Calvinism is Gospel !
- Thread starter brightfame52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
True,
but
unconditional election is not supported by scripture,
neither is God picking who He is going to save and who he going to leave in their sins
and neither is regeneration prior to faith.
There is something provocative how one member IS is banned and you show up with much in common.
It is obvious that God predestining souls to hell without them having had the opportunity/offer/invitation to repent/be saved is a bad/evil/hateful story, so the next insightful question is "why anyone would want to believe it?" Because of being brain-washed? Because of projecting one's own hatred onto God? Because of being demonic?
He is preferential, exclusionary. His offer of salvation is not really genuine to the non-selected.
This makes for an unreliable, not trustworthy, disingenuous god.
Not good to isolate Romans 9 from Romans 10 and 11.
Best to read the letter without chapter and verse breaks.
In the next chapters Paul says Israel is responsible for its unbelief, that salvation comes through faith, and that unbelieving Jews can still be grafted in if they do not continue in unbelief.
As I already pointed out.
I don't know if you are married or not, but if you are: Remember when you were sending out invites to your wedding to all the people who you didn't want to show up? Oh hold on a minute.So God fails, He calls many ....but fails in that only a few are chosen.
The worry that election leaves some willing person “unselected for redemption” rests on a scenario the Bible never presents. Scripture teaches that the human desire for salvation is itself the result of God’s prior work—“no one seeks God” apart from His drawing, and “it is God who works in you both to will and to work.” Election does not picture God refusing sincere seekers; it pictures God awakening the desire to seek Him in the first place. Those whom He chooses, He also calls, and those He calls, He makes willing. The very fact that a person longs for redemption is evidence that God has already acted in grace, not that He might refuse them.
Amazing the appeal to the same file deck of responses...sorry but is it true.
Regeneration preceding faith is not supported by scripture.
Your objection assumes that election works like a shopper choosing a pot from a shelf—God surveys humanity, evaluates certain “conditions,” and then selects those who meet His criteria. But Paul’s argument in Romans 9 rejects that entire framework. Election is not God responding to pre‑existing qualities in people; it is God creating the people He intends to redeem. Paul’s analogy is not a woman choosing a pot but a potter forming one. The pot does not present conditions for the potter to evaluate; the pot exists because the potter shaped it. In Paul’s theology, election is a matter of divine craftsmanship—God fashioning vessels for His purposes—not divine shopping, where God waits to see what humans will do and then chooses accordingly.
Once election is understood as formation, not selection, the rest of Paul’s logic falls into place. If God is the potter, then the qualities of the vessel—including its repentance, faith, and desire for salvation—are the result of His creative work. This is why Paul consistently describes faith as something God grants, awakens, and brings about. Regeneration prior to faith is not an arbitrary theological invention; it is the natural consequence of Paul’s potter analogy. A pot does not shape itself into a vessel of honor; the potter shapes it. Likewise, a sinner does not generate saving faith from within; God creates it as part of His redemptive craftsmanship. Election, therefore, is not God picking from a lineup of self‑qualified candidates but God forming a people who will believe, repent, and be saved.
That's scripture.
And it is reinforced when we encounter the Arminian opposition.
So god creates people he does not intend to redeem, born to suffer and die because god hates them, they are Esau, not Jacob.
Two binary options played out over and over again throughout all of history.
Like I stated, best to read the entire letter rather than splicing and dicing and pulling out what supports TUL, yes it is TUL.
I am not sure how you can have TUL without the I but seems you do think grace is resistible theoretically, but it seems in reality you do not.
Well, I can't speak to that issue directly because there are many different reasons why someone might believe something. But I don't think they are being brainwashed.
One of the reasons many believers find Reformed theology persuasive is that human testimony simply does not sound like the Arminian model of salvation. When people describe their conversion, they almost never say, “I calmly evaluated God’s offer of grace and freely chose to accept it.” Instead, they speak in terms of divine interruption and inner compulsion: “I was overwhelmed by the truth,” “God broke through my darkness,” “I couldn’t resist the conviction,” “I was running from God, and He stopped me.” These are not the words of someone making a neutral choice; they are the words of someone who feels acted upon, pursued, awakened, and transformed. Reformed theology resonates with these testimonies because it provides a framework in which such experiences make sense—God is not waiting for us to choose Him; He is intervening to rescue us.
Reformed theology teaches that God’s saving work is not merely an offer but an intervention—a decisive act of grace that changes the heart, opens the eyes, and creates faith where none existed. And this is exactly how people describe their conversion. They speak of being drawn, compelled, convicted, and renewed. They describe despair giving way to hope, blindness giving way to sight, rebellion giving way to surrender. These are the dynamics of regeneration producing faith, not faith producing regeneration. In other words, the Reformed view aligns with the way salvation actually feels from the inside. It explains why people say, “God saved me,” not “I saved myself by choosing God.” The doctrine of God’s sovereign, initiating grace simply fits the lived reality of Christian conversion.
Calvinism has philosophical flaws, which some of us are attempting to correct. But we can't ignore the Bible passages that seem to comport with our experience. Some of us experience salvation at such a deep level that we will never go back.
I suggest what we witness in the Arminian argument is evidence they do not recognize the truth.
Their theology gives primacy to man.And his freewill as one who decides he will enter into God's grace by his personal choice. And allow the Holy Spirit to enter into himself.
Where that argument fails is in refusing to recognize God did not say this.
God tells us the natural man,mind,can ot understand the things of God. They are foolishness to them.
We witness this when we witness Calvinism memes being posted to renounce God's word regarding his predestination of all things.
Refusal to realize Reformed Theology is grounded in Scripture.
According to Paul, the gospel teaches that mankind is foolish of heart and given over to their deluded minds. Romans 1:18-23. So election is not a neutral offer to a person capable of making a free-will choice to accept God's offer of salvation. And besides, the Bible doesn't depict God as making an offer. Paul represents salvation as a spiritual journey, a revelation of God who reveals our salvation from "faith to faith" that is, from the beginning of when we first believe and even as we put our faith into practice, Romans 1:17 God is with us the whole time.
I understand and agree with all of that. But it doesn't defeat what I said earlier.
Paul is not merely saying, “God ordained Jacob and Esau differently.” That is true, but it is not his argument. Paul is answering the charge of injustice: “Is God unfair to love Jacob and hate Esau before they were born?” His answer is not that God looked ahead at their choices, nor that He applied a set of conditions, nor even that He simply decreed their destinies. Paul’s answer is that God is a Creator, not a responder. The potter does not wait to see what the clay will become; the potter forms the clay into what he intends. Jacob’s role in redemptive history was not selected from a shelf of possible outcomes—it was crafted. Esau’s role was not the result of foreseen unbelief—it was formed. Paul’s point is that God’s choice is not reactive but creative. Election is not God picking from what exists; it is God determining what will exist.
This is why Paul uses the potter analogy. A potter does not choose between finished pots based on conditions; he shapes the pot according to his purpose. In Paul’s logic, Jacob was created to display God’s mercy, and Esau was created to display God’s displeasure. Their destinies were not the result of their actions but the result of God’s design. This is why Paul says their differentiation occurred “before they had done anything good or bad.” He is not arguing that God made an early selection; he is arguing that God made an early creation. The distinction between the brothers is not grounded in foreseen faith or foreseen unbelief but in God’s intention to reveal aspects of His character through the narrative of their lives. God’s justice is upheld because He is not judging two equal agents; He is crafting two different vessels for two different purposes. The potter’s right is not the right to evaluate but the right to form.
There might be a point behind your question, so if I didn't catch it, let me know. This reminds me of a joke that a Bible teacher once told about a man who jumped out of a high-rise building. On his way down, he could be heard saying, "So far so good. So far so good. So far so good." The point is, it doesn't matter how we start out; it matters how we end up.
Your question seems to be pressing toward the issue of how anyone finally comes to Christ, and whether their starting point determines their ending point. The illustration of the man falling from a building is helpful because it shows that early conditions don’t determine final outcomes. A person may begin life in Islam, Buddhism, atheism, or deep rebellion, but that starting point tells us nothing about where the Spirit may lead them. Scripture consistently portrays salvation as a divine rescue, not a human climb. What is impossible for us—reaching a falling person—is not impossible for God. The Spirit interrupts trajectories, arrests falls, and redirects lives in ways no human willpower could accomplish.
This is why we cannot draw conclusions from someone’s present spiritual condition. The decisive factor is not where they begin but whether the Spirit chooses to intervene. Many believers testify that they were not seeking God at all; they were running, resisting, or despairing. Yet God broke through. The point is simple: the Spirit’s power to draw, awaken, and redirect a person far exceeds the apparent momentum of their life. We do not know how anyone will end up, because the Spirit’s intervention—not human starting points—determines the final outcome.
- Status