Calvinism is Gospel !

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Here is another exegetical question. In the Context what was Peter actually addressing?

Peter’s most commonly cited line is in 2 Peter 3:9, where he writes that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” But in context, “any” and “all” refer to the people Peter is addressing—the beloved, the covenant community, those whom God is patiently bringing to repentance. Peter is explaining why the Day of the Lord seems delayed: God is patiently gathering all of His people, not expressing a universal desire that every human being without exception will be saved.

Your instinct is exactly right: the same logic applies to Peter as to Paul, and it exposes a major tension in the “God wants to save every individual, but human freedom stops Him” explanation.

The core issue is simple: if God truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly desired the salvation of every individual without exception, then nothing could stop Him. The biblical God is not weak, hesitant, or constrained by human decisions. Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3:9 is about God’s patience toward His people, not a frustrated universal desire. If someone insists that Peter means “every single human being,” then they must explain why the God who created the universe, raises the dead, and governs history is somehow unable to accomplish what He supposedly desires most.

Appealing to human freedom doesn’t solve the problem. It simply shifts the decisive power from God to the creature. If human freedom is the final barrier, then God’s desire is not ultimate—human choice is. That makes salvation contingent not on God’s mercy but on human self‑determination, which contradicts Peter’s entire argument about God’s sovereign patience and purposeful delay.

Peter’s logic only makes sense if “all” refers to all of the people God is gathering, not every individual without exception. Otherwise, we are left with a God who wants something He cannot achieve.

This is the well used response of >>> God is a failure unless we have unconditional election.

I say placing a condition "faith" on salvation puts Him in control, because He sets the condition.

In the TULIP version you have put presented makes me ask the question, what sense does it make to say that God is actually waiting for Himself to implant Irresistible Grace?
 
Contextual relativity.
That verse applies to and within all Scripture that reiterates Election.
Everyone whom he calls are thus desired by him to come to repentance.

In point of fact if God,bring all that this means,desired all to come into Repentance, they would.

In fact, the hardening God applies to us in our beginning,would have been lifted with the last breath, "It is finished", of Immanuel on the cross.

When in fact,Immanuel died for the Elect only.
Those who are not Elect and live in their sins are the antithesis of righteousness. Reminders of the blessing afforded by grace.

Election is to service.
 
1. The Idol of Self-Assurance: Grounded in Christ or 75 Years of Human Effort?

You made a monumental admission. You stated: "My will has stood for 75+ years, so I have no reason to doubt it will not persevere until death."

With those words, you have completely exposed the foundation of your theology. Your assurance does not rest upon the immutable, ironclad promise of Jesus Christ or the blood of the everlasting covenant. Your assurance rests upon yourself. You are banking your eternity on the consistency of your own human will over 75 years.

Scripture explicitly warns against this precise brand of self-confidence in Proverbs 28:26: "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Jerimiah 17:5 echoes this: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm."

If your salvation depends on your human will remaining steadfast until your final breath, you cannot have biblical assurance; you have self-delusion. In contrast, the true believer's assurance looks away from self entirely and boasts only in Christ: "He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

2. The Greek Grammar of John 10:28 vs. Your Claim

You mentioned that someone who knows Greek should compile a list of scriptures regarding the present progressive tense. Let’s look exactly at how the Greek grammar of John 10:27-28 functions, because it completely obliterates your system.

You argue that because the sheep are described as continuously "hearing" (akouousin, present active indicative) and "following" (akolouthousin, present active indicative), their security is conditional upon that continuous human action.

But you are completely missing the syntactic link to verse 28. The main action verbs of verse 28 are δίδωμι (didōmi - "I give," present active indicative) and οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται (ou mē apōlōntai - "they shall never perish").

  • As established, ou mē with the aorist subjunctive is the absolute strongest negation possible in Greek. It rules out even the possibility of the event occurring.
  • John Gill masterfully noted that the continuous hearing and following are the character traits of those whom Christ has fast in His grip. The continuous action is the grammatical fruit of the giving of eternal life.
If a single sheep for whom Christ gives life breaks their continuous following and perishes, then the absolute negation ou mē fails, and Christ’s declarative statement is rendered false. The grammar proves that the Shepherd’s hand is what guarantees the sheep's perseverance, not the sheep's perseverance guaranteeing the Shepherd’s hand.

3. Exposing the Great Commission Fallacy

You claim that because Jesus sent His disciples to evangelize the world, it "obviously implies" He prayed that the entire world wholesale would be saved, accusing John Gill of lacking "semantic logic."
Let's test your semantic logic against the literal words of the Son of God. In John 17:9, Jesus says: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world."

According to your logic, when Jesus says "I pray NOT for the world," He actually means, "I imply that I DO pray for the world because of the Great Commission." That is not semantic logic; that is flat-out rewriting the text to protect your system.

John Gill understood biblical semantics perfectly. The High Priest does not offer a failed intercession. We evangelize the world because the elect are scattered throughout the world. As Jesus stated in John 10:16: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice." Evangelism is the voice of the Shepherd effectively gathering His chosen sheep out of every nation, tongue, and tribe (Revelation 5:9).

[[Text was deleted arbitrarily at this point in order to fit the CC length requirement.]]

Category D: Rejection of Grace and Hardening

(Matthew 13:14-15, Acts 28:26-27)

You argue that Proverbs 21:1 (God turning the heart) must be harmonized with Matthew 13:14-15, where people close their own eyes and harden their own ears. There is no contradiction here to harmonize.
  • High-Calvinism fully affirms that sinners willingly, actively, and eagerly harden their own hearts against God because of their corrupt nature.
  • The difference is that while the non-elect are justly left to their own self-willed blindness, God sovereignly intervenes in the hearts of the elect to take away the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26).
  • Left to "MFW," everyone in Matthew 13 closes their eyes. Salvation only happens because God sovereignly opens the eyes of His sheep.
Every single text you threw at the page establishes the absolute necessity of sovereign grace. Your system forces you to look at your 75 years of performance for your assurance. My theology forces me to look exclusively to the cross of Jesus Christ, where my salvation was fully finished, sealed, and eternally secured.

I have not ignored a single verse on your list. Now it is your turn: Answer John 6:39. If Christ loses nothing of what the Father gave Him, how can a true sheep perish?



My theology is founded on MFW that freely loves truth (2Thes. 2:10), whereas yours is founded on TULIP that blasphemes the Lord's omnilove (John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2, 1Tim. 2:3-4) and righteousness aka justness (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). You do so at your own risk, because you have been reproved in love (Eph. 4:15, Gal. 1:6-9).

Re "You argue that because the sheep are described as continuously "hearing" (akouousin, present active indicative) and "following" (akolouthousin, present active indicative), their security is conditional upon that continuous human action.":

No, I agree with those who know Greek teaching that faithers are described as continuously believing per tenses including the present active indicative and the present progressive/persevering, and I think it would be helpful for truthseekers if they would compile a list of scriptures using such tenses.

I already explained how to harmonize John 17:9 with 3:16, Matt. 28:19-20, etc., so let us not loop.

The astute will note how you bend into a pretzel rather than accept the plain meaning of the verses I cited:
Gen. 3:6, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 2Chron. 7:14, Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 23:37, John 3:16, 6:39, Acts 2:38, 16:31, 28:27, Rom. 1:20, 2:4, 11&15, 3:22, 4:23-24, 5:15&19, 10:9-13, 11:32, Gal. 3:8&14, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:19-23, 1Tim. 2:3-4, etc.

John 6:39 harmonizes with 1Tim. 2:3-4 when one accepts NT teaching that souls have MFW that can ignore God's Word/will.
The astute will note that in Matt. 13:14-15 Jesus amended the wording of Isa. 6:9-10 (cf. Pro. 21:1, Exo. 7:3) to put the onus for evil on human hearts rather than on God's dictatorship.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -Lutheran
Not sure what Pauline statement you have in mind, but probably yes, although sometimes the choice is binary.
(See what I just posted on the Hermeneutics thread.)
I was talking about the one in 1 Timothy. :) I'll look for the thread on Hermeneutics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GWH
For disclosure:
I copied your post and sought the source via Google AI.

This text is not an original thesis written by GWH.

When you speak freely to others,are rude,condescending,in error, and then post the above,it is a dead plagarism giveaway.

AI can be a blessing or curse. As often as it is utilized in discussion forums,one day forums will require attribution.

(Start AI results)
It is a document stitched together using the proprietary terminology, structural templates, and specific abbreviations of a ministry called Truthseekers Fellowship, combined with elements of public Bible commentaries.

and "judicial blindness") is not original thought. The specific logical flow matches the public-domain text of Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers and the Matthew Henry Commentary. The poster simply stripped the academic language from those commentaries, plugged in the Truthseekers custom shorthand words, and pasted it into the forum.


The exact "thesis" was not copied and pasted from a book or academic journal.

Instead, it was constructed by adapting the unique, proprietary material and shorthand templates found on the Truthseekers Fellowship website. [1, 2]

They likely copied a private lesson or study guide provided by the ministry leader of that organization, or they used a template that someone else built. The exact sources and building blocks used to stitch this text together come from the following elements:

1. The Shorthand Template

The absolute proof that this text was copied from a template is the bizarre, highly specific shorthand. These abbreviations do not exist in standard theology, but they match the exact glossary of the Truthseekers Fellowship "People and Isms" series:
  • GW re the KOH: Directly stands for "God's Word regarding the Kingdom of Heaven".
  • I-dolatry: A hyphenated spelling used uniquely by this specific fellowship group to emphasize the "I" (self) in idolatry.
  • GRFS: Used in their matching threads on the Christian Chat Hermeneutics Thread to stand for "God's Righteousness for Salvation".

2. The Structural Blueprint
The structure is lifted directly from lesson "11. Systematic Scripture Study" on the Truthseekers Fellowship website. While the website's public lesson is titled "A Systematic Study of Romans 1–11", the author used the exact same numbered format, phrasing, and theological arguments to build a parallel study on the book of Matthew.
For instance, the phrase "God initiates; sinners cooperate—or not" from Truthseekers Romans Study #31 is the exact philosophical argument they copy-pasted into the Matthew parables argument to say that people choose to believe or have calloused hearts.

3. The Copied Bible Commentaries
The technical breakdown of the Matthew passages is a simplified paste-job of standard, public-domain commentaries mixed with the group's "omnilove" theology.

Specifically, the breakdown of Matthew 13:14-15 and the reference to Isaiah 6:9-10 mirrors the layout of the Matthew Henry Commentary and Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers regarding judicial blindness, rewritten using the group's custom shorthand words.

In short, the user did not write an original thesis; they took a structured template provided by the Truthseekers Fellowship framework, plugged in verses from Matthew 13, and swapped standard words for the group's shorthand to make it look like an advanced academic study.


💡 If you want to counter this specific post on the forum or address the person directly, let me know if you would like me to:
  • Point out the logical flaws in how they tried to force the Romans "free-will" template onto Matthew 13.

FYI, truthseekersfellowship.com is my website. See my profile.
 
Election is to service.
They follow another god, another gospel. Their god has Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), a mental health condition that we call a split personality.

On the one hand their god is angry and grieved with sin:
Psalms 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
On the other hand they say sin is the plan of God , it is his secret will, his soveriegn plan

Maybe their god is two-face from the Batman comics who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeIsHere
They follow another god, another gospel. Their god has Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), a mental health condition that we call a split personality.

On the one hand their god is angry and grieved with sin:
Psalms 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
On the other hand they say sin is the plan of God , it is his secret will, his soveriegn plan

Maybe their god is two-face from the Batman comics who knows.

They have such pride and confidence in all their errors, that is the part that really gets me.
 
This is the well used response of >>> God is a failure unless we have unconditional election.

I say placing a condition "faith" on salvation puts Him in control, because He sets the condition.

In the TULIP version you have put presented makes me ask the question, what sense does it make to say that God is actually waiting for Himself to implant Irresistible Grace?
You have exposed the contradiction in the doctrine of irresistible grace. And your question is valid. And I agree with it. Everyone knows that grace can be resisted.

Now, do you see that characterizing my position as TULIP is unfair? Not that I am important, but I am not a Calvinist, and I don't affirm TULIP. I distance myself from my Reformed brothers and sisters on their philosophical framework, which didn't come from the Bible.

I choose the Philosophical framework that Paul the Apostle held, His philosophical framework rests on a simple but sweeping conviction: God is not only the creator of people, but the author of the narrative each life reveals. Romans 9 makes this explicit through the potter‑and‑clay analogy, in which God shapes vessels not merely in their being but also in their purpose. For Paul, God’s sovereignty is narrative sovereignty: He forms individuals with particular roles that display His mercy, His justice, and His patience. This means human lives are not random sequences of choices but storylines crafted by a Creator whose designs are morally coherent. When Paul says God “works in you,” he is describing the same reality Romans 9 portrays—God as the One who authors both the person and the arc of their life, so that their story ultimately reveals His character.

When I say we all have “as much free will as we think we have,” I don’t mean our choices are illusions or that God puppets us. I mean that within the story God authors, our decisions are real, meaningful, and genuinely ours. We choose according to what we desire, and those choices matter. Paul’s framework doesn’t erase human agency; it grounds it. God creates the person and the narrative of their life, but within that narrative He allows authentic human willing and acting. So our free will is not absolute or independent, but it is real—rooted in the desires of our own hearts and operating inside the sovereign story God is telling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standard
Why are some not saved? Because they are the Non-Elect. The ones not in Christ before the foundation of the world. The ones not written in the Lamb's Book of Life, who was slain before the foundation of the world.

No - He created Adam who had a free agency. However after the "fall", all of his seed are enslaved by the sin nature in their flesh. To have a will that desires God, would imply that there is some true righteousness within fallen man. The Bible does not teach that. Instead, it clearly states that our righteousness is as filthy rags and the stench thereof goes up to the heavens.

What kind of grammar is this? "present progressive"? "progressive/persevering? I do a lot of translations from the Greek to English but this is alien grammar you speak of.

As far as you saying, that those who hold to a different view, need to pay attention to something grammatical, is like the pot calling the kettle black. You don't pay any attention to "Perfect tense verbs" or the "passive voice" in John 3:3-10.



John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Care to explain what our Lord just prayed in His High Priestly Prayer.

Notice that Rev. 3:5 can be understood as indicating that everyone's name is in the Book of Life until it is erased.

Adam represents humanity, who has the same God-given ability to ignore His Word and disobey His Will.

Those who think they can get closer to heaven by doing good works apart from God actually go in the opposite direction,
which is why they are filthy rags.

Repenting of sin and seeking God/salvation implies that God's Holy Spirit has convicted and saved the sinner.
God initiates/teaches/loves; souls may cooperate/learn/reflect divine love--or not.

A simple Google search would have educated you regarding the present progressive tense. This is what I found:

The progressive present is used in the Greek New Testament. The Koine Greek present tense uses an imperfective aspect, meaning it portrays an action as ongoing, continuous, or in progress at that moment. When translating into English, this Greek present tense frequently maps directly to the present continuous ("is/are doing"), though it can also translate as a simple present ("does") depending on context.
 
You said "The word God is not in the Bible",
to which I responded "The Word IS God!"

If comprehension were YOUR strong point you would understand that whenever "Word" is used, it means God.
Thus, we could say that those who write God as G-d should also write Word as W-d. Ditto re Creator as C-r, "I AM" as I-m, etc.

The word 'God' is not in the Bible. Neither is 'Jesus'. Those are simply poor English translations that loose the actual expression of the original authors...G-d being the worst.

You and the other dude jump on everything and everyone to correct or judge or 'google' or claim correction.

I know what I wrote and if you had understood it, you would not have responded as you did. There is no 'thus' especially not coming from you.

You are not a linguist and apparently, do not understand that translations in English do not do justice to what was originally intended to convey but when a person is an expert in their own eyes and has a website that consists of copy/paste from other websites, well then...please take a bow and move on. I am positive you still will not see what I wrote. So do not expect another response
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -Lutheran
The word 'God' is not in the Bible. Neither is 'Jesus'. Those are simply poor English translations that loose the actual expression of the original authors...G-d being the worst.

You and the other dude jump on everything and everyone to correct or judge or 'google' or claim correction.

I know what I wrote and if you had understood it, you would not have responded as you did. There is no 'thus' especially not coming from you.

You are not a linguist and apparently, do not understand that translations in English do not do justice to what was originally intended to convey but when a person is an expert in their own eyes and has a website that consists of copy/paste from other websites, well then...please take a bow and move on. I am positive you still will not see what I wrote. So do not expect another response

FYI, truthseekersfellowship.com is my website. See my profile.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pinebeach
FYI, truthseekersfellowship.com is my website. See my profile.

yes I know. You copy pasted something I posted some months back and stuck it on your copy past website and I told you not to do that because you had not given credit for where it was from....it wasn't mine to begin with so you took it down. your site is like a who's who on the internet because you scowl the web looking for things to add which is why your site is a place where people go to buy things cheap.

ps: I think it is against the TOS to post links, whether clickable or not. you can post that on your profile.




..................................................................................... 1785954239936.png
 
All I gotta say to that is So what? English speakers know what the words refer to and that is all that is important.

Do you think the original authors of the Bible wrote in Engish? And you are wrong. Are you trying to refer to translators? Are those the 'english speakers' you mean? I guess you are not aware of corrections being made, often, to translations because of a better understanding of the word or meaning being found.

There are not many Bereans to be found these days and no worries, you will not be mistaken as such.

BUT English 'speakers', as you put it, make so many grammatical errors in this forum that it causes concern that English might continue on that trajectory.

I am sure you have no problem falling asleep at night.

Roger that. :rolleyes:
 
Peter’s most commonly cited line is in 2 Peter 3:9, where he writes that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” But in context, “any” and “all” refer to the people Peter is addressing—the beloved, the covenant community, those whom God is patiently bringing to repentance. Peter is explaining why the Day of the Lord seems delayed: God is patiently gathering all of His people, not expressing a universal desire that every human being without exception will be saved.

That's nonsense. Taking God is not willing that any should perish and creating containment to the recipients of the letter, is bogus.

In context, that verse does not mean what you are tying to make it say at all. In fact, that would mean that no one in this century should take anything written 2000 years as meant for them personally. Of course that would be harmful to all the OT scripture the dedicated Calvinist uses to present as useful to the doctrine. In context:

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Peter walked with Jesus. I think he had a far better understanding than the scripture massagers in this forum. He plainly states that
God does not want anyone to perish....unlike Calvinists who seem to love the thought of some people created solely for the purpose of going to hell.

You have created a god after your own heart and God, who is Spirit, and who is love, and who is holy and without fault, does not agree with your devilish assessment of Him.

The gospel, the actual gospel as found in scripture, teaches that through faith in Christ we have forgivness of our sins and that is by the grace of God....not the lies of Calvinism or those who teach it. The hiss of a graceless creature sounds in every teaching of Calvinism and the smell of decay clings to all of it. Those in Christ are given new life. We do not think we are special or chosen above others; indeed, the Bible teaches us to humble ourselves and think of others better than ourselves.

We do not find that in Calvinism. We find braggers and boasters who fancy themselves special to God; those whom God created to spend eternity with Him while the rest of humanity feeds the fires of an eternal hell.

What is the matter with you people? I think you have not found your identity in Christ but you surely have found a false identity in a man named John Calvin.

Don't bother with your AI junk. You have no idea what is actually going on with AI. I mean who needs the Holy Spirit when you have AI, eh? AI is deception and you have seen nothing yet and no, I don't believe you will change a thing and I mean why should you?
Right?

Putting your faith in something, Calvinsim in this case, is as much of a choice as any other of the choices you have made BUT Calvinists deny that we have that ability. And the irony of it all would be funny if it were not so serious.

God did not and would not ever place His Spirit in a degenerate and hopeless sinner who is so depraved he delights in it and seeks every occasion to sin his little heart out. This is not unconditional election. That, is foolish and as close to blasphemy without actually setting your clothes on fire, as God allows.

The Spirit of God seals a person who has accepted Christ as their Redeemer. He does not mess with the depraved and force salvation on anyone. Grace is not irresistable. People resist all the time as they resist truth in order to make themselves the little god instead of falling on their knees before the living One who is actually God.

I have no expectations that you will be at all interested in anything but countering what I wrote but you should understand that I
have the understanding, you are far from the only one reading this.

Yeah I noticed you state you are not a Calvinist. You still slice and dice scripture in a way that brings to mind that doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.