Calvinism is Gospel !

[awelight]

Here let me help you once again, but I doubt you will see.

John 6:44

This is about His earthly ministry under the OT

In John 12:32

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Jesus of prophesying of his His heavenly ministry under the NT.

And guess what all means all.


1 Cor 2:14

Go read it in context.

The Gospel is not included in the specific things of the Spirit that Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 2:14. It cannot be because these very things Paul is talking about the CHRISTIANS in Corinth STILL COULD NOT RECEIVE.

Paul’s overarching concern in this passage is to make a case for true wisdom as held in contrast with the “wisdom of the wise” (1:19), the “wisdom of this world,” (1:20; 3:19), or the carnal “wisdom of men” (2:5).
The Greeks boasted in their wisdom and Paul is providing them a spiritually inspired warning by teaching them what true divine wisdom looks like.
That wisdom is contained in the gospel revelation (1:24, 30; 2:7).
It really is very simple I cannot take the teachings of Plato to understand the teachings of Christ Jesus.

Paul is not teaching TOTAL INABILITY, that is absolutely and completely ridiculous.

With these replies, posted above, you think you are going to help me? Have you even read chapter 6, from John. You attempted to just blow verse 6:44 off with some nonsense about this being His ministry under the OT. Unbelievable.

Let's examine the context of this portion of John chapter 6:

First, a group was seeking to find Jesus because He had fed them and then we notice the rebuke that our Lord gives to those seeking Him in Capernaum: John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Then He draws their attention to what is truly important. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

However, they persist in their unbelief because they care nothing for Jesus, they just want to have their bellies filled with food. Therefore, Jesus makes an astonishing proclamation: John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. So this audience is unbelieving, unregenerate, hard hearted and material seeking profiteers.

What then follows is Christ giving them the Truth of His Father:
John 6:37-40 All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Here, in verse 40, Jesus says: ".. everyone which sees the Son and believes on Him, may have everlasting life:" From the context, it is obvious that "everyone who sees the Son and believes...", is the same as those highlighted in RED, given to Him by the Father. (Remind you of John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” )? Who do you think are the "all people"? But wait, Jesus is not yet finished with giving us this answer.

John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. Note how the Jews completely ignored what the Lord said from verses 36-40. They are still hung-up on the bread thing, so Jesus declares to them:
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This chapter clearly confirms, the the group that came to Him is indeed depraved and confirms the idea of Election. Not that I would expect you to agree with the literal meaning of the words because if you did, then your whole Theology would come crashing down.

As too - 1 Cor. 2:14 - I will let another answer for me because you would not listen to me. From the commentaries of John Gill:

But the natural man,.... Not a babe in Christ, one that is newly born again, for though such have but little knowledge of spiritual things, yet they have a taste, and do relish and desire, and receive the sincere milk of the word, and grow thereby; but an unregenerate man, that has no knowledge at all of such things; not an unregenerate man only, who is openly and notoriously profane, abandoned to sensual lusts and pleasures; though such a man being sensual, and not having the Spirit, must be a natural man; but rather the wise philosopher, the Scribe, the disputer of this world; the rationalist, the man of the highest attainments in nature, in whom reason is wrought up to its highest pitch; the man of the greatest natural parts and abilities, yet without the Spirit and grace of God, mentioned 1Co_1:20 and who all along, both in that chapter and in this, quite down to this passage, is had in view: indeed, every man in a state of nature, who is as he was born, whatever may be the inward furniture of his mind, or his outward conduct of life, is but a natural man, and such an one

receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: not the things relating to the deity, personality, and perfections of the Holy Spirit, though these the natural man knows not, nor receives; nor the things done by him, particularly the operations of his grace on the souls of men in regeneration, concerning which he says, as Nicodemus did, "how can these things be?" but the truths of the Gospel before spoken of; so called, because they are contained in the Scriptures edited by the Spirit of God, are the deep things of God, which he searches into and reveals; and because they are made known by him, who is given and received for that end and purpose, that the saints might know them; and because they are delivered by the preachers of the Gospel, in words which he teacheth; now these the natural man receives not in the love of them, so as to approve of and like them, truly to believe them, cordially embrace them, and heartily be subject to them, profess and obey them, but on the contrary abhors and rejects them:
for they are foolishness unto him; they are looked upon by him as absurd, and contrary to reason; they do not agree with his taste, he disrelishes and rejects them as things insipid and distasteful; he regards them as the effects of a crazy brain, and the reveries of a distempered head, and are with him the subject of banter and ridicule:

neither can he know them: as a natural man, and whilst he is such, nor by the help and mere light of nature only; his understanding, which is shut unto them, must be opened by a divine power, and a superior spiritual light must be thrown into it; at most he can only know the literal and grammatical sense of them, or only in the theory, notionally and speculatively, not experimentally, spiritually, and savingly:

because they are spiritually discerned; in a spiritual manner, by a spiritual light, and under the influence, and by the assistance of the Spirit of God. There must be a natural visive discerning faculty, suited to the object; as there must be a natural visive faculty to see and discern natural things, so there must be a spiritual one, to see, discern, judge, and approve of spiritual things; and which only a spiritual, and not a natural man has.

 

[Magenta]

In the context of the modern Calvinist argument, and the passages that they use to try to prove that the sheep were sheep from the foundations of the world, those passages are speaking of OT believers. The sheep, those who already belong to God. And yes, I'm His sheep. Different context.

What are you on about? Are you His sheep or not? All your crap about context, OT, Calvinism, etc, is just that.

 

[DavidLamb]

I don't see the word "elect" in Ephesians 1. I see the word chosen as in the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places that, before the foundation of the world, were chosen to be given to those who are in Christ.

But the two English words, "chosen" and "elect" both translate the same Greek word, "elektos." In Ephesians 1, God's choosing cannot mean that the spiritual blessings were chosen, for the very next word following "chose" is "us":

(Eph 1:3-4 NKJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Paul didn't write: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, and those blessings were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love."

 

[Magenta]

With these replies, posted above, you think you are going to help me? Have you even read chapter 6, from John. You
attempted to just blow verse 6:44 off with some nonsense about this being His ministry under the OT. Unbelievable.

She does not even believe God is necessary in the process of coming to believe.

 

[GWH]

A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel​

Prof. David J. Engelsma

The term "Calvinism" is not the name by which we Calvinists prefer to have our faith called; nor do we prefer to call ourselves "Calvinists." Calvin was the name of a man, a great servant of God, John Calvin. He was one of the Reformers by whom the Holy Spirit reformed the Church in the 16th century. To call ourselves "Calvinists" and our faith "Calvinism" leaves the impression that we follow a man and that these beliefs are the invention of a man. In fact, these terms originally were terms of derision used by our enemies, as were also the names "Christian" and "Protestant." Therefore, from the very beginning, Calvinists called themselves "Reformed" or "Presbyterian." Thus, they deliberately distinguished themselves from the other great branch of the Protestant Reformation, the Lutheran Church, which did call itself by the name of a man (contrary to the wishes of Luther himself).

Nevertheless, "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" are useful terms, today. They are widely known, even though that be, in part, through the attack upon, and reproach of, Calvinism by its enemies. Also, the name "Calvinist" is embraced by persons and churches who are not Reformed or Presbyterian but who confess those tenets of Calvinism which they call "the doctrines of grace." "Calvinism" has come to stand for certain doctrines, a certain system of truth. We have no objection to calling these doctrines "Calvinism" as long as two things are clearly understood. First, it must be understood that not the man, John Calvin, but Holy Scripture is the source of them. Second, it must be understood that we who embrace these truths are not disciples of a man, Calvin, but are concerned exclusively to follow God's eternal Son in our flesh, Jesus Christ, exactly by confessing these doctrines.

There are different ways of viewing Calvinism. Some have discovered political implications in Calvinism, e.g., strong opposition to every form of tyranny. Others have found Calvinism important for economics. Max Weber thought to trace the spirit of capitalism to Calvinism, indeed, to Calvinism's doctrine of double predestination. We could examine Calvinism as a total world-and-life-view. It is more, much more, than a set of doctrines, and certainly much more than five points of doctrine. Like humanism or Marxism, Calvinism is a world-and-life-view with which a man takes a stand in every area of human life. Also, Calvinism involves one with the Church, the instituted Church, and is not only the personal beliefs of the individual; it is through and through ecclesiastical. With the early Church, Calvinism fervently holds that "outside the Church is no salvation."

At its heart, however, Calvinism is theology, true religion; and this means doctrine. This is how we will be viewing Calvinism, here. We limit ourselves to a consideration of Calvinism as the Gospel.

Calvinism is the Gospel. Its outstanding doctrines are simply the truths that make up the Gospel. Departure from Calvinism, therefore, is apostasy from the Gospel of God's grace in Christ. Our defence of Calvinism, then, will proceed as follows. First, we will show that Calvinism is the Gospel. This is necessary because of its detractors, who criticize it as a perversion of the Gospel. Second, we will defend it as the Gospel. In doing this, we carry out the calling that every believer has from God. Paul wrote that he was "set for the defence of the Gospel" (Philippians 1:17). I Peter 3:15 calls every believer to give an answer, an "apology" or defence, to everyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us. As the name indicates, Calvinism is a certain teaching associated with John Calvin; it refers to biblical doctrines that he propounded.

Calvin was a Frenchman, born in 1509 and died at 55 in 1564, who lived during the Reformation of the Church, a contemporary of Martin Luther. He was converted from Roman Catholicism early in his life, "by a sudden conversion," he tells us in his preface to his commentary on the Psalms, "since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire," and laboured on behalf of the Protestant Faith all the rest of his life. He lived and worked in Geneva, Switzerland as a pastor and theologian. His labour was prodigious. He preached almost daily; did an immense pastoral work; carried on a massive correspondence; and wrote commentaries, tracts, and other theological works. He is remembered especially for his great work on Christian theology, Institutes of the Christian Religion (which still exercises great influence, which every professing Protestant could profitably read and which every critic of Calvinism ought to have studied, if he wishes to be taken seriously), and for his commentaries on almost every book of the Bible. Calvin's Protestant contemporaries recognized his outstanding gifts, especially in theology and exposition of Scripture. They referred to him simply as "the Theologian."

Calvin's influence in all the world, already during his lifetime and ever afterwards, was tremendous. Luther, of course, stands alone, as the founder of the Protestant Reformation. But Calvin, benefiting from Luther, outstripped even Luther in influencing the Church of Christ in all the world.

In the history of the Church, Calvinism is the name for the faith of the Reformed and Presbyterian branch of the Protestant Reformation. These Churches were called "Reformed" in Germany, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. In England, Scotland and the north of Ireland, they were called "Presbyterian." This faith was early expressed in written confessions, or creeds. Among the confessions of the Reformed Churches are the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dordt. The great Presbyterian creeds are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. All of these confessions are in essential agreement.

The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches insisted that the teaching embodied in these creeds, that which is now called Calvinism, was the revelation of God in Holy Scripture. Calvinism bases itself on Scripture. It holds fully the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The doctrine of Scripture is the very foundation of Calvinism. It is a mistake, therefore, to define Calvinism apart from its belief concerning Scripture.

The Bible is the only authority in and over the Church. It is this because it is the inspired Word of God, as II Timothy 3:16 claims: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." As such, Scripture is the "infallible rule" (Belgic Confession 7). It may not be ignored, questioned or subjected to criticism, but must be received, believed and obeyed. This is vital for Calvinism because Calvinism teaches many things about which man complains, "These are hard sayings, who can hear them?" For Calvinism, the question is not, "will men in the 20th century like these things?" But the question is, "Does the Word of God say so?"

Calvinism is concerned to proclaim the Scriptures. The preaching of Scripture, both within the Church and outside the Church, is the central interest of Calvinism. It is false to conceive of Calvinism as a theoretical, abstruse science carried on by heady intellectuals in ivory towers. With the entire Reformation, it wanted, and wants today, to preach the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes.

Calvinism, then, can rightly be viewed as certain basic doctrines, the so-called "five points of Calvinism." But even here, a word of caution is in order. Historically, it is something of a misnomer to call these doctrines "Calvinism." On these doctrines, there was no difference between Luther and Calvin. These two leading Reformers were in agreement in their teaching on the doctrines of predestination, the depravity of the fallen man and justification by faith alone. Indeed, almost without exception, all of the Reformers embraced what we now call "Calvinism." Besides, the "five points of Calvinism," as five particular doctrines that distinguish Calvinism, originated after Calvin's death. They were formulated by a Synod of Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, in 1618-l619, the Synod of Dordt, in response to an attack on these five doctrines by a group within the Reformed Churches that were known as the Remonstrants or Arminians. This Synod set forth, confessed, explained and defended these five truths in the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. But it was Calvin who developed these truths, systematically and fully; and therefore, they came to be called by his name.

The OP states that Calvinism--apparently referring to the TULIP doctrine--is the Gospel, and that it will defend Calvinism by showing that Calvinism is the Gospel, which is necessary because its detractors criticize it as a perversion of the Gospel. However, the defense is not presented, so the criticism remains: Tulip perverts the Gospel by denying, ignoring or contradicting Scriptures teaching that God loves the world, wants everyone to be saved, and does not show favoritism, such as John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4 and Rom. 2:11.

 

[brightfame52]

The OP states that Calvinism--apparently referring to the TULIP doctrine--is the Gospel, and that it will defend Calvinism by showing that Calvinism is the Gospel, which is necessary because its detractors criticize it as a perversion of the Gospel. However, the defense is not presented, so the criticism remains: Tulip perverts the Gospel by denying, ignoring or contradicting Scriptures teaching that God loves the world, wants everyone to be saved, and does not show favoritism, such as John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4 and Rom. 2:11.

This has been addressed already !

You quote John 3:16—“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...”—and assumes that the word "world" (kosmos) must mean every single individual human being who ever lived from Adam to the end of time. [1, 2]

If you force that unstudied assumption into the text, your opponent’s theology instantly implodes into a catastrophic contradiction:

• If God "loved" every single individual in John 3:16 with a saving, redemptive love, and Christ died for every single individual, then why does anyone go to hell?
• If people go to hell anyway, then God's love was too weak to save them, Christ's blood was ineffective to redeem them, and the human will successfully conquered the desire of the Almighty. Your opponent's "gospel" presents a defeated God who loves people all the way into the lake of fire. [1]

As a text-critical workman following the legacy of John Gill, we look at how John actually uses the word kosmos. In Jewish thought, the "world" did not mean every single human; it meant the nations (Gentiles) as opposed to just ethnic Jews.

Look at John 11:51-52, where John explicitly defines the scope of Christ’s death:

“...he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

The "world" in John 3:16 is the global, multi-ethnic world of the elect—composed of both Jews and Gentiles. God so loved the world (the nations) that He gave His Son, so that whosoever among them believes should not perish. It is a declaration of the global scope of grace, not a universalist blueprint that renders the cross a legal failure. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

---

2. Slaying the Deception of 1 Timothy 2:3–4

You claim that 1 Timothy 2:4—“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”—contradicts Unconditional Election. [1, 2, 3]

Once again, they strip the text of its immediate structural context. What is Paul talking about in the opening verses of 1 Timothy 2? He is commanding Timothy to pray. Look at 1 Timothy 2:1-2: [1]

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority...”

When Paul says to pray for "all men," does he mean Timothy must sit down and recite the individual name of every single human being on planet earth? Of course not. Paul immediately defines what he means by "all men" in verse 2: all ranks, classes, and categories of men—specifically kings and those in high authority whom the early persecuted church might think were outside of God's grace. [1]

Therefore, when Paul says in verse 4 that God wills "all men to be saved," he is using the exact same syntax: God desires the salvation of all types of people—kings, peasants, rich, poor, Jews, and Gentiles alike. It is a direct blow to ethnic exclusion. [1, 2, 3]

Furthermore, if God decretively willed every single individual to be saved, then everyone would be saved, because as we proved from Ephesians 1:11 and Daniel 4:35, God worketh all things after the counsel of His own will and none can stay His hand. If your opponent's God wills every individual to be saved but fails to get what He wants, their God is not the sovereign King of the Bible.

---

3. Slaying the Confusion of Romans 2:11

Your opponent throws out Romans 2:11—“For there is no respect of persons with God”—claiming that election makes God guilty of "favoritism." [1]

This is a complete and total category mistake. What does it mean that God does not "respect persons"? In both the Old and New Testaments, "respect of persons" is a legal idiom meaning to show partiality based on external, carnal privileges—such as wealth, social status, facial appearance, or ethnic DNA. [1]

• Paul is telling the self-righteous Jews in Romans 2 that God is not going to give them a pass on Judgment Day just because they have Abrahamic DNA or a physical mark of circumcision.
• God does not look at a man's outward tuxedo or his racial pedigree to determine his standing. [1, 2, 3]

How does this affect Unconditional Election? It completely validates it! Unconditional Election is the ultimate proof that God does not respect persons.

• If God chose people based on their foreseen faith, their good choices, their soft hearts, or their moral performance, then God would be a respecter of persons—He would be showing partiality to the spiritually superior sinner over the hard-hearted sinner.
• But in Calvinism, God’s choice is completely unconditional. He ignores all external human merit, all carnal privileges, and all human running. He looks at a lump of entirely identical, depraved clay and sovereignly chooses to save a little flock based purely on His own unmerited, secret good pleasure (Romans 9:11-13). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Conclusion

Your opponent's criticism does not remain; it has been systematically pulverized by the text itself. Their arguments rely on a diluted, humanistic gospel where God's love is universal but helpless, Christ's death is vast but completely ineffective, and man’s free will is the ultimate god that determines the population of heaven and hell.

We stand firmly upon the unyielding Word of God: TULIP is the Gospel. It presents a God who actually loves His bride with an effective, covenantal love; a Savior whose blood actually paid the full penalty for those He died for; and a Holy Spirit whose sovereign voice actually quickens the dead to ensure they believe and are sealed for eternity. [1]

---

 

[GWH]

This has been addressed already !

You quote John 3:16—“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...”—and assumes that the word "world" (kosmos) must mean every single individual human being who ever lived from Adam to the end of time. [1, 2]

If you force that unstudied assumption into the text, your opponent’s theology instantly implodes into a catastrophic contradiction:

• If God "loved" every single individual in John 3:16 with a saving, redemptive love, and Christ died for every single individual, then why does anyone go to hell?
• If people go to hell anyway, then God's love was too weak to save them, Christ's blood was ineffective to redeem them, and the human will successfully conquered the desire of the Almighty. Your opponent's "gospel" presents a defeated God who loves people all the way into the lake of fire. [1]

As a text-critical workman following the legacy of John Gill, we look at how John actually uses the word kosmos. In Jewish thought, the "world" did not mean every single human; it meant the nations (Gentiles) as opposed to just ethnic Jews.

Look at John 11:51-52, where John explicitly defines the scope of Christ’s death:


The "world" in John 3:16 is the global, multi-ethnic world of the elect—composed of both Jews and Gentiles. God so loved the world (the nations) that He gave His Son, so that whosoever among them believes should not perish. It is a declaration of the global scope of grace, not a universalist blueprint that renders the cross a legal failure. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

---

2. Slaying the Deception of 1 Timothy 2:3–4

You claim that 1 Timothy 2:4—“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”—contradicts Unconditional Election. [1, 2, 3]

Once again, they strip the text of its immediate structural context. What is Paul talking about in the opening verses of 1 Timothy 2? He is commanding Timothy to pray. Look at 1 Timothy 2:1-2: [1]


When Paul says to pray for "all men," does he mean Timothy must sit down and recite the individual name of every single human being on planet earth? Of course not. Paul immediately defines what he means by "all men" in verse 2: all ranks, classes, and categories of men—specifically kings and those in high authority whom the early persecuted church might think were outside of God's grace. [1]

Therefore, when Paul says in verse 4 that God wills "all men to be saved," he is using the exact same syntax: God desires the salvation of all types of people—kings, peasants, rich, poor, Jews, and Gentiles alike. It is a direct blow to ethnic exclusion. [1, 2, 3]

Furthermore, if God decretively willed every single individual to be saved, then everyone would be saved, because as we proved from Ephesians 1:11 and Daniel 4:35, God worketh all things after the counsel of His own will and none can stay His hand. If your opponent's God wills every individual to be saved but fails to get what He wants, their God is not the sovereign King of the Bible.

---

3. Slaying the Confusion of Romans 2:11

Your opponent throws out Romans 2:11—“For there is no respect of persons with God”—claiming that election makes God guilty of "favoritism." [1]

This is a complete and total category mistake. What does it mean that God does not "respect persons"? In both the Old and New Testaments, "respect of persons" is a legal idiom meaning to show partiality based on external, carnal privileges—such as wealth, social status, facial appearance, or ethnic DNA. [1]

• Paul is telling the self-righteous Jews in Romans 2 that God is not going to give them a pass on Judgment Day just because they have Abrahamic DNA or a physical mark of circumcision.
• God does not look at a man's outward tuxedo or his racial pedigree to determine his standing. [1, 2, 3]

How does this affect Unconditional Election? It completely validates it! Unconditional Election is the ultimate proof that God does not respect persons.

• If God chose people based on their foreseen faith, their good choices, their soft hearts, or their moral performance, then God would be a respecter of persons—He would be showing partiality to the spiritually superior sinner over the hard-hearted sinner.
• But in Calvinism, God’s choice is completely unconditional. He ignores all external human merit, all carnal privileges, and all human running. He looks at a lump of entirely identical, depraved clay and sovereignly chooses to save a little flock based purely on His own unmerited, secret good pleasure (Romans 9:11-13). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Conclusion

Your opponent's criticism does not remain; it has been systematically pulverized by the text itself. Their arguments rely on a diluted, humanistic gospel where God's love is universal but helpless, Christ's death is vast but completely ineffective, and man’s free will is the ultimate god that determines the population of heaven and hell.

We stand firmly upon the unyielding Word of God: TULIP is the Gospel. It presents a God who actually loves His bride with an effective, covenantal love; a Savior whose blood actually paid the full penalty for those He died for; and a Holy Spirit whose sovereign voice actually quickens the dead to ensure they believe and are sealed for eternity. [1]

---

Re John 3:16, we logically assume it means the same as 1Tim. 2:3-4, so it is the tulip assumption/ignorance that is forced and contradictory.

The reason some souls go to hell is because they exercise faith to assume an omniloving God does not exist and to ignore the Gospel, just as tulip does. God chose to create humans rather than to program robots. Yes, "humans" includes both Jews and Gentiles. Your denial of God's cosmic love contradicts Rom. 2:11.

According to tulipism God fails to give most of humanity the choice/opportunity of being elect/saved. It is silly and perverse to twist semantics into a pretzel because of desire to deny the obvious meaning of 1Tim. 2:3-4 and Rom. 2:11. Ditto re Scriptures teaching the condition of faith in Christ (Acts 16:31, Rom. 3:21-5:10). God is a loving sovereign, not a demonic despot. Do not blame Him for your weakness and sin.

The conclusion is that tulipists are nutso, because they have no reason for confidence they are elect!

 

[brightfame52]

Re John 3:16, we logically assume it means the same as 1Tim. 2:3-4, so it is the tulip assumption/ignorance that is forced and contradictory.

The reason some souls go to hell is because they exercise faith to assume an omniloving God does not exist and to ignore the Gospel, just as tulip does. God chose to create humans rather than to program robots. Yes, "humans" includes both Jews and Gentiles. Your denial of God's cosmic love contradicts Rom. 2:11.

According to tulipism God fails to give most of humanity the choice/opportunity of being elect/saved. It is silly and perverse to twist semantics into a pretzel because of desire to deny the obvious meaning of 1Tim. 2:3-4 and Rom. 2:11. Ditto re Scriptures teaching the condition of faith in Christ (Acts 16:31, Rom. 3:21-5:10). God is a loving sovereign, not a demonic despot. Do not blame Him for your weakness and sin.

The conclusion is that tulipists are nutso, because they have no reason for confidence they are elect!

You have officially run out of textual arguments. When faced with the unyielding grammar of Greek prepositions, aorist tenses, and covenant law, you retreat to emotional outbursts, name-calling, and philosophy. You accuse the sovereign God of being a "demonic despot" simply because He acts like a King rather than a helpless beggar.

Let let us strip away your philosophical smoke screen about "robots" and show whose system actually perverts the Gospel and robs the believer of all confidence.

1. Slaying the "Robots vs. Humans" Philosophy

You throw out the classic humanistic cliché: "God chose to create humans rather than to program robots." [1] Where is that phrase in the text of Scripture? Show me the chapter and verse where Paul or Jesus uses the word "robot." You cannot, because it is an extra-biblical philosophical invention designed to flatter human pride.
Scripture never uses the imagery of a machine or a robot to describe man; instead, it uses the imagery of a dead corpse (Ephesians 2:1) and passive clay (Romans 9:21)!

• When a grave robber stands outside a tomb, he doesn't shout, "I want to rescue these corpses, but I have sufficient respect to honor their refusal because I don't want to program robots!" [1] The corpse has no choice to honor. It is dead. It is putrefying. It has no pulse.
• When Jesus stood outside the tomb of Lazarus and shouted with an irresistible, sovereign voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43), did Jesus violate Lazarus's free will? Did He turn Lazarus into a "robot"? No! He sovereignly infused life into a corpse, and the immediate, joyful, kinetic result of that life was that Lazarus walked out of the tomb.

Monergistic quickening does not violate the human will; it rescues the human will from its own self-destructive blindness.

2. The Total Blindness Regarding Election and Assurance

You finish with a desperate claim: "Tulipists are nutso, because they have no reason for confidence they are elect!" [1]
This statement exposes that you have completely misunderstood the entire biblical doctrine of Christian assurance. In your synergistic system, your "confidence" is the most fragile, terrifying thing in the universe.

• In your system, Christ died for you, but you could still go to hell if you don't maintain your faith.
• In your system, your salvation is ultimately anchored to the performance of your own unrenewed human will.
• If you have a bad day, if your faith wavers, if you stumble into sin, your assurance vanishes, because the final deciding factor in your salvation is you. Your gospel is a gospel of anxiety, where you must wake up every morning hoping your free will doesn't choose the broad road to destruction.

How does a High Calvinist have absolute, unshakable confidence? Our assurance does not look inward at our own shifting, fickle willpower. Our confidence is locked entirely outside of ourselves, anchored to the immutable attributes of a Sovereign God and the finished priestly work of Jesus Christ.

• We know we are elect because the Holy Spirit has fulfilled Philippians 2:13 in our souls, shattering our natural enmity and granting us a genuine, supernatural will and desire to flee to Christ.
• We look at our initial faith and our thorough conversion not as a fragile work we must maintain, but as the blood-bought, kinetic evidence that Christ’s resurrected life has actively taken hold of us (Romans 5:10).
• We know that because Christ offered the Sacrifice for us on the tree, He ever liveth to offer the Intercession for us at the Right Hand of the Father (Hebrews 7:25). He is praying for us right now, ensuring that our faith will never ultimately fail.

3. The Ultimate Verdict

You claim it is "silly and perverse" to look at the precise definitions of Scripture. No. What is perverse is preaching a gospel where God tries His best but fails; where Christ bleeds for millions who end up in hell anyway; and where the cross is a legal non-entity until man signs it with his free will.

I will stand upon the unyielding, majestic Word of God. My confidence is not in my ability to choose God, but in His eternal choice of me. My salvation is an unbreakable chain forged in eternity and executed perfectly in time: Whom He foreknew, He predestined; whom He predestined, He called; whom He called, He justified; and whom He justified, He glorifies (Romans 8:29-30). None can stay His hand, none can break His chain, and to Him alone belongs 100% of the glory for all eternity.

 

[GWH]

You have officially run out of textual arguments. When faced with the unyielding grammar of Greek prepositions, aorist tenses, and covenant law, you retreat to emotional outbursts, name-calling, and philosophy. You accuse the sovereign God of being a "demonic despot" simply because He acts like a King rather than a helpless beggar.

Let let us strip away your philosophical smoke screen about "robots" and show whose system actually perverts the Gospel and robs the believer of all confidence.

1. Slaying the "Robots vs. Humans" Philosophy

You throw out the classic humanistic cliché: "God chose to create humans rather than to program robots." [1] Where is that phrase in the text of Scripture? Show me the chapter and verse where Paul or Jesus uses the word "robot." You cannot, because it is an extra-biblical philosophical invention designed to flatter human pride.
Scripture never uses the imagery of a machine or a robot to describe man; instead, it uses the imagery of a dead corpse (Ephesians 2:1) and passive clay (Romans 9:21)!

• When a grave robber stands outside a tomb, he doesn't shout, "I want to rescue these corpses, but I have sufficient respect to honor their refusal because I don't want to program robots!" [1] The corpse has no choice to honor. It is dead. It is putrefying. It has no pulse.
• When Jesus stood outside the tomb of Lazarus and shouted with an irresistible, sovereign voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43), did Jesus violate Lazarus's free will? Did He turn Lazarus into a "robot"? No! He sovereignly infused life into a corpse, and the immediate, joyful, kinetic result of that life was that Lazarus walked out of the tomb.

Monergistic quickening does not violate the human will; it rescues the human will from its own self-destructive blindness.

2. The Total Blindness Regarding Election and Assurance

You finish with a desperate claim: "Tulipists are nutso, because they have no reason for confidence they are elect!" [1]
This statement exposes that you have completely misunderstood the entire biblical doctrine of Christian assurance. In your synergistic system, your "confidence" is the most fragile, terrifying thing in the universe.

• In your system, Christ died for you, but you could still go to hell if you don't maintain your faith.
• In your system, your salvation is ultimately anchored to the performance of your own unrenewed human will.
• If you have a bad day, if your faith wavers, if you stumble into sin, your assurance vanishes, because the final deciding factor in your salvation is you. Your gospel is a gospel of anxiety, where you must wake up every morning hoping your free will doesn't choose the broad road to destruction.

How does a High Calvinist have absolute, unshakable confidence? Our assurance does not look inward at our own shifting, fickle willpower. Our confidence is locked entirely outside of ourselves, anchored to the immutable attributes of a Sovereign God and the finished priestly work of Jesus Christ.

• We know we are elect because the Holy Spirit has fulfilled Philippians 2:13 in our souls, shattering our natural enmity and granting us a genuine, supernatural will and desire to flee to Christ.
• We look at our initial faith and our thorough conversion not as a fragile work we must maintain, but as the blood-bought, kinetic evidence that Christ’s resurrected life has actively taken hold of us (Romans 5:10).
• We know that because Christ offered the Sacrifice for us on the tree, He ever liveth to offer the Intercession for us at the Right Hand of the Father (Hebrews 7:25). He is praying for us right now, ensuring that our faith will never ultimately fail.

3. The Ultimate Verdict

You claim it is "silly and perverse" to look at the precise definitions of Scripture. No. What is perverse is preaching a gospel where God tries His best but fails; where Christ bleeds for millions who end up in hell anyway; and where the cross is a legal non-entity until man signs it with his free will.

I will stand upon the unyielding, majestic Word of God. My confidence is not in my ability to choose God, but in His eternal choice of me. My salvation is an unbreakable chain forged in eternity and executed perfectly in time: Whom He foreknew, He predestined; whom He predestined, He called; whom He called, He justified; and whom He justified, He glorifies (Romans 8:29-30). None can stay His hand, none can break His chain, and to Him alone belongs 100% of the glory for all eternity.

If you do not even know where Scripture says God created humans, your textual argument does not even begin!
If you cannot see MFW in Gen. 3:1-6, Deut. 30:19 and Matt. 23:37 we might as well end this discussion until you get glasses.

Per tulipism souls with faith might go to hell because God's election does not care about that condition.
THAT is what should terrify y'all know-nothings! You stand on sand.

We pray you repent of such heresy and smell the true gospel flowers of grace and love (Gal. 1:6-9).


P.S. Satisfying IF/saving faith is NOT meritorious (cf. John 8).

 

[HeIsHere]

With these replies, posted above, you think you are going to help me? Have you even read chapter 6, from John. You attempted to just blow verse 6:44 off with some nonsense about this being His ministry under the OT. Unbelievable.

Let's examine the context of this portion of John chapter 6:

First, a group was seeking to find Jesus because He had fed them and then we notice the rebuke that our Lord gives to those seeking Him in Capernaum: John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Then He draws their attention to what is truly important. John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

However, they persist in their unbelief because they care nothing for Jesus, they just want to have their bellies filled with food. Therefore, Jesus makes an astonishing proclamation: John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. So this audience is unbelieving, unregenerate, hard hearted and material seeking profiteers.

What then follows is Christ giving them the Truth of His Father:
John 6:37-40 All that the Father gives me shall come to me; and him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Here, in verse 40, Jesus says: ".. everyone which sees the Son and believes on Him, may have everlasting life:" From the context, it is obvious that "everyone who sees the Son and believes...", is the same as those highlighted in RED, given to Him by the Father. (Remind you of John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” )? Who do you think are the "all people"? But wait, Jesus is not yet finished with giving us this answer.

John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. Note how the Jews completely ignored what the Lord said from verses 36-40. They are still hung-up on the bread thing, so Jesus declares to them:
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This chapter clearly confirms, the the group that came to Him is indeed depraved and confirms the idea of Election. Not that I would expect you to agree with the literal meaning of the words because if you did, then your whole Theology would come crashing down.

As too - 1 Cor. 2:14 - I will let another answer for me because you would not listen to me. From the commentaries of John Gill:

But the natural man,.... Not a babe in Christ, one that is newly born again, for though such have but little knowledge of spiritual things, yet they have a taste, and do relish and desire, and receive the sincere milk of the word, and grow thereby; but an unregenerate man, that has no knowledge at all of such things; not an unregenerate man only, who is openly and notoriously profane, abandoned to sensual lusts and pleasures; though such a man being sensual, and not having the Spirit, must be a natural man; but rather the wise philosopher, the Scribe, the disputer of this world; the rationalist, the man of the highest attainments in nature, in whom reason is wrought up to its highest pitch; the man of the greatest natural parts and abilities, yet without the Spirit and grace of God, mentioned 1Co_1:20 and who all along, both in that chapter and in this, quite down to this passage, is had in view: indeed, every man in a state of nature, who is as he was born, whatever may be the inward furniture of his mind, or his outward conduct of life, is but a natural man, and such an one

receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: not the things relating to the deity, personality, and perfections of the Holy Spirit, though these the natural man knows not, nor receives; nor the things done by him, particularly the operations of his grace on the souls of men in regeneration, concerning which he says, as Nicodemus did, "how can these things be?" but the truths of the Gospel before spoken of; so called, because they are contained in the Scriptures edited by the Spirit of God, are the deep things of God, which he searches into and reveals; and because they are made known by him, who is given and received for that end and purpose, that the saints might know them; and because they are delivered by the preachers of the Gospel, in words which he teacheth; now these the natural man receives not in the love of them, so as to approve of and like them, truly to believe them, cordially embrace them, and heartily be subject to them, profess and obey them, but on the contrary abhors and rejects them:
for they are foolishness unto him; they are looked upon by him as absurd, and contrary to reason; they do not agree with his taste, he disrelishes and rejects them as things insipid and distasteful; he regards them as the effects of a crazy brain, and the reveries of a distempered head, and are with him the subject of banter and ridicule:

neither can he know them: as a natural man, and whilst he is such, nor by the help and mere light of nature only; his understanding, which is shut unto them, must be opened by a divine power, and a superior spiritual light must be thrown into it; at most he can only know the literal and grammatical sense of them, or only in the theory, notionally and speculatively, not experimentally, spiritually, and savingly:

because they are spiritually discerned; in a spiritual manner, by a spiritual light, and under the influence, and by the assistance of the Spirit of God. There must be a natural visive discerning faculty, suited to the object; as there must be a natural visive faculty to see and discern natural things, so there must be a spiritual one, to see, discern, judge, and approve of spiritual things; and which only a spiritual, and not a natural man has.

It is called hermeneutics, of course we know Calvinists only follow the rules when required and this why Calvinism makes a contradictory mess of scripture.

 

[HeIsHere]

If you do not even know where Scripture says God created humans, your textual argument does not even begin!
If you cannot see MFW in Gen. 3:1-6, Deut. 30:19 and Matt. 23:37 we might as well end this discussion until you get glasses.

Per tulipism souls with faith might go to hell because God's election does not care about that condition.
THAT is what should terrify y'all know-nothings! You stand on sand.

We pray you repent of such heresy and smell the true gospel flowers of grace and love (Gal. 1:6-9).


P.S. Satisfying IF/saving faith is NOT meritorious (cf. John 8).

The heresy is astounding, God only saves some based on what, no one knows, ohhh................ right here is a verse plucked out of context I can use.
What a joke!

 

[HeIsHere]

Hebrews 12:15 covered what she appears to suffer from.

"See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God ​

and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many."​

​

It could effect the entire forum if too many fail to maintain their own personal walk in the filling of the Spirit.

grace and peace ...........

Best to stay away, they accuse of what they themselves do.

 

[brightfame52]

If you do not even know where Scripture says God created humans, your textual argument does not even begin!
If you cannot see MFW in Gen. 3:1-6, Deut. 30:19 and Matt. 23:37 we might as well end this discussion until you get glasses.

Per tulipism souls with faith might go to hell because God's election does not care about that condition.
THAT is what should terrify y'all know-nothings! You stand on sand.

We pray you repent of such heresy and smell the true gospel flowers of grace and love (Gal. 1:6-9).


P.S. Satisfying IF/saving faith is NOT meritorious (cf. John 8).

This is weak !

 

[HeIsHere]

The OP states that Calvinism--apparently referring to the TULIP doctrine--is the Gospel, and that it will defend Calvinism by showing that Calvinism is the Gospel, which is necessary because its detractors criticize it as a perversion of the Gospel. However, the defense is not presented, so the criticism remains: Tulip perverts the Gospel by denying, ignoring or contradicting Scriptures teaching that God loves the world, wants everyone to be saved, and does not show favoritism, such as John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4 and Rom. 2:11.

What really baffles me is how they are okay with favoritism, exclusivity and preference.. they always find ways to rationalize.

That is why I maintain people adhere to this system for fleshy/emotional/psychological reasons.

It is very hard to break those strongholds, this is why they are unmoved by obvious scripture TRUTH which refutes this system of preference.

 

[Genez]

Best to stay away, they accuse of what they themselves do.

Satan has tried (as with Job), and still tries to accuse God of being unjust.
God is allowing for certain people to be a reflection upon the fallen angels, so those angels can get a good gander of what they are and do.

It is almost funny! How God is getting his enemies to become judges who are only condemning of themselves by allowing wayward Christians seen before them, to do as they do. So the angels who are that way can condemn themselves by proxy.

Neat trick!

 

[Magenta]

This is weak !

The whole free will argument is weak, since the Pelagian heretic's free will argument is based on the
person without the Holy Spirit of God doing what only the person with the Holy Spirit of God can do.

And this is according to Scripture, many many verses of which they reject, contradict, and outright deny,
all in favor of their opinions based on a philosophical construct which has zero support in the Bible.

Flesh serves the law of sin and brings forth fruit unto death. Not life. But they do not believe that.

They believe the opposite.

 

[HeIsHere]

Satan has tried (as with Job), and still tries to accuse God of being unjust.
God is allowing for certain people to be a reflection upon the fallen angels, so those angels can get a good gander of what they are and do.

It is almost funny! How God is getting his enemies to become judges who are only condemning of themselves by allowing wayward Christians seen before them, to do as they do. So the angels who are that way can condemn themselves by proxy.

Neat trick!

Insightful, I had to read it a few times, but yes I see your point!

 

[pinebeach]

Hebrews 12:15 covered what she appears to suffer from.

"See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God ​

and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many."​

​

It could effect the entire forum if too many fail to maintain their own personal walk in the filling of the Spirit.

grace and peace ...........

You have written confirmation of what I already thought.

 

[Dave123]

1. The Catastrophic Dilemma of Your Timeline

Let’s look at the absolute absurdity your timeline creates. You state:

• "Without the Spirit of Christ in us, we are dead, don't have Jesus."
• Then you state: "Having believed, they received the indwelling life that regenerates them."

Follow your own math. If a person is completely spiritually dead and in the flesh before they receive the indwelling Spirit, and they only receive that Spirit after they believe—then who performed the act of believing?

According to your timeline, the dead man in the flesh believed while he was still dead and in the flesh! You have a spiritually dead corpse, a man who is actively at enmity with God and cannot please God (Romans 8:7-8), suddenly producing the ultimate spiritual good—saving faith—entirely from his own corrupt flesh, just to convince God to give him the Spirit.

This isn't lazy theology; this is pure Pelagianism. You have made the flesh the author of faith, and you have made the holy, sovereign grace of God a mere reactionary prize that responds to human performance.

What does the bible say?

I know that you would like to lose this discussion in a bunch of intellectual gibberish, but again, please answer these question. If you will not allow one truth to be built on another, then this discussion is pointless. I can't strip it down any more than this. Do you believe this, just as Romans 8:9-11 says?

• "Without the Spirit of Christ in us, we are dead, don't have Jesus."
• Then you state: "Having believed, they received the indwelling life that regenerates them."

Romans 8:9-11 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

----------------------------

The Spirit indwelling is the life. Without the Spirit indwelling, we are spiritually dead. With the Spirit indwelling born again, without the Spirit indwelling, not born again.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Galatians 3:2-3 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

How did these spiritually dead believe so as to receive the life, the indwelling, which makes us justified, and born again and begins the process of being conformed to Christlikeness?

Dave

 

[pinebeach]

What really baffles me is how they are okay with favoritism, exclusivity and preference.. they always find ways to rationalize.

That is why I maintain people adhere to this system for fleshy/emotional/psychological reasons.

It is very hard to break those strongholds, this is why they are unmoved by obvious scripture TRUTH which refutes this system of preference.

And sadly the 'root' of that system is often reflected in the current adherents. The desire to just smush out any objections, notwithstanding the person behind them, being one of the most obvious afflictions.