The god of Calvinism's arbitrary decision.

[Arial]

They are condemned in Calvinism because they are of the non-elect.

No they are not. They are condemned because they are sinners. Were you condemned before you came to Christ? They do not come to Christ and they don't because they don't want to. It is no different in that respect than your own beliefs. The difference lies in what it is that brings them to Christ. Calvinists say it is because God regenerates them and this changes their desires, and when they hear they believe., which is faith. They choose Christ because they believe Him and the gospel. You say they choose Christ of their own free will, thinking man is able to do such a thing, so they come to Christ, not because they believe, but because they choose to, decided to.

Consider Matthew 2:15 as it quotes Hosea 11:1 out of context under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, applying Jesus as being the Son of God where as in the passage that it is quoted from, Israel is God's son.

Therefore, it is true that sometimes the Holy Spirit takes certain scriptures out of their immediate context and accurately applies them to the life of a person.

Matt 2: 15 is in the context of the OT. It is interpreting what Hosea was prophesying. Almost the entire NT is interpreting the OT and what was a mystery to them but foreshadowing Christ, even the exodus, is being revealed by the NT. Israel was called out of Egypt, Jesus, true and faithful Israel, was called out of Egypt.

And the Holy Spirit may bring to our attention a particular scripture because we need it at that moment. But that is not what out of context means. With the Holy Spirit the whole thing is in context all the time. Your are trying to discern the meaning of any given scripture out of context which often is then used to state something that is not true. Context is more that just the surround passages.

If a verse can be taken out of its immediate context to be compared to another verse that is in its topical context, then it is also true that every verse stands on its own as a bastion of spiritual truth and that the context will never nullify the plain meaning of a verse...as this is a first rule of hermeneutics....since the scripture does not contradict itself.

I am guessing you no less about hermeneutics than you know of Calvinism. Every scripture is a part of spiritual truth, and the truth must be in unity with all other truth. Sometimes it is talking about one thing and sometimes another. And the way you are doing it you have contradictions all over the place. The one I showed you above is an example. You used that to show things don't have to be in context and you had Matt contradicting Hosea.

 

[makesends]

They are condemned in Calvinism because they are of the non-elect.

The elect are also "condemned already" in Calvinism (John 3:18), (just as are the non-elect), until they believe.

 

[makesends]

Yes.

I do believe that in Calvinism, God's purpose in condemning sinners to the lake of fire is based on His whim; for no other reason than that He desires it (because it is His will).

ar·bi·trar·y

ADJECTIVE
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system:
similar: capricious; whimsical; random; chance; erratic; unpredictable

In Calvinism, as in the Bible, God's choice is very particular, not random, not based on a whim, but chosen for a specific purpose. Where do you find it being based on a whim?

 

[justbyfaith]

No they are not. They are condemned because they are sinners. Were you condemned before you came to Christ? They do not come to Christ and they don't because they don't want to. It is no different in that respect than your own beliefs. The difference lies in what it is that brings them to Christ. Calvinists say it is because God regenerates them and this changes their desires, and when they hear they believe., which is faith. They choose Christ because they believe Him and the gospel. You say they choose Christ of their own free will, thinking man is able to do such a thing, so they come to Christ, not because they believe, but because they choose to, decided to.

So, Romans 10:9 ought to be rendered, if Calvinism be true, "if thou art saved, thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead" or else, "you are saved by God's election and therefore don't need to take that step".

Whereas the scripture does not place the cart before the horse as Calvinism does. It puts things in the proper order, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Matt 2: 15 is in the context of the OT. It is interpreting what Hosea was prophesying. Almost the entire NT is interpreting the OT and what was a mystery to them but foreshadowing Christ, even the exodus, is being revealed by the NT. Israel was called out of Egypt, Jesus, true and faithful Israel, was called out of Egypt.

And the Holy Spirit may bring to our attention a particular scripture because we need it at that moment. But that is not what out of context means. With the Holy Spirit the whole thing is in context all the time. Your are trying to discern the meaning of any given scripture out of context which often is then used to state something that is not true. Context is more that just the surround passages.

I am guessing you no less about hermeneutics than you know of Calvinism. Every scripture is a part of spiritual truth, and the truth must be in unity with all other truth. Sometimes it is talking about one thing and sometimes another. And the way you are doing it you have contradictions all over the place. The one I showed you above is an example. You used that to show things don't have to be in context and you had Matt contradicting Hosea.

Okay. I will only say that normally, when someone quotes scripture, they are able to do so because they have read it in its context.

Therefore whatever application they are giving it would be valid, since it is in conjunction with having read that scripture in its context; unless the person quoting it is utterly a deceiver and their main goal is to deceive the person that they are quoting the scripture to.

If the person, as I, is intending for the recipient to be saved and edified, then even if it is slightly taken out of its immediate context, it does not necessarily mean that it is taken out of its topical context.

Case in point: in 2 Corinthians 9:6, the immediate context might provide for a word of faith, name it and claim it, prosperity gospel interpretation.

But if you take it out of its immediate context and apply a topical context of Luke 8:11 and Ecclesiastes 11:6, you might get a more orthodox interpretation.

Therefore, when someone claims that I have taken something out of context, I merely tell them to read the context.

The context will never nullify the plain meaning of the verse; for it is a first rule of hermeneutics that the scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[justbyfaith]

The elect are also "condemned already" in Calvinism (John 3:18), (just as are the non-elect), until they believe.

And therefore, believing is what makes them of the elect; otherwise you have a condemned elect who are not His people.

You have made my point quite nicely, thank you.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I will say again that my decision to receive Christ had nothing to do with personal merit.

It was based on being faced with hellfire and damnation and my (sinful) instinct of self-preservation caused me to believe in Christ in order to save my own life.

This was faith in Jesus Christ; and it did not merit salvation. There was nothing meritorious about it.

BINGO!!! Been there done that (the last time anyway). The other times, I just ran back into death, and let His conviction fade away (as it will) but the last time, I was afraid that HE MIGHT NOT convict me again, and I'd be lost eternally.

But God tells us in His word that He honours faith in Jesus Christ by giving salvation to those who have it.

And since He's the SOURCE of saving Faith (Conviction of SIN is God's word to you - where faith comes from. (Eph 2:8,9)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Possess the power of foreknowledge, or rather, simply omniscient? It is not a power that he acquired and possesses, as though the default for him was 'for the future to happen to him, like it does to us, only he is privy to the details'.

So you have no idea whether God has "foreknowledge" or not. Thanks for clearing that up.

No. Do you need to see the definition of 'Arbitrary' again? God chose for a purpose. That is not arbitrary. "U" = "Unconditional" i.e. "unmerited".

"Unconditional" does not mean "Unmerited". it's defined as: "NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONS".

If "God chose for a purpose", then "election" is not "Unconditional".

 

[prism]

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).

That's a heavy charge accompanied by Anathemas/Curses(Gal 1:8-9)
Care to elaborate a bit?

Galatians 1:8-9 NKJV
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

 

[justbyfaith]

That's a heavy charge accompanied by Anathemas/Curses(Gal 1:8-9)
Care to elaborate a bit?

Galatians 1:8-9 NKJV
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Already did...in posts #92-#97 (https://christcentered.community.fo...calvinisms-arbitrary-decision.1124/post-41342).

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus, true and faithful Israel, was called out of Egypt.

Jesus is not Israel. And, you have to twist the scriptures to come up with such a conclusion.

 

[justbyfaith]

I am guessing you know <fify> less about hermeneutics than you know of Calvinism.

resorting to insults now? I believe that that is the logical fallacy of "attacking the messenger".

 

[justbyfaith]

And the way you are doing it you have contradictions all over the place.

I see no contradictions in what I am saying or have said. Maybe you could point one of them out?

Otherwise, that is an accusation without evidence.

 

[justbyfaith]

The one I showed you above is an example. You used that to show things don't have to be in context and you had Matt contradicting Hosea.

No, Matthew didn't contradict Hosea. He took Hosea out of context and applied what was originally attributed to Israel to Jesus. Here, the Holy Spirit testifies that Jesus is the Son of God. In the scripture quoted, Israel is God's son.

 

[makesends]

So you have no idea whether God has "foreknowledge" or not. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Unconditional" does not mean "Unmerited". it's defined as: "NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONS".

If "God chose for a purpose", then "election" is not "Unconditional".

In other words, after several opportunities to do otherwise, you want to troll on about the name of the thing, instead of arguing about the substance of it.

 

[makesends]

And therefore, believing is what makes them of the elect; otherwise you have a condemned elect who are not His people.

You have made my point quite nicely, thank you.

Strangely, your 'argument' feels more like trolling than like reasoning...

God is what made them of the elect.

 

[justbyfaith]

Strangely, your 'argument' feels more like trolling than like reasoning...

God is what made them of the elect.

When you start thinking everyone else is a troll, look in the mirror (see Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42).

Also, if God is what makes the elect to be of the elect, then He is what makes the non-elect of the non-elect.

In Calvinism, God is to be blamed for the condemnation of the sinner to eternal flames.

 

[makesends]

Also, if God is what makes the elect to be of the elect, then He is what makes the non-elect of the non-elect.

That part, you have right; well done.

In Calvinism, God is to be blamed for the condemnation of the sinner to eternal flames.

And, that part, you have wrong. God is not to be blamed —he is to be credited, for "the condemnation of the sinner to eternal flames.

 

[prism]

Already did...in posts #92-#97 (https://christcentered.community.fo...calvinisms-arbitrary-decision.1124/post-41342).

Never mind, just as I suspected, another straw man.

 

[justbyfaith]

That part, you have right; well done.

And, that part, you have wrong. God is not to be blamed —he is to be credited, for "the condemnation of the sinner to eternal flames.

The god of Calvinism is to be credited with unjust judgment? I will agree with you there.

Because the only way such a judgment can be just is if He gives to every sinner an opportunity in which he or she is enabled to repent and receive Him.

I will say that I believe that 2 Peter 3:9 speaks of any and all who need repentance, and does not refer only to the believer; and that this is in conjunction with a view of God where we understand Him to be love (1 John 4:8,16).

Fact is, everyone is drawn to Christ at some point (John 12:32); and that in being drawn, they are enabled to receive Christ (John 6:44).

If everyone who is drawn to Christ is given to Christ, then all are given to Christ; and your doctrine is Universalism (heresy).

Also, Irresistible Grace cannot be the reality.

1) Acts 7:51 teaches us that the Holy Spirit (and therefore grace) can be resisted.

2) Jesus died for everyone (1 John 2:2) and therefore if Irresistible Grace be the reality (i.e. He saves everyone He died for), that is also Universalism (heresy).

3) the reality is that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17). Therefore, when the Holy Spirit draws a man to Christ, the man has a choice in the matter of whether or not he will actually receive Christ. If it were not so, then the Holy Spirit would be restricting freedom and forcing the person to receive Christ. However, the Spirit is all about freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17).

 

[justbyfaith]

Never mind, just as I suspected, another straw man.

I have presented no straw man arguments in all of the time that I have been here.

You may not believe the things that I am refuting; and if that be the case, then my contentions are not addressed to you, but to those who believe in Calvinism.