The powerless gospel of Calvinism

[Guest shiloh357]

I differ from the Reformed position in terms of the TULIP.   I don't accept unconditional election, limited atonement or irresistible grace.   I also reject the reformed position on regeneration.

[Omegaman 3.0]

 

Summary : Since a man can do nothing to be saved or obtain salvation because he is totally depraved (incapable), God through irresistible grace will unconditionally elect the chosen ones because of limited atonement.  Hyper-Calvinists do not win souls because God will save those He chooses no matter what.  Calvinists usually are self-conceited because God specially chose them and not the heathen Arminians

INSANITY - Teaching Calvinism to enlighten a non-Calvinist is absurd because his or her freewill to choose is not valid. A Calvinist is born a Calvinist against his will. I'm not a Calvinist because God predestinated me before the foundation of the world to not be a Calvinist.  I can’t help it!  I'm not an Arminian because I reject it of my own freewill.  I can't help that!   2 Thessalonians 3:1-5 (KJV)

I am glad you make a distinction between Calvinsits and Hyper-Calvinists. However, I think your point in the summary which read:

"Calvinists usually are self-conceited because God specially chose them and not the heathen Arminians"  is patently absurd. Calvinists are anything but conceited, because they understand that they are depraved and did nothing to deserve being saved, that they are sinners who are saved only because of God's grace, having done nothing at all, to warrant salvation. There is no room for conceit when your position is "there but for the grace of God".

You section on insanity, demonstrated a misunderstanding or ignorance of what the doctrine of predestination is. It does not hold that that people predestined to a belief system that God micromanaged every detail that will unfold. Once could, I suppose conclude that in a way, but it is not unique to calvinism, it is also true for those who beleive that God is alknowing. For example, did God know that you would be an Arminian, or did God know that any particular person would be lost? If God knows something will happen, then is it not true that it WILL happen? If it will happen, then there is some sense in which it is predestined. If God knows something will happen, and it does not come to pass, then God is wrong and not all knowing after all. You cannot have it both ways. The only insanity is beleiving that God is not in control of His universe. People do not have free will as some like to think, Everything is limited by it's own nature, even God has that limitation. You cannot flap your arms and fly, because it is not in your nature to fly. 

Mankind, is restricted to His nature, and that nature will not choose God unassisted. It is God, who intervenes, and changes a persons nature, so that he can choose to respond to God's calling, it is a supernatural work of God, not an act of our free will, left to it's own.

Place a juicy steak if front of a horse, and a plate of straw in front of a tiger, will they eat what is placed in front of them? No, it is not in their nature to do so. They physcally can eat those things, the horse can eat meat and the tiger can eat grass, theoretically as an act of free will, but their nature makes it so that they will not do so.

 14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Wow, nice Bopeep, I was thinking of including some of the reformers names, but that article did a fine job of that, thanks!

In fact, I think with the exception of being a cessationist, that article describes me pretty well.

Authority of Scripture. Reformed theology teaches that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, sufficient in all matters of faith and practice.

You don't believe that. ^

You are not is a position to judge or represent what I believe. For the record, I absolutely believe that, in fact, I am betting my eternity on that premise. In what way do you think I do not believe that?

[Guest shiloh357]

I might add that while don't accept the TULIP theory, I do glean a lot from Reformed teachers and  preachers in other areas.   I enjoy the ministry of John McArthur, John Piper and RC Sproul, as well as the ministry of Wretched Radio and Todd Friel.

[missmuffet]

Wow, nice Bopeep, I was thinking of including some of the reformers names, but that article did a fine job of that, thanks!

In fact, I think with the exception of being a cessationist, that article describes me pretty well.

Thank you 

[InSeasonOut]

Wow, nice Bopeep, I was thinking of including some of the reformers names, but that article did a fine job of that, thanks!

In fact, I think with the exception of being a cessationist, that article describes me pretty well.

Authority of Scripture. Reformed theology teaches that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, sufficient in all matters of faith and practice.

You don't believe that. ^

You are not is a position to judge or represent what I believe. For the record, I absolutely believe that, in fact, I am betting my eternity on that premise. In what way do you think I do not believe that?

Below is part of what you said during our chat in the private messaging. You said quote :

"There is only one word of God, and we do not posess it in the form of ink on paper, all we have is imperfect, incomplete simulations of it, that we call manuscripts, and Bible translations. Versions are not all equal, but none is uniquely the word of God and without error. People are free to use the KJV, it has served a great purpose for 400 years, but it was not the first, nor is it the last, good version of the Bible. The best Bible version, is the one you will actually read and take to heart."

End quote

Then i asked you - how can someone take the Bible to heart if it's not the word of God?

[Omegaman 3.0]

As I also said in private, I wasn't going to continue that dialogue with you because of your closed mind. Since you have brought that into the public, I will answer you at least in part, this once.

I believe the Bible (as originally given through it's authors) is inspired and authoritative, not only that, I believe it to be error free. If you paid attention to what I said and what you said, you accused me of not believing what the reformers did about the Bible. Well, since the reformation was before the publication of the King James Bible, there is no reason to suspect that they had the King James Bible in mind, when they held that belief.

Along with the reformers, I believe the Bible, Gods word, not any one specific version of the Bible. You think believing the Bible, means only believing the King James it seems.

You have said:

God preserved his word like he said he would. Other Bibles are filled with false doctrine. IDK how you don't see that.......... ."

I am not aware of false doctrine in most modern translations, or in pre-KJV translations either. If you do not know how I do not see that, then I do not know how you do not see that if God was preserving His word as He said He would, then it was already preserved before King James and the translators of the KJV Bible were even born. 

Wessex Gospels, Hatton gospels, Old English Hexateuch, Wycliffe (1382) , Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535), Matthew, Great Bible (1539), Taverner Bible, Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible, Douay–Rheims Bible, were all English Bibles going back as far as the 5th Century, with the Geneva Bible, being a favorite among English speaking reformers.

Too bad that your perception of God seems to be that He was not able (or was unwilling ) to preserve His word without King James Stewart's help, who was looking to counteract the protestant reformation in favor of the church of England which the reformers were critical of.

Since it was illegal to print Bibles in England and Protestants were exiled, thankfully these dedicated people decided that it was more fitting to obey the King of Kings rather than English royalty. That is the circumstance under which the Geneva Bible was published and printed.

After Queen Elizabeth ascended to the throne it was ordered in 1559 that new versions of the Great Bible would be printed and placed in the churches. The notes of the Geneva Bible, were not flattering to the claim of English Royalty as tbe Head of the Church. To the reformers, that seemed like a transfer of the Papacy from Rome to England. That is why a new translation was called for, and that was the birth of the KJV.

You refer to the Textus Receptus. That term is almost useless. It is a broad term, not a specific text.
Textus Receptus is a name given to a whole series of printed Greek texts (not ancient manuscripts by the way), and the King James Bible was not influenced by those alone.

Underlying the translation of the King James version of the Bible are the Masoretic Text, a couple Textus Recepti, Tyndale 1526 New Testament, some of Erasmus' manuscripts. I doubt that the Great Bible and the Bihop's Bible, we not heavily consulted.

I would think you might be suspicious of a Erasmus' work, since he was a humanist and not even a true believer. Of course that does not mean that he was not competent to translate languages in a scholarly manner, but if you do not trust modern translators who are also scholarly and believers besides, why would you trust a version of the Bible which used an unbeliever who did not have very good or thorough Greek texts to work from and in the case of the book of Revelation, as I recall, he sort of reverse engineered the Latin Vulgate to arrive at his own Greek text.

To me, I cast a suspicious eye at the dependency upon the Masoretic texts as the basis of the Old Testament. I realize that that puts me into a corner where I seem distrustful of the Bible. Again I am not at all distrustful of the Bible, but I am careful to not just assume that everything that has the word Bible written on the front of it is actually the word of God. That of course includes the KJV, but is not limited to the KJV.

Allow me to explain my hesitation. Most Bibles even modern translations, depend on the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. When reading the New Testament it is common to see the Old Testament quoted, particularly in reference to messianic prophecies. If one takes the trouble to actually look up what those messianic prophecies say in our English old Testaments, one often finds that what the New Testament writers say about the old testament does not match what the Old Testament actually says when you look up the passages.

When I noticed that some years ago, it piqued my curiosity and got me wondering why is it that the authors of the New Testament are misquoting the Old Testament. After a little research I discovered it was because they were not quoting the Masoretic texts. Of course that makes a lot of sense, since these texts are from the 10th century A.D. and later.

In these cases of the new testament writers quoting the Old Testament and there being a seeming mismatch, it appears that they were quoting the Septuagint, Greek translations from the Hebrew made in Alexandria Egypt several hundred years before Christ.

A lot of King James only people don't trust some of the ancient New Testament Greek manuscripts because they are of Egyptian origin also. I have to conclude that there is nothing automatically wrong with Egypt as a source of Bible texts, since Jesus and the apostles also quoted from Egyptian translations. The fact that they quoted Greek translations from Egypt implies to me that they accepted them as conveying the meaning that God wanted to have understood and communicated.

In fact, the KJV translators wrote:

"The Septuagint, or the Seventy, was faulty in many places. It descended from the original and did not come near it in grandeur or majesty.Yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it! Nay! They used it."

Now I am not willing to say that I have any authority to say which versions of the Bible or which texts and manuscripts are the authoritative word of God. However, my point in saying that the word of God is not something that we have captured in ink on paper only means that it is God's thoughts that are important. For example:

If I say there is only one God, or if I say there is one God only, or if I say there is only a single God, it does not really matter which words I use. It is the idea that is what God wants us to understand. If I hear any of those sentences and accept that idea, then I have the word of God in my heart, and that is what is important. With this understanding, it is not the written word that is the only word of God in fact the Bible itself says:

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".

In the above sentence the word "word" is translated from the Greek word "rhema". "Rhema, is a spoken word, not a written word. Jesus, is also referred to as the Word of God/ He is the bodily, physical expression of God. I think it is clear, that the verse which says:

"Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee."

expresses the idea, that it is not the mechanism of the word, not print, not an MP3 file or whatever that matters, it is incorporating God's thoughts into out own that does.

I kind of got way off track there, sorry. Anyway, all of these various Bible versions, Greek and Hebrew texts, etc, to my mind, do not confuse the matter, they insure the safety of the transmission of God's word. God has entrusted to mankind, the transmission of His word. He has used sinners, to keep and transmit the word. He has committed it to paper at times, and vellums, all which rot and degrade, and not of which we have the originals of. People have tried to eradicate it from existance, and corrupt it's meaning. However, God is able to keep what He needs to keep intact, intact.

To the actual topic of this thread, relating to Calvinism, let me make an observation from John 10:

 22At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; 23it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30“I and the Father are one.”

Notice that, according to Jesus, that it is not that people believe, and then become His sheep, they believe, because they are His sheep. God has a way to open our eyes, that they may see, open our ears, that they may hear, give us a heart of flesh, where there was only a heart of stone, give us life, when we are dead, He draws people to Him, who cannot come of their own free will, they only seek because of the hunger He graciously created in them, and a thirst that only He can slake.

Since some of us, His chosen, are His sheep, we can hear things that are spiritually discerned, others cannot hear them, it is impossible for them to hear what He is saying to them without Him revealing Himself to them. Because of this, we can have faulty, imperfect translations, because His sheep hear his voice, we hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

I can look at the New world translation, a corrupted translation of the Bible, that seeks to deny the deity of Christ, and still see it spelled out, not because I am smart, but because God reveals it in spite of their efforts. His word endures.

On the making of new translations, the translators of the KJV said:

"Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?" Then they said, "That is our business. The difference that appears between our translation and our often correcting of them is the thing that we are especially charged with." 

Notice that the emphasize that that is what a translators business is, to correct things that need correcting. There is nothing there that sounds as though they are assured that they got it correct altogether. Can you imagine them having the gall to say: "there is no need for further work, we got this one down pat, no revisions or updates will ever be necessary"? The were competent scholars, working with the limitations of their knowledge and their resources, and they did a great job, but not such a great job that it was beyond improvement or even constructive criticism.

I do not dis the KJV at all, in fact, when I memorize scripture, I generally use the KJV. However,  I have a minimal respect for the 'onlyists' who work to inhibit people from having better understanding of God's word. (I know that is not their intention)

Well, I have spent far too much time here, speaking to a topic that is not the topic of the thread. If you want to continue to spread KJV only propaganda, I suggest (read insist) that you limit that to threads about the topic of the KJV or translation version threads.

 

[Ezra]

God chooses people for salvation

, not because of anything they have done or will do.[/quote]

This is patently false (as is all of TULIP). We need just one passage of Scripture to refute this completely (John 3:14-18).

THE BRAZEN SERPENT AS A TYPE OF CHRIST – ALL WHO LOOKED WERE SAVED

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

 “WHOSOVER” MEANS ANYONE AND EVERYONE

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

THE WORLD MEANS ALL OF HUMANITY

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 THE WHOLE WORLD COULD BE SAVED IF ALL WOULD BELIEVE

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

BUT NOT ALL WILL BELIEVE

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[Guest shiloh357]

God chooses people for salvation

, not because of anything they have done or will do.

This is patently false (as is all of TULIP). We need just one passage of Scripture to refute this completely (John 3:14-18).

THE BRAZEN SERPENT AS A TYPE OF CHRIST – ALL WHO LOOKED WERE SAVED

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

 “WHOSOVER” MEANS ANYONE AND EVERYONE

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

THE WORLD MEANS ALL OF HUMANITY

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 THE WHOLE WORLD COULD BE SAVED IF ALL WOULD BELIEVE

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

BUT NOT ALL WILL BELIEVE

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Exactly right Ezra.

In addition, all of the first born children of Israel who had the blood on their doorposts in Egypt were saved from the death angel.  God didn't' choose which first born Israelites to save.  He saved all who applied the blood to their homes.   In addition, any first born Egyptian that was in one of those homes was also saved from the death angel. 

Salvation has never been limited to a selected or "chosen"  group. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 11/1/2015 at 4:18 AM, shiloh357 said:

Exactly right Ezra.

In addition, all of the first born children of Israel who had the blood on their doorposts in Egypt were saved from the death angel.  God didn't' choose which first born Israelites to save.  He saved all who applied the blood to their homes.   In addition, any first born Egyptian that was in one of those homes was also saved from the death angel. 

Salvation has never been limited to a selected or "chosen"  group. 

Yes well, my mistake, I guess I should have consulted you two, instead of making the wild assumptions that come from believing what the Bible says. For example:

  " 3 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, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

When you see things like the things you quoted, where people have to do something in order to be saved, I think you are missing the point. If salvation, is dependent on looking to a snake, or smearing blood on a post, then it is works based, depending on man's actions, not on Gods grace. It is not that by doing things, that people are saved, it is that the saved, will do things. Those who God has chosen, from the foundation of the world, will respond, because it is God, who opens their eyes and ears, changes their hearts from stone to flesh, and gives them faith to believe. Otherwise, they remain in the class of people, Paul describes in the first paragraph of Roman 8.

I know that I am foolish for actually believing the Bible, maybe I am not as smart as you, but I think it might actually mean what it says!  I almost agree with that chosen group statement though, depending on what you mean by it. To explain, no, God did not choose all who where the descendants of Jacob, to inherit eternal life (for example) - there is no group that is pre-chosen. However, if one believes passages like the one above, then one believes that God chose and predestined individuals, to be adopted and His children, and He did that before the foundation of the world, before anyone could look to Christ for salvation. These people are not a group that was chosen, but all of the individuals that He chose, comprise the 'group' that will inherit eternal life.

This is NOT rocket science brothers, it is just scripture. Some can accept it, some cannot. Fortunately, you do not have to believe in election, to be elected. I do not recommend however, that you get your doctrine from types, and make you interpretation of types more authoritative the the clear language of literal revelation.