Why im not a calvinist (but want to be)
- Thread starter Issachar92
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Whoa....are you like this with everyone or just me? Are you the forum bully?
If trofimus can find and minister to them, how can you declare that they don't exist?
How do you know what Issachar92 wants?
Who are you to decide that my comment does not merit the thread?
My points are on subject and valid and even if not they are not excuses for what you have written.
You are surely the most judgmental person in this forum.
Please do not response on this thread, you have done enough damage already. If you want to blow off some steam you can continue mocking me with a private message.
Stabbing my hand into the table??
If trofimus can find and minister to them, how can you declare that they don't exist?
How do you know what Issachar92 wants?
Who are you to decide that my comment does not merit the thread?
My points are on subject and valid and even if not they are not excuses for what you have written.
You are surely the most judgmental person in this forum.
Please do not response on this thread, you have done enough damage already. If you want to blow off some steam you can continue mocking me with a private message.
Stabbing my hand into the table??
Only Israel was chosen! not sure where you are going here????
It is totally up to you to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. And it is by Faith and Faith alone.
Because God can see the future HE knows who will make the right decision but it really is still up to you and your free will.
"No one knows the Day or the Hour" But GOD Does..... EVEN Jesus tells us that ONLY the FATHER knows when the fulfillment of the Church has come in. HOW does HE know.... SEE ABOVE!
So when the last TRUE Christian accepts Jesus Christ, I would assume that the Father will tell Jesus to come and get US. I cannot wait????Wow
It is totally up to you to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. And it is by Faith and Faith alone.
Because God can see the future HE knows who will make the right decision but it really is still up to you and your free will.
"No one knows the Day or the Hour" But GOD Does..... EVEN Jesus tells us that ONLY the FATHER knows when the fulfillment of the Church has come in. HOW does HE know.... SEE ABOVE!
So when the last TRUE Christian accepts Jesus Christ, I would assume that the Father will tell Jesus to come and get US. I cannot wait????Wow
as my last post, Yes GOD already Knows who will accept Jesus as their savior by Faith alone.
It is still up to that person to make the choice.
If you have not made the choice by now, time is running out...... The Rapture is Imminent which means in the next " twinkle of an eye" or beyond, it can happen. The big question is: ARE you going to BE READY when it does come. Of, course once the Rapture happens, there will many millions of people that will convert to Jesus. They will have to die in his name and will become tribulations Saints.
When the Great White Throne happens, I do not believe that His mercy will be present. In all actuality, "He gives us MERCY for what we DO NOT deserve" and "HE DOES NOT give us judgement for what WE DO deserve." Of course this is referring to the forgiving of your sins upon accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.
What about you????? Don't think on it too much,,,,it could be too long!??????
Last edited:
When it comes right down to it, whether you are Calvinist or Arminian, God knows exactly who is going to be saved, and no one else other than this group will be saved. And, the number won't vary whatsoever.
God has perfect, exhaustive foreknowledge and knows the number and the names.
Only open theists would claim otherwise, and their position is plainly unbiblical (Isaiah 46:9-10).
So, in a sense, the fate of the individual who is born has already been decided, and nothing is going to change that. For some people, the minute they are born, they are hopeless because God knows they are not in the elect. For the rest, they are never going to be hopeless because they are one of the elect.
There is no escaping this, unless you claim God's knowledge is limited, and that he lives life in sequence like man does. This is a sub-Christian view. I used to have an open-theist view due to the sub-Christian cult I belonged to. I was told that God didn't even know I was going to exist until I was conceived and born. Their god was after their own imagination.
The difference is WHY the person is saved. Reformed theology believes salvation is totally by grace, and that God regenerates the person prior to salvation. This regeneration causes the spiritually dead person to be reborn, giving them a new spiritual nature that wants to obey and love God. He therefore places his faith in Jesus Christ and repents due to this change in nature. It is totally by grace, and God is the author and finisher of that person's salvation. And, regardless of who he elects, they WILL be saved despite whatever circumstances that person faces in regards to their environment..God WILL accomplish his purpose in this person.
Arminian or synergistic believers think that God brings the person to a state of "prevenient grace" (the Scotch tape of Arminian theology which has no biblical basis) so that the spiritually dead person is in a semi-comatose state where they are able to choose God or to reject him...neither fully alive nor fully dead. If the person decides to respond in faith, they are saved and regenerated (after salvation). If the person decides not to respond, God apparently continues to woo them like a jilted, helpless boyfriend until they eventually respond or he decides to give up (as if he didn't know the outcome anyways). There's no consensus on whether God provides an equal playing field for this person, or how long he tries until he gives up (as if he doesn't know it's hopeless when he starts).
Some will say, it's not fair if God chooses. The fair thing is that we all go to eternal punishment. The fact that he saves anyone is totally grace. Westerners think that everyone has a RIGHT to the same opportunity...I would contest that.
I also think that if God elects as Reformed theology teaches, it's actually MORE FAIR for some individuals. For instance, it's not fair if some guy in Saudi Arabia is born into a family who is Muslim and he was raised being a Christ-hater, if equal opportunity is an entitlement to all individuals, versus myself who was raised in a home with a Christian parent and exposed to some level of an understanding and bias toward Christianity. Through election, God ensures that the Muslim he elects comes to faith regardless of his circumstances..there is no doubt that this Muslim will be saved, no matter if it requires special dreams or extraordinary means, if God has ordained it.
To buy into the Arminian view, one has to believe that God, who knows the hearts of all men, cannot accomplish his will in that person's life if he chooses to do so. I simply reject that view based on God's omniscience and omnipotence. If he has to go to extraordinary means, he can accomplish salvation in anyone, therefore I must believe that he is passing over the ones which are not saved. Look at Nebuchadnezzar and Paul as examples. I don't think they would have been in the yearbook under "Most Likely to be Saved" yet both responded to God, praising Him ultimately. Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to the status of a grass-eating creature in order to do it, and Paul was knocked off his donkey and blinded to accomplish it.
Anyways, Reformed theology is the most coherent view exegetically. I wouldn't even consider returning back to Arminian theology.
I would also ask non-Reformed people..given their theology, how much effort does God expend in bringing someone to salvation before he gives up? Why does he expend any effort if he already knows the outcome? Do you seriously think the Midianite high priest had the same opportunity to know God as Moses?
Ultimately, I think the Arminian is faced with the issue of his salvation being attributed, at least in part, to his own personal merit. I don't think he can escape that ultimate conclusion. There was something superior to me that caused me to place my faith in Jesus, versus the guy who did not, so there is SOMETHING to boast about. I was wiser than the other guy who failed to do so. I don't think personal merit can be removed from the equation in an Arminian worldview.
God has perfect, exhaustive foreknowledge and knows the number and the names.
Only open theists would claim otherwise, and their position is plainly unbiblical (Isaiah 46:9-10).
So, in a sense, the fate of the individual who is born has already been decided, and nothing is going to change that. For some people, the minute they are born, they are hopeless because God knows they are not in the elect. For the rest, they are never going to be hopeless because they are one of the elect.
There is no escaping this, unless you claim God's knowledge is limited, and that he lives life in sequence like man does. This is a sub-Christian view. I used to have an open-theist view due to the sub-Christian cult I belonged to. I was told that God didn't even know I was going to exist until I was conceived and born. Their god was after their own imagination.
The difference is WHY the person is saved. Reformed theology believes salvation is totally by grace, and that God regenerates the person prior to salvation. This regeneration causes the spiritually dead person to be reborn, giving them a new spiritual nature that wants to obey and love God. He therefore places his faith in Jesus Christ and repents due to this change in nature. It is totally by grace, and God is the author and finisher of that person's salvation. And, regardless of who he elects, they WILL be saved despite whatever circumstances that person faces in regards to their environment..God WILL accomplish his purpose in this person.
Arminian or synergistic believers think that God brings the person to a state of "prevenient grace" (the Scotch tape of Arminian theology which has no biblical basis) so that the spiritually dead person is in a semi-comatose state where they are able to choose God or to reject him...neither fully alive nor fully dead. If the person decides to respond in faith, they are saved and regenerated (after salvation). If the person decides not to respond, God apparently continues to woo them like a jilted, helpless boyfriend until they eventually respond or he decides to give up (as if he didn't know the outcome anyways). There's no consensus on whether God provides an equal playing field for this person, or how long he tries until he gives up (as if he doesn't know it's hopeless when he starts).
Some will say, it's not fair if God chooses. The fair thing is that we all go to eternal punishment. The fact that he saves anyone is totally grace. Westerners think that everyone has a RIGHT to the same opportunity...I would contest that.
I also think that if God elects as Reformed theology teaches, it's actually MORE FAIR for some individuals. For instance, it's not fair if some guy in Saudi Arabia is born into a family who is Muslim and he was raised being a Christ-hater, if equal opportunity is an entitlement to all individuals, versus myself who was raised in a home with a Christian parent and exposed to some level of an understanding and bias toward Christianity. Through election, God ensures that the Muslim he elects comes to faith regardless of his circumstances..there is no doubt that this Muslim will be saved, no matter if it requires special dreams or extraordinary means, if God has ordained it.
To buy into the Arminian view, one has to believe that God, who knows the hearts of all men, cannot accomplish his will in that person's life if he chooses to do so. I simply reject that view based on God's omniscience and omnipotence. If he has to go to extraordinary means, he can accomplish salvation in anyone, therefore I must believe that he is passing over the ones which are not saved. Look at Nebuchadnezzar and Paul as examples. I don't think they would have been in the yearbook under "Most Likely to be Saved" yet both responded to God, praising Him ultimately. Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to the status of a grass-eating creature in order to do it, and Paul was knocked off his donkey and blinded to accomplish it.
Anyways, Reformed theology is the most coherent view exegetically. I wouldn't even consider returning back to Arminian theology.
I would also ask non-Reformed people..given their theology, how much effort does God expend in bringing someone to salvation before he gives up? Why does he expend any effort if he already knows the outcome? Do you seriously think the Midianite high priest had the same opportunity to know God as Moses?
Ultimately, I think the Arminian is faced with the issue of his salvation being attributed, at least in part, to his own personal merit. I don't think he can escape that ultimate conclusion. There was something superior to me that caused me to place my faith in Jesus, versus the guy who did not, so there is SOMETHING to boast about. I was wiser than the other guy who failed to do so. I don't think personal merit can be removed from the equation in an Arminian worldview.
S
We are not over complicating things, I am just restated what Scripture clearly teaches. I believe in the God who has his hands in every part and function of my salvation. What you may call 'complicated theology,' is just giving credit to each Person of the Trinity in their work of redemption in us, and leaving no room for us to boast.
I think our pride wants us to believe we had a voice somewhere in the plan of God.
I think our pride wants us to believe we had a voice somewhere in the plan of God.
John 3:16 in no way denies Reformed theology and those who think it does are amusing. The verse is basically talking about "the believing ones" which is the elect. The point is that regeneration precedes faith or belief. In fact the reason Nicodemus did not understand Christ in the preceding verses is that he hadn't been regenerated yet. Christ was talking to a spiritually dead man.
Due to tradition and probably Bible sales the "whosoever believes" phrase remains in John 3:16 but it could just as easily be translated "the believing ones" which describes the elect. No one believes until they are made alive again. See Ephesians 2. Arminians like to brandish the "whosoever believes" around as some kind of sword but in reality it's not even a toothpick lol.
Due to tradition and probably Bible sales the "whosoever believes" phrase remains in John 3:16 but it could just as easily be translated "the believing ones" which describes the elect. No one believes until they are made alive again. See Ephesians 2. Arminians like to brandish the "whosoever believes" around as some kind of sword but in reality it's not even a toothpick lol.
God elected the patriarchs in a salvific sense. He also had an elect remnant of true believers as Romans 11 indicates in a salvific sense. In a corporate nonsalvific sense, he elected ancient Israel. So we see both individual and corporate election.
Paul refers to both types of election in Romans 9-11. Romans 8 makes it clear though that individual salvific election was the overall context.
Interestingly the Day of Atonement only applied to the elect within Israel; it was not extended to the Gentile nations so in essence we have a prototype of limited atonement. I don't believe this atonement applied to the non-faithful within Israel either. Hebrews seems to indicate it was for "those who draw near" meaning the elect within the elect.
Limited Atonement is an interesting doctrine. Some Calvinists will accept all but this point but I don't see their reasoning. I think what they really find troubling is election in general. I am not concerned with limited atonement as Christs atonement is only effective for those who believe no matter whether you are Reformed or Arminian. I believe the aggression is misplaced and in reality the real concern is election.
The Calvinist believes the atonement is specific AND effective; it accomplishes the salvation for those it is intended for (the elect). Arminians believe it is general (for all) AND potentially ineffective; that it only accomplishes the salvation of some. It's a totally different mindset. In their theology potentially no one could have been saved through the atonement; in Reformed theology it accomplishes the salvation of EVERYONE it's intended for.
A study of the book of Hebrews and Leviticus in the light of the tabernacle and the atonement is enlightening in this regard. Most Christians don't understand the Mosaic Covenant well enough to understand the book of Hebrews. I've been focused on this recently.
James White has an 80 sermon series on Hebrews on SermonAudio that helps in this regard. I had already been studying it due to my Judaizers past.
Paul refers to both types of election in Romans 9-11. Romans 8 makes it clear though that individual salvific election was the overall context.
Interestingly the Day of Atonement only applied to the elect within Israel; it was not extended to the Gentile nations so in essence we have a prototype of limited atonement. I don't believe this atonement applied to the non-faithful within Israel either. Hebrews seems to indicate it was for "those who draw near" meaning the elect within the elect.
Limited Atonement is an interesting doctrine. Some Calvinists will accept all but this point but I don't see their reasoning. I think what they really find troubling is election in general. I am not concerned with limited atonement as Christs atonement is only effective for those who believe no matter whether you are Reformed or Arminian. I believe the aggression is misplaced and in reality the real concern is election.
The Calvinist believes the atonement is specific AND effective; it accomplishes the salvation for those it is intended for (the elect). Arminians believe it is general (for all) AND potentially ineffective; that it only accomplishes the salvation of some. It's a totally different mindset. In their theology potentially no one could have been saved through the atonement; in Reformed theology it accomplishes the salvation of EVERYONE it's intended for.
A study of the book of Hebrews and Leviticus in the light of the tabernacle and the atonement is enlightening in this regard. Most Christians don't understand the Mosaic Covenant well enough to understand the book of Hebrews. I've been focused on this recently.
James White has an 80 sermon series on Hebrews on SermonAudio that helps in this regard. I had already been studying it due to my Judaizers past.