A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[Arial]

They were of Israel according to Hosea 1:10-11.

Paul applied that scripture to the new covenant.

 

[Arial]

Not talking to you anymore. I don't like your tone.

Sure. That's the reason.

 

[Arial]

There is nothing meritorious about a faith that is based in a sinful fear of the lake of fire (based in the instinct of self-preservation)...in having such a faith I have no reason to boast.

Fear of the lake of fire is not sinful. And isn't the faith that is needed a trust in the person and work of Jesus to have saved you from the lake of fire? Can you be saved by fear of something rather than belief in the Savior?

 

[Arial]

In context of what I am preaching, it is the ability to make a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

That is not the context in which it is written.

 

[Arial]

Yes...and the logical conclusion is that there is no need for any of us to evangelize...

a distinctly Calvinistic concept.

It is not a Calvinistic concept though. Far from it. The Calvinist knows it is their duty to evangelize since Jesus tells us to. And the reason we must do so is found in Romans 10:13-17 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, :How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith come from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

So the Calvinist looks at it as we preach Christ and Him crucified so that men hear. The faith and believing will come from God.

On the free will side is the element that it is our job to persuade people to believe, that it is up to us to save people and often the true gospel is compromised in order to make it appealing.

There is nothing logical about your conclusion.

 

[ReverendRV]

That is not what I asked you. I asked you if effectual grace---grace that does what God sends it to do---is a biblical teaching? Answer that question. You set a table, asked for input from Calvinists, and now you are just going to keep eating your own potatoes, and pay no attention to their offerings? You are not even going to address them? Where is the sincerity you implied?

Right on!

 

[His clay]

Let's establish here what is believed by Calvinists.

What does every Calvinist here have to say of the following proposition?

There is the concept when considering Calvinism that, "I may not be one of the elect; and therefore, if I am not, choosing Christ will not avail for me."

Pastor Chuck Smith put it this way: "If you choose Christ, you will find that you are of the elect."

An analogy has been given,

"Everyone at some point stands outside a door and written on the top is "whosoever will, let him come".

Those who enter in by that door will find a heavenly table with a place set specifically for them with a nametag with their name written on it at their place at the table. They look back at the door and it says, "Predestined from before the foundations of the world."

Accurate or inaccurate to Calvinistic teaching?

I would like to get a bunch of responses from different Calvinists on this one.

My response in another thread.

Regarding the second line, "It is the idea that one might do what it takes to obtain salvation and yet be cast away for that person is of the non-elect."

The above quote is a total straw man. If they are not of the elect, then by definition they are not going to "do what it takes to obtain salvation." The meaning of those not chosen are those who are not removed from their unbelief. Hence, they persist in their unbelief, reject the gospel, reject general revelation, and spurn the general grace from God. The idea of the non-elect truly believing is complete nonsense in Calvinism, and it would be a denial of total depravity. Hence, this is an extremely flagrant straw man fallacy. What is in the blue quote above is simply not Calvinism.

 

[His clay]

That is not what I asked you. I asked you if effectual grace---grace that does what God sends it to do---is a biblical teaching? Answer that question. You set a table, asked for input from Calvinists, and now you are just going to keep eating your own potatoes, and pay no attention to their offerings? You are not even going to address them? Where is the sincerity you implied?

Is this a common approach with the poster? I have had minimal interaction; and if this is the case, then I may have to reconsider my approach. I've generally been seeking to approach the poster in good faith. But if what you say is true, then we're only dealing with an opinionated troll. The ability to receive correction and learn is fundamental in any give and take dialogue.

 

[ReverendRV]

Is this a common approach with the poster? I have had minimal interaction; and if this is the case, then I may have to reconsider my approach. I've generally been seeking to approach the poster in good faith. But if what you say is true, then we're only dealing with an opinionated troll. The ability to receive correction and learn is fundamental in any give and take dialogue.

Oh, what I would give for a Poster who would truly have a real Debate. I've found that the other side just cannot win that Debate. I have Banned Posters for refusing to Debate...

He said elsewhere, he doesn't have a problem with Calvinism...

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/a-proposition-calvinistic-or-no.1196/post-44944

 

[atpollard]

God doesn't even need us

Does God NEED us?
Is God incapable of saving anyone without human aid?

 

[ReverendRV]

Does God NEED us?
Is God incapable of saving anyone without human aid?

Aseity...

 

[Josheb]

Let's establish here what is believed by Calvinists. What does every Calvinist here have to say of the following proposition?

There is the concept when considering Calvinism that, "I may not be one of the elect; and therefore, if I am not, choosing Christ will not avail for me."

Well..... first, I'd say that's not Calvinism and, second, I'd say it's a bit self-contradicting (or maybe unnecessarily redundant). Of course, not being one of the elect precludes choosing Christ! That is true just as much of Calvinism as it is of Arminianism. Furthermore, Calvinism doesn't start with election. That would be starting with the solution. Calvinism starts with the sovereignty of God. Calvinist soteriology starts with the problem to be solved: the universal sinfulness of humanity both individually and collectively. None are elect unless God acts to effect change in that condition, and the fact is Calvin taught the gospel is available to all men.

Pastor Chuck Smith put it this way: "If you choose Christ, you will find that you are of the elect."

An analogy has been given,

No, no analogy has been given because Chuck Smith is not someone who speaks for Calvinism or orthodox mainstream Christian soteriology. Smith was a Dispensationalist! He claimed to believe in orthodox soteriology, but his Dispensationalist ecclesiology and eschatology compromised orthodox soteriology. Because he believed Jews and Christians were two different people with two different purposes and two different means of coming to Christ he's disqualified to speak anything analogous to Calvinist soteriology.

Besides, his words aren't actually an analogy (there's no comparison) and if they were, it's a failed analogy.

"Everyone at some point stands outside a door and written on the top is "whosoever will, let him come".

Those who enter in by that door will find a heavenly table with a place set specifically for them with a nametag with their name written on it at their place at the table. They look back at the door and it says, "Predestined from before the foundations of the world."

Accurate or inaccurate to Calvinistic teaching?

Accurate in as much as it says but things that are incomplete also tend to be incorrect because of the incompleteness. We would not properly call an object with wings and a tail but no engine or flight instruments an "airplane."

What's missing are the causes and reasons how and why a person stands outside the door, sees the writing on the door top, understands them, and enters therein. Calvinists (and other monergists) will say all of that is caused by God and not the unregenerate nonbeliever's sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.

I would like to get a bunch of responses from different Calvinists on this one.

Ultimately, I think this is just one of a million ops on soteriology that misrepresent doctrine and, as a consequence, likely to end the same way most end: fruitlessly.


Why on earth would anyone appeal to Chuck Smith?

 

[justbyfaith]

Exactly how does it counter limited atonement? Give a detailed exegesis way of countering limited atonement. I will be waiting. It is not a valid argument to just make statements with nothing to back them up.

It is a valid argument; and while I can easily make it, I am not talking to you.

 

[justbyfaith]

Does God NEED us?
Is God incapable of saving anyone without human aid?

As a matter of fact He had to BECOME HUMAN in order to save us.

 

[ReverendRV]

As a matter of fact He had to BECOME HUMAN in order to save us.

That's the best argument against Aseity I've ever heard...

 

[justbyfaith]

Why on earth would anyone appeal to Chuck Smith?

There are many to this day who are part of the Calvary Chapel Movement and who hold him as an authority.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not the context in which it is written.

Neither is Matthew 2:15 quoted in the context of the verse that Matthew quoted it from (Hosea 11:1).

In Matthew 2:15, Jesus is the Son of God; while in the original passage, the son of God is Israel.

 

[justbyfaith]

It is not a Calvinistic concept though. Far from it. The Calvinist knows it is their duty to evangelize since Jesus tells us to. And the reason we must do so is found in Romans 10:13-17 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, :How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith come from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

So the Calvinist looks at it as we preach Christ and Him crucified so that men hear. The faith and believing will come from God.

On the free will side is the element that it is our job to persuade people to believe, that it is up to us to save people and often the true gospel is compromised in order to make it appealing.

There is nothing logical about your conclusion.

However, apparently in Calvinism, one is saved before they call on the name of the Lord; and therefore calling on the name of the Lord isn't really necessary.

 

[ReverendRV]

However, apparently in Calvinism, one is saved before they call on the name of the Lord; and therefore calling on the name of the Lord isn't really necessary.

Calvinists are Sola Fidests; we teach Justification through Faith Alone. You just said something about Calvinism which isn't true of Calvinism. Remember, you don't have a problem with Calvinism...

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not what I asked you. I asked you if effectual grace---grace that does what God sends it to do---is a biblical teaching? Answer that question. You set a table, asked for input from Calvinists, and now you are just going to keep eating your own potatoes, and pay no attention to their offerings? You are not even going to address them? Where is the sincerity you implied?

No; I asked the Calvinists here to set the table.

Effectual grace...what is that; and where is it implied in scripture?

I assume that you are contending that the grace of John 6:44 will not fail to bring a person kicking and screaming to Christ.

It has always been my contention that being drawn to Christ does not necessarily mean being given to Christ.