What is calvinism?

[Rippon]

Or , " I have never set my love upon you ."

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

why why why? Why are Calvinists this important? If its anyone we should continually argue against and perpetually shame, its the Cathloics. They've messed up the world the most!

 

[johnp.]

Hello skypair.

You weren't part of the band called "Twisted Sister," were you??

No.

Cause that explanation is about as twisted as it gets!

I take it you did not understand. I'm sorry I'll try again.

If God, in His Sovereignty decided that man could make a decision then that does not affect His Sovereignty.
God's Sovereignty is not affected by giving man free will.

What would affect His Sovereignty is if the person makes a choice of his own.
If God is not Sovereign over your choices then He is not Sovereign you are. God's Sovereignty will not exist if a man makes a free will choice because a free will choice is sovereignty. Control.

Sovereignty resides in the choice.
If man is free to believe or do what he likes then he is king. Who will tell him no? To be like God a?

So you'd be saying that man can make a decision that doesn't affect God's sovereignty to sin which -- what, he does every day and God wants him to do??

Man cannot make a decision without being free from God's Authority and if he is free from God's Authority then God is sovereign in name only because his authority has vanished. The same as Elizabeth II. Powerless to intervene.

So you'd be saying that man...

I don't understand the question. I believe God is the Author of sin. He bound all men over to disobedience and that includes Adam. Any other way and the Sovereignty of God falls.

Even God chooses when to intervene for control purposes and when not to, right?

Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." John 5:9. Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word...
I hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. With regard to inanimate objects again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book Book I Chapter 16. http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/calprov.htm )

I think he was a Calvinist.

"warp and woof"

I know.

john.

 

[Blammo]

I believe God is the Author of sin. He bound all men over to disobedience and that includes Adam. Any other way and the Sovereignty of God falls.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No, it means in Christ we are chosen.

Yes, and that is for salvation.

The Bible says both.

But the text we are dealing with says that we are chosen; another text says that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. That is only tangential here.

[It means God is omniscient.

Yes, and it means it could not happen any other way, or God’s knowledge would be wrong, and he would not be omniscient, and would not be God.

Then you are blind to it. I pray God reveals it to you...

Reveals what? The fact that you do not accept what Scripture says hardly makes me blind. The Scripture says God chose us in him before the foundation of the world. The Scripture says God chose us from the beginning. You deny that. How am I the blind one?

2 Thess. 2:13

And this text says we are chosen for salvation. The means by which salvation comes is the setting apart of the Spirit and belief in the truth.

It is. I'm showing the reason why one is chosen "before the foundation of the world". We are "in" the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

But the fact remains that we are the ones chosen, not Christ. That is the point here: We are chosen.

Because he was the apostle to the gentiles means he cannot have a special place in his heart for his people? Were churches not made up of jewish and gentile believers?

Yes, but you said 2 Tim 2:10 was talking of Jews. It isn’t. It is talking about the elect, both Jews and Gentiles.

You are talking in circles here and trying to conflate the issues. Don’t do that. Just deal with the text. Aren’t you the one who didn’t know elect and chosen were the same thing? Who was that? I can’t remember now.

Look at Eph 1:4 and tell us who was chosen and when.
Look at 2 Thes 2:13 and tell us who was chosen, what they were chosen for, and when they were chosen.
Look at 2 Tim 2:10 and tell us the time relationship between being chosen and salvation.

Again, just answer the questions from the text, not your presuppositions about what the text must say.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think so, Larry. Where'd you get that?? We know that the soul is spiritual -- we know that man dies immediately upon sinning (you confess this or so you suggest by your question). Even cults say the soul only sleeps. And I am sure you believe that the soul goes to heaven upon death. Again -- where are you getting that information??

When I say the soul is the only thing that dies, I mean that the body dies when the soul leaves it. Sorry for the confusion there. I was writing quickly. The body has no independent life.

OK, you're agreeing that it happens BEFORE but that is not "chronological?" I can't imagine what you are saying.

It’s a logical order.

First -- it is EVERYTHING that is foreknown by God. Do you see by your response how Calvinism limits God's omniscience??

No, quite the opposite, Calvinism affirms God’s omniscience. But your use of “foreknow” as “knowing ahead of time” is not the biblical meaning of the word translated as foreknow. You are using your meaning rather than the Bible.


Consider your own definition of foreknow in roma 8:29. If God’s foreknowledge is simply knowing ahead of time, and God is omniscient, then he “foreknows” who will not believe as well as who will. And romans 8:29 says all the foreknown go through the called, justified, glorified cycle. Your position therefore has those who God foreknows will not believe being called, justified, and glorified … unless you want to limit his foreknowledge to only knowing certain things. In which case he is not omniscient.

To US belief takes place in time -- just like the "called" in Rom 8:30. But GOD can know it before it happens -- before creation.

But it doesn’t happen before creation. God knows it will happen.

No to that last. "Setting apart to salvation" is called JUSTIFICATION, Larry.

No it’s not, not in the Bible.

Remember I cited Col 1:13 where once we are justified, God translates us into the kingdom of Christ? Traslates us for what? To be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Sanctification is "phase 2" of salvation, "phase 3" being glorification, right?

No. In some context, the setting apart of the Spirit happens before belief (2 Thess 2:13). How is one at “phase 2” of salvation when he has not even believed yet?

Oh, indeed it is! But don't think Calvin let is go. Nope, in his and Reform's hurry to create the "sacralist" kingdom of God on earth, they (like the Catholics), dispensed with the formalities of justification and made everyone who would be baptized and join the church the "elect."

Well, that’s a different issue. Remember, we don’t believe something because Calvin did, but because we believe it is in the Bible.

The pastor I heard, BTW, put it this way -- that the elect are those who are "continuing to be saved." No. They are continuing to be sanctified. And this man had a radio show on Christian radio!

He also has the support of 1 Corinthians. What you say here is not the same as what you said earlier.

As long as the "choosing" part is the believer's choosing, I could agree.

But in those texts, it is God who does the choosing.

But the Spirit doesn't "sanctify" anyone who is not already saved by faith. And He doesn't "set apart" anyone for salvation. He draws them.

2 thess 2:13 says otherwise. There, the “setting apart” comes before faith.

But He doesn't indwell the unjustified.

We agree on that. But it is hardly relevant.

Larry, your "model" is incorrect.

Then show us how. So far, you have not.

You would have the totally depraved indwelt/regenerated by the Spirit of sanctification BEFORE they are even justified -- committed to God.

That’s not true. I don’t believe that and nothing in my words suggests that belief.

The statement you thus made is "muddled." "people were chosen for salvation, which comes through the setting apart of the Spirit for salvation and the belief in the truth for salvation." You make belief and set apart as simultaneous. It's not. Belief comes first along with repentance unto justification. From belief we CAN obey God and repent. THEN we are set apart by and to the Spirit.

2 Thess 2:13 explicitly disagree with you. I think the setting apart is logically prior, and possibly chronologically prior to faith. This is where it differs from regeneration.

You have a sanctification pattern for salvation which pattern does not exist in the gospel.

Except for 2 Thess 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:2.

God never said we are to work our way to salvation.

And neither did I.

Maybe it would help if you described your understanding of sanctification

Your confusion is that you deny the use of sanctification in the verses under discussion, preferring a definition used elsewhere. Sanctification is used in different ways in Scripture. Get out your Greek concordance and look it up.



There are some serious flaws in your thinking that go right to the heart of the verses under discussion.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Blammo that's one I ain't met before, cool man.

It's late, I shall work on it and try a reply tomorrow. One thing, might be worth noting is that I never said the Father is the Author of sin I said God was.

He bound all men over to disobedience didn't He? Rom 11:32. I would like an answer to this please.

john.

 

[webdog]

Look at Eph 1:4 and tell us who was chosen and when.
Look at 2 Thes 2:13 and tell us who was chosen, what they were chosen for, and when they were chosen.
Look at 2 Tim 2:10 and tell us the time relationship between being chosen and salvation.

Again, just answer the questions from the text, not your presuppositions about what the text must say.

I already did. You didn't like what I put forth, so we will have to agree to disagree again.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I already did. You didn't like what I put forth, so we will have to agree to disagree again.

As I pointed out, you didn't answer from the text. You answered from your theology, and that was my objection. In the desire to protect a theology, you gave answers about the texts that are inconsistent with the texts themselves. And that is why I left the position you hold, and it is why I object to it now. I think if God had wanted to say what you say, he could have done so very clearly. But he didn't. And to me, that is significant.

 

[skypair]

why why why? Why are Calvinists this important? If its anyone we should continually argue against and perpetually shame, its the Cathloics. They've messed up the world the most!

Hi charted, :wave:

Why is because they are closer to the truth and are the most likely to be saved and have spiritual insight into these "deeper things of God."

Why is because they are "saving" people through sanctification before they are even saved/justified.

Yes, Catholics have messed up pretty good and for that reason they to not relate well with any of these doctrines. In fact, I've yet to encounter any here but on some boards they can be quite defensive despite they have no spiritual weapons, Eph 6!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Edit function not working again? :headbutt:

 

[skypair]

No, quite the opposite, Calvinism affirms God’s omniscience. But your use of “foreknow” as “knowing ahead of time” is not the biblical meaning of the word translated as foreknow. You are using your meaning rather than the Bible.

Larry, I grant you that there are texts that define "foreknow" the way you would have it. They lend credence to ALL denominations is why they include every definition. But if they were "chosen" way back when they were "forknown," then there's your answer as to when they were regenerated. It was in eternity past (since you find no other event worthy of a person receiving regeneration). But that means they were never totally depraved -- that they DID have some merit worthy of salvation.

And even rejecting this construct, regeneration anytime before belief and faith introduces that contradiction -- that some were not totally depraved and so believed.

Consider your own definition of foreknow in roma 8:29. If God’s foreknowledge is simply knowing ahead of time, and God is omniscient, then he “foreknows” who will not believe as well as who will.

Right.

And romans 8:29 says all the foreknown go through the called, justified, glorified cycle. Your position therefore has those who God foreknows will not believe being called, justified, and glorified …

Oh, contrare'! That's putting "spin" on the text. We know the context is about believers only -- them who "love God and are called according to His purpose." (8:28) Sure, God foreknew the lost as well -- but this is a discourse about the saved.

But it doesn’t happen before creation. God knows it will happen.

Me: "No to that last. "Setting apart to salvation" is called JUSTIFICATION, Larry.
You: No it’s not, not in the Bible.

Sorry Larry. I think I confused you. What are the steps of salvation? JUSTIFICATION (of the soul), SANCTIFICATION (of the spirit), GLORIFICATION (of the body), right? Jusification is believing God unto repentance. It is the gospel that John the Baptist preached -- repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, Mt 3:1, 11. That is believe and obey. Yet when Paul encountered them (Acts 19:1-5), they were not saved as we are today indwelt by the Holy Ghost. Larry -- justification comes BEFORE regeneration (which is sanctification)! You would have us believe that John's disciples were indwelt despite they never heard of the Holy Ghost.

No. In some context, the setting apart of the Spirit happens before belief (2 Thess 2:13). How is one at “phase 2” of salvation when he has not even believed yet?

My question precisely! You must be misinterpretting 2Thes 2:13 and 1Pet 1:2, right? Specifically (2Thes), set apart and belief are connected by "and" but are not simultaneous (as you confess they aren't). So belief has something to do with the "chosing" and Paul is not delineating the 2 roles separately like he does elsewhere.

And then 1Pet -- we know how Peter treats the word "elect" from "make your calling and election sure," right? If "calling" is to justification, then "election" is to sanctification which latter the Lord has predestined IAW Rom 8:29.

Well, that’s a different issue. Remember, we don’t believe something because Calvin did, but because we believe it is in the Bible.

But you let Calvin put it there for you. You accuse us of the same thing, right? Someone is wrong though.

Then show us how. So far, you have not [shown us how your model is flawed].

My bad. I've tried, though.

Here's why your model is wrong, Larry. Because Calvinists are loathe to call people to a personal decision -- i.e. a sinner's prayer, a walk down the aisle, a "rebaptism" -- anything that smacks of "works." So first there's the "sovereignty" contradiction and then there's the "works" issue, BOTH of which Calvin framed wrongly.

But know what? It takes believing commitment to be justified. "Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness." What did Abe do? Heard from God, believed and obeyed (left Ur), and was justified thereby. Believing, God want you to present your offering before He will "translate you into the kingdom of His dear Son" where comes Spirit indwelling/regeneration.

That’s not true [that you believe the totally depraved are indwelt by the Spirit]. I don’t believe that and nothing in my words suggests that belief.

Denying that, do you then say that the "elect" when the "general call" goes out have some merit (indwelling) that God should save them and not others? How was their "depravity" taken away before they had faith?

I'm gonna skip some comments I feel may be already cleared up by my previoius answers.

Your confusion is that you deny the use of sanctification in the verses under discussion, preferring a definition used elsewhere. Sanctification is used in different ways in Scripture. Get out your Greek concordance and look it up.

I believe I have included them in my expositions. But they are not the main focus of the issue we have which is that justification comes before sanctification/election yet in the Calvin model, there is no place of justification. It is assumed without any preceding act or "work" on the part of the believer. Now that just does NOT jibe with any scripture that I can find. In every case, a mere man heard God, believed and responded to God, and received faith in God. That's the basic pattern of justification that precedes sanctification/regeneration/translation into the kingdom of Christ! It works the same at my job, Larry. I had to be hired before I could walk into the workplace and start being rewarded for it.

There are some serious flaws in your thinking that go right to the heart of the verses under discussion.

Well, I hope to disabuse of this accusation. As my pastor said, "When you're pointing at me, there are 3 more fingers on that hand pointing at you." :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

Hey john,

If God, in His Sovereignty decided that man could make a decision then that does not affect His Sovereignty. God's Sovereignty is not affected by giving man free will.

Good!

What would affect His Sovereignty is if the person makes a choice of his own. If God is not Sovereign over your choices then He is not Sovereign, you are. God's Sovereignty will not exist if a man makes a free will choice because a free will choice is sovereignty. Control.

Yet if man can't make a choice on his own, he has no "free will." I maintain that we bring God's sovereignty into our lives by freely choosing Him. But by not freely choosing Him, God is still sovereign, just not in your life.

Sovereignty resides in the choice. If man is free to believe or do what he likes then he is king. Who will tell him no? To be like God?

God will tell him in the end, right? In Psa David said and in Mt Jesus confirmed "ye are gods." What did that mean? It meant that we were sovereigns of our own lives.

Man cannot make a decision without being free from God's Authority and if he is free from God's Authority then God is sovereign in name only...

Yeah. Isn't that what we see except among Christians? Isn't, indeed, Satan the ruler of this age? But He's not powerless to intervene, is He? He sent the flood, right?

Basically, Calvinism falls apart if sovereignty is not seen as they cast it. But we, knowing it is flawed, can abandon much of Calvinism, including the TULIP, and discern what the Bible really says, right?

I believe God is the Author of sin. He bound all men over to disobedience and that includes Adam. Any other way and the Sovereignty of God falls.

God is not the author of sin. His "binding all men over to disobedience" is just another way of saying that by free will men make themselves servants of another master -- Satan. And that is true. And if they do, then God is not sovereign in their lives but only over their lives. They remain in God's plan -- they just don't help it come to fruitition.

I hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.

This is the cop out of all who can't discern what God's plan really is. You ought to run from such declarations. The Bible is very explicit and we KNOW that whoever BELIEVES is foreknown and predestined of God. Ignorance, according to Rom 1, is not an excuse.

skypair

 

[Blammo]

Hello Blammo that's one I ain't met before, cool man.

It's late, I shall work on it and try a reply tomorrow. One thing, might be worth noting is that I never said the Father is the Author of sin I said God was.

He bound all men over to disobedience didn't He? Rom 11:32. I would like an answer to this please.

john.

Romans 11:25-32 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Looks to me like the "them" in verse 32 is referring to Israel. Also, it appears that God did not cause them to disbelieve, rather He caused them to remain in unbelief. The purpose of the blindness was to get the Gentiles in on the gospel.

It is interesting that "the election" in these verses is also referring to the nation of Israel. ("... as touching the election, they are enemies for your sakes."

God had concluded the nation of Israel in unbelief, for the purpose of opening the door to the Gentiles, so the gospel could be what He always intended it to be. "..by grace are ye saved through faith..." it is a gift, not of works, so no man can boast.

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

 

[npetreley]

Larry, I grant you that there are texts that define "foreknow" the way you would have it. They lend credence to ALL denominations is why they include every definition. But if they were "chosen" way back when they were "forknown," then there's your answer as to when they were regenerated. It was in eternity past (since you find no other event worthy of a person receiving regeneration). But that means they were never totally depraved -- that they DID have some merit worthy of salvation.

Non-sequitur. I don't get your reasoning here at all. Because they were foreknown, they had some merit? And how does being foreknown have any connection to when they were regenerated? Then you seem to think it follows that they were never totally depraved. These are all major league non-sequiturs.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is getting long and I don’t want to tie up much more time here.

But if they were "chosen" way back when they were "forknown," then there's your answer as to when they were regenerated. It was in eternity past (since you find no other event worthy of a person receiving regeneration). But that means they were never totally depraved -- that they DID have some merit worthy of salvation.

As Npetreley pointed out, this is a non sequitur. First, the fact that they were chosen and foreknown in eternity past says nothing about when they were regenerated, since these are distinct things. Second it does not mean they were not totally depraved. That is unconnected to this point.

That's putting "spin" on the text. We know the context is about believers only -- them who "love God and are called according to His purpose." (8:28) Sure, God foreknew the lost as well -- but this is a discourse about the saved.

But the text says “those whom he foreknew, he called, justified, and glorified.” The “those” that he foreknew is not limited to believers at all. That is you adding to the text. It does not say “Part of those whom he foreknew.”

Sorry Larry. I think I confused you. What are the steps of salvation? JUSTIFICATION (of the soul), SANCTIFICATION (of the spirit), GLORIFICATION (of the body), right?

In part, yes. There is also election, calling, faith, repentance, adoption, sealing, etc.

Jusification is believing God unto repentance.

No, justification is the declaration by God that we are just, free from sin, imputed with righteousness. It comes from faith and repentance.

justification comes BEFORE regeneration (which is sanctification)!

You have not shown that.

You would have us believe that John's disciples were indwelt despite they never heard of the Holy Ghost.

The book of Acts is transitional and so the work of the Spirit from the OT to the NT is in transition. I would not base a doctrine off of this. Too much of a discussion here to get into, but look at the occurrences of the work of the Spirit in Acts. There are only 4: Acts 2 (Pentecost); Acts 8 (Samaritans); Acts 10-11 (Cornelius, Gentiles); Acts 19 (Ephesus).

You must be misinterpretting 2Thes 2:13 and 1Pet 1:2, right?

No, you contend I misinterpret it because I disagree with you. The question is “What does the text say?” That is what I am trying to get at.

Specifically (2Thes), set apart and belief are connected by "and" but are not simultaneous (as you confess they aren't).

But notice which one comes first.

So belief has something to do with the "chosing" and Paul is not delineating the 2 roles separately like he does elsewhere.

What? I think belief has something to do with the choosing, namely that the believing follows the choosing, and that is the order we see in the text.

And then 1Pet -- we know how Peter treats the word "elect" from "make your calling and election sure," right? If "calling" is to justification, then "election" is to sanctification which latter the Lord has predestined IAW Rom 8:29.

Not at all. To make your calling and election sure is to take heed that you are developing the disciplines of Christian living. It is how we know we are of the elect.

But you let Calvin put it there for you.

Not at all.

Because Calvinists are loathe to call people to a personal decision -- i.e. a sinner's prayer, a walk down the aisle, a "rebaptism" -- anything that smacks of "works." So first there's the "sovereignty" contradiction and then there's the "works" issue, BOTH of which Calvin framed wrongly.

I don’t think Calvinists are loathe to do that. We are careful not to promise salvation because someone says a prayer or gets rebaptized. But we do call people to a decision.

Denying that, do you then say that the "elect" when the "general call" goes out have some merit (indwelling) that God should save them and not others? How was their "depravity" taken away before they had faith?

They had no merit; it is totally of grace. Their depravity is not taken away. All of us are still totally depraved. (Make sure you understand total depravity before you disagree.) Through the work fo the Spirit and grace in our lives, our depravity is being mitigated through sanctification.

But they are not the main focus of the issue we have which is that justification comes before sanctification/election

But it doesn’t. Justification is never said to follow election, and sanctification has at least two meanings in this regard. You are not recognizing those distinctions.

As my pastor said, "When you're pointing at me, there are 3 more fingers on that hand pointing at you."

On this topic, he was wrong.

I am not sure how much more there is to accomplish here, so I am going to try to curtail my participation. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[psalms109:31]

salvation with Jesus

The Father is the one who prunes and graft, we are depending upon Him.

He cuts out branches for unbelief, and will graft them in again if they do not persist in their unbelief.

God has included with them those who hear the Gospel of thier salvation having believed.

It has all about faith in God and His word not our selves for our salvation.

 

[skypair]

Non-sequitur. I don't get your reasoning here at all. Because they were foreknown, they had some merit? And how does being foreknown have any connection to when they were regenerated? Then you seem to think it follows that they were never totally depraved. These are all major league non-sequiturs.

Here's where you are wrong -- John 3:21 "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." So it is clear from this (offered by another Calvinist) that those who come to the light "do truth" already. Thus, it would not be as Calvin said that none merits salvation. The "elect" do by virtue of "doing truth." The "elect" are NOT totally depraved.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Apparently the system won't let me edit posts beyond a certain length without just deleting the previous.

 

[skypair]

As Npetreley pointed out, this is a non sequitur. First, the fact that they were chosen and foreknown in eternity past says nothing about when they were regenerated, since these are distinct things. Second it does not mean they were not totally depraved. That is unconnected to this point.

npeterey doesn't understand his own scriptural perspective. He would gladly agree that only those who "do truth" can come to Christ, John 3:21 -- that they actually do truth before they are "come". Why do the "do truth?" Cause they're "elect" or "regenerated," naturally!

But the text says “those whom he foreknew, he called, justified, and glorified.” The “those” that he foreknew is not limited to believers at all. That is you adding to the text. It does not say “Part of those whom he foreknew.”

We both agree that Paul is talking about believers here. You are trying to extend this passage to unbelievers who are not "justified, glorified,..." So, yes, in this context, the foreknown are limited to believers. It's like in Rom 1 where Paul never tells us about those who DID believe the revelation God gave them and didn't reject the truth.

No, justification is the declaration by God that we are just, free from sin, imputed with righteousness. It comes from faith and repentance.

Well, it comes from BELIEF and repentance. The rest seems to be in order, though. Question is: when does this happen relative to sanctification? BEFORE, right?

In the same manner Adam fell, Christ restores. Adam's soul died immediately, his spirit progressively, his body eventually. In Christ, our soul lives immediately (JUSTIFICATION), our spirit grows progressively (SANCTIFICATION), and our body is perfected eventually (GLORIFICATION).

Calvinism wants to sanctify the person before he/she is justified. How so? They cannot believe that a person can give himself to Chist/God. It is not within man's sovereignty/ability. You'll rail at me night and day that this is so!

So what's left? Well, take those who come into your church and if they appear to understand what you preach, presume them to be justified (how else could they hear truth?) and procede with sanctifying them.

The book of Acts is transitional and so the work of the Spirit from the OT to the NT is in transition.

Indeed, it was. So you are conceding that salvation was different in the OT? And aren't each of those HS incidents teaching us truths?? I don't say get into all of them -- just Acts 19.

We're going to have to leave behind your verses. It is clear there are 2 sides and that neither is proven solely by those 3. Better it would be to get you to see jsutification-sanctification-glorification so that you will see the significance of belief that is come to through one's own intellect, emotion, and will.

I don’t think Calvinists are loathe to do that. We are careful not to promise salvation because someone says a prayer or gets rebaptized. But we do call people to a decision.

I'm glad you said you "think" they aren't loathe to do that because it is obedient belief that justifies us in God's eyes whereupon He translates us into the SANCTIFYING kingdom of His Son with gifts -- faith, indwelling Spirit/regeneration, ability to know the mind of Christ, etc.

But it doesn’t. Justification is never said to follow election, and sanctification has at least two meanings in this regard. You are not recognizing those distinctions.

I agree justification is never said to follow election. Good. OK, what are the "two meanings" of sanctification?

I am not sure how much more there is to accomplish here, so I am going to try to curtail my participation. Thanks for the conversation.

If you're not growing, you're backsliding, Larry. I'll slow down to one-a-days with you but you need to be disabused of your weak sotierology. What do you think of Presby D. James Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion?

Larry -- first comes JUSTIFICATION wherein we believe the "gospel" of God/Spirit/Son and repent by the functioning of our own mind, emotions, and will. There is NEVER EVER in scripture a place where this is omitted and the person was saved and receives faith.

Justified, God begins His sanctifying work. In the OT, He separated Israel physically from other peoples. They were "chosen." In the NT, we are separated from all people spiritually unto -- chosen in, elect in -- Christ. We today receive rebirth, the indwelling Spirit, spiritual gifts, promise of heavenly Jerusalem, etc.

Acts 19 will delineate these truths for you. Yes, that was "transitional." In so being, it teaches us truths about OT vs NT salvation. Calvin ain't gonna help ya here, Larry. You gotta understand the mind of Christ.

skypair