Calvinism is Gospel !

[pinebeach]

I defend truth, not individuals. And if you were a little more discerning and self aware, you might just apply your standards to yourself.

Grace and peace.

If I were more discerning, that is if I said what I know, I might be shown the door here. Which would be fine but for the sake of those who are not yet bewitched by the 5 cultist points, I stay because, well because error does need to be exposed. You know, like a blanket that has been left in a dark and smelly cellar, complete with the eggs of spider waiting to hatch.

 

[Cameron143]

Nope. You would simply need to understand those scriptures in the light of one of the greates enemies of the actual gospel

I know what you wrote, but it needs a little translating Just trying to help

Sounds a bit disingenuous.

 

[pinebeach]

Is there a G in TULIP ? For gaslighting? Just wondering, I know there are different forms of TULIP.

Well see, when a person believes everything in tulip but says they are a flower of a different kind, that is what they mean
The G does indeed stand for gaslighting.

 

[pinebeach]

Sounds a bit disingenuous.

Not surprised it does to you. Just a bit though....right?

 

[Churchgoer]

You mix up the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Joseph, the house of Israel had the birth right, The house of Judah was to bring about the Messiah. The house of Israel had long ago been divorced and became nations under different names, but God had not forsaken them, they were predestined to received the promises of Abraham. This is something the majority of the church is blind to in the scriptures, and so more than two thirds of the whole bible is closed to them understanding wise.

"they were predestined to received the promises of Abraham. "

Scripture ref. Please.

 

[Roger316]

No, God created righteousness and lucifer decided to rebel against God and that's what caused evil to come in to being.

Two things: First, remember the opening chapter of Job? Satan argued with God that Job would curse God if he caused Job to suffer. God allowed Satan to give Job boils. Later, God also allowed Satan to destroy Job's extended family. Given this, I don't think any rational person could argue that God wasn't responsible for the injury that Satan caused. God allowed it, and he could have stopped it. But if God stopped it, Job would never have been tested or learned an important truth about God's nature. God doesn't allow evil but he does.

Secondly and this is most important, God is the transcendent creator God. Most people think of reality as a house with an upstairs and a downstairs and God dwells upstairs with the Angels. But God exists in a higher plane of reality than his creation. His agency is creativity through speech. He says, "Let there be light," and there is light. Not only this but as Paul reminds us "In him we live and move and have our being." The Bible teaches us that reality has a narrative structure. God doesn't just create stuff; he creates historical events.

God created lucifer perfect... until lucifer decided to be in opposition to God:

Again, Lucifer is allowed to be in opposition to God. There is no cosmic principle or rule that requires God to keep Lucifer around. He could have easily destroyed Lucifer the moment he rebelled. But God didn't do that. Why?

Luke 10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Imagine that. God waited all that time to kick Lucifer out of heaven. Why didn't God do it sooner?

Isaiah 45:7 has been badly butchered and is not reflective of what the Lord says in 1 John 1:5 - This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Okay, now put the two together. Both are true at the same time. God says he creates calamity, yet there is no darkness in God at all? What is that all about?

It's sad that some folks accept the devil's lies about God which are designed by satan to make them believe God puts evil on His own people tricking them to lay down under satanic attack and receive defeat having become convinced it's the Lord doing it but it's actually bowing down to darkness allowing devils to bring defeat upon them.

Did I say anything about defeat? I don't think so.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

And what does light look like? Experience, Wisdom? God causes ALL THINGS to work together for the good to those who Love God and are Called according to his purpose.

 

[Roger316]

All of that is fine but off point. The gospel is the good news concerning what God has done to reconcile man to Himself.

But I'm asking whether that is ALL it is? Isn't God also responsible for the good works we do? That's my point. And what would we say if someone claimed they were reconciled to God but did nothing at all to show it.

It is not about what people do in response to what God has done.

I wonder if that is true. I understand the basic principle that our works are not meritorious. God isn't saving me BECAUSE I forgave my neighbor, gave a believer a drink of water, or visited him in prison. But Paul argues that we are going to be judged not on the basis of God's forgiveness, but on the basis of what we did as we sought glory, honor, and immortality.

As I said, the guy in the iron lung will certainly be thankful that he is saved by God's grace, but he would surely wonder why his so-called friend didn't visit him in the hospital. What does it say about us if we don't do anything?

 

[Komentaja]

I'll take a try at it. If you read the verse closely, you can see Jesus made a distinction between "Jerusalem" and its "chicks".
Jerusalem is symbolic of the leadership of the Jewish religion because Jerusalem was its holy city. The "chicks"" weren't
its leadership but were the people who would have learned the doctrines of salvation had the leadership believed in Jesus. Jesus, in the verse, was telling its leadership, that the true gospel would no longer be preached nor found in the Jewish religion because they rejected Jesus as Savior - that was the "would not" and why their "house would be left desolate". He was not saying the "chicks" had a choice to believe or not. The "chicks" if of the elect, would have been led by God to Christ's disciples to learn the true tenets of Christianity, but no longer through the Jewish religion.
I think the mistake you make is to confuse Jerusalem with chicks.

There is no way for a calvinist to explain this verse to go according to their doctrine. If it is the leadership of Jerusalem that is preventing the chicks who Jesus wants to gather, that doesn't fit calvinism. If it is just Jerusalem's citizens in general Jesus wanted to gather, same problem. No matter how you interpret it, the truth is Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem's children and they were not willing.

If you try to play the two wills confusion card and claim they rejected the call because it was some decree of God since God does everything according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11) you are doomed to fail because the same word boule that is used in Ephesians 1:11 is also used in Luke 7:30 where the pharisees reject God's will for themselves.

Wouldn't it be time to just abandon calvinism and other manmade isms?

 

[Magenta]

There is no way for a calvinist to explain this verse to go according to their doctrine. If it is the leadership of Jerusalem that is preventing the chicks who Jesus wants to gather, that doesn't fit calvinism. If it is just Jerusalem's citizens in general Jesus wanted to gather, same problem. No matter how you interpret it, the truth is Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem's children and they were not willing.

If you try to play the two wills confusion card and claim they rejected the call because it was some decree of God since God does everything according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11) you are doomed to fail because the same word boule that is used in Ephesians 1:11 is also used in Luke 7:30 where the pharisees reject God's will for themselves.

Wouldn't it be time to just abandon calvinism and other manmade isms?

Scripture makes plain the natural man cannot obey. Why do you ignore this again and again and again?

Do you know who the natural man is? A lot of FWers conflate him with the spiritual man.

They are terribly confused.

 

[Cameron143]

But I'm asking whether that is ALL it is? Isn't God also responsible for the good works we do? That's my point. And what would we say if someone claimed they were reconciled to God but did nothing at all to show it.

I wonder if that is true. I understand the basic principle that our works are not meritorious. God isn't saving me BECAUSE I forgave my neighbor, gave a believer a drink of water, or visited him in prison. But Paul argues that we are going to be judged not on the basis of God's forgiveness, but on the basis of what we did as we sought glory, honor, and immortality.

As I said, the guy in the iron lung will certainly be thankful that he is saved by God's grace, but he would surely wonder why his so-called friend didn't visit him in the hospital. What does it say about us if we don't do anything?

The gospel is what it is.

There is nothing wrong with all the other things you have said, but they are the results of God reconciling an individual to Himself. They are separate from the message of gospel.

 

[rogerg]

There is no way for a calvinist to explain this verse to go according to their doctrine. If it is the leadership of Jerusalem that is preventing the chicks who Jesus wants to gather, that doesn't fit calvinism. If it is just Jerusalem's citizens in general Jesus wanted to gather, same problem. No matter how you interpret it, the truth is Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem's children and they were not willing.

Says you. Guess you don't understand the significance of the "your house will be left to you desolate" verse. It is saying
that salvation would no longer be found in it - that it would be left empty - that God would remove its "children" ("chicks) - those who were to become saved - away from it because it did not espouse the true salvation message. No was choice given whereby those 'chicks" could remain - they unconditionally would be removed - hence God's proclamation of "left to you desolate". They would not choose to remain because, having been given a new heart, spirit, and renewed mind, by God, the teaching of the Old Covenant and its law via the Jewish religion, their spiritual hunger could not/would not be satisfied there- only salvation by God's grace through Christ would achieve that.

 

[WayneNSO]

"they were predestined to received the promises of Abraham. "

Scripture ref. Please.

Romans 9:4-5; Acts 26:6

 

[Magenta]

Paul reminds us "In him we live and move and have our being."

My Portion Forever

 

[Genez]

Which is why calvinism is still around.

Even when shown in the scripture that their doctrines are false, their pride requires them to continue in their false doctrine.

They have to or the other calvinists will kick them out of the social club

It is also why we see Mary veneration in the Catholic church, and salvation by water baptism in other sects.

Some become religious in their attempt to stabilize themselves in the spiritual warfare we are enmeshed in.
And, in doing so. Will desire to lose themselves in the obsession of thinking nothing else.

 

[Genez]

There are zero Scripture verses saying the will of the natural man is free to choose...

No one here is saying he is free to chose as he is.

 

[DeanM]

Really? What about the indigenous people in the New World who lived and died and never heard about Jesus or the Bible?

I guess they werent your elect?

 

[Anchorite]

Choose you this day whom you will serve calls those who are already God's, to service. Because they understand the challenge that comes calling when they're told to choose whom they will serve. But for God changing their natural minds, they would not know to choose God. Because He chose them first.

Joshua was speaking to people who were vacillating, unsure, unsteady, not devoted to serving God alone. They served God and also served Amorite idols.

Joshua told them to make up their minds, of their own free will, who they would serve.

If they were already in exclusive service to God, Joshua would not tell them to choose.


Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[Churchgoer]

Romans 9:4-5; Acts 26:6

Through Christ, the true seed, the only seed.

 

[Komentaja]

Scripture makes plain the natural man cannot obey. Why do you ignore this again and again and again?

Do you know who the natural man is? A lot of FWers conflate him with the spiritual man.

They are terribly confused.

These proof texts have been answered many times. The natural man is the Corinthian church? They are called carnal for their divisions, yet are still Christians.

Answering Calvinistic Proof Texts

Calvinists readily admit their teachings are difficult to swallow even for the most committed believer. Calvin himself refers to the doctrine of reprobation as a “dreadful decree” …

soteriology101.com

"
1 Corinthians 2:14 — “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

So, the lost man needs someone to spiritually discern the “deep things of God” (vs. 10), right? What are the means God uses to discern spiritual truths to mankind? Is not the very epistle that Paul is writing to the carnal believers in Corinth a means of “spiritual discernment?” And since the “brethren” in the Corinthian church are “not able to receive” these same “deep things of God” (1 Cor. 3:1-3) one would be hard pressed to suggest that Paul was intending to teach that no one is able to understand the simple gospel appeal to be reconciled unless they are first reconciled.

Again, this text never suggests that mankind is born unable to respond to God’s clearly discerned gospel appeal. It only affirms that that mystery of the gospel must be discerned for us, which it has been. As Paul states, “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Eph. 3:4

Neither side is suggesting that lost men can understand the deep spiritual truths of God apart from the means God has chosen to discern these mysteries. So, the question is whether God’s means of discernment through the apostles is a sufficient work of discernment that enables those who hear it to respond? "
Romans 8:7-9 — “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”

Mankind’s inability to submit to God’s law does not prove their inability to trust in Christ who fulfilled the law for mankind. Mankind’s inability to please God while acting in the flesh does not prove mankind’s inability to respond to the spiritual appeal of God so as to receive his spirit.

If I warn my rebellious son saying, “You cannot please me by acting selfishly,” does that suggest the child is unable to heed my warning, humble himself and repent of acting selfishly? Of course not. It only suggests that as long as my child continues to rebel and act according to his pride that he will not please me. This verse says nothing of man’s inability to respond to God’s powerful truth and appeal to humble ourselves. Each individual has the choice to remain in their flesh and pride or respond to the spirit’s call to humble themselves. If you choose the former YOU CANNOT PLEASE GOD.


Good resource for an answer to pretty much all of the very few verses calvinists can use. Meanwhile us in the apostolic historic side of the Church have pretty much the entire bible as our proof text. Every single time "Turn, repent" is used, it is a proof of free will. Unless of course God is shouting to the wind.

Free will is right there in the garden of Eden, and again when Cain is told by GOD:

"So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

 

[Cameron143]

I guess they werent your elect?

Is God's arm too short that He cannot save? He could have reached them with the gospel. He may even gone directly to some. Heaven is populated by a great multitude from every nation, kindred, peoples and tongue. But that doesn't mean God reached out to every generation of peoples. He saved people in Nineveh and 100 years later destroyed Nineveh.

I think God and His ways are beyond finding out.