3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists
- Thread starter Whispered
- 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.
That first part, after, (I've put this in bold text), "If you believe...., is impossible to arrive at as a conclusion with reference to those who choose to accept Christ as Savior. It is impossible to arrive at such a conclusion through reading the Gospels.
"then those that accept his offer become their own savior, giving them power over a God who wants to save all of them, but can't because man won't let him.", is beyond comprehension.
How you arrive at that conclusion due to my remarks concerning the actual Gospel message is beyond me.
You've relegated humans to the state of droids. Mindless flesh and bone unable to comprehend or make a free choice to follow Jesus because one has read the Gospel, recognized its message is telling them they are a sinner, and choose to repent and find Salvation.
Instead, the God that made them mindless in that regard, has to change their mind himself so that they are then able to have faith in him, and that then is why he is their savior.
That's actually a doctrine that says, God decided whom he would save and whom he would damn before he created anything at all. Then, starting with Adam and Eve, he damned all people but later on those people he decided prior to creation to save from the damnation he set forth for all people would be the one's he'd save
Because he would then allow them to hold faith, after he altered the minds of those he pre-elected to save so that they could actually hold that faith that would save them. The rest he left to be mindless and damned and destined for Hell for all time.
And yet, what is missed in such a doctrine as yours, because yours isn't even close to hyper Calvinism much less Calvinism, or TULIP in its truest formula for that matter, is, that part about unconditional election and predestination.
When God, before anything came to exist, predestined certain people to be saved, the so called elect by that definition, from damnation and by their name, their having faith isn't actually necessary.
Because God already tagged them as saved without their having come yet to exist, or needing to hold faith. Because God held faith in them and saved them before they were created.
What then do they need faith for when they're already saved? And before they world they now inhabit was created.
"then those that accept his offer become their own savior, giving them power over a God who wants to save all of them, but can't because man won't let him.", is beyond comprehension.
How you arrive at that conclusion due to my remarks concerning the actual Gospel message is beyond me.
You've relegated humans to the state of droids. Mindless flesh and bone unable to comprehend or make a free choice to follow Jesus because one has read the Gospel, recognized its message is telling them they are a sinner, and choose to repent and find Salvation.
Instead, the God that made them mindless in that regard, has to change their mind himself so that they are then able to have faith in him, and that then is why he is their savior.
That's actually a doctrine that says, God decided whom he would save and whom he would damn before he created anything at all. Then, starting with Adam and Eve, he damned all people but later on those people he decided prior to creation to save from the damnation he set forth for all people would be the one's he'd save
Because he would then allow them to hold faith, after he altered the minds of those he pre-elected to save so that they could actually hold that faith that would save them. The rest he left to be mindless and damned and destined for Hell for all time.
And yet, what is missed in such a doctrine as yours, because yours isn't even close to hyper Calvinism much less Calvinism, or TULIP in its truest formula for that matter, is, that part about unconditional election and predestination.
When God, before anything came to exist, predestined certain people to be saved, the so called elect by that definition, from damnation and by their name, their having faith isn't actually necessary.
Because God already tagged them as saved without their having come yet to exist, or needing to hold faith. Because God held faith in them and saved them before they were created.
What then do they need faith for when they're already saved? And before they world they now inhabit was created.
LOL
It is hilarious that you would claim that Reformed theology somehow reflects Roman Catholicism on the topic of predestination.
They are more synergistic like you free willers. RCC hated and persecuted the Jansenists for this very reason.
I strongly encourage folks on this forum to read church history. The tripe that some individuals spew here on a regular basis will turn your brains to mush if you believe it. You might as well be reading the National Enquirer on the toilet seat.
Thanks for the laugh this morning though
It is hilarious that you would claim that Reformed theology somehow reflects Roman Catholicism on the topic of predestination.
They are more synergistic like you free willers. RCC hated and persecuted the Jansenists for this very reason.
I strongly encourage folks on this forum to read church history. The tripe that some individuals spew here on a regular basis will turn your brains to mush if you believe it. You might as well be reading the National Enquirer on the toilet seat.
Thanks for the laugh this morning though
-
1
- Show all
LOL
It is hilarious that you would claim that Reformed theology somehow reflects Roman Catholicism on the topic of predestination.
They are more synergistic like you free willers. RCC hated and persecuted the Jansenists for this very reason.
I strongly encourage folks on this forum to read church history. The tripe that some individuals spew here on a regular basis will turn your brains to mush if you believe it. You might as well be reading the National Enquirer on the toilet seat.
Thanks for the laugh this morning though
It is hilarious that you would claim that Reformed theology somehow reflects Roman Catholicism on the topic of predestination.
They are more synergistic like you free willers. RCC hated and persecuted the Jansenists for this very reason.
I strongly encourage folks on this forum to read church history. The tripe that some individuals spew here on a regular basis will turn your brains to mush if you believe it. You might as well be reading the National Enquirer on the toilet seat.
Thanks for the laugh this morning though
Are you trusting someone who can’t even see that infant baptism is not biblical?
You know that’s not the position of Reformed folks. In fact it’s the antithesis to Reformed teachings and to texts of Scripture where we derive these truths. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 is just one example.
You’re fully aware if this and that your statement is bearing false witness. Go get some actual Reformed documentation that proves your false accusation. And no, not one Reformed person here or anywhere has ever taught your false assertion.
In layman’s terms, we know and teach that God elects to salvation only unworthy, wicked and incapable sinners and because of nothing good in them, note Romans 3:9-20.
Your theology on the other hand teaches God chose you because you did something in order to become choosable which makes salvation a reward for performance, not a gift. That is where the true “I’m really special” factor comes in because “I chose out of my own ability, free will and genuine love for God.”
You’re fully aware if this and that your statement is bearing false witness. Go get some actual Reformed documentation that proves your false accusation. And no, not one Reformed person here or anywhere has ever taught your false assertion.
In layman’s terms, we know and teach that God elects to salvation only unworthy, wicked and incapable sinners and because of nothing good in them, note Romans 3:9-20.
Your theology on the other hand teaches God chose you because you did something in order to become choosable which makes salvation a reward for performance, not a gift. That is where the true “I’m really special” factor comes in because “I chose out of my own ability, free will and genuine love for God.”
Firstly, I haven't even read John Calvin's books.
John Calvin did not continue to be a Roman Catholic. Neither was he ordained as a priest. Your claim is ridiculous. And, the fact that he continued to baptize infants reflected that he had a serious misunderstanding in that area.
Do you realize that Luther continued to baptize infants, too? Yet, he was brave enough to challenge the Roman Catholics and to depart from the church.
Christians don't go from one state of confusion to a state of perfect knowledge all at once. It happens in stages.
This sort of propaganda is reflective of Dave Hunt and the rest of those anti-Reformed propagandists. Next thing I know, you will be telling me about Michael Servetus and how Calvin single-handedly burned him alive with green wood.
By the way, John Calvin has nothing to do with my understanding of salvation. In fact, it was an Arminian pastor who told me that what I was seeing in the Bible was "Calvinism". I didn't even know who John Calvin was at that point.
And, I haven't read Institutes, although I would read it if I didn't have other things on my plate.
The most important thing is what the Bible says. And, free-willers simply deny and twist Scripture to deal with election and predestination, because humans want to worship themselves rather than God. That is why I structured my signature to deal with that issue.
John Calvin did not continue to be a Roman Catholic. Neither was he ordained as a priest. Your claim is ridiculous. And, the fact that he continued to baptize infants reflected that he had a serious misunderstanding in that area.
Do you realize that Luther continued to baptize infants, too? Yet, he was brave enough to challenge the Roman Catholics and to depart from the church.
Christians don't go from one state of confusion to a state of perfect knowledge all at once. It happens in stages.
This sort of propaganda is reflective of Dave Hunt and the rest of those anti-Reformed propagandists. Next thing I know, you will be telling me about Michael Servetus and how Calvin single-handedly burned him alive with green wood.
By the way, John Calvin has nothing to do with my understanding of salvation. In fact, it was an Arminian pastor who told me that what I was seeing in the Bible was "Calvinism". I didn't even know who John Calvin was at that point.
And, I haven't read Institutes, although I would read it if I didn't have other things on my plate.
The most important thing is what the Bible says. And, free-willers simply deny and twist Scripture to deal with election and predestination, because humans want to worship themselves rather than God. That is why I structured my signature to deal with that issue.
And you know very well this is a false statement. In order to receive a gift you must decide on your own free will that you need it and you’ll take it, otherwise it’s not a gift if forced upon you.
I am nothing without the Lord, a sinner bound for hell. You didn’t somehow understand this until after you were regenerated. There can be no repentance with Calvin’s system.
I am nothing without the Lord, a sinner bound for hell. You didn’t somehow understand this until after you were regenerated. There can be no repentance with Calvin’s system.
First, the fallen man doesn't have a free will. It's in bondage to sin and this is clearly taught in Scripture. To claim otherwise is Pelagianism.
Second, Reformed theology teaches that God gives the man a heart of flesh, to replace his stony, unrepentant heart, and this heart produces the fruit of faith and repentance. Giving the man a heart of flesh is the same thing as regeneration.
Free-willers deny the fallen state of man. Notice how John claims that he has free will as a fallen creature, yet John 8, Romans 6 says that the fallen man is a slave to sin. Somehow free-willers think that a man who loves his sin and is enslaved to it has a free will already.
Scripture itself says that it is the Son who sets the man free from his bondage. His will is in bondage to sin.
I've already given numerous Scriptures on the other threads to support the Reformed view on this topic. Scripture is consistent in describing man's state....a stony heart, blinded, in bondage, loving his sin and hating God's law.
Second, Reformed theology teaches that God gives the man a heart of flesh, to replace his stony, unrepentant heart, and this heart produces the fruit of faith and repentance. Giving the man a heart of flesh is the same thing as regeneration.
Free-willers deny the fallen state of man. Notice how John claims that he has free will as a fallen creature, yet John 8, Romans 6 says that the fallen man is a slave to sin. Somehow free-willers think that a man who loves his sin and is enslaved to it has a free will already.
Scripture itself says that it is the Son who sets the man free from his bondage. His will is in bondage to sin.
I've already given numerous Scriptures on the other threads to support the Reformed view on this topic. Scripture is consistent in describing man's state....a stony heart, blinded, in bondage, loving his sin and hating God's law.
I am assuming that you do believe that God has all foreknowledge, and knows the end from the be beginning, that he is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present at any given time. God does not make mistakes. No one understands the actions of God. He tells us that, to mankind, his ways are higher than our ways and that they are past our finding out. In my feeble understanding of God, it would seem that it would have been a mistake for God to give mankind a free choice in choosing how he wants to live his life here on earth. Man's free choice is what guided him down the road of destruction, in the fact that he chose not to seek God, and chose to participate in the corrupt things of the world. By God's foreknowledge, he saw the direction that man would choose, and, therefore, because he desired to have a people that would worship him, choose a portion of mankind for that purpose. I do not understand God's ways, and a big question that I have for him, is, why, out of all of his elect people, that he has chosen for eternal life, only a few did he chose to reveal the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ to. Why God did not choose all mankind to go to heaven. I do not know. but I do know that the harmonizing scriptures support that truth. The doctrine of Jesus was ridiculed by the biggest part of his elect in the days that he was teaching it, and it still remains the same to this day and time. The doctrine that Jesus taught is the most simple and God honoring doctrine of any, and I do not understand why he does not reveal it to all mankind, but that must be his will, because he says that he accomplishes all of his will.
another man made ism...😴
You do realize that not one person in the OT was regenerated, made a new creature in Christ, was redeemed by the blood and born again?
You don’t the power of God’s word and the working of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can lead a man to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the word without indwelling. But he can’t make him drink.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Not against his will but freely.
You do realize that not one person in the OT was regenerated, made a new creature in Christ, was redeemed by the blood and born again?
You don’t the power of God’s word and the working of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can lead a man to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the word without indwelling. But he can’t make him drink.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Not against his will but freely.
I'd like to add another comment to this. Realize that cults use the exact same techniques as anti-Reformed free-willers.
They distort church history and impose standards that they themselves don't even meet.
For instance, john claims that Calvin was a Roman Catholic priest. This is a laughable claim. As a teenager and young man, he pursued priesthood, but he was converted before that point.
Additionally, he imposes the standard of perfect doctrinal knowledge upon John Calvin. As I said, Christians do not go from a state of confusion and doctrinal misunderstandings to a state of perfect knowledge instantly.
Cults will often view historical figures in this manner. They will do this in order to inject doubt into Christians. And, unfortunately, professing Christians are not above using the same tactics sometimes.
I see it in the anti-Reformed camp a lot. They will distort and lie about various figures within Reformed theology for this reason. Or, they will impose standards upon them that they themselves don't meet.
What do we call people who impose standards upon others that they themselves don't meet? Hypocrites.
If someone criticizes John Calvin concerning infant baptism, there's a problem with hypocrisy because John Calvin was brought up in an environment where infants were baptized. It would take a long time before infant baptism was discarded.
And, by the way, in the paedobaptist community, infant baptism is still practiced but it is not viewed as an agent of regeneration. It is used similar to a child dedication. The child is recognized as a member of the covenant community, but he must eventually place his faith in Christ or it is to no avail. They don't believe in baptismal regeneration.
They distort church history and impose standards that they themselves don't even meet.
For instance, john claims that Calvin was a Roman Catholic priest. This is a laughable claim. As a teenager and young man, he pursued priesthood, but he was converted before that point.
Additionally, he imposes the standard of perfect doctrinal knowledge upon John Calvin. As I said, Christians do not go from a state of confusion and doctrinal misunderstandings to a state of perfect knowledge instantly.
Cults will often view historical figures in this manner. They will do this in order to inject doubt into Christians. And, unfortunately, professing Christians are not above using the same tactics sometimes.
I see it in the anti-Reformed camp a lot. They will distort and lie about various figures within Reformed theology for this reason. Or, they will impose standards upon them that they themselves don't meet.
What do we call people who impose standards upon others that they themselves don't meet? Hypocrites.
If someone criticizes John Calvin concerning infant baptism, there's a problem with hypocrisy because John Calvin was brought up in an environment where infants were baptized. It would take a long time before infant baptism was discarded.
And, by the way, in the paedobaptist community, infant baptism is still practiced but it is not viewed as an agent of regeneration. It is used similar to a child dedication. The child is recognized as a member of the covenant community, but he must eventually place his faith in Christ or it is to no avail. They don't believe in baptismal regeneration.
Scripture teaches that God has wrath toward sinners, and that they are under his condemnation, until they place their faith in Christ.
Scripture-twisters ignore that though..they need to read Romans 1-3..and the whole bible for that matter.
This results in only preaching half the gospel...the bad news is that God does have wrath and anger toward sinners, and they are in big trouble. The good news is that Christ died to appease that anger and wrath, and if a person places their faith in him, he is at peace with God.
The other gospel is a half-baked cake.
Scripture-twisters ignore that though..they need to read Romans 1-3..and the whole bible for that matter.
This results in only preaching half the gospel...the bad news is that God does have wrath and anger toward sinners, and they are in big trouble. The good news is that Christ died to appease that anger and wrath, and if a person places their faith in him, he is at peace with God.
The other gospel is a half-baked cake.
There are Scriptures that appear to support their position. For instance, entire families were baptized at one time.
Additionally, I Cor 7 places the children in a sanctified position if a parent is saved.
It's a much more complex issue than you would acknowledge.
I am not a paedobaptist, but there are reasons why they baptize children. I don't consider them valid, but they attempt to support their position with Scripture.
However, one would need to read their reasons rather than sitting in a chat room criticizing them before they would understand that.
Additionally, I Cor 7 places the children in a sanctified position if a parent is saved.
It's a much more complex issue than you would acknowledge.
I am not a paedobaptist, but there are reasons why they baptize children. I don't consider them valid, but they attempt to support their position with Scripture.
However, one would need to read their reasons rather than sitting in a chat room criticizing them before they would understand that.
How many Reformed people do you know?
Actually, Reformed people don't teach that their children's salvation is automatic.
It would take some studying to understand their position, and anti-Reformed people are not willing to invest in study because lying and repeating ignorant propaganda is more convenient and doesn't require much effort.
Their position is that children are automatically part of the external covenant by baptism, but they must place their faith in Christ to be part of the internal covenant of redeemed individuals. Only the elect become a part of this internal covenant. Those who are part of the external covenant enjoy some benefits as part of the covenant community.
This is true even in real, non-Reformed Christian families. A child who is dedicated enjoys certain benefits including godly parents, even if they never become saved. Note that I am talking about real Christians, not the professing ones who don't really have faith.
By the way, I'm like a Reformed Baptist, so I don't believe in paedobaptism. But I've taken enough time to honestly understand their position so I don't slander them out of ignorance or carelessness. Which is exactly what you will see in chat room conversations like this one.
Actually, Reformed people don't teach that their children's salvation is automatic.
It would take some studying to understand their position, and anti-Reformed people are not willing to invest in study because lying and repeating ignorant propaganda is more convenient and doesn't require much effort.
Their position is that children are automatically part of the external covenant by baptism, but they must place their faith in Christ to be part of the internal covenant of redeemed individuals. Only the elect become a part of this internal covenant. Those who are part of the external covenant enjoy some benefits as part of the covenant community.
This is true even in real, non-Reformed Christian families. A child who is dedicated enjoys certain benefits including godly parents, even if they never become saved. Note that I am talking about real Christians, not the professing ones who don't really have faith.
By the way, I'm like a Reformed Baptist, so I don't believe in paedobaptism. But I've taken enough time to honestly understand their position so I don't slander them out of ignorance or carelessness. Which is exactly what you will see in chat room conversations like this one.
By the way, if anyone wants to understand the differences between paedobaptists and credobaptists, I recommend this little booklet:
https://smile.amazon.com/Baptism-Su...words=baptism+anyabwile&qid=1578233002&sr=8-1
Thabiti Anyabwile represents the credobaptist position, and Ligon Duncan represents the paedobaptist position.
I don't believe in paedobaptism, but I realize that their detractors misrepresent them in their effort to make the Reformed community look bad.
Realize that there are many on this forum who don't care about fairly representing the other position. They will only listen to guys like Dave Hunt, who selectively presented "information" from dubious sources in history.
One anti-Reformed person repeats his misinformation to another, over and over, and all of a sudden this misinformation becomes fact.
https://smile.amazon.com/Baptism-Su...words=baptism+anyabwile&qid=1578233002&sr=8-1
Thabiti Anyabwile represents the credobaptist position, and Ligon Duncan represents the paedobaptist position.
I don't believe in paedobaptism, but I realize that their detractors misrepresent them in their effort to make the Reformed community look bad.
Realize that there are many on this forum who don't care about fairly representing the other position. They will only listen to guys like Dave Hunt, who selectively presented "information" from dubious sources in history.
One anti-Reformed person repeats his misinformation to another, over and over, and all of a sudden this misinformation becomes fact.
I believe God is not a man but a Holy Spirit. And I also know Holy Spirit possesses the Omni-powers.
Which does include Omni-Benevolence. This is something that TULIP and Calvinism disregard.
I believe thinking God saved only those whom he wanted to save before there was anything to be saved from, and literally, damn the rest,isn't a sign of respect for God. In fact, the idol behind those doctrines describe a god one needs saving from when, according to the tenets describing the elect, that one reading of that realizes they could very well be the non-elected one's. And as such their destiny is assured; Hell, no matter what.
And why would God send Himself to teach a Gospel and decree His followers charged with bringing it to the whole world, when the end result that Gospel speaks about, eternal salvation, is already set for only the select few who will not be able to understand a word of it when the Apostles arrive to teach it to them? Unless or until God works inside them to change their totally depraved minds so that they can understand. And what is the purpose of that? When they that are saved before the world came to exist do not need to hold faith or understand the Gospel, because they're already secure in the tenets of the Gospel and were before they were born totally depraved, as created by the very God that planned to save them from that condition before anything to be saved from came to exist.
Sure, God's ways are well beyond our understanding. No argument there. However, when God's ways are disseminated in denominational doctrine, or salvation formula as is the TULIP principle, and teachers and preachers tell people this is of God, this is the Gospel , what's the sense of that? When they're speaking to a congregation in total who are totally depraved?
Unless or until God changes any one person in that congregation so that they are then able to understand what's being taught or preached? And then, what's the need of that? When that changed one is changed because they are one that God had already chosen to save before that one came to exist.
TULIP and Calvinism make the cross of none effect. When God saved a chosen people from that which had not yet come to pass, sin, the so called sin nature, which is one heck of a visual when we recall God created the first people in His image and likeness. Jesus didn't have to die and take the sins of the world upon Himself on the cross when Jesus/God had already predestined a certain number of people saved before anything came to exist.
Verse 16 in John 3, in light of TULIP, is a lie.
God's ways are not our ways, but surely we can credit God with being better than operating in the way TULIP and Calvinism teach.
How many people are able to lose hope, and when they feel that that demolishes total depravity, when they hear it said in a teaching that no one is able to comprehend the gospel unless God changes their totally depraved mind so that they are able to?
That is just so odd to think that's true.
God went to all that planning and trouble and through all that suffering and gave His Apostles their Great Commission for what?
When what the Gospel teaches is of no importance to totally depraved people because they are unable to understand it. And it is of no consequence to Elect people, because they are already saved before it ever is let by God to come to their attention.
The Good News is suppose to give hope to the hopeless. Not be a message that says, the outcome of that good news has already been predetermined, and those whom it doth save were already saved and before the Gospel that talks about salvation came to exist.
When someone is already saved and before anything came to exist, what is there to have faith in? When we're told, faith saves? And why would we need a Bible when as totally depraved humanity it is something we can't comprehend, and it is something that doesn't teach us how to behave if we are one of the Elect because we are that, we are saved, and were saved, before anything to be saved from existed.
TULIP might as well tell those Elect they can do whatever they want in this world, carouse, drink, party, kill, steal, lie, covet, etc... Because they were created totally depraved first, while prior to that creation they were saved.
Odd isn't it. To be saved by God by name before God created anything at all, and then when that saved one was born, and known to God by name, they were born like the rest of humanity to be totally depraved?
But unbeknownst to them they were saved before they were let to be totally depraved.
Maybe rather than read word for word what is written , translated, transcribed, by men, words that lead us to think Jesus didn't want everyone to understand His teaching, and instead , keeping in mind God's glorious nature and Holy Spirit and Omni-Benevolence and Love, because God is Love, what Jesus actually taught was, not everyone would accept their own faults being they are weak in the flesh, and susceptible, comfortable, having the appetites for this worlds temptations. And as such would not accept, understand, they could be more than that.
Maybe keep God's great character in mind when reading verses that lead us to think Salvation is an elitist institution meant only for people God wanted to save, and conversely not for a people God chose to damn.
Which does include Omni-Benevolence. This is something that TULIP and Calvinism disregard.
I believe thinking God saved only those whom he wanted to save before there was anything to be saved from, and literally, damn the rest,isn't a sign of respect for God. In fact, the idol behind those doctrines describe a god one needs saving from when, according to the tenets describing the elect, that one reading of that realizes they could very well be the non-elected one's. And as such their destiny is assured; Hell, no matter what.
And why would God send Himself to teach a Gospel and decree His followers charged with bringing it to the whole world, when the end result that Gospel speaks about, eternal salvation, is already set for only the select few who will not be able to understand a word of it when the Apostles arrive to teach it to them? Unless or until God works inside them to change their totally depraved minds so that they can understand. And what is the purpose of that? When they that are saved before the world came to exist do not need to hold faith or understand the Gospel, because they're already secure in the tenets of the Gospel and were before they were born totally depraved, as created by the very God that planned to save them from that condition before anything to be saved from came to exist.
Sure, God's ways are well beyond our understanding. No argument there. However, when God's ways are disseminated in denominational doctrine, or salvation formula as is the TULIP principle, and teachers and preachers tell people this is of God, this is the Gospel , what's the sense of that? When they're speaking to a congregation in total who are totally depraved?
Unless or until God changes any one person in that congregation so that they are then able to understand what's being taught or preached? And then, what's the need of that? When that changed one is changed because they are one that God had already chosen to save before that one came to exist.
TULIP and Calvinism make the cross of none effect. When God saved a chosen people from that which had not yet come to pass, sin, the so called sin nature, which is one heck of a visual when we recall God created the first people in His image and likeness. Jesus didn't have to die and take the sins of the world upon Himself on the cross when Jesus/God had already predestined a certain number of people saved before anything came to exist.
Verse 16 in John 3, in light of TULIP, is a lie.
God's ways are not our ways, but surely we can credit God with being better than operating in the way TULIP and Calvinism teach.
How many people are able to lose hope, and when they feel that that demolishes total depravity, when they hear it said in a teaching that no one is able to comprehend the gospel unless God changes their totally depraved mind so that they are able to?
That is just so odd to think that's true.
God went to all that planning and trouble and through all that suffering and gave His Apostles their Great Commission for what?
When what the Gospel teaches is of no importance to totally depraved people because they are unable to understand it. And it is of no consequence to Elect people, because they are already saved before it ever is let by God to come to their attention.
The Good News is suppose to give hope to the hopeless. Not be a message that says, the outcome of that good news has already been predetermined, and those whom it doth save were already saved and before the Gospel that talks about salvation came to exist.
When someone is already saved and before anything came to exist, what is there to have faith in? When we're told, faith saves? And why would we need a Bible when as totally depraved humanity it is something we can't comprehend, and it is something that doesn't teach us how to behave if we are one of the Elect because we are that, we are saved, and were saved, before anything to be saved from existed.
TULIP might as well tell those Elect they can do whatever they want in this world, carouse, drink, party, kill, steal, lie, covet, etc... Because they were created totally depraved first, while prior to that creation they were saved.
Odd isn't it. To be saved by God by name before God created anything at all, and then when that saved one was born, and known to God by name, they were born like the rest of humanity to be totally depraved?
But unbeknownst to them they were saved before they were let to be totally depraved.
Maybe rather than read word for word what is written , translated, transcribed, by men, words that lead us to think Jesus didn't want everyone to understand His teaching, and instead , keeping in mind God's glorious nature and Holy Spirit and Omni-Benevolence and Love, because God is Love, what Jesus actually taught was, not everyone would accept their own faults being they are weak in the flesh, and susceptible, comfortable, having the appetites for this worlds temptations. And as such would not accept, understand, they could be more than that.
Maybe keep God's great character in mind when reading verses that lead us to think Salvation is an elitist institution meant only for people God wanted to save, and conversely not for a people God chose to damn.