Calvinism and Context?

[Bbrdrd]

i mostly find it interesting that an adamant proponent of the idea that the NIV is authored by Satan and the KJV is more perfect than the Greek, would when putting what he understands about the scripture into his own word, repeat the phrasing of the NIV. he & i have both been members here for years, and yes i am guilty here of poking at him over it, tho i am not guilty of slander and i hope not guilty of coming to the discussion with maliciously bitter intent.

that not all are saved is beyond question; there is no need to pursue argument about it.
that God is not willing for any to perish but that all come to knowledge of the truth, there is likewise no question or need for argument.

Ah, alright.

The second statement, though, seems to be challenged by a view that God elects to salvation in the manner that reformed doctrine would have it which is why I pressed it. If there is nothing stopping God's mercy except His own will and He would have all come to knowledge of the truth, then it seems the conclusion would need to be universalism.

It is only if there is some factor outside of God and in the recipient that causes the rejection. What did Paul say to the Jews in Acts when they had rejected the message? Not that God had not elected them but "you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life. " (Acts 13:46 NIV)

This implies the Jews themselves chose not to receive grace, though it was genuinely being offered to them.

 

[dcontroversal]

God would have all men to be saved and come to the knoweldge of the truth.

Hell was made for the devil and his angels.

For God so loved the KOSMOS....WHOSOEVER BELIEVES.

MANY ARE A CALLED but few CHOSEN

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God......who hath ears to hear and eyes to see.

and on and on and on....the context of the above verses and the verses themselves contradict this gospel-less, forced, no choice salvation being peddled on this site and in the world by Calvinites......

and you nailed it brother.....they absolutely deny context while forcing their own context and or view of the truth that they skew incessantly. NOT ONLY THAT, but they do the same to what we say....embellish, skew, twist and then deny......

Rather troubling to say the least!

 

[dcontroversal]

The teachings of Calvin, like any teaching, has a result. What is the result of a Christian embracing Calvin? And if it produces a problem, how serious is it in comparison to what is true?

If you cannot read thru these threads that promote that heretical farce and see the issues and problems that it causes, then you are neither looking at it objectively or are oblivious!.

Divide and conquer!!!!

 

[dcontroversal]

yes

so every time in scripture Jesus/God asks a question, we're in a judicial/courtroom setting in the passage. because He is God; He knows all things! He is never asking because He doesn't know: He's establishing facts before witnesses.

I like this statement!

No, not even the Son of man knows the hour.......!!

 

[posthuman]

Ah, alright.

The second statement, though, seems to be challenged by a view that God elects to salvation in the manner that reformed doctrine would have it which is why I pressed it. If there is nothing stopping God's mercy except His own will and He would have all come to knowledge of the truth, then it seems the conclusion would need to be universalism.

It is only if there is some factor outside of God and in the recipient that causes the rejection. What did Paul say to the Jews in Acts when they had rejected the message? Not that God had not elected them but "you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life. " (Acts 13:46 NIV)

This implies the Jews themselves chose not to receive grace, though it was genuinely being offered to them.

to understand that passage, we have to keep in mind that 'not all Israel is Israel' and that God did indeed blind them 'lest they turn, be converted and healed' to the end that we be brought in, provoking them to jealously.

it's not true that God doesn't blind anyone or harden anyone, and the counterpoint commonly given, to suggest He only blinds those who first blind themselves, has an issue with time, because this was written in Isaiah and a thousand years later it occurs with the advent of Christ and the national rejection - a nation comprised of individuals who rejected Him - taking place. this was foretold by God before any of the pharisees were ever born, or even their grandfathers born, and purposed by God because as Christ told Nicodemus, the Son must be lifted up: necessarily it will be. how then did Caiphas & Herod and all the rest become blind and deaf? by Isaiah, speaking long before. this is difficult to explain as God only 'reinforcing' the will of these men after-the-fact.
if that makes sense?

this whole subject is not so simple as we tend to think of it, and i get the feeling at its core, it is beyond human knowledge. i think we oversimplify and we are vain if we say we comprehend His ways fully -- it is a real conundrum, and to me more than any other conclusion, i see how that He is far above us in all wisdom and righteousness, beyond what we know. it's humbling that He is able to give men free agency and simultaneously be omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent -- this is not something humans can do, and i'm afraid when we think about Him we anthropomorphize and press our opinions of how 'it must make sense to us' onto the scripture instead of reading, believing, and standing in awe!

 

[Bbrdrd]

to understand that passage, we have to keep in mind that 'not all Israel is Israel' and that God did indeed blind them 'lest they turn, be converted and healed' to the end that we be brought in, provoking them to jealously.

it's not true that God doesn't blind anyone or harden anyone, and the counterpoint commonly given, to suggest He only blinds those who first blind themselves, has an issue with time, because this was written in Isaiah and a thousand years later it occurs with the advent of Christ and the national rejection - a nation comprised of individuals who rejected Him - taking place. this was foretold by God before any of the pharisees were ever born, or even their grandfathers born, and purposed by God because as Christ told Nicodemus, the Son must be lifted up: necessarily it will be. how then did Caiphas & Herod and all the rest become blind and deaf? by Isaiah, speaking long before. this is difficult to explain as God only 'reinforcing' the will of these men after-the-fact.
if that makes sense?

this whole subject is not so simple as we tend to think of it, and i get the feeling at its core, it is beyond human knowledge. i think we oversimplify and we are vain if we say we comprehend His ways fully -- it is a real conundrum, and to me more than any other conclusion, i see how that He is far above us in all wisdom and righteousness, beyond what we know. it's humbling that He is able to give men free agency and simultaneously be omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent -- this is not something humans can do, and i'm afraid when we think about Him we anthropomorphize and press our opinions of how 'it must make sense to us' onto the scripture instead of reading, believing, and standing in awe!

It seems to me that you're claiming God was insincere in His extension of grace to Israel and beginning with preaching the kingdom to them, since according to you in order to understand their rejection we must posit that it was not actually done according to their will but God preventing them from seeing.
The limited context of blinding to accomplish the task does not imply a perpetual blinding, and you forward what could be an amenable explanation not through deduction but through fiat and beg the question.
Altogether I agree it is beyond human understanding, as no matter how you slice the world the idea of free will seems untenable. Either we are slaves to physics, or we are puppets of God. Yet that does not vindicate reformed doctrine, especially insofar as it distorts the Bible to fit a set of manmade doctrine. There is no need to bring any other passage into the context of Acts 13 as it's not quoting anything and it's not until human doctrine gets in the way that the idea that the Jews rejected the gospel of their own accord, judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, becomes problematic. It is only in a world where God's grace must be irresistable because He has elected those saved and unsaved eternally because man is incapable of generating a response that the idea that the gospel can be rejected through human will is challenged. And so we must preserve the tension and discard the doctrine that force us to moderate simple passages like that.

 

[posthuman]

It seems to me that you're claiming God was insincere in His extension of grace to Israel and beginning with preaching the kingdom to them, since according to you in order to understand their rejection we must posit that it was not actually done according to their will but God preventing them from seeing.

not at all.
why did He speak in parables? two purposes: so those who have, would receive more, and so those who do not have, even what they do have will be taken away.
in the same way Moses testifies against those who do not keep his word and for those who do. in the same way the proclamation of the gospel is foolishness to the world and the power of God to those who believe -- would you call the gospel 'insincere' since it condemns the one who hears it and rejects it? the condemnation is that light came into the world but men hated it because their deeds were evil. is the light insincere because it stands as a witness against darkness?

 

[posthuman]

The limited context of blinding to accomplish the task does not imply a perpetual blinding, and you forward what could be an amenable explanation not through deduction but through fiat and beg the question.

perpetual?
did i say that?
how long? asked Isaiah. and the LORD answered.
and the LORD also declared that He would preserve a remnant. we have to understand that, and not deny it, no matter how unpalatable it may seem -- this is the LORD's doing, He Himself says so.

He said,
“Go, and tell this people:​

‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;​

Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’​

Make the heart of this people dull,​

And their ears heavy,​

And shut their eyes;​

Lest they see with their eyes,​

And hear with their ears,​

And understand with their heart,​

And return and be healed.”​

Then I said, “Lord, how long?”​

And He answered:​

“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,​

The houses are without a man,​

The land is utterly desolate,​

The Lord has removed men far away,​

And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.​

But yet a tenth will be in it,​

And will return and be for consuming,​

As a terebinth tree or as an oak,​

Whose stump remains when it is cut down.​

So the holy seed shall be its stump.”​

(Isaiah 6:9-13)​

​

limited context?
Jesus says this was still going on when He walked among them - Matthew 15
Paul said its context includes all the time of the Gentiles - Romans 11 ((with 9 & 10 providing the logical underpinning))

men will say, this only applies to the nation not the people. but the nation cannot be blind while all the people of it see - the nation is only as blind as the individuals who comprise it. that is not easy to swallow, i know, but it is the word of God, and it's not supposed to be easy and it's not supposed to be simple: the Bible is the most amazing & incredible book in all of human history.

 

[Bbrdrd]

not at all.
why did He speak in parables? two purposes: so those who have, would receive more, and so those who do not have, even what they do have will be taken away.
in the same way Moses testifies against those who do not keep his word and for those who do. in the same way the proclamation of the gospel is foolishness to the world and the power of God to those who believe -- would you call the gospel 'insincere' since it condemns the one who hears it and rejects it? the condemnation is that light came into the world but men hated it because their deeds were evil. is the light insincere because it stands as a witness against darkness?

The insincerity comes in if God is blinding them, interfering with their inability to hear it and condemning them based on His action. It would be insincere if He offers it knowing that He is preventing them from accepting it. Certainly allowing men to condemn themselves is not insincere, but that is not what reformed doctrine proposes.
And there's a lot of word games that go on in reformed circles, such as claiming that God does not symmetrically lead people to damnation as He elects those to salvation. Yet that is exactly what you are proposing here, God leading men to damnation by blinding them wholesale so He may condemn them.
It distorts the character of God and makes a mystery of how He could will all to salvation if His choice is all that stands between those damned and those saved. He at once wills them saved and damned, and such a thing cannot be so.

 

[soggykitten]

the point is that we posted links; we didn't actually make our own cases.
we might as well have been an advertising banner or a robot that generates spam.

the point is a person can find links that make some case and a person can also find links that make the opposite case. so the existence of webpages one can link to doesn't constitute any kind of persuasive argument.

The first to plead his cause seems right, ​

until his neighbor comes and examines him. ​

(Proverbs 18:17) ​

No, I've made my point many times in posts before I happened to post the link to bible scripture that refutes Calvinism.
Some people may not accept an individuals point of view and supported by scripture they share in the course of posting that. Sharing an impartial source that alludes to the same thing, supports the point of view, is a matter of giving readers more information.

 

[soggykitten]

There is a blindness that comes to those who hold these false tenets for sure....

.....and sadly not only is it near impossible for them to return to the true Gospel they indoctrinate many more along the way.

I believe once someone truly thinks about what the false tenets are imparting about God those who love God will not be persuaded toward that indoctrination.

Calvinism/Lordship Salvation, is not Biblical. Though as we know the Bible has had its scriptures twisted in order for the twisters to substantiate all manner of false doctrine and even evil intent.
Jim Jones was a master at that. David Koresh as well. The Aryan nation and white supremacists that hold to Christian identity. And of course John Calvin, to name just a few but God knows certainly not all.

 

[EleventhHour]

I believe once someone truly thinks about what the false tenets are imparting about God those who love God will not be persuaded toward that indoctrination.

Calvinism/Lordship Salvation, is not Biblical. Though as we know the Bible has had its scriptures twisted in order for the twisters to substantiate all manner of false doctrine and even evil intent.
Jim Jones was a master at that. David Koresh as well. The Aryan nation and white supremacists that hold to Christian identity. And of course John Calvin, to name just a few but God knows certainly not all.

Calvinism infiltrates and subverts within the church that is why it is so dangerous.

 

[soggykitten]

Calvinism infiltrates and subverts within the church that is why it is so dangerous.

Think of how many people died following that false teaching.

 

[posthuman]

No, I've made my point many times in posts before I happened to post the link to bible scripture that refutes Calvinism.
Some people may not accept an individuals point of view and supported by scripture they share in the course of posting that. Sharing an impartial source that alludes to the same thing, supports the point of view, is a matter of giving readers more information.

i don't know that a webpage called "calvinism refuted by scripture" is any more or any less impartial than a webpage called "calvinism supported by scripture"

 

[posthuman]

The insincerity comes in if God is blinding them, interfering with their inability to hear it and condemning them based on His action. It would be insincere if He offers it knowing that He is preventing them from accepting it.

in other words, "how can He still judge, since no one can resist His will" ?

 

[posthuman]

Jesus never said people "must" hate him the way youre portraying it. Prophecy is proof that God's word is true.

what do you think it means, then, when He told them the world would hate them because of His name, when He explained that the scriptures show He must suffer many things, be despised and rejected by the elders and the people, and ultimately lay down His life under their condemnation?
optional? but the end was declared from the beginning!

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you,
‘A servant is not greater than his master.’
If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law,
‘They hated Me without a cause.’
(John 15:18-25)​

 

[posthuman]

No, not even the Son of man knows the hour.......!!

that's wedding language

 

[posthuman]

Prophecy is proof that God's word is true.

it's in the fulfillment of prophecy that He is proven, not in the giving of it - because many false prophets go out; they are proven false when what they say doesn't come to pass.

prophecy proves God's sovereignty, as He Himself explains:

Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other;​

I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning,​

and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ​

‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,’​

calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country.​

Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass.​

I have purposed it; I will also do it. ​

(Isaiah 46:9-11)​

​

​

He calls a man, a bird of prey, who executes His counsel. He says, He speaks it & He brings it to pass -- He purposes it and He does it; this proves He is God and no other is; He does all His will.
what do these facts say about the supposed 'sovereign free agency' of the man He calls to fulfill His purpose?
isn't that humanity's major beef with these things? the complaint that God is 'playing puppet with people' and 'that's not fair, God should respect people's free will' ? what does this mean here in Isaiah?? is that God saying He does this and that it's proof He, and He alone is God?

if it's not, what is He saying?

can human will change what is prophesied? or *must* it come to pass as He declares it?
is He not saying He is the very one who brings it to pass? IMO the very existence of prophecy throws human notions of free agency for quite the loop; it's not so free as it's made out to be: ask the bird of prey from the far country about compulsion & destiny. or maybe from his point of view, he does it of his own accord without any divine 'interference' as it may be described??

 

[posthuman]

If there is nothing stopping God's mercy except His own will and He would have all come to knowledge of the truth, then it seems the conclusion would need to be universalism.

traditionally the answer to the classic question 'if He can save everyone through grace and His will is that all are saved, why doesn't He?' is His justice: He is holy, and it is His glory to not let wickedness go unpunished; He is merciful, and it is His glory to overlook offense.

loving righteousness and judgment,
of the kindness of Jehovah is the earth full
(Psalm 33:5 ylt)​

 

[Journeyman]

what do you think it means, then, when He told them the world would hate them because of His name, when He explained that the scriptures show He must suffer many things, be despised and rejected by the elders and the people, and ultimately lay down His life under their condemnation?
optional? but the end was declared from the beginning!

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ​

‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ ​

If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ​

‘They hated Me without a cause.’ ​

(John 15:18-25)​

It means if people hate Jesus, it's because they hate God, because Jesus is God in the flesh. This is why Jesus said anyone who has heard and learned of the Father (from the scriptures) comes to me. No one can come to Jesus unless thay are "drawn" (attracted) by the Father. Not everyone hated Jesus. Even many of the religious leaders believed in him because of what he was saying and doing.