A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[justbyfaith]

You don't understand there is a force CAUSING you to repent and believe.

The Antichrist, according to scripture, will honour a "god of forces".

That is not my God.

My God, as being the Holy Ghost, is all about liberty / freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17).

How do any of you deal with that verse?

 

[justbyfaith]

Good explanation of the word "ALL" from Reformed point of view with one slight change needed. We don't claim we know whether or not the word ALL in many verses means "without exception" or "without distinction" if we look at its use in a particular verse. Rather, we state that one should go to other verses for clarity with the understanding that God doesn't contradict Himself ... one can also use logic or empirical evidence as proof.

I would say to this that if the word "all" is without distinction in one or more passages, it does not mean that "all" is not without exception in other passages.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is what's happening; you're setting the table...

No; I was actually asking the Calvinists who are present to set the table.

 

[justbyfaith]

I used the 'Setting the Table ' Analogy on him, to show him he's 'Leading the Witness'.

I was simply asking the Calvinists present to state what they believe; because I was told before that I was misrepresenting them and presenting "straw man" arguments left and right.

So, I figured that in this thread, it might be prudent to establish what the Calvinists present do believe before we enter into refuting their statements.

 

[ReverendRV]

I was simply asking the Calvinists present to state what they believe; because I was told before that I was misrepresenting them and presenting "straw man" arguments left and right.

So, I figured that in this thread, it might be prudent to establish what the Calvinists present do believe before we enter into refuting their statements.

Calvinists believe what the Bible says; whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord will be Saved. No restrictions...

 

[justbyfaith]

Can the hand of the one who uses the hammer, hammer in the nails without the hammer?

seeing that the hand is made of flesh, does it not need the metal of the hammer in order to accomplish the purpose of hammering in the nails?

 

[justbyfaith]

Calvinists believe what the Bible says; whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord will be Saved. No restrictions...

Then I have no problem with Calvinism.

However, some Calvinists, even in some of these threads, have preached otherwise.

One person said that God hated Esau and therefore he would have been rejected even if he had received Christ.

 

[ReverendRV]

Then I have no problem with Calvinism.

However, some Calvinists, even in some of these threads, have preached otherwise.

One person said that God hated Esau and therefore he would have been rejected even if he had received Christ.

God rejects no one who receives Christ...

I'm glad you don't have a problem with Calvinism...

 

[justbyfaith]

God rejects no one who receives Christ...

I'm glad you don't have a problem with Calvinism...

I only have a problem with it as certain Calvinists preach it.

Perhaps that is one of its main problems...that those who believe in it do not easily understand its true teaching;

And also, that it needs to be clarified lest it be misunderstood.

Such as concerning John 6:37.

In that those who believe in Calvinism may misunderstand its teaching as saying that if someone comes to Christ but is not of the elect, they will be rejected.

Such as the idea that God hated Esau and therefore would have been rejected by God even if he had come to Christ.

 

[ReverendRV]

I only have a problem with it as certain Calvinists preach it.

Perhaps that is one of its main problems...that those who believe in it do not easily understand its true teaching;

And also, that it needs to be clarified lest it be misunderstood.

Such as concerning John 6:37.

In that those who believe in Calvinism may misunderstand its teaching as saying that if someone comes to Christ but is not of the elect, they will be rejected.

Such as the idea that God hated Esau and therefore would have been rejected by God even if he had come to Christ.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

[fastfredy0]

Can the hand of the one who uses the hammer, hammer in the nails without the hammer?

Yes, in the analogy I stated.

 

[atpollard]

By denying Irresistible Grace as a doctrine that is unsound.

The questions were part of a set. Rejecting Irresistible Grace, while a valid hypothesis, does nothing to resolve the innate conflict between an ineffective propitiation that turns aside no wrath, and an effective propitiation that turns aside all wrath … one saves NO ONE and the other saves EVERYONE. So the questions about the meaning and application of “propitiation” must still be answered before one can meaningfully address “Universalism” as a conclusion of 1 John 2:2. So to repeat the questions:

1 John 2:1-2 [NASB]
"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."

• How will we properly exegete this passage:
• What does it mean that Jesus is the "propitiation"? What [EXACTLY] did that propitiation accomplish?
• What does that [His propitiation] mean for "My little children"?
• What does that [His propitiation] mean for "the whole world"?
• How will you avoid "Universalism"? [which scripture clearly denies]
• Why is the OVERALL SUBJECT "Saints that sin having an advocate" rather than "soteriology"?

Do we have the tail wagging the dog by making the clause at the end the driving subject of the paragraph?

 

[fastfredy0]

The Antichrist, according to scripture, will honour a "god of forces".

That is not my God.

I don't see the relevance.

My God, as being the Holy Ghost, is all about liberty / freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17).

How do any of you deal with that verse?

You keep dealing with effects when the crux of the matter is ... what is the First Cause.
In this case the Lord has blinded the people to His word in previous verses and when a person turns to the Lord he has understanding. The verses don't tell you the cause of why people are blind to the word or why some people turn to the Lord. Again, the crux of the matter is WHY DO PEOPLE TURN TO GOD ... WHAT IS THE FIRST CAUSE???? John 1:12-13 addresses why people turn to God; why don't you exegete that or at least quote a verse that deal with FIRST CAUSE.
.... the Law of Causality is that every effect has a cause. See that we are not eternal we know everything we do is an effect.

I would say to this that if the word "all" is without distinction in one or more passages, it does not mean that "all" is not without exception in other passages.

Agreed. That's why one uses explicit verses to determine the meaning of implicit verses. Every verse using the word ALL (or every or everyone) is implicit and requires other verses or logic in some cases to determine the meaning.

seeing that the hand is made of flesh, does it not need the metal of the hammer in order to accomplish the purpose of hammering in the nails?

The hammer and nails story was an analogy for illustration purposes and not to be taken for literal application. The point was to show that even though the hammer is doing work; yet the hammer is not the first cause. When you believe you are doing something to be saved; yet it is God that caused you to believe and God who is the First Cause.
Premise 1: John 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.”
Premise 2: We are not saved by works (lots of verses for that
Conclusion: Since we are not saved by our works, since believing is a work, since God is the cause of our believing .... therefore Free Willyism is a farce, God chooses whom He will save and no one can save themselves via self-determination.

 

[atpollard]

if someone comes to Christ but is not of the elect

Therein lies the problem. You posit a “what if” that cannot exist. What if an unmarried man takes a wife, gets married and becomes a husband but remains a bachelor? Such a thing as a Married Bachelor cannot exist. In the same way, someone cannot “come to Christ” and not be “of the elect” … the situation cannot exist: "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.” - John 10:26 [NKJV]

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, in the analogy I stated.

You would damage your fleshly hand on the nail.

 

[justbyfaith]

The questions were part of a set. Rejecting Irresistible Grace, while a valid hypothesis, does nothing to resolve the innate conflict between an ineffective propitiation that turns aside no wrath, and an effective propitiation that turns aside all wrath … one saves NO ONE and the other saves EVERYONE. So the questions about the meaning and application of “propitiation” must still be answered before one can meaningfully address “Universalism” as a conclusion of 1 John 2:2. So to repeat the questions:

1 John 2:1-2 [NASB]
"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."

• How will we properly exegete this passage:
• What does it mean that Jesus is the "propitiation"? What [EXACTLY] did that propitiation accomplish?
• What does that [His propitiation] mean for "My little children"?
• What does that [His propitiation] mean for "the whole world"?
• How will you avoid "Universalism"? [which scripture clearly denies]
• Why is the OVERALL SUBJECT "Saints that sin having an advocate" rather than "soteriology"?

Do we have the tail wagging the dog by making the clause at the end the driving subject of the paragraph?

The reality is that the propitiation is available to everyone; but not everyone avails themselves of the provision of the Cross.

In order for the propitiation to apply to you, you must receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour from sin.

But it is available to everyone.

 

[justbyfaith]

Again, the crux of the matter is WHY DO PEOPLE TURN TO GOD ... WHAT IS THE FIRST CAUSE???? John 1:12-13 addresses why people turn to God; why don't you exegete that or at least quote a verse that deal with FIRST CAUSE.

As I have mentioned in my doctrine, people turn to God because the Holy Spirit draws them; and then the choice to either receive or reject Christ is theirs.

So, it can be said that God is the first cause and that they / their choices are the second cause.

 

[justbyfaith]

Since we are not saved by our works, since believing is a work, since God is the cause of our believing .... therefore Free Willyism is a farce,

You are attempting to say that we are not saved by grace through faith when you identify faith as being a work; and that is not scriptural.

The meaning of John 5:28-29...if you are going to insist that you are saved by works....simple faith in Jesus is the only work that can save you.

It is not intended to give the teaching that we are not saved through faith. That turns Ephesians 2:8-9 in on itself and makes it self-contradictory.

 

[justbyfaith]

Therein lies the problem. You posit a “what if” that cannot exist. What if an unmarried man takes a wife, gets married and becomes a husband but remains a bachelor? Such a thing as a Married Bachelor cannot exist. In the same way, someone cannot “come to Christ” and not be “of the elect” … the situation cannot exist: "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.” - John 10:26 [NKJV]

And therefore, if anyone comes to Christ, they are of the elect.

What is the point of contending that God is the first cause in this; and that we are not the second cause?

It seems to me, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that such a doctrine compromises God's righteousness and holiness.

Because if God is the first cause of everything, then He is the first cause of murder and rape and incest.

Why not just emphasize that if we come to Christ, we are of the elect; and leave it at that?

Is such a doctrine not more conducive to a person coming to Christ; rather than suggesting that the choice is entirely up to God and that therefore if I am not chosen by God I cannot come to Christ?

Because such a doctrine might lead someone to be fatalistic in their attitude towards receiving or rejecting Christ..."I'll just leave it up to God..." when all the time God is calling on them to make a decision to receive Christ!

 

[atpollard]

You would damage your fleshly hand on the nail.

Technically, in the analogy, we were the hammer and GOD was the hand that controlled the hammer ... God can drive a nail without a hammer: God could just SPEAK and the nail would drive itself. I suspect that Christ's glorified hand could drive a nail if God needed to drive a nail with his hand.