The god of Calvinism's arbitrary decision.

[justbyfaith]

This is amazing. Are you suggesting that according to Calvinism they are not given an opportunity to become friends of God? The only way I see that can be misconstrued as true has nothing to do with Calvinism, but with the spread of the Gospel.

At every opportunity, every human rejects Christ, (even those who in a moment's passion thought they had accepted Christ, only later to have it revealed that they are fickle and still at enmity with God), —every human rejects Christ until the Spirit of God changes them from death to life, giving them faith in Christ.

And....? Does Calvinism say different?

I don't understand the statement. Can you elucidate? What do you mean by, If "being drawn is the same as being given..." ? and how is that Universalism?

Because all are drawn according to John 12:32.

Most Calvinists believe that being drawn is a guarantee of salvation; I contend that being drawn means that you have an opportunity to receive Christ; and that only when you actually receive Christ are you actually given to Christ. That a person can be drawn to Christ and yet not receive Christ. They have a choice in the matter at the juncture(s) that they are drawn to Christ.

 

[makesends]

I disagree that Calvinism teaches what scripture teaches. I believe that Calvinism is a distortion of what is taught by holy scripture; effectively another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

Can you present the Gospel and demonstrate how Calvinism differs from it?

 

[makesends]

Because all are drawn according to John 12:32.

Most Calvinists believe that being drawn is a guarantee of salvation; I contend that being drawn means that you have an opportunity to receive Christ; and that only when you actually receive Christ are you actually given to Christ. That a person can be drawn to Christ and yet not receive Christ. They have a choice in the matter at the juncture(s) that they are drawn to Christ.

Of course they have a choice! You may not realize it, but Calvinism doesn't disagree that the person is given a choice —specifically that one who has been given the gift of faith, will choose Christ, and those who have not, will reject Christ.

 

[makesends]

I disagree that Calvinism teaches what scripture teaches. I believe that Calvinism is a distortion of what is taught by holy scripture; effectively another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

Yet you believe much of it.

 

[Josheb]

And John 12:32 tells us....

So, you interpret it as....

I thought you wanted me to move on.

Therefore I suggest that you leave the arguing up to those Calvinists who do believe what I am trying to refute; as they have a vested interest in defending certain Calvinistic doctrines that I have been threatening here.

Which is it? Am I answering your questions or leaving the arguing to other Cals?


While you are at it, please address one of my earliest concerns: Is this op intended solely as a rag on Cals, or is there a genuine interest to learn Calvinist soteriology correctly?

 

[justbyfaith]

Can you present the Gospel and demonstrate how Calvinism differs from it?

Already did. Just read what I wrote concerning Romans 10:9-13.

 

[justbyfaith]

Of course they have a choice! You may not realize it, but Calvinism doesn't disagree that the person is given a choice —specifically that one who has been given the gift of faith, will choose Christ, and those who have not, will reject Christ.

Whether one has faith or not depends on the person and the circumstances of his or her life up to that point and how they respond to those circumstances. It is based on choice. God predestinates according to foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2).

 

[justbyfaith]

Yet you believe much of it.

I disagree with Calvinism where Romans 10:9-13 disagrees with Calvinism.

 

[justbyfaith]

I thought you wanted me to move on.

Which is it? Am I answering your questions or leaving the arguing to other Cals?


While you are at it, please address one of my earliest concerns: Is this op intended solely as a rag on Cals, or is there a genuine interest to learn Calvinist soteriology correctly?

It is not intended as a rag on those who hold the doctrine of Calvinism but as a rag on Calvinism itself.

You can answer my questions inasmuch as you are answering according to my refutations of what some Calvinists believe. If I am not refuting what you personally believe, then there is no need to argue for someone you disagree with anyway.

 

[makesends]

justbyfaith said:
Therefore I suggest that you leave the arguing up to those Calvinists who do believe what I am trying to refute; as they have a vested interest in defending certain Calvinistic doctrines that I have been threatening here.

Which is it? Am I answering your questions or leaving the arguing to other Cals?


While you are at it, please address one of my earliest concerns: Is this op intended solely as a rag on Cals, or is there a genuine interest to learn Calvinist soteriology correctly?

Wait a minute! I want to know which of my doctrines (since I am told I am a Calvinist) is being threatened. I was not aware of it, since @justbyfaith has said nothing more, and quite a bit less, against Calvinism, than many other posters.

 

[makesends]

It is not intended as a rag on those who hold the doctrine of Calvinism but as a rag on Calvinism itself.

You can answer my questions inasmuch as you are answering according to my refutations of what some Calvinists believe. If I am not refuting what you personally believe, then there is no need to argue for someone you disagree with anyway.

I think you can trust @Josheb to accurately represent Calvinism. It is you who do not.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said:
Therefore I suggest that you leave the arguing up to those Calvinists who do believe what I am trying to refute; as they have a vested interest in defending certain Calvinistic doctrines that I have been threatening here.

Wait a minute! I want to know which of my doctrines (since I am told I am a Calvinist) is being threatened. I was not aware of it, since @justbyfaith has said nothing more, and quite a bit less, against Calvinism, than many other posters.

Your idea of what Calvinism teaches may be different from what most Calvinists believe; and that is probably the reason why you do not believe I am refuting Calvinism. In this, what I am writing is not addressed to you, but to those who believe the things that I am refuting.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think you can trust @Josheb to accurately represent Calvinism. It is you who do not.

I trust that what I have heard taught by Calvinists is what Calvinists believe. I do not report anything about that, that I have not heard.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So, Calvinism is the gospel which saves.

Chuckle!!! "Calvinism" isn't a Gospel at all. It's only one man's ATTEMPT to codify God's word into a "cohesive system". it's "theology". nothing more.

It's totally WORTHLESS in terms of getting people saved - most of whom have no knowledge of it's existence, until "Bible teachers from that paradigm" start pumping it into them.

 

[justbyfaith]

Maybe my attempt in even talking to the lot of you might be to bring your understanding of Calvinism closer to what the Bible teaches.

If you still want to call it Calvinism after the changes have been made, I doubt that other Calvinists will agree that you even believe in Calvinism anymore.

 

[justbyfaith]

Of course they have a choice! You may not realize it, but Calvinism doesn't disagree that the person is given a choice —specifically that one who has been given the gift of faith, will choose Christ, and those who have not, will reject Christ.

So, we are saved by faith through grace...

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm wondering who taught @Bob Carabbio that!

I've gotten it from a couple of people on these boards, EXACTLY which ones I don't remember.

What I DO KNOW is that Calvinists take great EXCEPTION to "Election" being totally arbitrary (unconditional - "U"), and so invent "Work arounds". God just "arbitrarily" picking names out of a hat, and dumping them mindlessly into "Elect", and "Firewood" boxes just doesn't sit well.

So how DOES GOD select the "Elect", discarding everybody else in the process?? What's YOUR version???

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The reason is given besides that it is God's will. They are enemies of God. They rebel against God. They hate God. There is nothing in them worthy of God's mercy. Do you need more? —THEY will it.

So there's NOTHING UNCONDITIONAL about your version of "Election" - it's all "Merit based".

 

[atpollard]

So, God purposes to send certain people to hell?

Asked and answered in Romans 9.
If you will not accept the answer from the Apostle Paul, why would you believe me?

 

[atpollard]

Why, then, is Calvinsim by the name of Calvin?

The Lutheran State Church believed that later reformers had gone too far in rejecting Church Traditions (like the perpetual virginity of Mary) and gave the name “Calvinist” to the later Reformers as an insult suggesting that they were following the teaching of man rather than the Church. [Apparently, they were blind to the irony that the Reformers were treating the Lutheran errors just as Luther himself had treated the errors of Rome … by appealing to Scripture as the final authority.] Since the Lutheran Church had the backing of the German Government, the name “Calvinist” gained widespread use in publications and just sort of ‘stuck’.

The fact is that there were Reformed Theologians a hundred years before John Calvin was born … Calvin was just one of many people fighting to return to what SCRIPTURE actually taught.