems the misunderstanding is on your part.