Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Tropical_Man > Meriam's Guy |
|
Is Calvinism Demonic? |
|||
|
well I am not sure but I woiuld not be surprised. John Calvin had a man put to death for standing up to him scripturally. My whole point in this...is where is Jesus? why the eliteism
| ||
12/14/2007 7:17 pm |
If someone knows Jesus, they have experienced His love. I wonder why so often I see so little joy in the Calvinists, do they have any joy in their salvation?
| ||
|
you err by calling anyone an Armenian, that is part of the demonic activity of Calvinism period
| ||
12/15/2007 3:35 pm |
Excuse me but since its inception Christianity as a whole has been responsible for the deaths of countless people who supposedly did not believe. I don't think that we can single out one branch as being demonic. What men do in the name of religion has nothing to do with God and religion itself. Just my peace.
| ||
|
we are not predestined and elevated to elete...
| ||
|
You just elevate those with so called great faith to status of elite. Rather it is Jesus who is Lord and king...man is as the grass that withers away. Man elevated to elite status of super gods is the humanist elite gospel !!! Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
what constitutes that YOU have great faith? the demonioc calvinistic/armenian garbage is just plain whacked.
| ||
|
I have nothing apart from Gods gifts. You rail on Calvinism but never give any concrete argument...why is that? Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
LOL Concrete arguement? You dissed the man who distroyed the fale teaching that you have. Calvinism is a boat with more holes than water can seep through.
| ||
|
Tim123 This is the point that I am making. To say that one does not like something solely based on opinion is not a very weighty argument. In law we call it hearsay. Does not hold up in court. One must have evidence to prove what one believes or else it is a faulty argument. In fact the fallacy used by Tropical man is called attack the person and is a very flimsy non acceptable argument by any scholar. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
wow somewone created a new profile just to put up some jiberish.My areguementws are stone cold locks. Chris Wilhoit: I am often amazed and dismayed at how some Christians are so willing to put their faith in this spurious theology of Calvinism. Or as Paul would say “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” Paul was dealing with salvation by works here in Galatians, but salvation by eternal decree is just as bad. Either of these false gospels can produce a hard hearted and perverted form of Christianity, one that troubles true Christians. Focusing on works for salvation can cause people to be lifted up in pride and separate themselves from “lowly sinners.” Focusing on an eternal decree can also harden hearts in that it produces an “elitist” mentality among believers. Either of these false extreme views are outright perversions of the gospel. The true gospel focuses on the amazing gift of salvation offered to all from God that is obtained by simple belief, and sharing this amazing truth with all you encounter. The biblical picture of a lowly sinner accepting the free gift of salvation is the power of the Christian gospel. It is the “good news” from God that should well up from our hearts with love and overflow abundantly on all we know and meet. Defining Calvinism Invariably any discussion of Calvinism will be countered by “you don’t really understand Calvinism.” Of course what they mean to say is that you don’t understand their particular set of beliefs about Calvinism. But to their credit, they are right to a degree. Calvinists are highly fragmented and divided about their own theology. Of the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) there are 5 pointers, 3 pointers, 1.5 pointers, and so on. So as you see, many of Calvinism’s adherents are unsure about what it means, let alone others. In fact, most who claim the name of Calvin for their theology do not agree with him on all 5 points. The fact that this troubling and complicated system is at odds with scripture is made glaringly evident by the dissention within its own camp. So keep in mind that when I say Calvinism, I do not mean what some say about Calvinism, I am referring to what John Calvin said about his theological system. To side with the Calvinists for moment, I too believe that the great majority of folks really don’t understand what Calvinism is all about. But I also believe that many of the ones that do know try to skirt the issue and confuse its discussion to defend it. Since I have had a doctoral level course on Calvinism, and read about, debated, and counseled people for many years on the subject, I think I have had sufficient enough experience with which to comment. Succinctly put, Calvinism is a theological system that teaches that God directly causes people to be saved without them having a choice in the matter, and puts people in eternal hellfire without them ever having an opportunity to repent and believe. They can use all the confusing terminology, deflective debate tactics, and accusations of misrepresentation they like, but that doesn’t change what Calvinism is. The first four points of Calvinism are based solely on this viewpoint (not scripture). TULIP A full dissertation on all the nuances of this concept would be quite lengthy and unnecessary for the purposes of this article; therefore I will attempt to give you the highlights. TULIP is the acronym used to summarize the theology taught in John Calvin’s four volume literary work entitled “The Institutes of the Christian Religion.” I think that most agree it does a pretty effective job of capturing the essence of what Calvinism teaches. The “T” stands for total depravity. But the actual definition includes the idea of total “inability” to choose eternal life with Jesus over damnation. The Bible clearly teaches that we are wretched sinners through and through, thus we are totally depraved. But it just thoroughly drives the point home over and over that we can choose. This concept of people choosing to place their faith in God and trust in Him is drummed into our heads all throughout scripture. Only the bias of a theological system could cause one to disregard this. The “U” stands for unconditional election. God “elects” or chooses you with no “conditions” placed upon that election, including belief. So we see thus far that you cannot choose, and God chooses irrespective of conditions. The “L” refers to limited atonement. This is the idea that if we cannot choose, and only God chooses who is saved, and not everyone is chosen for salvation, the atonement for sin Jesus made on the cross was only for those sovereignty elected for salvation. The “I” stands for irresistible grace. It stands to follow that if your choices are immaterial, and God’s choices are all that matter, then God’s choices cannot be resisted. Grace is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification. I believe this is a biblically correct definition. In Calvinism grace is more than assistance, it is a force that is irresistible, or essentially being “zapped” into salvation. The “P” stands for perseverance of the saints. All those chosen by God are sovereignty preserved by Him. While this is akin to eternal security, it is based on a fundamentally different mechanism. The eternal security of the born again believer bases his trust in the promise of God that those who “believe” upon Him for salvation receive “eternal life” as a present possession. While I do not want to make this article a defense of eternal security, there are many, many passages that teach this to be a fact. One of the most prominent New Testament declarations on this matter is that we are “sealed unto the day of redemption” in Ephesians 4:30. Similar use of this term “sealed” is also used in 2Corinthians 1:22 and Ephesians 1:13. This is just one of many lines of converging evidence for this doctrine. But the point in terms of TULIP is that eternal security is sound doctrine because God keeps his promises and genuinely loves us, and not because He supernaturally brainwashes you into loving Him. Foreknowledge It is an evident fact from scripture that God knows who will and will not be saved, and He has known this since before the foundation of the world. In Revelation 17:8 it mentions those “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” This is definitive. And it is not the only passage that says so. God is all knowing, including the future. This fact has not dawned on some people, but it is certainly evident in scripture. But what are we to make of this? Does the fact that God knows negate our ability to choose? Does it really mean that God set things up in such a way that some people cannot believe on Jesus? I don’t entertain that thought for a moment. It’s a fact that some will not be saved, but this does not mean that they cannot. God ordained things in such a way that all men have an opportunity at salvation. That is a part of His will He has expressed clearly. But He still knows who will be saved. In 1Peter 1:2 we who are saved are said to be “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” And in the last part of Romans 8:29 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.” In the two places where foreknowledge is discussed in relation to saved people, foreknowledge comes first. It is important to understand that time is one of those constraints that is a part of our experience, but not God’s. It does not determine our choices; it merely provides a span in which to make them. Calvinism Preys on Weak Believers I truly believe that a lack of understanding regarding the foreknowledge of God is behind some being shocked into believing Calvinism has merit, especially since they do not truly understand all that Calvinism entails. Young believers are exposed to the “sovereign grace book club” and indoctrinated into following this man Calvin. They are shown all the men that followed Calvin since the reformation as proof of its merit, unaware they have been brainwashed into interpreting the Bible through the eyes of a man. Since Calvinist’s focus almost exclusively on God’s sovereignty they often deepen the understanding of some in the sovereign aspect of God’s nature. Unfortunately, there is a whole dark caldron of theological thinking that goes with it. Once enlightened on this new aspect of God’s nature, they wonder just how far it extends. They are tempted to believe this whole theological system of Calvin has merit, rather than recognize the overemphasis of just one attribute of God’s nature. I think that some people are caught off guard when they discover from scripture how much God knows and how much intervention He does. This stems partially from having been brought up in Churches that do not get deep into scripture. The fact is that those churches leave many ill prepared to deal with false doctrine of this nature. Another problem could be being brought up in a Christian home, as strange as that sounds. Those who were saved out of licentious living later in life, realize how bad things can get and view salvation more as a gracious gift we choose to receive, and less a decree that we are born with, generally speaking. This is the “prodigal son perspective” we find our Lord discussing in Luke 15:11-32. We have this principle of heart perspectives taught over and over again in scripture. Go read Luke 7:36-50 for the whole story, but the gist is that those who are forgiven much loveth much (Luke 7:47). In other words, heroin addicted prostitutes that get saved are less likely to see salvation as an elite position determined before they were born than those from privileged families. The fact of the matter is that they are more in touch with their depravity, and what a remarkable loving gift salvation truly is. It’s a heart issue, and it colors the way you understand reality, and perceive the nature of God. Calvinism (in its purest sense) sees God from a cold legalistic sense, and no wonder since it came from a brilliant young legal mind, a mind not thoroughly seasoned in the Word of God and corrupted by the teachings of the likes of Augustine. The Bible says that from the mouth of babes is praise perfected (Matthew 21:16). That is why the saved prostitute sees salvation as what it is, the remarkable loving gift available to all unworthy souls by an immensely warm and loving creator. I believe adherence to Calvinism is a heart issue, and that is why I oppose it so strongly. I also believe that those who have done great evangelical work as professing Calvinists have done that work in spite of Calvinism. I believe they had to reject tenants of Calvinism at a heart level. The Impact of Romanism The negative effect on Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is incalculable. The great scarlet, harlot church, drunken with the blood of saints, brought a vicious, elitist element into the psyche of Christianity that will go down in eternity as maybe the darkest time spiritually this Earth has seen since before the flood. This system that established itself through men of reprobate minds, destitute of the truth, still has 1 billion adherents worldwide. Clearly men love error and apostasy. To understand the spirit of Calvinism one must first understand Romanism. Rome brutalized Christians for hundreds of years after the apostolic church. But early in the 4th century a man named Constantine came to power in Rome, and he orchestrated the greatest merger of the holy with the profane in human history. Seeing the resolve of the Christian faithful in martyrdom, I believe he thought it had the potential to make the already powerful Rome even more so, and help bring him into power and establish a long rule for him. Making Christianity the state religion would also be advantageous to controlling this burgeoning force in culture. Augustine and Unholy Ideas Those beaten by Rome, some still with lash scars on their backs, were now led to the upper rooms of Roman government and given positions of power to establish their faith. Since Rome controlled most of the civilized world at that time, this was a tantalizing prospect and a heady time for those who had been on the outside for so long. But it was also a breeding ground for apostasy, and even worse, outright perversion of biblical Christianity turning it into a brutal, elitist regime. Shortly after this happened a man named Augustine who fancied himself a thinker and theologian would publish many ideas about Christianity, some of which would help usher in the 1000 year reign of terror by Romanism, and others that reformers would pick up and carry on with unto today. Augustine put forth the idea that, in essence, the kingdom of God on Earth had been brought in with this merger. The word Catholic means universal. The idea was that God had established his kingdom through the Roman Church and that it was universal (all encompassing) among men. Talk about an elitist idea. Of course that would make the priests, bishops, cardinals and other church representatives God’s literal emissaries here on Earth. Logic follows that if the kingdom has been established in a literal, physical way, and you are God’s emissary in a theocratic government, then all who are on the outside and disagree are the enemies of God. Further, if you now have the governmental power to execute justice on this Earth pertaining to religious matters, and those powers were given you by God, then you have the duty to do so. With the influence of past brutality of the Romans, this was a dangerous brew of ideas. Elitism and Christianity You have to understand these concepts to understand why the RCC for over 1000 years persecuted and killed millions of dissident believers. You have to understand this to understand why the RCC kept the scriptures from the common person and refused to even translate it into a language the common person could understand. They viewed themselves as God’s elite representatives, the only ones that could rightly interpret the scriptures, and with theocratic governmental agency to inflict justice on God’s enemies. In the hands of commoners the scriptures only created more heretical dissidents that would have to be done away with. Now that you know this, the horrid history of the RCC and this false, heretical thinking, and that the thinker Augustine was used by Satan to get this whole thing going, now for the bombshell. We also know that Calvin praised this man Augustine highly and considered his writings to be virtually inspired. You see, Augustine also believed in an unbiblical form of predestination. He wrote about this, but did not develop this idea fully. This was the seed of thought that germinated in the mind of John Calvin. And certainly after 1000 plus years the RCC had moved to an entirely works based system. But the RCC system possesses elements of this elitism in its doctrine. They believe that God ordained their church to bring about salvation. It was the elitism that brought about the errors of the RCC, and that thinking was solidified substantially by Augustine. Calvin’s reliance on this false teacher led him also to create a viewpoint of Christian thought that was elitist. In the reformation, justification by grace rightly supplanted justification by works, but with it this idea of God’s elite would live on through Calvin and his adherents. Reformation not Restoration I have great certainty that Calvinism is an over-correction of the protestant reformation. After all, what could be more antithetical to salvation by works than salvation by eternal decree? The erroneous mechanism of works for justification was correctly replaced during the reformation by grace based justification. But the over-correction comes in with the mechanisms of justification. When addressing the salvation of individuals the Bible focuses on choice, receiving, belief and faith. Calvinism on the contrary does not, but in essence deems them irrelevant. The protestant reformation is just what it is called, an attempt at “reforming” the Roman Catholic Church by those within it that “protested” against its doctrinal views. It stopped far short of restoring biblical Christianity. Biblical Christianity puts the justification completely in God’s hands, but it does not remove man’s responsibility to choose. Imputed Justification not Faith Choosing to believe or have faith is not a work. Faith is contrasted with works extensively in the New Testament, so there should be no confusion there. If faith were a work there would be no contrast as we find discussed in the Bible. But faith is not an eternal decree either. The Bible says in Romans 10:17 that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Of course this, as any other verse on faith in the Bible can be twisted by the perverted logic of Calvinism. They would contend that God decreed them to have faith upon hearing the word of God. A thorough study of the biblical use of the word “imputation” is in order here. Imputation is a New Testament term that is doctrinal in relation to the justification component of salvation. The imputed righteous of Christ is what justifies us in God’s site, and not works. It is interesting to note that wherever this term is used in the Bible it is used in relation to justification after faith and/or belief is discussed. Calvinism carries the idea of imputed belief or imputed faith, but this is not biblical. Justification is imputed after belief, after faith. If faith or belief were imputed as Calvinists contend, why does the Bible not say so where it has the chance? This concept of imputation is thoroughly thrashed out in Romans 4. Faith is not imputed, plain and simple. This false doctrine of imputed faith mechanisms preceding justification should be preached against and separated from. Calvinism Versus Bible Belief Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-Calvinists by Iain Murray is a book that provides perspective about the issue. I think it is clear that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist in practice, and that he plainly said that where Calvinism contradicts scripture it is scripture that is authoritative, regardless of any perceived inconsistencies. This is the difference between a Bible believer and a Calvinist. A Bible believer interprets the Word of God in context and by comparing scripture with scripture, and not by viewing it through the lens of a manmade theological construct. A Bible believer is someone who searches the scriptures daily to see if things are so, just like the noble ones of Berea that received Christ with all readiness of mind (Acts 17:11). Faith should be centered on scripture, and not on any man-made theological systems. Exposure today to preachers and teachers who espouse this profound truth above all other viewpoints is something that is woefully missing, and thus leaves many open to the 500 year old false teaching of Calvin. It is important to understand that the general knowledge of scripture among lay people was lacking before the reformation. Scripture was just simply not in print in mass before then. The printing press was invented during the reformation period, and is really the technology that made it possible for everyone to own a Bible. So scripture had just become widely available at that time. Now that scripture has been widely available for over 400 years, many people have been able to study it, and folks of my persuasion that exalt the scripture above theological systems have found many errors in the doctrinal systems of protestant writers as well as those that came before and after the reformation. Spurgeon’s statement that scripture must always supersede manmade theology is a viewpoint we share. I do not find the beliefs of any man an authority above scripture. I’m sure that every Christian believes their faith is built on the Bible, but I think it is clear that anyone who adheres to the aberrant theology of Calvin when faced with the enormous scriptural inconsistencies has shown themselves to not be basing their beliefs solely on the extant Word of God, but rather a theological viewpoint. Calvinism / Armenianism Bifurcation Fallacy Keep in mind that in debating Calvinism do not allow yourself to be trapped in the bifurcation (black and white or two option only) fallacy that non-Calvinists are Arminianists. This is a good example of a false dichotomy being used to distract people from the real issue at hand. You can reject both if you like. You can be neither. The fact is that these two viewpoints represent two extreme views, the outer boundaries on a continuum, but the real answer is somewhere in between. The final answer is not that salvation is God zapping you into being a believer, or that you must work your way to heaven. Salvation is of the Lord, but there is still something you must do. You must make a choice to repent and believe or not. And this truly gets to the heart of the matter, and the reason we have enough will to choose. Calvinism = God’s Sovereignty Equivocation Fallacy It further must be pointed out that Calvinism does not equate to belief in God’s sovereignty. This is another false claim made by Calvinists. Bible believers believe God is sovereign, but we don’t believe people are robots that are zapped into heaven and banished to hell with out a “fair” opportunity from a just and righteous creator. Sovereign grace (a facet of God’s sovereignty taught by Calvinists) is in the final analysis an unfair, unjust and unrighteous selective grace and not the biblical portrayal of God’s grace. The sovereign grace we find in the Bible is one that is offered without respect of persons to all out love by a supremely fair and just almighty creator. Do you disagree with this? The Bible says we are made in God’s image, with an eternal soul, knowledge of right and wrong, and a capacity to choose. We are not horses or dogs. We are not merely the advanced nanotechnological cellular robotics systems that make up our bodies, we have a soul. We are a special creation of God with immense capabilities, and one of those is our ability to choose good over evil, to choose God over Satan, and to choose eternal life over eternal death. You must understand that these capabilities are at the center of our depravity, not a decree from God. Pride in our near god-like capabilities, so much so we see ourselves as sufficient without God, is what keeps us from God, and not that He ordered it so. To blame God for this through a misplaced desire to bolster God’s sovereignty is the uttermost height of folly. God is to be thanked for this miraculous gift, but not to be blamed if we misuse it. Paul was a Calvinist? John Calvin was a young lawyer, unseasoned in the Word of God, and he devised a cold, legalistic view of God. The power of this viewpoint to cause someone to go back and redefine the nature of God is exhibited in the behavior of his adherents. I believe that some have illustrated the extra-biblical bias of Calvinism when stating that Paul was Calvinistic in his writings. The very nature of this statement shows how they are going back and reinterpreting scripture in light of this viewpoint. This allegation is simply not true. Paul understood the Sovereignty of God in the biblical sense, but he certainly never taught what Calvin taught about salvation. Paul never taught you are regenerated and saved before believing. Paul never taught that God chooses who He will regenerate and who He will damn eternally, and your will is inconsequential. Paul didn’t teach that Christ died for the elect only, that grace is irresistible, that depravity means inability to choose good over evil, and that there are not any conditions on election as Calvin did. Paul taught exactly the opposite of these false assertions made by Calvin. These two viewpoints, that of Calvin and that of Paul, could not be more diametrically opposed to one another. People that equate the two either do not understand Calvinism or do not understand what Paul was inspired to write, or both. Oh sure, you can take some passages out of context and not compare them with other scripture and make the Bible teach Calvinism, but is this really the way you want to handle the Word of God? Some have said that many good Christians believe Calvinism. But after discussions with many of them I am not even sure they truly understand Calvinism. After all, it seems every Calvinist you meet has a different viewpoint on the matter. I firmly believe that many that teach its supposed merits truly don’t understand it and its dire doctrinal ramifications. Calvinism is a Heart Issue Why would anyone want to exalt the theological system of John Calvin over clear scriptural teaching? I think the answer is in how we define the nature of God. And how we define the nature of God comes from the heart. The aspect of his writing that exalts God's sovereignty is correct, but it is not the end of the story when talking about Calvinism. Calvinism took God’s sovereignty to an unbiblical level that actually makes God unjust. In essence, the young lawyer John Calvin took God’s sovereignty and used it to reinterpret the entire Bible and portray God as heartless, cold and legalistic in His dealings with man. Like an old time preacher once said: “ever since God created man in His image, man has returned the favor.” I believe the young lawyer Calvin recreated God in his own legalistic image, and in doing so created a system of interpretation that would appeal to like minded people. This is a dangerous, soul suffocating system that is to be avoided at all costs. Is a god that puts people in hell without ever having had a chance at eternal life the loving God of the scriptures? Is this the one that said to love your enemies? The one that suffered reproach, humiliation, torture, and a cruel death on the cross for Adam’s poor sin cursed race? Is that the one we are talking about? What a cold thought to consider God indiscriminately damning folks to eternal torment who never had a chance to believe. Calvinism may be loosely construed to fit God's sovereignty and His knowledge, but it doesn't fit the nature of His heart. Before I proclaimed Calvinism to be true about God I would want it spelled out explicitly in scripture, and not based on questionable assertions about a few passages that interpreted in a Calvinistic framework do not make sense in light of vast array of other scriptures. And just because there are Calvinists that are evangelical does not make Calvinism correct. The Pharisees were highly evangelical and fervent for the Word of God, but they were hard hearted. Consider these verses in light of what I have just said. In Matthew 23:15 Jesus said to them "ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Think of it, they were actively evangelical. But this evidently is not enough. Their hearts were wrong, and their converts became just like they were. When they wanted a strict legalistic answer on divorce Jesus said in Matthew 19:8 that "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Here it plainly states that their hard heartedness was the problem. Their cold, indifferent, strictly legalistic view of God was the problem. In Hebrews 4:12 God tells us "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." It is our hearts that determine how we see God. Our thoughts and intents flow from our hearts, and if our hearts are hard, our thoughts concerning God will be also. All the proof I need that Calvinism is wrong is the way it characterizes God's heart and what that does to my heart. Argument from God Hating Esau A case in point on this issue is the belief that God literally hated Esau in Romans 9, in the sense of despise or loathe, before Esau did any wrong. This ignores the fact of how Jesus told us that to love Him we must hate our families in Luke 14:26. “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” But the Bible also says in 1Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” So we see that despising our families was not what the Lord was commanding. Hate was not literal in the sense of despising or having animosity, but said in a comparative sense. This was figure of speech common at that time and was not to be taken to mean despise, but to mean choose above. I take the Bible more literal than probably 99.9999% of Christians, but I don’t take it literal where it is obviously figurative, and I do not define terms and expressions outside their biblical usage, especially when that puts them in direct contradiction to a vast body of other scripture. This figure of speech delineates choosing one above another, plain and simple. This is proven contextually in Genesis 29:30-31 where it is said that Jacob loved Rachael more than Leah in verse 30, and the Lord said in verse 31 that Jacob hated her. Obviously this was not hate in the sense of extreme dislike for someone, but rather choosing one above another. My pastor explained it like this. If you tell your wife you love her, but then tell her there is a woman at work you love more, that sure doesn’t feel like love to your wife. The point is that you have chosen one above the other. The usage in Romans 9 is identical and does not indicate that God hated Esau unto damnation for no good reason, but rather chose Jacob above him with regard to national election, which is the context. The fact that Paul is quoting the Old Testament here should give the honest exegete a desire to return to where the quote occurred and study the context. The quote comes from Malachi 1:2-3. Just as in Romans the context here is one of national election, not personal salvation. Argument from Pharaoh’s Reprobation Another case in point is that Romans 9 goes on to say that Pharaoh was raised up to resist God. The Calvinist would say that God is referring to making or forming Pharaoh into his enemy, possibly from a young age, by eternal decree before he was even born. In doing this they are building upon the erroneous conclusions they have drawn from the prior passages on Jacob and Esau and applying them here. But this is not what the passage is saying. It is saying that God “raised up” Pharaoh to a position of power. This is probably in the sense of uplifted and sustained, rather than getting him there, but either view does not libel God’s character. It says nothing about Pharaoh’s personal choices throughout life. If you go back to Exodus 8 and 9 where God’s dealing with Pharaoh during his rule you will see that Pharaoh is being hardened for his actions. This is obviously what Paul is refereeing to here in Romans 9. God is actively using Pharaoh for his purposes, which is the point of Romans 9, but he is not predetermining to damn Pharaoh and failing to provide a mechanism through which he could repent, believe and be saved. This is an extra biblical presumption forced on the passage by someone stuck within a Calvinistic paradigm. Argument from Predetermined Mercy and Hardening Yet another case in point is how the Calvinist defines passages like Romans 9:18 “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” They apply this to the issue of personal salvation. Well, didn’t God already say who he would have mercy on? Didn’t He say who He would harden and why? This is not some mystical eternal decree, it is in His word. The word “mercy” is used 261 times in the Bible. National election and God dealing with His enemy Pharaoh is the context that mercy is used here in Romans 9. Of course He hardened Pharaoh. God said in Proverbs 29:1 “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” God hardens those who harden themselves. There is a point where God’s mercy is pulled back, and this is a prominent example. But God is merciful to a fault, and to say any less of Him is offensive. The Pharisees thought that God did not extend his mercy to certain people. Here again we see another commonality between Calvinism and Pharisaism. In Matthew 9:10-13 we see the Pharisees berating Jesus for associating with sinful people (from their hypocritical, self righteous, and sinful position). Look carefully at what Jesus says in verse 13. Jesus said: “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Did he say some sinners? Is this not what the Pharisees thought, that only some sinners are eligible? In Matthew 12  he further admonishes them for condemning those He would have mercy on. “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” In Matthew 20:30-31 the two blind men cry out for mercy. He asked “What will ye that I shall do unto you?” They replied “Lord, that our eyes may be opened.” And He opened their eyes and they followed Him. God has mercy on those that ask for it. And in Matthew 23:23 Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for leaving this weighty matter of mercy undone. Those who ask for mercy should receive it is point one. And point two is that if you are a minister of God, you better not leave it undone, either in your life, or your interpretation of scripture and definition of God’s character. In Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes it clear that it is the merciful that obtain mercy. Now if Jesus made so much out of this, it is inconceivable to me that He exempts himself from providing mercy to those who ask. Or even worse, sets things up in such a way so as some people could not even ask. How troubling that Calvinists would falsely teach about God the very same thing God condemned the Pharisees for. Argument from “Vessels of Wrath Fitted to Destruction” Now on to one of my favorites; the “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” The Calvinist would have us believe that this is referring to personal salvation, even though the context is national election and God dealing with an enemy in bringing this election about. What is meant here in this passage about being “fitted?” Well, as you can see, by now the Calvinist, having completely thrown out the love, mercy and fairness of God discussed throughout the Bible sees this along the same lines of despising (hating) before birth for no reason. He sees it as being raised up from birth to be God’s enemy. He sees it as withholding mercy from people for arbitrary reasons that must fit with their mystical interpretation of God’s sovereignty. Yes, they see this as God foreordaining, preparing, and bringing to pass the eternal damnation of people without giving them a fair chance at repentance and salvation. No greater libel against God’s character could be brought. Grammatically we know that in the English as well as the Greek “fitted” can be an adjective or a verb. Even as a verb you do not have to assess all this Calvinistic bias on the passage. Pharaoh fitted himself, and was fitted by God, but because of Pharaoh’s heart, not due to God being cold hearted and not giving him a fair opportunity. As an adjective it means “appropriate for” destruction, which is probably the accurate sense here anyway. Either way you have to read a great deal into this passage for it to support the Calvinistic view on personal salvation that regeneration precedes belief and is dispensed arbitrarily by God. Argument from “Who Hath Resisted His Will” Finally, let’s discuss another very prominent misinterpretation of Romans 9. Verse 19 says “who hath resisted his will?” The obvious answer is nobody. But the Calvinist would have you to also interpret this in light of their heretical view of God. In other words, everyone going to heaven and hell were willed there by God, without any opportunity afforded them by God to choose. After all, Romans 9:16 says “it is not of him that willeth.” Instead of viewing this through the lens of Calvinism, why don’t we refer to what the Bible says God’s will is in reference to personal salvation to answer this question? God said He was “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” in 2Peter 3:9. But of course the Calvinist would fit this into their framework by claiming that this epistle is written to the elect, and it only refers to them. Well, how about elsewhere. Can we learn about the will of God from other places in the Bible? How about John 3:16? “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here we have God giving His wholly righteous Son to be humiliated and tortured to death for our sakes. But of course the Calvinist has this wedged within the narrow confines of his legal system also. Of course “whosoever believeth” refers to all the elect that will be regenerated and thus caused to believe. What about the context of the book of John? Look near the beginning of the book in John 1 . This is why John the Baptist came, he “came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.” All men? Now let’s look in verse 12 where it says “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” So the ones that received Him were the ones he gave power to become the sons of God? What power is this He gave them, the power of supernatural regeneration perhaps? But this puts regeneration after believing on His name and receiving Him, and that is precisely the point. The Calvinist may contend at this point that the “effectual calling” of “irresistible grace” is not regeneration, but rather some other mysterious supernatural mechanism they cannot define. Here they step beyond the Bible and into this “Gnostic” mystical realm of the knowledge of God that you have to be spiritual like them to understand. Argument from “It Is Not of Him that Willeth” Call it “free will” or not, but it is a certainty that we have enough will to be able to choose. The passage in Romans 9:16 that says “it is not of him that willeth” is not excluding your choice to believe and have faith. Central to this concept of will in the context of Romans 9 is someone bringing about things contrary to the will of God. This is true, that is something you cannot do. But choosing to believe in Jesus as your Saviour is something provided for you in God’s will. God’s sovereign will is that you have the ability to choose and a chance to receive Him of your own volition. That is why He is pleading with us all through His book to use this wondrous latitude we have wisely and from the heart. We are thinking and breathing sentient creatures with an eternal soul given us by the almighty. Even though our thoughts and activities must occur within the environment framed for us by God, that framework gives us a wide margin for good and evil. This framework is clearly more than sufficient to provide sentient beings like us a choice. But that seems to be the whole point of the Bible, that we are capable of right and wrong, and choice. Are God’s Judgments Unjust? The Bible clearly teaches that we have a will that can make choices within the latitude provided us by God. I think that this is ubiquitous and lies implicitly in the underlying fabric of our experience, whispering to us “you can choose.” This is an issue of justness and fairness. How could God judge us worthy of eternal damnation if we were not deserving of it? Such an extreme punishment demands an equally extreme justification. That is why I am utterly convinced that God, in His infinite wisdom, has done the exact opposite of what Calvinists claim. We must obviously have extraordinary latitude in accepting God or not. Irresistible grace implies that the opposite must be true, that reprobation must be irresistible too. If that is so, God would have no just basis upon which to judge man. This is in stark contrast to the punishment and rewards at stake. This fact alone indicates to me that we have been given a tremendous capacity to either embrace God in love, or utterly despise Him if we wish. And this is the biblical picture painted for us regarding God’s judgment. God’s judgment is fair and righteous beyond all human comprehension. An all knowing and all loving creator does not take the issue of eternity lightly. To quote Dave Hunt: “We may rest assured that no one will suffer in hell who could by any means have been won to Christ in this life. God leaves no stone unturned to rescue all who would respond to the convicting and wooing of the Holy Spirit.” Is Will and Choice Necessary for Love? Yes, yes, most emphatically yes, a thousand times yes. Before I was saved I am not sure I truly loved anyone. I was so consumed with myself and all aspects of self-interest that people were just pawns in a game that determined my happiness. But one very special person came into my life and over the course of years I hurt her repeatedly. She loved me, but I did not return her love and did as I pleased. I was not a Christian. But she had been raised in a good Christian home and there was just something different about her. I told her I loved her, but over time my love was crushing the life out of her. The persistent evil in my heart slowly but surely chipped away at her before my eyes. I knew I was destroying her. This old hard heart of mine waxed sore, and I found myself pleading her case in my heart. She was so lovable that I searched the depths of my soul for a reason why I did not love her. If this was my sister or mother I reasoned, I would literally beat someone to a pulp for treating them as I treated this person, for hurting them so. But what if you are the one who is the perpetrator of evil? What if you are the devil behind blue eyes? How do you get clean of it? How do you rid yourself of the vermin that infest your soul? The inconsistency was too great; the hypocrisy of pretending to love someone you hurt daily was overwhelming. I saw the man in the mirror for who he really was…..a devil with a heart of evil. It was at that point that I asked Jesus to save me. I didn’t know the first thing about the Bible, but I knew my heart, and I had heard that Jesus saves. That’s all you really need to know. You see, at that moment I chose love. Not Hollywood love, not lust, not slap you on the back Tremendous Jones love, not the love of self-interest, but love that is based on someone’s character and who they are as a person, a love that produces as a natural consequence sacrifice and unselfish giving. My Lord said: Matthew 5:38-48 [Mat 5:38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [Mat 5:39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Mat 5:40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. [Mat 5:41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [Mat 5:42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. [Mat 5:43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. [Mat 5:44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [Mat 5:45] That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. [Mat 5:46] For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? [Mat 5:47] And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? [Mat 5:48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. What amazing words from the mind of our creator. You see, love is not forcing someone to act a certain way (Calvinism), and it is not coercing someone into working for it. Love is a deep caring and admiration for someone for who they are. That is what God wants from us. When you understand God for who He is and love Him, you will want to be like Him. That is why the Bible says that he who says he loves God, but does not love his neighbor is a liar (1John 4:20). God is not zapping people into being believers. He is not looking for people to earn merit with Him. It was this unconditional love, a love that endures hardship and even great evil that softened my heart and brought me to Christ. This is the love of God folks. There is nothing more powerful on this Earth than these words from our Lord. Some think nuclear bombs are powerful, but they do not hold a candle to the power of God’s words. Listen, He knows that if you love Him you will have His best interests at heart. You will work, and you will try not to do things that hurt Him, but you will do this because you love Him for who He is. I love God for who He is. He is the author of love. I see very little of my God in this theology of Calvinism, and that is why I will oppose this as the false doctrine it is as long as breath is in my body. Conclusion I know that if you take stock in Calvinism this hits a little like a hammer, but as a preacher friend of mine says “God has different tools for different jobs." Just keep in mind that this was written in a spirit of love and concern by someone who considers this a fatalistic doctrine capable of immense damage to highly valued friends and potentially future great servants of the Lord God. If you are considering making this your dominant view of God, I sincerely pray that the eyes of your understanding be opened, and that your hearts be softened to the fact that you can choose to love God or not. Choose love my friends, choose love. It is the first and great commandment, and by Jesus’ own words, it is what everything in the Bible is about. (Matthew 22:34-40) But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
| ||
|
Dave Hunt: “Most of those today, including evangelical leaders, who hold Calvin in great esteem, are not aware that they have been captivated by the writings of a devout Roman Catholic newly converted to Luther’s Protestantism only two years previously (in the early part of 1533). Oddly, in spite of its paramount importance and his voluminous writings, we have no clear testimony in Calvin’s own words concerning his salvation. He refers only to ‘a sudden conversion’ which subdued his ‘over-much hardened’ heart, but gives no description of how or what happened. … By any standard, this young man, though unusually bright, was far from mature in the Christian faith. … Unquestionably, his Institutes could not possibly have come from a deep and fully developed evangelical understanding of Scripture. Instead, they came from the energetic enthusiasm of a recent law graduate and fervent student of philosophy and religion, a young genius devoted to Augustine and a newly adopted cause. … At the time of writing his Institutes Calvin, far from being an apostle like Paul, was a brand-new convert to the faith who had scarcely begun to walk with the Lord. Therefore, it could not have been spiritual maturity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that brought forth the Institutes, but the power of Calvin’s brilliant legal mind.” (pp. 38, 39, 40) “Calvin’s almost complete agreement with Augustine is nothing short of astounding. Calvin called himself ‘an Augustinian theologian.’ Of Augustine he said, ‘whom we quote frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity.’ It is Calvinists themselves who insist upon the connection between Calvin and Augustine. McGrath writes, ‘Above all, Calvin regarded his thought as a faithful exposition of the leading ideas of Augustine of Hippo.’ … How could one of the principal leaders of the Reformation embrace so fully the doctrines of one who has been called ‘the first real Roman Catholic’ and the ‘principal theological creator of the Latin-Catholic system as distinct from … evangelical Protestantism…’?” (p. 51) “Calvinism offers a special definition of human depravity: that depravity equals inability -- and this special definition necessitates both Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. … There is not a verse in the Bible, however, which presents Calvinism’s radical idea that the sinner is incapable of believing the very gospel which offers him forgiveness and salvation and yet he is condemned by God for failing to believe. … To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God’s Word, of His mercy and love, and is to libel His character.” (pp. 93, 94, 96) “Why does God waste His time and effort and the time and effort of His many prophets pleading with those who, allegedly, cannot hear Him and who, even if they could, being totally depraved, would never respond to His appeal by believing and obeying Him? Why create this elaborate fiction of mourning and weeping over multitudes who God knows will not only refuse to repent but who, unless He regenerates them, cannot repent because of their total inability to do so?” (p. 107) “Take a human understanding of ‘dead,’ mix it together with the young John Calvin’s immature understanding of God’s Word, tainted by Augustinian philosophy, stir it up and out comes the theory of Total Depravity.” (p. 119) “Yes, man is totally unable to contribute one iota to his salvation. It does not then follow, however, that he therefore cannot receive the salvation freely offered in Christ.” (p. 121) “It is clear that Calvinism rests upon a mistaken view of what it means for God to be sovereign. … The basic problem for the Calvinist is a failure to see that God could sovereignly give to man the power of genuine choice. … Giving man the power to make a genuine, independent choice need not diminish God’s control over His universe. Being omnipotent and omniscient, God can so arrange circumstances as to keep man’s rebellion from frustrating His purposes. In fact, God can and even does use man’s free will to help fulfill His own plans and thus be even more glorified.” (pp. 128, 129) “Suggesting that God would be lacking in ‘power’ (and thus His sovereignty would be denied) if He made a genuine offer of salvation, and some rejected it, is to frame the proposition wrongly. Power has no relationship to grace and love, which provide salvation. In fact, as we shall see, there are many things which God cannot do, and a lack of ‘power’ is not the reason for any of them, nor is His sovereignty mitigated in the least.” (p. 136) “There is no escaping the fact that in Calvin’s entire Institutes of the Christian Religion there is not one mention of God’s love for the lost!” (p. 151) “So once again, rather than looking to men, no matter how great their reputations, we are driven to come to our own conclusions on the basis of Scripture alone.” (p. 162) “Of course salvation is not our doing; but that we cannot earn salvation does not prove that we cannot freely choose to receive salvation as a gift of God’s love.” (p. 182) “The Calvinist insists, however, that salvation cannot be conditioned upon any act or belief on man’s part … This declaration is made repeatedly: ‘To reject [Calvinistic] election is to reject salvation by grace and promote salvation by works.’ Yet if anything is clear in Scripture it is the undisputable fact that faith is not work but its very antithesis. ‘By grace are ye saved, through faith … not of works’ (Ephesians 2:8-9). Nothing could be clearer than the fact that, by believing, one is doing no work. In fact, faith and work are contrasted.” (pp. 190, 191) “… in contrast to the literally hundreds of places where God’s love is clearly expressed for all of Israel (most of whom rejected Him) and for the whole world (most of whom also reject Him), nowhere does the Bible declare that God doesn’t love and desire the salvation of all.” (p. 206) “God’s sovereignty would no more be undermined if some accepted the offer of salvation and others rejected it than for billions of humans continually to disobey the Ten Commandments.” (p. 206) “Furthermore, would it not be a misrepresentation of the worst sort to offer salvation to whosoever will, when in fact it was only intended for a select few? … to claim that ‘all’ means only a select group called the elect does violence to the plain meaning of language and impugns the character of God; and it does this in order to force upon the Word of God a system of religion which cannot be derived from it.” (p. 20  “One of the sad features of Calvin’s Institutes is the demeaning language he continually employs (much like Luther) to vilify all who disagree with him.” (p. 233) “There is no way that Christ’s death could be limited to paying only for the elect’s sins. To deliver even one person from eternal punishment, no matter how few or many the sins he may have committed, Christ had to pay the penalty demanded by His infinite justice for sin. By very definition, then, the death of Christ on the cross paid the penalty for sin itself which hangs over the heads of the entire human race.” (p. 251) “At times, Calvin himself seemed to be ambivalent on this subject. He made statements both supporting unlimited atonement and at other times in favor of limited atonement. Referring to Isaiah 53:12 he said, ‘on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world.’ Concerning Mark 14:24, ‘This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many,’ Calvin said, ‘The word many does not mean a part of the world, but the whole human race.’ On 1 John 2:2, Calvin declared, ‘Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed … for the whole human race.’ … Calvin is quoted as the authority when it suits today’s Calvinists, and at other times he is ignored. Yet this confusing doctrine [limited atonement] upon which its adherents do not agree among themselves or even with Calvin is still called ‘Calvinism’ by everyone.” (p. 262, 263) “As we shall see when we come to Perseverance of the Saints, a major problem for Calvinists is how to be certain that one is among that select group for whom alone Christ allegedly died. We see this uncertainty in Calvin himself. In his will, drawn up shortly before his death. Calvin wrote, “I humbly seek from God … to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race…’ How is it that this greatest of exegetes seemed uncertain in spite of Scripture’s promise of absolute assurance: ‘these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life…’ (1 John 5:13)? Such assurance comes not by a special revelation that one is among the elect, but by simple faith in Christ.” (p. 253) “Tragically, Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God has caused many to turn away from the God of the Bible as from a monster.” (p. 287) “Indeed, just as God himself cannot force anyone to love Him (a coerced response is the opposite of love), so it would be the very opposite of grace to force any gift or benefit of ‘grace’ upon anyone who did not want to receive it.” (p. 291) “God truly and powerfully works within the believer and we can do nothing but by the leading and empowering of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, however, we must give ourselves willingly to the work of God through us. Most Calvinists admit this cooperative effort when it comes to living the Christian life, but insist that there can be no such willingness in believing the gospel and accepting Christ.” (p. 29 “Surely the continual disobedience both of unbelievers and believers proves that God’s grace is not ‘irresistible.’ Nor does man’s disobedience diminish God’s sovereignty in the least. Obviously, freedom of choice itself is part of God’s plan!” (p. 299) “If Paul did not want a single Jew to go to hell and was in continual agony of soul for their salvation, willing even to be accursed of God if that would save his ‘kinsmen according to the flesh’ (Romans 9:1-3), would God, who surely put this selfless love in Paul’s heart, be any less loving and concerned for lost humanity on its way to hell? Surely not the God of the Bible! … Could Paul have been wrong in his continual agony over the lost sheep of the house of Israel (and indeed all men), and Calvin right in his lack of concern for the lost?” (pp. 301, 302) “… my firm disagreement with Calvinism is not over God’s sovereignty, which I fully embrace and to which I submit. The issue is whether God loves all without partiality and desires all to be saved. Unquestionably, Calvinism denies such love; but the Bible, in the clearest language repeatedly declares God’s love to all and His desire that all should be saved and none should be lost.” (pp. 301, 302) “We consider TULIP to be a libel against our loving and merciful God as He reveals himself both in His Word and in human conscience.” (p. 304) “The very fact that Paul, Apollos and the other early evangelists expended so much time and energy in persuading men to believe the gospel is completely contrary to the concept of both Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.” (p. 324) “… the Calvinist has boldly changed ‘world’ to mean ‘elect’ in no fewer than twenty scriptures. He has changed ‘whosoever’ and ‘all’ into ‘elect’ at least sixteen times each. In addition, the phrase ‘every man’ has been turned into ‘elect’ six times and ‘everyone’ into ‘elect’ three times. In every instance where these changes have been made there is nothing in the text to justify ‘elect’ as the meaning of the word for which it must be substituted. The change has been made for one reason only: to accommodate Calvinism!” (p. 332) “No one naturally seeks the Lord; we all seek our own selfish desires, and no one can come to Christ except the Father draw him. But the Holy Spirit is in the world to convict all of their sin and need (John 16:8-11), the gospel is being preached, the Father is drawing everyone (even through the witness of creation and conscience).” (p. 339) “Rather than any natural brilliance, Calvin’s arguments reflect a bias toward the sacramentalism he learned as a Roman Catholic from Augustine, which he elaborated upon and thereafter was compelled to defend. His logic often betrays a spiritual immaturity. Incredibly, Calvin argued: ‘… But if baptism was of God [referring to the Catholic infant baptism he received as a child], it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the Spirit, and communion with Christ.’ These astonishing statements reflect a sacramentalism which maintains that the physical act of baptism has spiritual power and imparts regeneration. To be baptized by Roman Catholic priests who were not even Christians but held to and promoted a false gospel, was perfectly acceptable to Calvin because they used the name of God when they administered it!” (p. 341) “Why doesn’t God’s irresistible grace that is so powerful toward sinners create perfectly obedient lives after sinners are saved?” (p. 354) “Who would say that man can come to God ‘unassisted’ by the Holy Spirit? Not even the rankest Arminian! But Calvinism makes that false charge against those who disagree with its extremism.” (p. 369) “Moreover, it is foolish to suggest that receiving a gift means we deserve it. … A drowning man who yields himself into the hands of his rescuer has nothing to boast about, nor has he done any work to assist in his rescue. So it is with the lost sinner.” (p. 370) “Before beginning what turned into an urgent and in-depth study of Calvinism, I had thought that I was at least a one-point Calvinist. Surely my belief in eternal security, the assurance of salvation eternally in God’s presence, must be the same as Calvinism’s Perseverance of the Saints. That turned out, however, not to be the case. Why? Biblical assurance of salvation does not depend upon one’s performance but upon the gospel’s declaration that Christ died for the sins of the world and upon His promise that whosoever believes in Him receives the gift of eternal life. In contrast, the Calvinist’s assurance is in God having predestined him to eternal life as one of the elect -- and his performance plays a large part in helping him to know whether or not he is among that select group.” (p. 377) “Doubts even assail leading Calvinists. Zane C. Hodges points out that ‘the result of this theology is disastrous. Since, according to Puritan belief, the genuineness of a man’s faith can only be determined by the life that follows it, assurance of salvation becomes impossible at the moment of conversion.’ And, one might add, at any time thereafter as well, for reasons we will show. … No wonder, then, as R.T. Kendall has commented, that ‘nearly all of the Puritan ‘divines’ went through great doubt and despair on their deathbeds as they realized their lives did not give perfect evidence that they were elect.’ Arminius, on the other hand, contrary to the false label attached to him by his enemies, had perfect assurance and said that the believer can ‘depart out of this life … to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear…’ … Congdon writes, ‘Absolute assurance of salvation is impossible in Classical Calvinism. … Since works are an inevitable outcome of “true” salvation, one can only know he or she is saved by the presence of good works. But since no one is perfect … any assurance is at best imperfect as well. Therefore, you may think you believed in Jesus Christ, may think you had saving faith, but be sadly mistaken … and because unsaved, be totally blind to the fact you are unsaved…’” (p. 37 ONE AREA OF DISAGREEMENT WITH HUNT There is very little in this powerful book with which we would disagree. The exception is Hunt’s attempt to discredit the King James Bible’s translation of Acts 13:48. In his attempt to refute Calvinism, Brother Hunt finds it necessary (on page 21 to claim that the King James Bible leaned on the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate in Acts 13:48. Acts 13:48 in the KJV reads: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Hunt admits that it is translated similarly “in the major translations,” so we fail to understand why he finds it necessary to isolate the King James Bible. Did all of the other major versions also lean on the Catholic Vulgate in this passage? Hunt does not tell his readers that English versions predating the King James Bible had the same translation. The Tyndale New Testament reads, “… and believed, even as many as were ordained unto eternal life.” The Geneva, Cranmer, Great, and Bishops Bibles followed suit, as did the KJV. Thus, this is obviously not something that originated with the translators of the King James Bible. Are we really to believe that Tyndale got his translation of Acts 13:48 from the Latin Vulgate and that all of the illustrious English Bibles that succeeded his, including the King James, blindly followed Tyndale in Acts 13:48? There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. The fact that the Catholic Vulgate reads similarly means nothing.Personally, I see no reason to believe that the King James Bible is wrong in the way it translates Acts 13:48. The Bible teaches ordination and election in other passages, and we believe everything the Bible has to say about election. The same Bible, though, teaches man’s responsibility to receive the Gospel. We see both of these truths in Acts 13. While verse 48 says “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” verse 46 says the Jews in that same situation had put salvation “from you” and had judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life. The Calvinist wants to ignore or modify verse 46 while focusing on verse 48. That is the way false teachers use the Bible. They build their doctrine on pet verses and force everything else into that preconceived mold.
| ||
|
ok this is alot of reading and yes I will address the argument...however just to let you know ...your source is not an authority. Dave Hunt is not a theologian and nor does he know Hebrew or Greek. His only degree is a BA in Mathematics. Dr, James White who is a professor of theology , knows Greek and Hebrew refuted and continues to refute Dave hunt who looks like the ignoramus he is. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Premise #1 The true gospel focuses on the amazing gift of salvation offered to all from God that is obtained by simple belief, and sharing this amazing truth with all you encounter. The biblical picture of a lowly sinner accepting the free gift of salvation is the power of the Christian gospel. It is the “good news” from God that should well up from our hearts with love and overflow abundantly on all we know and meet Faulty argument. Simple belief,....even the devil believes in God...does this mean that he is saved...NOT!!! (James) Premise #2 Calvinism is a theological system that teaches that God directly causes people to be saved without them having a choice in the matter, and puts people in eternal hellfire without them ever having an opportunity to repent and believe. They can use all the confusing terminology, deflective debate tactics, and accusations of misrepresentation they like, but that doesn’t change what Calvinism is. The scriptures say that repentance is a gift from God ...so how can you repent without Gods help?? Also, people go to hell anyway...based on the Arminian argument that they did not have enough faith...so again a faulty argument based on a stupid premise and circular reasoning fallesy!!! Premise #3who “believe” upon Him for salvation receive “eternal life” as a present possession. While I do not want to make this article a defense of eternal security, there are many, many passages that teach this to be a fact. This is the big contradiction as Dave Hunt believes in eternal security...hmmm so the Baptist idea of free will can never be lost...where is choice...this represents a gift that will not be revoked. Does not make sense here. Premise #4 God “elects” or chooses you with no “conditions” placed upon that election, including belief. So we see thus far that you cannot choose, and God chooses irrespective of conditions. Simply put YES....SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Premise #5 Does it really mean that God set things up in such a way that some people cannot believe on Jesus? I don’t entertain that thought for a moment. It’s a fact that some will not be saved, but this does not mean that they cannot. God ordained things in such a way that all men have an opportunity at salvation. That is a part of His will He has expressed clearly. But He still knows who will be saved. In 1Peter 1:2 we who are saved are said to be “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” And in the last part of Romans 8:29 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.” In the two places where foreknowledge is discussed in relation to saved people, foreknowledge comes first. It is important to understand that time is one of those constraints that is a part of our experience, but not God’s. It does not determine our choices; it merely provides a span in which to make them. First of all what Dave Hunt thinks is not important. Most humanists do not like God to be God but rather prefer him to be a humanist. A God who loves every one. Well this may seem nice but it is not true. God loves his sheep but he hates the wicked.( those at enmity with him) ...hell is evidence of that!!! Eternal torment. Romans 1:30, describes the ungodly as “haters of God.” Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things the LORD HATES, seven that are DETESTABLE to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. As far as foreknowlegeIn 1 Peter 1:20 we see that the same word for 'foreknowledge' is translated 'foreordained'. God elected christ to die before the foundation of the world. elected Him to die! No, no, no! He died because of God's foreknowledge. It was not a matter of simply looking down and seeing it happen, but a determination that Jesus Christ would die. In Acts 2:23 we see the word used again concerning the death of Jesus Christ and God's purpose in his death. Romans 9:11 where Paul points to foreknowledge and election.... "And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth: it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." This speaks about two individuals, Esau and Jacob and the matter of service in so far as they were concerned. They had not done any evil or good but God said the elder would serve the younger. This is a fact stated. That is God's elected grace. God chose us before sin entered or human responsibility commenced. This is foreknowledge. "we are the elect according to the foreknowledge of God." Elect means to be laid out, to be chosen, ordained. Premise #6Choosing to believe or have faith is not a work. Oh yes it is...if faith is from the human heart. All humans have a measure of faith...you can believe for great things...look at all the positive successful motivators...human faith is soulish and is not saving faith. Faith is a gift from God. Hebrews 12:2 says "...Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith Rom 10:17 says " ... faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ." So faith is a gift from God that we receive from the word of Christ .....Sola scriptura! Premise #7 I’m sure that every Christian believes their faith is built on the Bible, but I think it is clear that anyone who adheres to the aberrant theology of Calvin when faced with the enormous scriptural inconsistencies has shown themselves to not be basing their beliefs solely on the extant Word of God, but rather a theological viewpoint. oh ya now that makes sense.....doctrine is important. Doctrine must be based on Gods word. Theology outside that is the doctrines of man. Gods word created the world and has power unto salvation. He who has ears to hear let him hear what the Spirit says. Isaiah 55:10-11 ...[11] so is my word that goes out from my mouth, It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
God TheyE 4]Premise #8 Bible believers believe God is sovereign, but we don’t believe people are robots that are zapped into heaven and banished to hell with out a “fair” opportunity from a just and righteous creator. Sovereign grace (a facet of God’s sovereignty taught by Calvinists) is in the final analysis an unfair, unjust and unrighteous selective grace and not the biblical portrayal of God’s grace. The sovereign grace we find in the Bible is one that is offered without respect of persons to all out love by a supremely fair and just almighty creator. Do you disagree with this? The Bible says we are made in God’s image, with an eternal soul, knowledge of right and wrong, and a capacity to choose Wrong! Man was made in Gods image in the beginning but after the fall he became like the devil in nature. He is corrupt and in no way good. He cannot keep Gods law in any way shape or form. Unless God intervenes man is lost. Appointed unto wrath. The devil is the father of the fallen nature. Man cannot choose good. Man is just like his father the devil. He knows good and evil but he cannot perform good. Sin is in the heart continually and perpetually. To say man can choose God is to say that he is able to perform a good action on his own without god...NOT! THIS IS THE HUMANIST DOCTRINE. man inherently good. ...just a christian twist to it. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after GodThey are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one Premise #9my firm disagreement with Calvinism is not over God’s sovereignty, which I fully embrace and to which I submit. The issue is whether God loves all without partiality and desires all to be saved. If David Hunt really believed in Gosovereigntynty then he would accept that God is God and his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. Rather he clings to the humanist argument. Does God want all to be saved?...why are onlyremnantent Israeleal going to be saved ...not all...and the rest blinded....why does God open the eyes of some blind people and not others. Not enough faith? The lost are blinded to the gospel and cannot seperceiveeve ,understand or desire after the gospel. The lost are under the power of the wicked one...slaves to the darkness of this world. they cannot believe without God anointing their eyes with his anointing oil!! "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," Prov. 16:4 "just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day,'" Rom. 11:8 Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Premise #10 Romans 9. God is actively using Pharaoh for his purposes, which is the point of Romans 9, but he is not predetermining to damn Pharaoh and failing to provide a mechanism through which he could repent, believe and be saved. This is an extra biblical presumption forced on the passage by someone stuck within a Calvinistic paradigm. Not an extra biblical assumption. The scriptures mean what they say. To try to fudge the verse another way is what presumptuousous. God did not force Pharaoh to do anything contrary to his natural, unregenerate desires. God is so sovereign that men cannot resist him at all in any way. But God does change some unregenerate men to act contrary to their natural desires when He gives them a new nature and new set of desires. The unregenerate man will never desire a new nature or a new set of desires. He cannot. So God is giving an unregenerate man a new set of desires contrary to the desire of the unregenerate man. And God gets all the glory for it. Premise #11 No greater libel against God’s character could be brought. Grammatically we know that in the English as well as the Greek “fitted” can be an adjective or a verb. Even as a verb you do not have to assess all this Calvinistic bias on the passage. Pharaoh fitted himself, and was fitted by God, but because of Pharaoh’s heart, not due to God being cold hearted and not giving him a fair opportunity. As an adjective it means “appropriate for” destruction, which is probably the accurate sense here anyway. Either way you have to read a great deal into this passage for it to support the Calvinistic view on personal salvation that regeneration precedes belief and is dispensed arbitrarily by God. Romans 9:22, 23 "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." It is plain that these words stand in immediate connection with the preceding, especially with the figure of the potter and the clay. They show the purpose for which God makes vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor. This purpose is on the one hand, to show His wrath and to make His power known, and on the other, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory. To say other wise is to reinterpret this scripture in the humanist mentality. The terms "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" are figurative of the reprobate wicked and those that God has shown mercy to. Wdifferentiateate?? The ungodly are the objects of the wrath of God the bible says. They are vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction. The others are vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory. Fitted...being the right size and shape to fit as desired. What do Arminians do with this scripture? Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ Ordain To authorize, To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact,To prearrange unalterably; predestine: Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Premise #8 Bible believers believe God is sovereign, but we don’t believe people are robots that are zapped into heaven and banished to hell with out a “fair” opportunity from a just and righteous creator. Sovereign grace (a facet of God’s sovereignty taught by Calvinists) is in the final analysis an unfair, unjust and unrighteous selective grace and not the biblical portrayal of God’s grace. The sovereign grace we find in the Bible is one that is offered without respect of persons to all out love by a supremely fair and just almighty creator. Do you disagree with this? The Bible says we are made in God’s image, with an eternal soul, knowledge of right and wrong, and a capacity to choose Wrong! Man was made in Gods image in the beginning but after the fall he became like the devil in nature. He is corrupt and in no way good. He cannot keep Gods law in any way shape or form. Unless God intervenes man is lost. Appointed unto wrath. The devil is the father of the fallen nature. Man cannot choose good. Man is just like his father the devil. He knows good and evil but he cannot perform good. Sin is in the heart continually and perpetually. To say man can choose God is to say that he is able to perform a good action on his own without god...NOT! THIS IS THE HUMANIST DOCTRINE. man inherently good. ...just a christian twist to it. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one Premise #9 my firm disagreement with Calvinism is not over God’s sovereignty, which I fully embrace and to which I submit. The issue is whether God loves all without partiality and desires all to be saved. If David Hunt really believed in Gosovereigntynty then he would accept that God is God and his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. Rather he clings to the humanist argument. Does God want all to be saved?...why are onlyremnantent Israeleal going to be saved ...not all...and the rest blinded....why does God open the eyes of some blind people and not others. Not enough faith? The lost are blinded to the gospel and cannot seperceiveeve ,understand or desire after the gospel. The lost are under the power of the wicked one...slaves to the darkness of this world. they cannot believe without God anointing their eyes with his anointing oil!! "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," Prov. 16:4 "just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day,'" Rom. 11:8 Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables.That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Premise #10 Romans 9. God is actively using Pharaoh for his purposes, which is the point of Romans 9, but he is not predetermining to damn Pharaoh and failing to provide a mechanism through which he could repent, believe and be saved. This is an extra biblical presumption forced on the passage by someone stuck within a Calvinistic paradigm. Not an extra biblical assumption. The scriptures mean what they say. To try to fudge the verse another way is what presumptuousous. God did not force Pharaoh to do anything contrary to his natural, unregenerate desires. God is so sovereign that men cannot resist him at all in any way. But God does change some unregenerate men to act contrary to their natural desires when He gives them a new nature and new set of desires. The unregenerate man will never desire a new nature or a new set of desires. He cannot. So God is giving an unregenerate man a new set of desires contrary to the desire of the unregenerate man. And God gets all the glory for it. Premise #11 No greater libel against God’s character could be brought. Grammatically we know that in the English as well as the Greek “fitted” can be an adjective or a verb. Even as a verb you do not have to assess all this Calvinistic bias on the passage. Pharaoh fitted himself, and was fitted by God, but because of Pharaoh’s heart, not due to God being cold hearted and not giving him a fair opportunity. As an adjective it means “appropriate for” destruction, which is probably the accurate sense here anyway. Either way you have to read a great deal into this passage for it to support the Calvinistic view on personal salvation that regeneration precedes belief and is dispensed arbitrarily by God. Romans 9:22, 23 "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." It is plain that these words stand in immediate connection with the preceding, especially with the figure of the potter and the clay. They show the purpose for which God makes vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor. This purpose is on the one hand, to show His wrath and to make His power known, and on the other, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory. To say other wise is to reinterpret this scripture in the humanist mentality. The terms "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" are figurative of the reprobate wicked and those that God has shown mercy to. Wdifferentiateate?? The ungodly are the objects of the wrath of God the bible says. They are vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction. The others are vessels of mercy, afore prepared unto glory. Fitted...being the right size and shape to fit as desired. What do Arminians do with this scripture? Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ Ordain To authorize, To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact,To prearrange unalterably; predestine Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Premise 12 Who Hath Resisted His Will...... let’s discuss another very prominent misinterpretation of Romans 9. Verse 19 says “who hath resisted his will?” The obvious answer is nobody. But the Calvinist would have you to also interpret this in light of their heretical view of God. In other words, everyone going to heaven and hell were willed there by God, without any opportunity afforded them by God to choose. After all, Romans 9:16 says “it is not of him that willeth.” Instead of viewing this through the lens of Calvinism, why don’t we refer to what the Bible says God’s will is in reference to personal salvation to answer this question? God said He was “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” in 2Peter 3:9. But of course the Calvinist would fit this into their framework by claiming that this epistle is written to the elect, and it only refers to them. Well, how about elsewhere. Can we learn about the will of God from other places in the Bible? How about John 3:16? “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here we have God giving His wholly righteous Son to be humiliated and tortured to death for our sakes. But of course the Calvinist has this wedged within the narrow confines of his legal system also. Of course “whosoever believeth Can anyone see the Red Herring fallesy here? Completely get us off tract to ignore Romans 9:16....lets not look at it this way ut how aout looking in this direction...oh no you dont Dave Hunt...we caught that one! Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy Plaily interpreted to mean ...God shows mercy and you have nothing to do with contributing to your salvation !!! Arminians always avoid the books of John. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Yes those who believe will be saved but the argument is HOW DO THEY BELIEVE???? I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 10:11 I am the good shepherd, the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. Premise 13“It Is Not of Him that Willeth” Who is the Lord of the harvest? Who gives souls...ask of me and I WILL GIVE THEE THE HEATHEN FOR THINE INHERITANCE. The will is bound by the evil one who takes them captive at his will...they are slaves with no will to choose God. Humanism says man has a free will. The bible teaches that man is corrupt, blind, AND CANNOT HEAR!!! God gives the increase! Premise 13 Is Will and Choice Necessary for Love? What love? Eros..mans love..yes. Gods love...no. Only those born of God can love by the holy Spirit. A born again person can choose to love because he has been given Gods nature. God is love. An unregenertate person has no ability to love other than carnal selfish love. Premise 14 Why doesn’t God’s irresistible grace that is so powerful toward sinners create perfectly obedient lives after sinners are saved?” Simply put...there is none good but God. We still live in a body that has not been glorified yet...otherwise we would be in heaven!!! Premise 14 “Surely the continual disobedience both of unbelievers and believers proves that God’s grace is not ‘irresistible.’ Nor does man’s disobedience diminish God’s sovereignty in the least. Obviously, freedom of choice itself is part of God’s plan!” (p. 299) We grow in Gods grace...hello? That is how God chose to do things Mr. Humanist! 2 Peter 3: 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. Sweethoney Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
LOL...you misuse scriptures and say others do? You are shpowing exacdtly why Calvinism is demonic. Its never about Jesus with you, its about the writings of a murderer and someone who was never even saved, and thus never inspired by the Holy Spirit in the first place. So you listen to someone who was inspired by demons. Thus calvinism is demonic.
| ||
|
These are my writings not Calvin and Calvin is not the only one who was a reformer. Spurgeon,Bunyan,Whitefeild,Luther. Dave Hunt makes alot of money selling sensationalism books not properly researched and with no education theologically at all and you believe him over great historical men of God....how utterly foolish. Even the devil believes and he is not going to heaven. You need to be converted. Born again by the holy Spirit....thats what Calvin preached. You obviously want to believe your way and trust in the god of your understanding based on easy believism and no conversion. To say that Calvinism is demonic is the most ignorant and I do mean it in the literal sense, statement I have ever heard. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
|
Christians humanists are all those who put their trust in their own arm to save them by contributing to their salvation. If you trust in your own faith then you are a humanist. The bible says that their is nothing good in man....nothing. Much of the so called Christian church are not even saved. Easy believism does not constitute salvation. Judgment first begins at the house of God. Narrow is the way to life and few their be that find it. You must be born of God by the holy Spirit. This is an act of grace and man cannot bring it on....God saves and only him. Believing in Jesus is not salvation John 3:5-8 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth,( this means where ever he desires) and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
12/17/2007 7:07 pm |
Dennis, Your poll is as unreasonable as the one where godlycook offered only choices for people to hate/despise/dislike/or be annoyed by his presence. I don't like how people feel so free to throw around words like 'demonic' or 'Pelagian' and 'pagan'. The fairest option to me is 'Why do the CALVINISTS never speak of the love and joy in CHRIST?' From all their discussion one would be led to believe Calvin was the Messiah. Very thorough butt-kicking I thought you gave Kim on her post. I don't exactly agree with your words that man can choose to be saved, but 'with the preparation from God' man is able to grasp for himself that for which Christ grasped us. Good luck on converting SweetHoney. Helluva handle for her, eh? I would have to say she is one of those 'stubborn, hard-hearted' folks you referred to, but hey it's not her fault. She's predestined that way. P.S. When Florida goes under water, stay down there! 
| ||
12/19/2007 11:54 am |
Ive read scriptures that imply choice such as "many are invited but few will enter" and also scriptures such as the apostle paul mentioning being predestined. Seems to me both apply, those that were given to Christ being predestined of which our Lord said I will not lose one of them and everyone else being invited. As per usual some will focus on one or the other and build doctrines out of it. I think the well knowen analogy on the blind men holding different ends of the elephant and aguing over what it is applys.
| ||
|
Isaiah1975 That is why we are called to study the word and not just read it. So that our doctrine can be sound. Many people just believe what their church or pastor says rather than looking into it for themselves. If we study both church history and the bible, Both Greek and Hebrew words we will know the truth. It is not enough just to say Lord Lord,.....you must be born again of the Spirit of God. He only can make one born from above. All the sinners prayers in the world wont get one saved. The devil believes and he is not saved. Isaiah 42:8 " I am the Lord; that is my name! And My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to graven images."
| ||
12/20/2007 6:25 am |
Isaiah1975 That is why we are called to study the word and not just read it. So that our doctrine can be sound. Many people just believe what their church or pastor says rather than looking into it for themselves. If we study both church history and the bible, Both Greek and Hebrew words we will know the truth. It is not enough just to say Lord Lord,.....you must be born again of the Spirit of God. He only can make one born from above. All the sinners prayers in the world wont get one saved. The devil believes and he is not saved. You are also right about "He only can make one born from above" and he did just that and freely offered salvation to those who believe and then they are "born again"
|
×
×