Reasons for not considering the claims of Christ.

[justbyfaith]

Namely, Calvinism...

For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;

And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved.

Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?

I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so).

It seems to me that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved.

Because if I do what it takes in order to be saved, God may in fact override that by His free will choice to condemn the righteous; since it is not based on my choice of receiving Him as my Lord and Saviour but on His free will decision to condemn me.

And if I don't do what it takes to be saved, God may in fact, also override that and save the rebel (without changing him from being a rebel)...so that the unrighteous person is justified and the righteous person is condemned.

I would say that the Bible does in fact teach, to a certain extent, merited favour...

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Pro 12:2, A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

 

[ReverendRV]

Namely, Calvinism...

For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;

And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved.

Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?

I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so).

It seems to me that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved.

Because if I do what it takes in order to be saved, God may in fact override that by His free will choice to condemn the righteous; since it is not based on my choice of receiving Him as my Lord and Saviour but on His free will decision to condemn me.

And if I don't do what it takes to be saved, God may in fact, also override that and save the rebel (without changing him from being a rebel)...so that the unrighteous person is justified and the righteous person is condemned.

I would say that the Bible does in fact teach, to a certain extent, merited favour...

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Pro 12:2, A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

Would you say Condemnation by the Law and Justification through the Gospel, doesn't care about Calvinism; thus there's no reason to not consider the claims of Christ?

Is there any good reason to reject Christ? For instance, someone using the excuse that they can't see God? Or, Christians used to own Slaves?

 

[Arial]

Namely, Calvinism...

For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;

And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved.

Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?

I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so).

It seems to me that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved.

Because if I do what it takes in order to be saved, God may in fact override that by His free will choice to condemn the righteous; since it is not based on my choice of receiving Him as my Lord and Saviour but on His free will decision to condemn me.

And if I don't do what it takes to be saved, God may in fact, also override that and save the rebel (without changing him from being a rebel)...so that the unrighteous person is justified and the righteous person is condemned.

I would say that the Bible does in fact teach, to a certain extent, merited favour...

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Pro 12:2, A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

Another post on the very same subject with the motive of coming against Calvinism, saying all the same things as the other 15 or so on the same subject and with the same motive, and every single one of them built on straw man arguments. Making all the same points that have been soundly refuted in all the other excess repetitive OP's by the same member, therein showing without a shadow of a doubt, there is no intention of learning or listening or so much as acknowledging anything of another poster, as though they were all as irrelevant dust, not deserving of respect, nothing but a annoyance in the way of his intentions.

Would anyone else recognize this behavior as being a troll?

 

[His clay]

Namely, Calvinism...

For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;

And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved.

Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?

I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so).

It seems to me that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved.

Because if I do what it takes in order to be saved, God may in fact override that by His free will choice to condemn the righteous; since it is not based on my choice of receiving Him as my Lord and Saviour but on His free will decision to condemn me.

And if I don't do what it takes to be saved, God may in fact, also override that and save the rebel (without changing him from being a rebel)...so that the unrighteous person is justified and the righteous person is condemned.

I would say that the Bible does in fact teach, to a certain extent, merited favour...

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Pro 12:2, A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

"For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;" Praise the Lord for His amazing, invincible grace bestowed upon the unworthy! I am so thankful that libertarian freedom is false because if salvation ultimately depended upon me, then I would probably be in hell, or I would be so prone to have faith in my own will so as to pervert salvation itself. However, since God is God over those He has chosen to redeem (Eph 1:4), we can look in faith to His power and His strength. I am so thankful that God is perfectly able to accomplish what He has set out to do! Praise the Lord!

"And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved." And the non-elect will make a many choices in keeping with their corrupt natures, and they will be held accountable for them. The fact that they never wanted to believe is again another item under which they will be held accountable. By definition, depraved people deserve the wrath of God, and they do not deserve God's undeserved favor.

"Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?" As stated, the sentence quoted in blue is an example of a straw man fallacy. The fallacy is when you reduce, distort, and/or fail to accurately portray another position. When the position is thus distorted, it makes it much easier to argue against it. What exactly is distorted? The problematic portrayal concerns the word "entirely." There is a world of difference between "ultimately" and "entirely." I fully admit that God makes the ultimate choice, but then that leaves a plethora of other non-ultimate choices from human beings. When the word "entirely" is used, it conveys the idea that only one choice is made. The idea that only one choice is made (God's) is not representative of Calvinism. Because of God's choice (note again God's own word that says "God chose us" Eph 1:4) people then make many choices. It is a both/and in Calvinism, where you have both God's choice and man's choice. However, God's choice is ultimate, and man's choice is secondary/dependent upon God's choice. The portrayal of an either/or scenario presupposes that libertarian freedom is true, but libertarian freedom is false. Thus the typical dichotomy is false as well.

"I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so)." Blatantly obvious straw man of Calvinism, for Calvinism holds that God both ordains the end as well as the means. Thus, if God has chosen to save a person (the end), then God powerfully works (the means) in that person to make choices that will produce the desired result/end. Therefore, if you have chosen to sit on your laurels, then you are actually demonstrating your choice to be non-elect, and you are demonstrating a self-love (selfishness) motivating inactivity, when a person whom God is working in has seen their sin and the amazing grace of God, and thusly the person is motivated to act on the basis of God's prior love. God's love is so amazing in Calvinism. I'm glad that it isn't as limited and truncated, as the Arminian view, to the pathetic choices of His creatures.

Unfortunately, the opening poster has failed to understand the most rudimentary basics of what Calvinism is, thus invalidating his competence and credibility. I say this because I've already demonstrated the above blue quote to be false in a different thread. The poster ought to know better. But rather, the poster has chosen to keep a false distortion of Calvinism in spite of knowing otherwise. This is called lying.

"It seems to me that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved." Again, a rather basic straw man. Those who God graciously works in and brings to salvation are those who believe and trust in God's great work of salvation. Again, the opening post fails to understand the basic reality of Calvinism. God ordains the means as well as the end. And it spite of knowing better, the post has deliberately chosen to distort Calvism. A delibertate action of committing the straw man fallacy is a lie. Lying is sin. I hope the opening poster repents of his sin.

Unfortunetely, when one states, "do what it takes in order to be saved," we are left with the impression that salvation is really about what a person does. This profoundly leaves the impression of self-salvation. Rather, a Christian realises that he is utterly at a loss with respect to saving himself. He/she knows deeply that he is a sinner. He brings nothing before God, but rather looks in faith to Christ and His work on the cross. Faith is the self-forgetful dependent gaze of the sinner to the only One who can save him. Faith does not look to self for salvation, but rather faith looks completely to God for His undeserved mercy and favor. The quote is in extreme danger of distorting the very nature of salvation itself. Certainly, our actions are necessary (conversion), but they are couched in the context of dependence upon God and hopelessness in self.

At this point, this post is getting long. And the opening post has demonstrated to be profoundly incompetent and deliberately deceitful. I hope that the opening poster repents of his sin to God and the sin against brothers and sisters in Christ who he has deliberately lied about.

 

[His clay]

Another post on the very same subject with the motive of coming against Calvinism, saying all the same things as the other 15 or so on the same subject and with the same motive, and every single one of them built on straw man arguments. Making all the same points that have been soundly refuted in all the other excess repetitive OP's by the same member, therein showing without a shadow of a doubt, there is no intention of learning or listening or so much as acknowledging anything of another poster, as though they were all as irrelevant dust, not deserving of respect, nothing but a annoyance in the way of his intentions.

Would anyone else recognize this behavior as being a troll?

Definitely a troll, and in post #4 I explained the issues in more detail. I suggest the more biblical path and call such behavior sin. Intentional distortion and misrepresentation is lying. Failing to listen to the basics is a failure to follow James 1 which tells us to be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath. This failure to listen on the part of the opening poster is sin, since it is a direct violation of James 1.

 

[ReverendRV]

Definitely a troll, and in post #4 I explained the issues in more detail. I suggest the more biblical path and call such behavior sin. Intentional distortion and misrepresentation is lying. Failing to listen to the basics is a failure to follow James 1 which tells us to be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath. This failure to listen on the part of the opening poster is sin, since it is a direct violation of James 1.

Oh what I would give, for someone who really wants to talk...

 

[Arial]

Oh what I would give, for someone who really wants to talk...

That won't happen with trolls.

 

[justbyfaith]

Another post on the very same subject with the motive of coming against Calvinism, saying all the same things as the other 15 or so on the same subject and with the same motive, and every single one of them built on straw man arguments. Making all the same points that have been soundly refuted in all the other excess repetitive OP's by the same member, therein showing without a shadow of a doubt, there is no intention of learning or listening or so much as acknowledging anything of another poster, as though they were all as irrelevant dust, not deserving of respect, nothing but a annoyance in the way of his intentions.

Would anyone else recognize this behavior as being a troll?

I will only say that I am open to what any of you might have to say in refutation of my postings and that if I am given a valid reason to change my mind, I have changed my mind in the past and can do so again.

But you are going to have to come up with a precise refutation out of holy scripture.

As such I will say that my attitude is as close as it can be to the following scripture.

Phl 2:3, Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Can it be accurately said of anyone who has this attitude that he has the attitude of a troll?

 

[justbyfaith]

Unfortunetely, when one states, "do what it takes in order to be saved," we are left with the impression that salvation is really about what a person does. This profoundly leaves the impression of self-salvation. Rather, a Christian realises that he is utterly at a loss with respect to saving himself. He/she knows deeply that he is a sinner. He brings nothing before God, but rather looks in faith to Christ and His work on the cross. Faith is the self-forgetful dependent gaze of the sinner to the only One who can save him. Faith does not look to self for salvation, but rather faith looks completely to God for His undeserved mercy and favor. The quote is in extreme danger of distorting the very nature of salvation itself. Certainly, our actions are necessary (conversion), but they are couched in the context of dependence upon God and hopelessness in self.

Can it be said that the one who looks to Christ in such a manner is unequivocally saved? "Ask, and it will be given to you."

 

[justbyfaith]

and the sin against brothers and sisters in Christ who he has deliberately lied about.

Which one of you have I ever lied about (kindly use the quote feature)?

 

[justbyfaith]

Rev 12:10, And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11, And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

 

[justbyfaith]

Which one of you have I ever lied about (kindly use the quote feature)?

Are you not the one who has lied about me, in saying that I have lied about you?

 

[Arial]

I will only say that I am open to what any of you might have to say in refutation of my postings and that if I am given a valid reason to change my mind, I have changed my mind in the past and can do so again.

But you are going to have to come up with a precise refutation out of holy scripture.

As such I will say that my attitude is as close as it can be to the following scripture.

Phl 2:3, Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Can it be accurately said of anyone who has this attitude that he has the attitude of a troll?

 

[justbyfaith]

This is certainly not trollish behaviour.

 

[Arial]

This is certainly not trollish behaviour.

Correct. It isn't.

 

[justbyfaith]

Correct. It isn't.

It isn't.

.

 

[His clay]

Can it be said that the one who looks to Christ in such a manner is unequivocally saved? "Ask, and it will be given to you."

There is a reason why Paul presented a rather beefy section dealing with human depravity (Rom 1:18-3:20). It establishes human dependence upon God's grace, human sinfulness and inability, human accountability before God for sins committed and knowledge spurned. It is only then, after the universal stoppage of every mouth before God (Romans 3:19-20), that we then see Christ's sacrifice and the importance of faith. As such, my comment stands, when the Bible presents human action, it is presented in such a way that couches the action in terms of utter dependence upon God.

Without the utterly essential aspect of utter human disparity and dependence upon God, then the sinfulness of man can even pervert the very nature of faith itself. One of the most potentially damning aspects of libertarian freedom is its insistence upon human ability, and that is precisely where it is most concerning. If one views the human will in terms of ability, the essential aspect of empty-handed faith is lost. Then, the very idea of "faith," "human action," and "asking" are then perversions of the gospel itself. This is a damning equivocation; I say this because it will send one to hell; for the very essential nature of faith has been compromised. The words are used, but the meaning is lost, and in so doing the gospel is lost as well.

The above represents my greatest concern for you. All of the other problematic elements of justbyfaith's posts can be ignored against the most significant perversion of all. Beware failing to properly realize the true nature of faith and the gospel!

 

[His clay]

Which one of you have I ever lied about (kindly use the quote feature)?

As Arial said already.

You need to stop asking people to do what they have already done, over and over and over, and then saying that they haven't done so.

Apparently, justbyfaith failed to read the very post he was responding to. Reread post #4.

 

[Josh II]

Namely, Calvinism...

For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;

That is backwards. If you, me, fred, ethel, bert, or ernie are of the elect then we will be saved, and it is impossible for us not to become saved.

And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved.

Again, that is backwards. If a person is of the elect, if that person has been selected, or chosen by God for salvation then that person will be saved and it is not possible s/he will not be saved.

Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?

Your choice does not exist nor occur exclusive to God. Not only have you got election backwards, you're also arguing a false dichotomy by pitting human choice against God's choice. It is God who works in us to will and work for His good pleasure. God's choice and your choice will not work mutually exclusive to one another if God has in fact chosen you specifically for salvation.

I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so).

It seems to me...

And everyone continues to tell you what "seems" to you is incorrect but you persist in thinking and believing as you choose. It is enormously ironic.

that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved.

Again, that is completely backwards.

I would say that the Bible does in fact teach, to a certain extent, merited favour...

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Pro 12:2, A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

LOL! Neither of those to verses were written to or about any person who did not believe in the name of God's one and only Son. The 1 Peter verse is explicitly stated to pertain "over the righteous," not "over the godless sinner who denies his need for salvation." You would have 1 Peter 3:12 say, "For the eyes of the Lord are over the sinful atheists, and his ears are open to their non-existent prayers: but the Lord is not against them that do evil," but that is not what the verse states or means. You would have Proverbs 12:2 say the will of the man of wicked devices will not be condemned.

 

[justbyfaith]

I believe that I can trust in the promises of God.

So that, when scripture says, "Ask, and it shall be given unto you",

I can be confident that if I ask the Lord for salvation He will do His part (see Romans 10:13).

His promise is what makes my faith valid...

In fulfilling the condition of any promise in holy scripture, I can therefore obtain the promise. (such as in Acts 2:38-39).

Here, it becomes clear that, having been baptized in Jesus' Name, I therefore "have an unction from the Holy One" and do "know all things".