A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF CALVINISM
- Thread starter BaptistBibleBeliever
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
U
The point is not presenting the Gospel to the world, the point is that God seems to disproportionately choose/elect
from a certain group on this planet, namely those that live in a certain culture.
It is completely his choice right?
And people are beyond the ability to respond to the Gospel and believe right?
Why then are most believers typically from within a certain area and segment of society.
I also find it very illogical that Christ would call us to "love our enemies", a place where we make ourselves vulnerable like Christ Jesus did, yet God does not love those we are called to love by saving them, rather condemns to hell with no option for salvation from the foundation of the world as well.
Which begs the question how does God choose and do you not find this a very morally ambigious God and completely contradictory to the very example of Christ Jesus?
from a certain group on this planet, namely those that live in a certain culture.
It is completely his choice right?
And people are beyond the ability to respond to the Gospel and believe right?
Why then are most believers typically from within a certain area and segment of society.
I also find it very illogical that Christ would call us to "love our enemies", a place where we make ourselves vulnerable like Christ Jesus did, yet God does not love those we are called to love by saving them, rather condemns to hell with no option for salvation from the foundation of the world as well.
Which begs the question how does God choose and do you not find this a very morally ambigious God and completely contradictory to the very example of Christ Jesus?
U
Is this one of those trick questions?
Well clinically dead is not the same as on the brink of death I think.
What is your point here.
Perhaps Paul says it best. 23I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. 24But it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.…
I still have responsibilities in this world.
Well clinically dead is not the same as on the brink of death I think.
What is your point here.
Perhaps Paul says it best. 23I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. 24But it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.…
I still have responsibilities in this world.
God chose Noah and seven with him and destroyed the rest.
God chose Abraham, made the promise to his descendants, gave them the covenants, oracles(words) of God, adoption, and left the rest to themselves. There were a few Gentiles grafted in, but < 99% of the rest were not.
God’s choosing who to save was done before He said, “Let there be light.”
9-10 But you are the ones chosen by God, chosen for the high calling of priestly work, chosen to be a holy people, God’s instruments to do his work and speak out for him, to tell others of the night-and-day difference he made for you—from nothing to something, from rejected to accepted.(1Peter 2)
God chose Abraham, made the promise to his descendants, gave them the covenants, oracles(words) of God, adoption, and left the rest to themselves. There were a few Gentiles grafted in, but < 99% of the rest were not.
God’s choosing who to save was done before He said, “Let there be light.”
9-10 But you are the ones chosen by God, chosen for the high calling of priestly work, chosen to be a holy people, God’s instruments to do his work and speak out for him, to tell others of the night-and-day difference he made for you—from nothing to something, from rejected to accepted.(1Peter 2)
Is this one of those trick questions?
Well clinically dead is not the same as on the brink of death I think.
What is your point here.
Perhaps Paul says it best. 23I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. 24But it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.…
I still have responsibilities in this world.
Well clinically dead is not the same as on the brink of death I think.
What is your point here.
Perhaps Paul says it best. 23I am torn between the two. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better indeed. 24But it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.…
I still have responsibilities in this world.
The very moment you separate body and spirit, you end up with a corpse.(James 2:26)
The spirit in man, when separated from God, is dead, as God is the only life Source for the spirit within man.
Since you've disagreed with me @Nayborbear, allow me to show you why the above is true:
The Corinthians were taught of election; 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. Paul then in a couple chapters later tells them up until this point he's only fed them with milk; note 1 Corinthians 3:2. This therefore shows that these truths are the milk of the Word. Abram would be one prime example of this in the OT.
The problem today is people are not taught this, preachers are afraid to teach them this, which is asinine. Many simply don't believe this, which John alludes to as unbelievers; note John 6:64, 66.
This is one reason we have so many today, as seen on here, who have a very shallow understanding of Scripture and the Gospel, and why they flip out about the truth concerning election, get uptight, slander, lie, attack &c.
It also shows why they believe somehow they merited God's favor buy taking Scriptures out of context. Acts 10 for instance with Cornelius. They simply don't believe even the milk of the word.
The Corinthians were taught of election; 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. Paul then in a couple chapters later tells them up until this point he's only fed them with milk; note 1 Corinthians 3:2. This therefore shows that these truths are the milk of the Word. Abram would be one prime example of this in the OT.
The problem today is people are not taught this, preachers are afraid to teach them this, which is asinine. Many simply don't believe this, which John alludes to as unbelievers; note John 6:64, 66.
This is one reason we have so many today, as seen on here, who have a very shallow understanding of Scripture and the Gospel, and why they flip out about the truth concerning election, get uptight, slander, lie, attack &c.
It also shows why they believe somehow they merited God's favor buy taking Scriptures out of context. Acts 10 for instance with Cornelius. They simply don't believe even the milk of the word.
-
1
- Show all
Because my English is not on the suitable level, I dare to copy and paste some text, for your better understanding what I mean:
25. The antecedent will is thoroughly earnest and pure and not to be confounded with velleity (where anybody, were he able, would will, and would like to be able [i.e., I would if I could, and I wish I could]), which does not happen with God. Nor is it to be confused with the conditional will, which at present we are not considering. The purpose moreover of God's antecedent will is to take care of all things
good and to avert whatever is evil, to the extent they are good and evil and in proportion to the degree they are so. God himself also made clear how earnest this will is, when he so emphatically said that he does not will the death of the sinner, but wishes all man to be saved and hates sin.
26. The consequent will comes from the union of all antecedent wills, so that without doubt, if the effect of all cannot be in force at the same time, the greatest possible effect may thereupon be obtained through wisdom and power. This will usually is called a decree.
27. From what has just been said, obviously antecedent wills are also not entirely fruitless but have their effect, even though that effect may not always be perfect but limited by the joint effect or other antecedent wills.
Leibniz, Theodicy.
25. The antecedent will is thoroughly earnest and pure and not to be confounded with velleity (where anybody, were he able, would will, and would like to be able [i.e., I would if I could, and I wish I could]), which does not happen with God. Nor is it to be confused with the conditional will, which at present we are not considering. The purpose moreover of God's antecedent will is to take care of all things
good and to avert whatever is evil, to the extent they are good and evil and in proportion to the degree they are so. God himself also made clear how earnest this will is, when he so emphatically said that he does not will the death of the sinner, but wishes all man to be saved and hates sin.
26. The consequent will comes from the union of all antecedent wills, so that without doubt, if the effect of all cannot be in force at the same time, the greatest possible effect may thereupon be obtained through wisdom and power. This will usually is called a decree.
27. From what has just been said, obviously antecedent wills are also not entirely fruitless but have their effect, even though that effect may not always be perfect but limited by the joint effect or other antecedent wills.
Leibniz, Theodicy.
Exegesis.
I have heard all the arguments from the reformed side already about 2 peter 3 and context, NOT CONVINCED.
I have heard all the arguments from the reformed side already about 2 peter 3 and context, NOT CONVINCED.
I could do that with another passage given, but you'd simply go subjective and ballistic over it.
Context does not support you. You have to actually use Scripture to back up your claims, not just a whim. Yes, Peter is addressing believers, and he is addressing them, the elect that will come in 3:9. ALso, this is not stated in other epistles in how you're using it.
I'm sorry to see you dismiss proper theology as babble. It is purely obedient to 2 Timothy 2:15. To address the "written to elect" part, all the epistles are written to the elect. That you are not aware of this, ridicule it somewhat shows me you need to start from scratch bro.
I've been consistent to the context and I think you know it. Please stop with the throwing out unsubstantiated accusations. I've been consistent throughout our discussion, and Biblical while you have been emotional and subjective while dismissing clear evidence and ridiculing theology.
Please try being serious and mature about this.
Iv'e shown you the well known purpose of Paul in Romans 3, "all" there is the entire world which is what he is proving in that chapter, all the world is lost, all have gone astray &c. You should know this as a believer, it is rudimentary teaching. You cannot disprove this or show any good commentator who uses your view. All know this is the proper context and meaning.
Plumbers???? Wow, OK, we're going to argue about how many plumbers are saved? That's up to God, by the way.
If it is of any help I'm a home builder and have witnessed to my subs of which some are of course plumbers. Others hang sheetrock, and finish it, or frame, lay brick, do concrete &c. I have witnessed to most of them, others I've prayed about and the opportunity did not arise. But, it is up to God to save them.
You should Read 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 bro. It's a good point right here.
Your entire rant is purely subjective bro. You've not argued one point at all, nor have you shown where contextually I'm wrong. Instead you've been like "so what?" about the context, Peter for example.
But I get it, here is the bottom line: You and others believe somehow through some action you completed that for this God chose you. You're misusing the story of Cornelius as evidence of what you believe about the Gospel, that God chose him for doing good things, and chooses others in the same manner. That is a complete misunderstanding of the text, context and balance of Scripture.
Your Romans 3 theory is basically that not all are unrighteous, not good &c as per Romans 3:10ff.
So here's what will happen, when you get to heaven, God will congratulate you?
That is never going to happen, bro.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to nab a commentator that uses your view of Acts and Cornelius. I'm trying to take this seriously, and you're offering up zero defense of your stance other that "NOT CONVINCED" and other subjective ranting.
Please attempt to prove your position in a serious manner. Please?
-
2
- Show all
Sorry P4T, I see nothing concerning foreknowing and predestining in your reply. Almost afraid to ask you in the dots you connected to arrive at this conclusion.
Sure you'd be happy to, so go ahead.
Sure you'd be happy to, so go ahead.
The statement of 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 talks about their election, being chosen, in Christ, "elektos." It's right there plainly in the text, stated over and over so they were aware of this, it is a basic teaching. Of course Christ showed this to us in John 6 as a basic teaching. Many turned away at this, so, he showed it to them early in their learning while following him.
Obviously all the other elements go into this as well, (foreknowledge/predestination/calling/justification/glorification) Romans 8:26ff.
Acts 18 sheds some light on their election as well.
-
1
- Show all
Sounds very complicated.
How about we believe God wants all to be saved, as the bible teaches in 1 Timothy 2:4. (NOT all kinds of men, or elect men)
But at the same time all are NOT saved, why? Because men love darkness rather than light. And dont want to come to the light, because their deeds are evil.
Because of the refusal to repent and believe the gospel.
Easy way to reconcile right there. Thats what the Bible plainly teaches.
Bro trofimus may I ask: Why are you NOT arminian? (Or should i say why dont you believe in free will, since im not arminian either).
What exactly is wrong with it that you wont accept it?
How about we believe God wants all to be saved, as the bible teaches in 1 Timothy 2:4. (NOT all kinds of men, or elect men)
But at the same time all are NOT saved, why? Because men love darkness rather than light. And dont want to come to the light, because their deeds are evil.
Because of the refusal to repent and believe the gospel.
Easy way to reconcile right there. Thats what the Bible plainly teaches.
Bro trofimus may I ask: Why are you NOT arminian? (Or should i say why dont you believe in free will, since im not arminian either).
What exactly is wrong with it that you wont accept it?
-
1
- Show all
Okay, I will defend the nature of God and go from attribute to attribute, my friend. I will start with God being immutable.
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: (Hebrews 6:18)
God being immutable means He never changes, neither in His nature nor in His mind. Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" That is why God said to Moses I am that I am, not I am what I once was, or I am what I will not be later, but I am always I am, I am always the same.
Now, in Romans 9, for instance, we see
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Look at how it is expressed here. Of the same lump, He took and made vessels unto honor. The same lump was Adam. We all, all of Adam's posterity, fell in Adam when he sinned in the Garden. God took of that lump of clay and made vessels of honor. They sheep were no better off than the goats, the elect were no better than the non-elect. There was nothing in them that made God love them. That is why we praise God for saving us. I was no better than the ones who died and went to hell. I was not seeking God, I was not trying to find a way into His church, I was to content in my sins. If God had not hunted me down, I would still be lost. I praise God that He had mercy upon me, as if He had not took action upon me, I would have never sought for Him.
Look at verse 24 where it says, "whom he hath called". God has not called everybody whoever lived. God loved the elect based on nothing other than Himself.
God took the elect from the same corrupted lump of clay and gave them to the Son, who is molding them into the image of Himself.
What I am trying to say that if God is immutable, and He is, then if He loves everybody without exception, then there are no vessels of wrath, negating that passage in Romans 9 I just gave. If He is immutable and loves everybody without exception, then those who are sentenced to hell are loved by Him even while they are in hell. God does not love those who are punished in hell, but will bear the full thrust of His wrath in the day of Judgment.
So, either God loves those who are punished in hell, or He loves them, and then pours out His wrath on those He loves, or He changes from loving them to hating them, thereby negating His immutability. Which is it, my friend?
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: (Hebrews 6:18)
God being immutable means He never changes, neither in His nature nor in His mind. Numbers 23:19 says "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" That is why God said to Moses I am that I am, not I am what I once was, or I am what I will not be later, but I am always I am, I am always the same.
Now, in Romans 9, for instance, we see
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Look at how it is expressed here. Of the same lump, He took and made vessels unto honor. The same lump was Adam. We all, all of Adam's posterity, fell in Adam when he sinned in the Garden. God took of that lump of clay and made vessels of honor. They sheep were no better off than the goats, the elect were no better than the non-elect. There was nothing in them that made God love them. That is why we praise God for saving us. I was no better than the ones who died and went to hell. I was not seeking God, I was not trying to find a way into His church, I was to content in my sins. If God had not hunted me down, I would still be lost. I praise God that He had mercy upon me, as if He had not took action upon me, I would have never sought for Him.
Look at verse 24 where it says, "whom he hath called". God has not called everybody whoever lived. God loved the elect based on nothing other than Himself.
God took the elect from the same corrupted lump of clay and gave them to the Son, who is molding them into the image of Himself.
What I am trying to say that if God is immutable, and He is, then if He loves everybody without exception, then there are no vessels of wrath, negating that passage in Romans 9 I just gave. If He is immutable and loves everybody without exception, then those who are sentenced to hell are loved by Him even while they are in hell. God does not love those who are punished in hell, but will bear the full thrust of His wrath in the day of Judgment.
So, either God loves those who are punished in hell, or He loves them, and then pours out His wrath on those He loves, or He changes from loving them to hating them, thereby negating His immutability. Which is it, my friend?
Last edited:
Next is God is love.
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.(1 John 4)
The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.(Jeremiah 31:3)
Now, we all know that God is love, but that is not all that He is, my friend. The reason why many are not afraid of God is because preachers focus too much on that attribute and not on His other attributes. They hear that God is love and say "A loving God will not send me to hell". Wrong. People, the lost I am talking about, think God loves them just as they are. Again, wrong. God's love is found solely in Christ. To be outside of Christ is to be outside of God's love. In evangelizing the lost, nowhere is it commanded for us to tell them God loves them. Peter never did it, neither did Paul. Nor did Jesus tell the lost God loves them. He did tell people to repent and believe the gospel(Mark 1:15) and that if they did not repent, they would also perish(Luke 13:3 & 13:5). He never told the religious leaders that God loved them, but that they were of the father, the devil(John 8:44).
Which brings me to this, if God is immutable, and He loves with an everlasting love, why does He cast those He loves into a burning, eternal, fiery furnace? That would be a cruel God to cast His objects of love into hell.
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.(1 John 4)
The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.(Jeremiah 31:3)
Now, we all know that God is love, but that is not all that He is, my friend. The reason why many are not afraid of God is because preachers focus too much on that attribute and not on His other attributes. They hear that God is love and say "A loving God will not send me to hell". Wrong. People, the lost I am talking about, think God loves them just as they are. Again, wrong. God's love is found solely in Christ. To be outside of Christ is to be outside of God's love. In evangelizing the lost, nowhere is it commanded for us to tell them God loves them. Peter never did it, neither did Paul. Nor did Jesus tell the lost God loves them. He did tell people to repent and believe the gospel(Mark 1:15) and that if they did not repent, they would also perish(Luke 13:3 & 13:5). He never told the religious leaders that God loved them, but that they were of the father, the devil(John 8:44).
Which brings me to this, if God is immutable, and He loves with an everlasting love, why does He cast those He loves into a burning, eternal, fiery furnace? That would be a cruel God to cast His objects of love into hell.