The powerless gospel of Calvinism

[Qnts2]

16 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I had to look that one up, and if I understand if correctly, no, I am not one of those, lol.

Ok, sorry about using that term.

Supralapsarian is one views of the order of decrees that God made.

Supralapsarians believe that before creation, God decreed the following:

1 God would save some and reprobate others.

2 God would create the elect and the reprobate.

3 God authorized the fall.

4 God would provide salvation for the elect.

Supralapsarians view God as decreeing that He chose the elect and actively reprobated the non-elect. Another term for this is double predestination.

The other standard Calvinist view would be that God chose the elect, passed over the rest.

 

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 hours ago, enoob57 said:

ll areas of explaining foreknowledge in their dialogue is from man reasoning and not thus saith The Lord ( ! )
As I listened to this it was quite evident to me they had in their own reason bridged gaps with their own reason...
Yet God has said choose - this would be misleading- if this were not possible by God's already chosen. You have,
as all Calvinist, placed misdirection in the simple, plain meaning of Scripture with other! A violation of the very
first hermeneutical principle of the science of interpretation- if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense...
Love, Steven

Sorry Steven, but I cannot even make sense of most of what you are trying to explain, although I do understand the last sentence. If that first principle is consistently applied, I would expect we might have to put some well established doctrines on the shelf. There is another rule in exegesis and hermaneutics, stemming from a presumption of an inerrant scripture. It two interpretations contradict each other, one of both of them are in error. That one, is why I have had to toss out the pre-trib rapture (that and a lack of scriptural support in the first place) and Arminianism. Too many contradictions.

The plains sense rule itself, makes plain sense, only if it can be succesfully applied to scripture as a whole - another pesky rule - compare scripture with scripture. I find it nearly humorous, that you seek to discredit Calvinism, by assigning it to the category of man's reasoning, and not 'thus saith the Lord', and yet, you appeal to man's reasoning (Hermaneutics), to get your rules of interpretation. For what it is worth, I look first to exegesis for understanding, what does the text say, not so much so hermaneutics, what do we suppose the text means. I do not think we differ too much there, since your first rule of hermaneutics (so you say) appeals to exegesis. When your hemaneutic violates its own first rule, you have gone into the realm of private interpretation, 'What it means to me!'

Sorry, I just have to disagree with your understanding, and not trying to demean you in any way, but I find the understandings of the reformers on soteriology and eschatology, far superior to the understandings you attemp to persuade others of.

Thanks for your comments.

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 hours ago, Ezra said:

Here is how someone simply believes, and it is God who reveals this to us, so that should settle the matter:

Well, that is all I do, all I can do. To me, it seems as though you are saying, "Simply believe what I tell you that God means when He says something". I already believe what I understand God to be saying Ezra, you seem to want me to believe your interpretations, as though they are God's word. I would rather have God's word speak for itself, that I can simply believe. He is trustworthy, you and I are not. If I have to choose between what I believe God is saying, what I believe you believe God is saying, I have to go with the primary source, God, not the secondary source, you. Would you have me do otherwise?

[Willa]

On 10/31/2015 at 0:26 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

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.

Your post also stated that you don't believe in irrisistable grace.  There are many verses that tell of Israel always resisting God, including the words of Jesus as He mourned over Jeruselem and of Stephen as he was stoned.  

Another point that both Luther and Calvin would hang onto is that infant baptism is the means of grace to have faith.  I believe that parents dedication of themselves as well  to raise a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord, to learn to love and serve Him, is a more appropriate anwer.  Nor do I believe that confirmation does anything without the person truly understanding and meaning the words.  Without faith/to believe, it is impossible to please God, and faith is to rely on, cling to, and adhere to.  This is an active belief, not static head knowledge, if the words they were taught didn't go in one ear and out the other.  (The latter was my husband's case. That Holy Spirit did not enlighten him.  He was saved some 20 years afterwards.)

Luther wanted his church to be called evangelical to indicaate that he taught salvation is available to all, and all are called.  But few are chosen.  God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble of spirit.  And it is the proud that resist the call and knowledge of God.  They are the wayside or the hard, rocky, soil.  

Luke 8:12  Those by the wayside are the ones who hear, then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.

Calvin was a very good theologin who went beyond the word with his reasoning.  I dare not do that.  Still he had much to offer.  Luther chose to stay within the confines of God's word which he chose to interpret literally.  There were problems here too, because both he and calvin did not depart from Augustine's replacement theology.  They did not go far enough in their reform, and the adherants today still cling to their own traditions in this area rather than God's word. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Qnts2 said:

Ok, sorry about using that term.

Supralapsarian is one views of the order of decrees that God made.

Supralapsarians believe that before creation, God decreed the following:

1 God would save some and reprobate others.

2 God would create the elect and the reprobate.

3 God authorized the fall.

4 God would provide salvation for the elect.

Supralapsarians view God as decreeing that He chose the elect and actively reprobated the non-elect. Another term for this is double predestination.

The other standard Calvinist view would be that God chose the elect, passed over the rest.

 

 

Oh, that is okay, I have probably heard the term before and just forgot it. When I tried to sound it out, it seemed  more familiar. It is good to have terms,  fields have them, science, law, medicine, etc. and they are good to use. I often  forget myself that there are some people on the forums, who know  even less than I do, and I fail to be considerate of them, by following the wise intructions of Donald Barnhouse:

Get the hay down out of the loft, were the cows can get to it. Thanks.

My form of 'Calvinism' is pretty simple, so far.

1 God chose some to salvation in eternity, before anything was. Call that election, predestination, or what ever you want.

2 Some people are will go to Hell.

3 Therefore, God did not chose everyone to salvation.

As I see it, points 1 and 2 are not rationally deniable to one who reads scripture, takes it at it's word. Point 3 three follows from points 1 and 2. I do not like it, but that is what I see in scripture, and unless I come to doubt the reliability of scripture, I do not see myself changing that view.

[Ezra]

32 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

To me, it seems as though you are saying, "Simply believe what I tell you that God means when He says something".

Really?  You have God's Word presented to you, but now you are trying to find a way out of believing what is plainly stated.  I did not even provide an exposition or explanation or interpretation but you are telling me that it is "what I tell you".  

Well this is the real problem with Calvinists. When confronted with the plain Word of God, and baffled by its direct refutation of their beliefs, they try to find a way out, instead of simply believing what is plainly written in Scripture. Which would mean rejecting Calvinism.

[Willa]

1 Tim 2:4  Who desires ALL men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Tim 4:10b because we trust in the Living God, who is savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

2 Peter 3:9b  but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men.

Ro 5:18b  NKJV  even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL men, resulting in justification of life.

 

Nowhere does it read chosen.  All is all.  It does say in Ephesians 1 that those who are IN CHRIST reap the blessings enumerated.  And to be IN HIM we must be born again.  So then He is in us and we are in Him.  

1Peter 1:2 NKJV Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (in sanctification of the Spirit) FOR OBEDIENCE and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that all believers are chosen.  But not all people are chosen.  All people are invited, drawn by Gods Spirit and grace, which can be resisted.  Those who resist to the end will harden their own hearts to perdition.  Those who are chosen are the humble in spirit who acknowlege their sin and need of a Savior.  Repentance of heart.    

Of the 10 lepers that Jesus healed,  the 9 go happily on their way while one comes back and falls before Jesus in worship and thanksgiving.  He was made whole.  Perhaps it is those who come back to thank and worship God and who fully surrender to Him, maybe these are the ones who are chosen for sanctification and obedience.  I don't know or fully understand.  But godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation.  It is the work of the Holy Spirit that I call the Holy Ghost miserables---when we know we are lost and have no hope because we can't obey at all, much less perfectly.  We need a Savior.  

For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, Whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another.  How my heart yearns within me!  Job 25-27 NKJV   

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 minutes ago, Willa said:

Your post also stated that you don't believe in irrisistable grace.  There are many verses that tell of Israel always resisting God, including the words of Jesus as He mourned over Jeruselem and of Stephen as he was stoned.  

Another point that both Luther and Calvin would hang onto is that infant baptism is the means of grace to have faith.  I believe that parents dedication of themselves as well  to raise a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord, to learn to love and serve Him, is a more appropriate anwer.  Nor do I believe that confirmation does anything without the person truly understanding and meaning the words.  Without faith/to believe, it is impossible to please God, and faith is to rely on, cling to, and adhere to.  This is an active belief, not static head knowledge, if the words they were taught didn't go in one ear and out the other.  (The latter was my husband's case. That Holy Spirit did not enlighten him.  He was saved some 20 years afterwards.)

Luther wanted his church to be called evangelical to indicaate that he taught salvation is available to all, and all are called.  But few are chosen.  God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble of spirit.  And it is the proud that resist the call and knowledge of God.  They are the wayside or the hard, rocky, soil.  

Luke 8:12  Those by the wayside are the ones who hear, then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED.

Calvin was a very good theologin who went beyond the word with his reasoning.  I dare not do that.  Still he had much to offer.  Luther chose to stay within the confines of God's word which he chose to interpret literally.  There were problems here too, because both he and calvin did not depart from Augustine's replacement theology.  They did not go far enough in their reform, and the adherants today still cling to their own traditions in this area rather than God's word. 

Willa,

I posted that I do not believe in irresistible grace? I do not recall stating that. However your examples of resistance, would not refute that idea anyway. If a person, or a race or other group does not respond to God, that would only indicate that they we not part of God's election to salvation. But, if I can state what I would mean by irresistable grace, if I ever used such terminology, it would be to say, that God chooses some to salvation, and those he chooses will come to faith. If that is irresistable grace, then yes, I guess I believe that. Will expand on that further, mostly by just citing John 10, which speaks for itself.

Forgive me, if my ideas are poorly expressed, communicated or I use clumsy terminology. I am a relative newcomer to this.

I would not agree with Calvin and Luther hanging onto vestiges from the Catholic church on things like infant baptism, remember, these reformers are at the beginning of the reformation movement, fine tuning was, and may still be, in order.

Regarding the evangelical aspect,  evangelism is the job of the church. That is what we are called to do, that is our marching order from Jesus. "To every creature". Why every creature? Because we do not know who the elect are, only God does. For His own reasons, he ordained us to 'tell them all'

Luther, for his part, evangelized Jews (or attempted to), and eventually gave up on them because he saw it as fruitless. That was an error on His part. As flawed humans, these men made mistakes, just as you and I continue to do, though we may be blind to them.

Regarding those, whether Jews or Gentiles, who reject, Jesus had a  simple reason for that:

 John 10:26 “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; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

Having just typed that passage, I am going to digress a bit. There have been those who suggest the foreknowledge is just knowing something ahead of time, and suggest that since the bible does not really define the term, that I am adding to scripture if I see more to the concept than that. So, I am going to do a little exercise, make some bad paraphrases of scripture, to see how well they work.

Begin Sidetrack ********************************************

In the Arminian Bible (my imaginary invention) we have:

Gen 4:25 And Adam became aware of (knew) his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth

In the Calvinist Bible we have:

And Adam was intimate with (knew) his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth

Gen 1:25

AB Joseph forgot who Mary was (knew her not) till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

CB Joseph was non intimate with Mary (knew her not) till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Gen 19:5 

AB And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may get acquainted with (know) them.

CB And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may become way too familiar with (know) them.

Okay, we can see from the above, that knowledge can be a lot more that intellectual awareness of someone. This way of equating knowledge with intimate relationship, was known to Jesus and to the writers of the New Testament.

Hold onto that thought.

Now, look again at the passage quoted earlier from the gospel John, only we will do it in the AB and CB paraphrases:

AB “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I am aware of their existence (know) them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I (have a relationship with (know) them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

There is a big difference between knowing of someone, and knowing them. Jesus knows His sheep, and they listen to him, and follow Him. He knows of everyone, but only those he knows, those He knew (relational) are the elect, they others will not follow, because they are not His sheep. Is this not making sense?

Matt 7:23

AB Then I will tell them plainly, 'I was never aware of (knew) you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.'

CB Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never had a relationship with (knew) you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Now clearly, if foreknowledge meant to know something or someone  ahead  of time, and all that were foreknown were to be saved, then all would be saved, or else Jesus was not omniscient. Notice also, that Jesus did not imply the He had no knowledge of how they would respond to the Gospel, he said that it was THEM, that he did not know, not the things they would do. Also, these people in that passage, actually seemed to have responded pretty well anyway, they were preforming miracles, casting out demons, doing all sorts of works in His name, yet Jesus never knew them. If he NEVER knew them, then He did not foreknow them. Certainly this implies more the just a casual knowledge, it portends some thing more, something deeper.

Rom 8:28

AB For those whom He was aware of (foreknew), He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren 

CB For those whom He had a relationship with (foreknew), He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

He was aware of all, but His relationship, was only with the elect.

End Sidetrack ****************************************************

In any case, I never have said that I agree with everything Calvin said, or Luther, in fact, the only men I can think of that I believe everything they say, are authors of scripture, and in that, I add Jesus of course, since I do not believe that the authors of scripture lied about Him.

This is one reason I do not like to call myself a Calvinist, I am not a Calvin follower, in fact in some ways I think he was a pretty creepy man. I prefer to discuss theology, doctrines, not personalities, but it seems as though those on the forums force you into lables, like to pigeonhole you. I attend a Baptist church, but I am not a Baptist (except that I do believe in the immersion of non-infant beleivers subsequent to coming to faith in Jesus) I am a Christian, just as I have been when attending other denominations. I do not get my theology from books, local congregations, websites, etc, I get it from the Bible. To steal a reformation battle-cry, sola scriptura! 

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

Really?  You have God's Word presented to you, but now you are trying to find a way out of believing what is plainly stated.  I did not even provide an exposition or explanation or interpretation but you are telling me that it is "what I tell you".  

Well this is the real problem with Calvinists. When confronted with the plain Word of God, and baffled by its direct refutation of their beliefs, they try to find a way out, instead of simply believing what is plainly written in Scripture. Which would mean rejecting Calvinism.

Hardly true Ezra, you frequently present your understandings of scripture with exposition and explanation. My comment was not limited to one specific post. It is you practice in general, to explain things, and often they are embellished with your interpretations and thoughts that are not just citation. This has been pointed out to you by myself on occasions, and by others as well, yet for some reason, you think this is a problem with Calvinists. You might want to discover the meaning of what it is for the pot to call the kettle black.

I just have to disagree with what you think. I do not as a Calvinist (if that is even really fair description of me) try to find a way out to avoid rejecting Calvinism. I hold to some tenets of Calvinism, as away to avoid rejecting scripture. It is also interesting to note, that you imply, that I am (as a Calvinist) am baffled by direct refutation of my beliefs. Truth is, that when someone comes along, and refutes my beliefs, I will just alter my belief. Feel free to baffle me any time you like, so far, you never have, and I will go out on a limb here and bet, that those on this forum would not describe my responses as 'being baffled', even if they agree with you in principle. I might be insulted, if your assertions were not laughable to me, so, let's get off of the near-personal attacks and stick with the topic. Accusing me of being baffled and evasive, does not make what you say to be true, it is not evidence of anything at all.

[angels4u]

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Oh, that is okay, I have probably heard the term before and just forgot it. When I tried to sound it out, it seemed  more familiar. It is good to have terms,  fields have them, science, law, medicine, etc. and they are good to use. I often  forget myself that there are some people on the forums, who know  even less than I do, and I fail to be considerate of them, by following the wise intructions of Donald Barnhouse:

Get the hay down out of the loft, were the cows can get to it. Thanks.

My form of 'Calvinism' is pretty simple, so far.

1 God chose some to salvation in eternity, before anything was. Call that election, predestination, or what ever you want.

2 Some people are will go to Hell.

3 Therefore, God did not chose everyone to salvation.

As I see it, points 1 and 2 are not rationally deniable to one who reads scripture, takes it at it's word. Point 3 three follows from points 1 and 2. I do not like it, but that is what I see in scripture, and unless I come to doubt the reliability of scripture, I do not see myself changing that view.

Mega ,you don't believe God called all to become saved? He gave us all a  free will to decide ,we can either reject Salvation or accept Salvation.

God knows what we will do with Jesus but He invites everybody...