i often see the criticism levied that if God irrevocably destined for salvation all who are being saved, there is no motivation to evangelize. i find it equally critical that if God is unjust to intervene and coerce a person to believe and be redeemed, then there is contradictory to pray for anyone, because prayer is directly asking God to do exactly those things, superseding the will of the lost.
Calvinism and Context?
- Thread starter throughfaith
- 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.
- Status
i often see the criticism levied that if God irrevocably destined for salvation all who are being saved, there is no motivation to evangelize. i find it equally critical that if God is unjust to intervene and coerce a person to believe and be redeemed, then there is contradictory to pray for anyone, because prayer is directly asking God to do exactly those things, superseding the will of the lost.
The contradiction comes not in evangelizing someone whose status is unknown, but praying that God would suffer all. It places the mercy of the petitioner as greater than that of God, having mercy on those that God has chosen not to.
Praying for God to intervene is different from God coercing an individual. The prayer for those who believe in the will of the individual is not that God would decide for the person, but that He would arrange their circumstances to win them over. To treat God's loveliness as if it would not be able to gently persuade those who initially are reluctant without the need to forcefully intervene in their will undermines God's glory.
Praying for God to intervene is different from God coercing an individual. The prayer for those who believe in the will of the individual is not that God would decide for the person, but that He would arrange their circumstances to win them over. To treat God's loveliness as if it would not be able to gently persuade those who initially are reluctant without the need to forcefully intervene in their will undermines God's glory.
"if you" "you're" "then you are" "you claim"
You're doing it again. I think it's getting worse. Whew.
Anyhoo, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
The command of Scripture is clear: we should pray for the well-being and salvation of all men.
It is not our place to speculate why, impugn God, nor place a limit on God's mercy and love.
Judgment is His business not mine. I am merely an unworthy servant. And a very lowly one at that.
You're doing it again. I think it's getting worse. Whew.
Anyhoo, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
The command of Scripture is clear: we should pray for the well-being and salvation of all men.
It is not our place to speculate why, impugn God, nor place a limit on God's mercy and love.
Judgment is His business not mine. I am merely an unworthy servant. And a very lowly one at that.
-
2
- Show all
All of those "you's" were hypothetical, because using "one" is too stiff for a forum.
I'd agree with that read of Scripture, but it runs contrary to the teaching on election via sovereign choice. Simply answering "don't ask questions" when your system presents obvious discrepancies between the character of God revealed in the Bible and the character of the god of the system it is the system that should be discarded not the questions.
I'd agree with that read of Scripture, but it runs contrary to the teaching on election via sovereign choice. Simply answering "don't ask questions" when your system presents obvious discrepancies between the character of God revealed in the Bible and the character of the god of the system it is the system that should be discarded not the questions.
You really should trademark that.
If it truly was scriptural doctrine, and not simply the result of men philosophizing there wouldn't be so many obvious contradictions to it, so many places where Scripture must be bent and "harmonized" to fit it. Instead it would lead to a connection between Scripture that are in tension with each other and make the disparity understandable.
Besides that, we wouldn't be able to so clearly trace the heritage and evolution of the doctrine from Augustine to Calvin through the English reformers. Instead we would see it declared from the first consistently and clearly. Yet if we look previous to Augustine we see it contradicted by Justin Martyr, Jerome, and everyone else who wrote on the topic of man's will in salvation.
Your insistence that it is scriptural only speaks to the depth of your self-deception, not the accuracy of your conclusions.
If it truly was scriptural doctrine, and not simply the result of men philosophizing there wouldn't be so many obvious contradictions to it, so many places where Scripture must be bent and "harmonized" to fit it. Instead it would lead to a connection between Scripture that are in tension with each other and make the disparity understandable.
Besides that, we wouldn't be able to so clearly trace the heritage and evolution of the doctrine from Augustine to Calvin through the English reformers. Instead we would see it declared from the first consistently and clearly. Yet if we look previous to Augustine we see it contradicted by Justin Martyr, Jerome, and everyone else who wrote on the topic of man's will in salvation.
Your insistence that it is scriptural only speaks to the depth of your self-deception, not the accuracy of your conclusions.
-
1
- Show all
Here is boilerplate scriptural doctrine in a nutshell:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Does anyone see "the elect" in that verse? If not, that false teaching should be banned by those who hold to it. Indeed, they should put on sackcloth and ashes and repent for perverting the Gospel. See the book of Jonah.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Does anyone see "the elect" in that verse? If not, that false teaching should be banned by those who hold to it. Indeed, they should put on sackcloth and ashes and repent for perverting the Gospel. See the book of Jonah.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
E
I make no assumptions... I do not fashion a god who chooses some for salvation and creates other people for destruction
.... a false dogma developed by Augustine and his Gnostic Manichean roots and later adopted by Calvin who idolized him.
And here were are in 2020, having it be part of mainstream Christianity a doctrine not even evidenced anywhere in scripture.
.... a false dogma developed by Augustine and his Gnostic Manichean roots and later adopted by Calvin who idolized him.
And here were are in 2020, having it be part of mainstream Christianity a doctrine not even evidenced anywhere in scripture.
-
1
- Show all
Whether you identify as a Calvinist or not is immaterial. The heritage of the doctrine you claim is "boilerplate" begins properly with Calvin so it properly bears his name.
And central to that doctrine is particular election, which is the distinctive that Calvin identified that theologians prior to him had not stated. So any theological variation that centers on particular election is properly called "Calvinist."
You quote calvinist theologians, you read Scripure with a Calvinist bent, yet you are ashamed to properly attribute your heritage.
The doctrine of particular election fails every test. It fails the historical test of being continually espoused since we can clearly trace it to individual theologians. It fails the test of logical cohesion as it requires massive logical failings. It fails the test of God's character. And most importantly it fails the test of making Scripture more understandable rather than less, as many boilerplate verses are in plain conflict with it.
And central to that doctrine is particular election, which is the distinctive that Calvin identified that theologians prior to him had not stated. So any theological variation that centers on particular election is properly called "Calvinist."
You quote calvinist theologians, you read Scripure with a Calvinist bent, yet you are ashamed to properly attribute your heritage.
The doctrine of particular election fails every test. It fails the historical test of being continually espoused since we can clearly trace it to individual theologians. It fails the test of logical cohesion as it requires massive logical failings. It fails the test of God's character. And most importantly it fails the test of making Scripture more understandable rather than less, as many boilerplate verses are in plain conflict with it.
-
1
- Show all
E
How does the above answer my question of how God judges the non elect in Calvinism when they had no choice?
The one who rejects Me and does not receive My word has a judge; on the last day the Word that I have spoken will serve as judge (John 12:48).
The one who rejects Me and does not receive My word has a judge; on the last day the Word that I have spoken will serve as judge (John 12:48).
-
1
-
1
- Show all
this is what i was trying to explain to you earlier, that you don't see yet.
if anyone can be saved as a result of 'the right circumstances' occurring to 'win them over' --- why doesn't God, knows all, who appoints all the times and seasons, bring about 'the right circumstances' for everyone?
isn't God de-fact sovereignly determining fate and destiny by whether or not He causes 'the right circumstances' in a person's life?
if anyone can be saved as a result of 'the right circumstances' occurring to 'win them over' --- why doesn't God, knows all, who appoints all the times and seasons, bring about 'the right circumstances' for everyone?
isn't God de-fact sovereignly determining fate and destiny by whether or not He causes 'the right circumstances' in a person's life?
-
1
- Show all
All you need to do is read the bible. Its all in there.
Why did God create the Caananites? The Egyptians? The Amalekites? The Philistines?
Were they held accountable for their unbelief? Yes.
Its throughout the WHOLE Bible. Theres the elect and the non-elect. Believers and unbelievers. How can you read the bible and not see it??? How can you live in the world and not see it??
Because it is SO evident there is only ONE of two conclusions to be made. 1. God is impotent and CANNOT save those He chooses to Save. Or 2. God is Powerful to Save and Saves 100% of all the people He chooses to Save.
The free-will philosophy (which is unbiblical) holds to the first conclusion. That God is impotent. Mens Wills over-ride Gods Will in this philosophy.
In Calvinism, and biblically based theology, God is Powerful to Save and Saves 100% of all the people He chooses to Save.
Its not difficult at all for someone who reads the bible and is actually saved to reject the free-will philosophy.
Why did God create the Caananites? The Egyptians? The Amalekites? The Philistines?
Were they held accountable for their unbelief? Yes.
Its throughout the WHOLE Bible. Theres the elect and the non-elect. Believers and unbelievers. How can you read the bible and not see it??? How can you live in the world and not see it??
Because it is SO evident there is only ONE of two conclusions to be made. 1. God is impotent and CANNOT save those He chooses to Save. Or 2. God is Powerful to Save and Saves 100% of all the people He chooses to Save.
The free-will philosophy (which is unbiblical) holds to the first conclusion. That God is impotent. Mens Wills over-ride Gods Will in this philosophy.
In Calvinism, and biblically based theology, God is Powerful to Save and Saves 100% of all the people He chooses to Save.
Its not difficult at all for someone who reads the bible and is actually saved to reject the free-will philosophy.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
- Status