3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

[brighthouse98]

United, please look at Gal 1:6-9 !!! No twisting,the word to me says what it means and means what it says. If someone is hated there is no grace. You must not have read Luke 6. If he hated sinners, why is it he died for all sinners??( John 3:16) GRACE!!!!!!( 2 Peter 3:18) is the gospel! And if anyone preaches anything different, the word lays a double curse upon them!! Only found here in Gal 1!! So Calvin who did nothing for no one has no bearing upon me! We can believe any thing we wish to,but to me,Jesus Word needs no one to explain what it means it says to me clearly what he means.

 

[Whispered]

You must, undoubtedly, be a new born babe in Christ, and unable to digest the meat of the word. You seem to not comprehend the meaning of the scriptures that I give you. The scriptures do teach that unless a person does not deny their own entelect, the Holy Spirit within them will not reveal to them the truth within the scripture. God does not condemn anyone to hell. By the free will that God gave them to make choices, they choose to not seek after their creator. Psalms 53:2-3.

To the contrary, believing God elected by name only those persons whom He chose to save, and before the creation of all else, is a characteristic of double predestination. Because when God chose whom He would save from death, it necessarily means God also chose whom he would damn. By name, and before anything came to exist.

Furthermore, it is contrary to the idea put forth by the "U" in the TULIP formula, Unconditional Election, to argue it isn't God who sends people to Hell rather, people who choose not to follow Jesus send themselves to Hell. That cannot be, because the condition of "T", in TULIP, Total Depravity, makes the Totally Depraved person unable to seek God or , even as you claim above, understand the scriptures because of their Total Depravity, and per your words above, they do not have the Holy Spirit within them so as to understand the Bible.

TULIP (aka/the five points of Calvinism)
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election = No characteristics or behaviors of a Totally Depraved person makes them qualified to be saved. Rather, God has already chosen whom He would save before He created anything at all, and for His own reasons.

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement) - Christ died only for the Elect, which is what you argue repeatedly. Jesus was said to have died to take the sins of the world upon Himself. His sacrifice was sufficient for all, however it was not efficacious for all. In other words, Jesus took on the sins of only those He'd previously predestined to be saved.

Irresistible Grace = This pertains the Gospel, known as the external call. However, God extends an inner irresistible call to those He predestined for Salvation and those one's are the only one's that can be saved.
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) Those whom God predestine for His Salvation can never be unchosen, or lose their Salvation.

This is the defense the TULIP and Calvinist faithful put forth as why the above is of God. Because God being Omniscient, all knowing eternally, looked into the future, before anything existed at all, and saw those people who would accept the Gospel message and therein He chose them to be His elect.

There's just one monumental problem with that rationale. It isn't rational per TULIP's guidelines concerning God's will, at all.
Why? For one simple fact. God, after looking into that future, created humans to be Totally Depraved and thus unable to accept the Gospel. Therefore, God could not have looked into the future containing the human race whom He would create to be Totally Depraved, so as to see those who would accept the Gospel and follow Him. Because He created those people He saw in the future to be in and of themselves incapable of that: " "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

God appears to believe He has let people to choose to follow Him.
19.“I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” The Book of Deuteronomy chapter 30

 

[Whispered]

You have the cart before the horse. The natural man will not accept a spiritual savior, 1 Cor 2:14, until after he has been regenerated and given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Eph 2, and then he is able to discern the things of the Spirit.

Why would they need to discern the things of the spirit when God predestined them to be saved before anything came to exist at all?
And how are they to be Regenerated and given the indwelling Holy Spirit, when they do not need to accept a personal Savior because they were already saved by the savior before the world came to exist?
Why would they need to be made to hold faith, by the same God that had saved them already before they were created unable to hold faith, by the same God that had saved them before creating anything at all and without their having faith?
Faith, per the Christian tradition, means to hold belief and hope in the Salvation Christ guaranteed with His death on the cross.
Salvation is the culmination of faith in that.

And yet, the elect, per your definition, are those God saved before Christ, who only took on the sins of those predestined elect one's when He died on the cross. He died for only those God had predetermined to save.
And prior to anything being created.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

United, please look at Gal 1:6-9 !!! No twisting,the word to me says what it means and means what it says. If someone is hated there is no grace. You must not have read Luke 6. If he hated sinners, why is it he died for all sinners??( John 3:16) GRACE!!!!!!( 2 Peter 3:18) is the gospel! And if anyone preaches anything different, the word lays a double curse upon them!! Only found here in Gal 1!! So Calvin who did nothing for no one has no bearing upon me! We can believe any thing we wish to,but to me,Jesus Word needs no one to explain what it means it says to me clearly what he means.

Sinners are under God's wrath and condemnation, and those who teach a real gospel (not a fake one) tell their audience that this is true. Facing one's spiritual predicament is a prerequisite to understanding God's grace. In fact, if someone doesn't take their spiritual predicament seriously, they really can't experience grace in the intended manner.

Read Romans 1-3 first and then come back and tell me that God's wrath and condemnation are not being manifested against rebellious mankind. And, since Romans is the best source of Paul's understanding of salvation, there is importance in the way he ordered his presentation of the gospel.

The reason grace is required is because mankind cannot make himself right in the sight of God, and needs grace in order to achieve this righteous status.

If your claim is that a person can be saved and continue on in a state of rebellion, you are not understanding Christianity and grace correctly.

And, this sort of teaching is prominent within Christianity. It is called antinomianism or "cheap grace" or "easy believism". It is especially prevalent among non-Reformed people.

I fully acknowledge that justification is by grace through faith alone, because the fallen man cannot render obedience in order to merit justification. Justification is accounting the sinner innocent or just, even though he is guilty of sin. However, regeneration or being "born again" occurs at justification, and gives the person a heart of flesh that wants to obey and please God. As a result, the behavior changes. Those who don't manifest spiritual fruit prove themselves to be false believers.

The fruit is a manifestation of the person's union with Christ.

None of what I said conflicts with Reformed theology or "Calvinism" as you call it. Reformed theology is what the Bible teaches. You guys can slander all you want, but it's simply that: slander.

And, I am not claiming anything about whether a person should reverence John Calvin and his teachings. The Reformation was about far more than John Calvin and his teachings, and involved a lot more people.

There is a failure to understand what it means to be justified. Justification is only part of salvation. Salvation is best described as union with Christ, and justification, sanctification, and glorification fall beneath this major heading. The believer is justified because he is legally united with Christ, and he is transformed because of his union with Christ, which bears spiritual fruit. Ultimately he is glorified, and given a resurrection body like Christ.

Quoting Gal 1:6-9 and claiming that somehow these verses refute Reformed theology is asinine. The Reformers fully agreed with Galatians 1:6-9 and that is why they were against Romanism. Romanism teaches that works (particularly sacraments) are prerequisites to salvation, and convey salvation-grace.

So, you guys are simply creating strawman arguments based on your misunderstandings of Scripture and Reformed theology. Keep on doing it. Claiming someone bases their salvation on John Calvin or what he said is also asinine. John Calvin only systematized Reformed theology, and Luther and Zwingli held pretty much the same teachings, because they are biblical.

If you claim that repentance and faith are not BOTH involved in salvation, you believe a false gospel. In fact, faith itself is basically repentance. If someone has been joined with Christ, they are going to repent, because they have been given the mind of Christ. The specific timeframe for dealing with some sins might be longer, but fruit WILL be borne because they have been joined to the vine, who is Christ, and fruit is produced through this union.

By the way, these things are stuff that anti-Reformed people don't talk about much, because many of them are ill-trained rebels who are not very diligent in studying Scripture. Some aren't even following the commands to fellowship with other believers and to be held accountable by this leadership. And, their attitude towards confessions and studying church history is very poor. Plus, their theology doesn't lend to it.

So, keep on misrepresenting Reformed theology. As I've stated on multiple threads, that's very typical on this forum. I probably shouldn't waste my breath because I know non-Reformed people will continue making their asinine claims anyways.

Regarding God's hatred for sinners, you will find statements in the OT which confirm his hatred for sinners. I don't particularly focus on this, though. I do focus on his wrath toward all sinners, which includes everyone, and the fact that they are under his condemnation and wrath until they place their faith in Christ.

See, here's the issue: you don't understand the imputation of Christ's righteousness very well. It is through receiving Jesus' righteousness that the person becomes acceptable and beloved. Until then, he is not.

Those who claim otherwise simply don't understand the need for Christ's righteousness to be imputed on their behalf. And, many who do use it as a license to continue on in their sinfulness. Romans addresses all of these issues, by the way.

READ ROMANS WITHOUT YOUR TRADITIONALIST LENSES ON.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

United, please look at Gal 1:6-9 !!! No twisting,the word to me says what it means and means what it says. If someone is hated there is no grace. You must not have read Luke 6. If he hated sinners, why is it he died for all sinners??( John 3:16) GRACE!!!!!!( 2 Peter 3:18) is the gospel! And if anyone preaches anything different, the word lays a double curse upon them!! Only found here in Gal 1!! So Calvin who did nothing for no one has no bearing upon me! We can believe any thing we wish to,but to me,Jesus Word needs no one to explain what it means it says to me clearly what he means.

Regarding whether God hates sinners, in one sense he does, and in another sense he does not. And, this is simply Scriptural. If you reduce God's love down into your human version of it, you are in error. And, unfortunately all people do that sort of thing.

Here's a good article by David Platt. Before you claim that God doesn't hate the sinner in some sense, then you need to explain the Scriptures he references. And, if you claim, "that's only the Old Testament", my response will be that God is God, and he never changes. The heretic Marcion made a similar claim, and cut out a large part of the Bible because he didn't like this either. Andy Stanley seems to be trying the same thing in recent history.


David refers to John 3:16, 36.

I would also refer to Romans 9:13-14. In some sense, God hated Esau, and loved Jacob. And it was not due to what they did, because both did evil things, and he accounted them either loved or hated before they were born, but it was according to the principle of election.

The real issue is this: unsaved man is in big trouble. He is under the wrath and condemnation of God. Claiming that he is not isn't doing him any favors. Helping him to realize this is part of the gospel message. This demonstrates his need for Christ, and to be united with Him. In being united with Him, he becomes beloved, because Jesus is the Beloved one of God and he is viewed as one with Jesus by the Father.

See, this is sound theology, and it is totally Reformed and emphasized by Reformed theologians throughout. I spent many years in Arminian churches, and know they are virtually clueless about many aspects of salvation. It is sad really.

You guys can cut down Reformed theology all you want. I'd rather hang out with them than non-Reformed people because they are coherent. They don't ignore the harder aspects of what the Bible teaches. I see many non-Reformed people simply cover their eyes and ignore Scriptures and concepts they don't like.

For instance, as David notes, John 3:16 is quoted often but many of those who quote it won't quote John 3:36 which says that the wrath of God abides on unsaved men.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does God Hate Sin But Love the Sinner?

David Platt

It is common to hear Christians say that God “hates sin but loves the sinner,” but is that true? It certainly sounds good, but the most important question is whether or not it is biblical. To answer this question, we need to think carefully about the significance of sacrifice in the Old Testament.

The sacrificial system was ordained, orchestrated, and set up by God for His people. There are two sacrifices that stand out: the Passover and the Day of Atonement.

The Passover (Exodus 12) was an annual celebration of God’s faithfulness in sparing Israel and redeeming them out of bondage in Egypt. In Leviticus 16, we see the Day of Atonement. Here an offering was brought in and sacrificed. The blood of the offering was sprinkled over the atonement cover in the most holy place as a picture that the payment of sin has been doled out. The sins of the people were atoned; the sins of the people were covered. After the animal was sacrificed, the people would go to another goat that was still alive and the high priest would then put his hands on the head and confess the sins of the people. After this was complete, this “scapegoat” would be taken out to a solitary place in the wilderness to be gone forever. This was an annual reminder from God for the people that their sins were taken away.

Flash forward to the book of Isaiah and we find a prophecy of a Suffering Servant who, “has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” This same word for “carried” is the word used to describe the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. Isaiah declared to God’s people that a redeemer was coming who would finally do away with their sin. Jesus would come and die in the place of sinners once and for all. He would come and lay His life down and take it back up again. Jesus has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Isaiah proclaimed that Jesus would be slaughtered so we could be saved. Jesus did not just endure the penalty of sin, but He took the place of sinners.

Notice how many first person plural pronouns (see italics) are included in Isaiah 53:4–6:

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

At least ten times in three verses Isaiah tells the people that the punishment which this suffering servant will endure will be in the place of sinners. Jesus bore sin and endured chastisement in our place. He is taking the payment due sinners on Himself.

When Radical was first released, an article was published in The Birmingham News about the book. One quote from the article read, “While it is a common pulpit truism that ‘God hates sin and loves the sinner,’ Platt argues that God hates sinners.”

Does God hate sinners? Psalm 5:5–6, “The Boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers, You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.” Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone we see that God hates evildoers and that His wrath is upon them. This is not just an idea confined to the pages of the Old Testament.

John 3, the chapter that contains one of the most famous verses concerning God’s love for sinners (John 3:16), also contains one of the most neglected verses describing God’s wrath for sinners (John 3:36). So, does God hate sinners? The Bible says so. Does God hate the sin but love the sinner? In a sense, certainly that is true, but that does not mean that there is not a sense in which God hates sinners. How is this possible? Here is the key to understanding the meaning of the cross.

When we see God’s holy hatred of sin and holy judgment of sin, we must be careful not to think that this is something outside of us. Sin is a part of who we are. It is who we are. We are sinful, rebellious men and women against a holy God. Sin is ingrained into who we are. When we see God’s holy hatred due sin and His holy judgment due sin, yes that rests upon sin, but not as if it were outside of us. It is not as though His wrath and judgment are simply against what we do, whether it be lust, lying, or cheating. We are sinners at the core of our very being, and God’s holy hatred of sin therefore rests on the sinner.

The beauty of the cross is that when Jesus went to Calvary, He did not just pay the price for our lusting, our lying, our cheating, or whatever sin that we do—He stood in our place. He took the holy hatred, holy judgment, and holy wrath of God that was not just due our sin but due us. Jesus stood in our place and He took it upon Himself. So let us be very careful not to lean on comfortable clichés that sound good to us and rob the cross of its power.

Jesus endured the penalty of sin and took the place of sinners. The essence of sin is that man substitutes himself for God. But the essence of salvation is that God substitutes Himself for man. Rather than condemning us, Jesus was condemned. Thanks be to God for this wondrous prophecy from Isaiah that was fulfilled in Christ: “He will be slaughtered in your place, so that you can be saved by His blood.”

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

United, please look at Gal 1:6-9 !!! No twisting,the word to me says what it means and means what it says. If someone is hated there is no grace. You must not have read Luke 6. If he hated sinners, why is it he died for all sinners??( John 3:16) GRACE!!!!!!( 2 Peter 3:18) is the gospel! And if anyone preaches anything different, the word lays a double curse upon them!! Only found here in Gal 1!! So Calvin who did nothing for no one has no bearing upon me! We can believe any thing we wish to,but to me,Jesus Word needs no one to explain what it means it says to me clearly what he means.

By the way, if you have problems understanding that God can manifest his love in different ways, then I'd ask whether you think believers are loved in a different way than non-believers who will never come to faith.

In other words, do you understand what the word "hesed" or "chesed" means?

It is God's covenant-love. He has a different love for those he is in covenant with, versus those he is not.

In fact, he hates those he is not in covenant with. He does not have redemptive love for them.

This concept is present throughout the OT. It is similar to the love that a proper man has for his wife. He loves his wife in a different sense than he loves other women.

God does not have the same love for unbelievers as believers, nor does he forgive their sins until they come into relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. In fact, he has wrath toward them, and they are under his condemnation.

This is a necessary result of his holiness. In order to become acceptable to God, righteousness needs to be imputed to the individual.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

It just occurred to me that some people don't like Reformed theology because it is biblical, and they don't like what the Bible says.

For instance, brighthouse98 stated that "Calvinists" say God hates sinners.

Well, it isn't Calvinists that say God hates sinners. It's the BIBLE that says it.

Perhaps they are not acquainted with the Bible enough to realize that the Bible itself says it, though.

Or, they aren't sophisticated to realize that God has different senses to his hatred of sinners.

I suggest folks read Psalms, Proverbs in particular to see that God does, in fact, hate sinners in one sense.

Then, quit blaming "Calvinism" for God's instruction that you don't like.

If you don't like the teaching, then simply be honest and say this:

I don't like God's teaching.

I am a sinner in rebellion against God, so I shape him in my image.

This might be the beginning of something incredible.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

To the contrary, believing God elected by name only those persons whom He chose to save, and before the creation of all else, is a characteristic of double predestination. Because when God chose whom He would save from death, it necessarily means God also chose whom he would damn. By name, and before anything came to exist.

Furthermore, it is contrary to the idea put forth by the "U" in the TULIP formula, Unconditional Election, to argue it isn't God who sends people to Hell rather, people who choose not to follow Jesus send themselves to Hell. That cannot be, because the condition of "T", in TULIP, Total Depravity, makes the Totally Depraved person unable to seek God or , even as you claim above, understand the scriptures because of their Total Depravity, and per your words above, they do not have the Holy Spirit within them so as to understand the Bible.

TULIP (aka/the five points of Calvinism)
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election = No characteristics or behaviors of a Totally Depraved person makes them qualified to be saved. Rather, God has already chosen whom He would save before He created anything at all, and for His own reasons.

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement) - Christ died only for the Elect, which is what you argue repeatedly. Jesus was said to have died to take the sins of the world upon Himself. His sacrifice was sufficient for all, however it was not efficacious for all. In other words, Jesus took on the sins of only those He'd previously predestined to be saved.

Irresistible Grace = This pertains the Gospel, known as the external call. However, God extends an inner irresistible call to those He predestined for Salvation and those one's are the only one's that can be saved.
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) Those whom God predestine for His Salvation can never be unchosen, or lose their Salvation.

This is the defense the TULIP and Calvinist faithful put forth as why the above is of God. Because God being Omniscient, all knowing eternally, looked into the future, before anything existed at all, and saw those people who would accept the Gospel message and therein He chose them to be His elect.

There's just one monumental problem with that rationale. It isn't rational per TULIP's guidelines concerning God's will, at all.
Why? For one simple fact. God, after looking into that future, created humans to be Totally Depraved and thus unable to accept the Gospel. Therefore, God could not have looked into the future containing the human race whom He would create to be Totally Depraved, so as to see those who would accept the Gospel and follow Him. Because He created those people He saw in the future to be in and of themselves incapable of that: " "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

God appears to believe He has let people to choose to follow Him.
19.“I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore
choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” The Book of Deuteronomy chapter 30

I do understand that you cannot comprehend the doctrine that Jesus taught, because, for some reason, the Holy Spirit within you has not seen fit to reveal the doctrine to you. The doctrine of Jesus, encompasses more people, as his elect, than all the other false doctrines combined. God has chosen to reveal the doctrine to a limited few of his elect, because that is his will. I do not understand God's reason as to why he would not reveal it to all of his elect, because it is the most comforting, uplifting and secure doctrine. Many are called to be his elect, but few are chosen to understand the mystery of Jesus's doctrine. If a person feels that God is discriminating against him because he feels he might not be one of the elect is evidence that he is of the elect, or he would not be questioning it.


I believe that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to understand the meaning of the scriptures, without consulting the Greek interpretation of words within a verse of scripture. There are "same words" that have different meanings according to the Greek interpretation. That is why our english language is so difficult to master by foreign countries. Words like; World, saved, life, death, Israel, etc. The Deuteronomy verse does not have reference to eternal life, but that good and abundant life that we can live while we sojourn here in this world if we will follow God's instructions. The inspired word of God is not directed to the attention of the non-elect, because they cannot discern the things of the Spirit, but are directed toward the elect (God's sheep) informing them of the good news that their eternal deliverance has been secured, and teaching them that they do not have to go about trying to establish their own righteousness, by their good works, because they already have the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is why Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach this to the lost sheep (God's elect) of the house of Jacob/Israel, not to the nation of Israel, because the house of Jacob Israel, which is God's elect, is different than the nation of Israel.


God's determination in choosing his elect was not that he looked into the future and saw who would accept him, because he did see that no one would accept him, no, not one. You already know the doctrinal fact that the word "world" in John 3:16 has reference to "the world of believers". Why would God tell us to not love a world (1 John 2:15), that he so loves? By not being diligent in separating the different Greek meanings of "same words" can result in the misinterpretation of scriptures to support eternal salvation by works.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Why would they need to discern the things of the spirit when God predestined them to be saved before anything came to exist at all?
And how are they to be Regenerated and given the indwelling Holy Spirit, when they do not need to accept a personal Savior because they were already saved by the savior before the world came to exist?
Why would they need to be made to hold faith, by the same God that had saved them already before they were created unable to hold faith, by the same God that had saved them before creating anything at all and without their having faith?
Faith, per the Christian tradition, means to hold belief and hope in the Salvation Christ guaranteed with His death on the cross.
Salvation is the culmination of faith in that.

And yet, the elect, per your definition, are those God saved before Christ, who only took on the sins of those predestined elect one's when He died on the cross. He died for only those God had predetermined to save.
And prior to anything being created.

The inspired word of God was not written to tell people how to get saved eternally. It was written to inform the elect that Christ did, indeed, save them eternally on the cross, this is the good news of the gospel. It was also written for the purpose of informing the elect as to how God wants them to live their lives as they sojourn here on earth. God's called Elders (preachers) are instructed to preach the word to his elect after they have been regenerated informing them that they have the imputed righteousness of Christ, and do not have to go about trying to establish their own righteousness by the works of the old law. This, also, is the good news. Spiritual faith comes only after a person has been given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual faith, after you are born again, can deliver (save, not eternally, but here in time) you from a lack of knowledge of the word, as you keep growing in faith from hearing the word of God preached. If we are following God's instructions on how we are to live our lives here on earth, we never stop growing in faith, the more we study the word and hear it preached.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Calvinism is said to be making a resurgence in America of late. I don't know about that (article), however, I do know it appears to be surging through BDF here.
Calvinism, also called The Reformed Doctrine, cannot in all its formula, TULIP included, make sense of the crucifixion and still affirm its own tenets.

The article below is intended for all people here. Those who may be seeking after Salvation in our Lord. And those who are Christian and to whom the Reformed message says are quite possibly deluding themselves when we think we are saved.
One would also wonder, how does a Calvinist know they are one of the Elect for certain? Because John Calvin said there is such a thing? And "you" are it?
At the end of this article there is an observation and that which led me to share the entire article here due to the truth within it and the reminder to all who hold God most dear. "If we truly hold to grace, does it not seem that our dealings with others should also be full of grace?"

3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists
By Jeremy Myers



In my current series on Calvinism, I have had several Calvinists leave comments about their areas of disagreement with what I have written.
I fully expect and invite disagreement. Please … if you are a Calvinist and disagree with what I am writing, let me know, and present your views!
However, I have noticed a trend in the comments that have been left by Calvinists thus far. There seems to be three main tactics or approaches that Calvinists have used in their attempts to defend their ideas and disprove mine.
1. Name Calling

It always surprises me how quickly some Calvinists turn to name calling as a way to defend their ideas. If you are not a Calvinist and seek to teach your views, be prepared to be called a heretic, a reprobate, a mouthpiece of Satan, and a fool. Some Calvinists may simply say that you are stupid, ignorant, or spiritually blind.
When I was in grade-school, I never understood why some kids thought they could win arguments by calling other people names, and I still don’t understand it today.
Very rarely is there any proper place in serious theological discussion for cajoling, slander, vilification, and the mocking of others.
If you are a Calvinist and you believe that I am stupid, ignorant, and the mouthpiece of Satan because I am not a Calvinist, show it by the weight of your exegetical arguments; not by calling me silly names.
2. Scripture Quotations
Along with name calling, Calvinists seem to think that everybody would become a Calvinist if they would just “read their Bible.” I often find that when Calvinists disagree, they think they can settle the argument by telling the person to go “read their Bible.”
Of course, I find this tactic used by many various groups within Christianity. Most people seem to think that what they believe is exactly what the Bible teaches, and if people would read the Bible, they would come to the same beliefs.

What many Calvinists do not seem to grasp is that reading the Bible is one thing; understanding it is another. Even highly educated and well-respected scholars and Bible teachers disagree with each other about the meaning of the text.
Do I read and study the Bible? Of course! I have been reading and studying it for decades. In fact, it is exactly because of my reading and studying that I eventually abandoned Calvinism.
Often, along with inviting non-Calvinists to just “read the Bible,” Calvinists like to type out longs lists of Bible quotes which the Calvinists thinks proves and defends the Calvinistic system of theology.
Their approach goes like this:

You heretic! If you had simply read the Bible, you would know that you are filled with the lies of the devil! Here’s proof:​

Bible Quotation 1​

Bible Quotation 2​

Bible Quotation 3​

etc …​

In fact, one classic book on Calvinism (The Five Points of Calvinism) contains little else but pages upon pages of Bible quotations.
In a post from several years ago, I referred to this tactic as Shotgun Hermeneutics. Some people seem to think they can win theology debates by simply quoting a lot of Bible verses, as if the other person was not aware of those verses and had never read them in the Bible.
Usually, when Calvinists do this to me, I simply reply with a comment like this:

I am fully aware of all of these verses. I have read them many, many times, and I have deeply studied most of them in the Greek or Hebrew, as well as in their historical, cultural, and grammatical contexts. I simply have a different understanding of these verses than you do, and if you read some of the others posts on this blog, you will learn how I understand those texts you quoted.​

Of course, Calvinists think their understanding of Scripture is the only valid one, and part of this is because of their appeals to tradition and authority.
3. Appeals to Tradition and Authority
The final tactic that Calvinists often use to defend Calvinism is with appeals to tradition and authority. Usually, if you disagree with a Calvinist on the meaning of a particular Bible verse, rather than deal with the exegetical evidence that was prevented about the verse, they will say that your understanding is wrong, because it disagrees with what John Calvin, John Piper, or John MacArthur teaches (or some other Calvinist).

I have a book in my library where an extremely popular Calvinist in which he lays and defends the Calvinistic doctrines. When I first read it, I was a Calvinist, but I remember being extremely uncomfortable with how he defended his views. Rather than base his arguments on a detailed analysis of pertinent Scripture texts, he tended to quote St. Augustine (who predated Calvinism), John Calvin, and other prominent Calvinistic theologians.
There is nothing inherently wrong with pointing out that other Bible teachers and scholars agree with your views, but the trouble comes in when some people seem ignorant of the fact that there are many good and respectable Bible teachers and scholars who disagree.
Furthermore, I always find it interesting that Calvinists praise men like Martin Luther and John Calvin for seeking to reform the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but then condemn those who want to reform the traditional teachings of the Calvinistic system of theology.
Anyway, even though you can quote a bunch of scholars, authors, and Bible teachers who agree with your perspective, this does not prove that your view is correct.
Main Problem: A Lack of Grace
The main irony or problem with lots of the disagreement that comes from Calvinists is that it lacks grace.
Usually, when a Calvinist engages in the 3 tactics listed above, it is done with a complete lack of grace. I find this most troubling. Why is it that Calvinists, who claim to teach ‘The Doctrines of Grace” are so ungracious when dealing with those who disagree?
If we truly hold to grace, does it not seem that our dealings with others should also be full of grace? I think so.

I hope that I have not put you down, by name calling, You are a child of God, and one of the elect, and I respect you, and appreciate your conversations with me.

I do not know much about John Calvin, except what I have read about him on this forum. I do know, from what I have heard, that he branched off from the Catholic church during the reformation. The church that Christ set up was never a part of the Catholic church, and endured much persecution from the Roman Catholic church, therefore I would assume that John Calvin was never a part of the church that Jesus set up. You have asserted that the doctrine that I teach is different from that of Calvin, Maybe that is the reason why.

 

[brighthouse98]

One last ditch attempt. lol The difference between the two covenants,the Old and the new is greatly different! Under the Old covenant( 2 Kings 1:12) Now when the disciples of Jesus faced the same kind of contempt in the New Covenant look at the big difference!!( Luke 9:52-56) And look what Jesus told them!! He rebuked them! ( Rom 2:1-5) Please look very close at verse 4. When you go for reformed,you are saying the changes Calvin made to the Word is more important then the Word himself. Before you judge another you better make real sure your own house is in order pal.(2 Cor 13:5-8)

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

One last ditch attempt. lol The difference between the two covenants,the Old and the new is greatly different! Under the Old covenant( 2 Kings 1:12) Now when the disciples of Jesus faced the same kind of contempt in the New Covenant look at the big difference!!( Luke 9:52-56) And look what Jesus told them!! He rebuked them! ( Rom 2:1-5) Please look very close at verse 4. When you go for reformed,you are saying the changes Calvin made to the Word is more important then the Word himself. Before you judge another you better make real sure your own house is in order pal.(2 Cor 13:5-8)

John Calvin didn't "change the Word". Again, more nonsense propaganda.

By the way, that's a pretty handy thing to claim..that I don't have salvation because you disagree with me. I encourage folks to read 2 Cor 13:5-8 to see what he is referring to.

So, what this guy is saying (apparently) is that God does not exercise his wrath against sinners anymore after the New Covenant has begun, but we know this is not true. Jesus will destroy the wicked with his coming.

And, regarding whether unbelievers are under the wrath and condemnation of God, all one has to do is read Romans 1-3 in this regard.

I already referred to John 3:16 and the handy way guys like this avoid reading John 3:36.

John 3:36 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (ESV).

The wicked will still suffer eternal punishment therefore we know God's wrath and condemnation still abides on those who are not in Christ.

However, liberals don't want to believe this. According to the "Emergent Church" God is some grandfather figure who indulges those who are not in Christ.

By the way, it is not doing anyone any good to sell them a gospel like that. They need to know the precariousness of their situation. Realizing that we are sinners who are facing eternal punishment is one motivation to turn and to repent. Nineveh turned and repented based on such a message.

Anyways, if you want to address me, quit bringing up John Calvin. He is irrelevant. The only importance of Reformed theology to me in this conversation is that they don't avoid facing the truth of Scripture.

Which is exactly what you are doing. I will applaud them for not avoiding the hard truths of Scripture.

 

[Whispered]

I hope that I have not put you down, by name calling, You are a child of God, and one of the elect, and I respect you, and appreciate your conversations with me.

I do not know much about John Calvin, except what I have read about him on this forum. I do know, from what I have heard, that he branched off from the Catholic church during the reformation. The church that Christ set up was never a part of the Catholic church, and endured much persecution from the Roman Catholic church, therefore I would assume that John Calvin was never a part of the church that Jesus set up. You have asserted that the doctrine that I teach is different from that of Calvin, Maybe that is the reason why.

Thank you for your words. Please forgive me if my own hurt you in any way. It was not my intention. Sometimes I can become very passionate about what I judge to be errant teaching. In a forum I presume there may be people, especially as we are getting more and more new people posting their greeting in the new member forum, that are looking for answers about Christ and the faith.
When I read what , again, I judge, to be errant teaching that could lead anyone down the wrong path, I seek to make the correction as best as I can. I'm perhaps a bit too zealous when it comes to TULIP and Calvin.

Again, I appreciate your kind post and please accept my sincere apology if I hurt your feelings in my posting. God Bless.

 

[Whispered]

The inspired word of God was not written to tell people how to get saved eternally. It was written to inform the elect that Christ did, indeed, save them eternally on the cross, this is the good news of the gospel. It was also written for the purpose of informing the elect as to how God wants them to live their lives as they sojourn here on earth. God's called Elders (preachers) are instructed to preach the word to his elect after they have been regenerated informing them that they have the imputed righteousness of Christ, and do not have to go about trying to establish their own righteousness by the works of the old law. This, also, is the good news. Spiritual faith comes only after a person has been given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual faith, after you are born again, can deliver (save, not eternally, but here in time) you from a lack of knowledge of the word, as you keep growing in faith from hearing the word of God preached. If we are following God's instructions on how we are to live our lives here on earth, we never stop growing in faith, the more we study the word and hear it preached.

Well said.
The issue I have with Unconditional Election and all of the TULIP formula, but UE in particular, is that the way it is disseminated in Calvinism and other RT TULIP aligned denominations, is to say that Jesus only died for the select(elect) that were known by God before the world came to exist and have a human population upon it that would need saving.
It makes out to say that God saved people by name who did not yet exist. And that would then lead to the premeditated intention by God to create a paradigm wherein those named people would need to be saved. And all of that of course would necessarily be God's creative/creator responsibility.
"I saved people from the sin I'll have to make possible so that there is a reason for me to have saved people. The rest, damn them!"

I think such an ideology nullifies the cross, revokes all those scriptures that inform Christ's purpose and message was for all people who would hearken unto it, and makes God out to be one that created damnation and assured it for all but those whom for his own reasons He would save from that eternal fate by name.

I don't see that , my synopsis of TULIP, as endearing or something that would make someone want to run into the arms of the God that orchestrated such a thing. Because as one RT theologian taught, even the elect in that TULIP formula will not know if they are so until after they've passed on and find out from God Himself.
Can you imagine that one? Living deluded all one's life, say they live 80 years as someone who believes and adheres to the TULIP formula, finding out when they're before God that they were not one of the Elect He predestined before He created anything at all?

Talk about an eternal everlasting bummer. And that comes with a lot of pain and suffering.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Well said.
The issue I have with Unconditional Election and all of the TULIP formula, but UE in particular, is that the way it is disseminated in Calvinism and other RT TULIP aligned denominations, is to say that Jesus only died for the select(elect) that were known by God before the world came to exist and have a human population upon it that would need saving.
It makes out to say that God saved people by name who did not yet exist. And that would then lead to the premeditated intention by God to create a paradigm wherein those named people would need to be saved. And all of that of course would necessarily be God's creative/creator responsibility.
"I saved people from the sin I'll have to make possible so that there is a reason for me to have saved people. The rest, damn them!"

I think such an ideology nullifies the cross, revokes all those scriptures that inform Christ's purpose and message was for all people who would hearken unto it, and makes God out to be one that created damnation and assured it for all but those whom for his own reasons He would save from that eternal fate by name.

I don't see that , my synopsis of TULIP, as endearing or something that would make someone want to run into the arms of the God that orchestrated such a thing. Because as one RT theologian taught, even the elect in that TULIP formula will not know if they are so until after they've passed on and find out from God Himself.
Can you imagine that one? Living deluded all one's life, say they live 80 years as someone who believes and adheres to the TULIP formula, finding out when they're before God that they were not one of the Elect He predestined before He created anything at all?

Talk about an eternal everlasting bummer. And that comes with a lot of pain and suffering.

You and I do not think of the non-elect with their regard for spiritual things in the same manner. There are people in this world that are totally anti-religious that do not have a conscience who steals, kills, lies and destroys to get whatever he wants. The scriptures say that we know the elect, by their fruits which are the fruits of the indwelling Holy Spirit. But the scriptures also tell us that we are not supposed to determine who is elect and non-elect. Even the devil can present himself as an angel of light. The non-elect are not going to be let down by thinking that they are not a part of the elect. in fact, they do not even think that their is an elect, and think that when people die, they will never live again, and that there is no such thing as a God or a heaven. I doubt that there are any on this forum that are not of the elect unless they are here to promote their own devious desires.

From what I have heard about Calvin is that he believes that every action of man is predestined by God. The doctrine that I believe in gives mankind a free choice to choose how he wants to live his life here on earth, but God does not leave it up to man to choose to have eternal life, because God knew that no one would choose eternal life. God regenerates the elect so that they will a desire to trust him and lean upon him for their every need, giving him praise, honor and love for what he has done for them. I am 85 years old, and have no doubt of my eternal inheritance. With the fruits that you display, I also do not doubt that you are of the elect also.

 

[Whispered]

You and I do not think of the non-elect with their regard for spiritual things in the same manner. There are people in this world that are totally anti-religious that do not have a conscience who steals, kills, lies and destroys to get whatever he wants. The scriptures say that we know the elect, by their fruits which are the fruits of the indwelling Holy Spirit. But the scriptures also tell us that we are not supposed to determine who is elect and non-elect. Even the devil can present himself as an angel of light. The non-elect are not going to be let down by thinking that they are not a part of the elect. in fact, they do not even think that their is an elect, and think that when people die, they will never live again, and that there is no such thing as a God or a heaven. I doubt that there are any on this forum that are not of the elect unless they are here to promote their own devious desires.

From what I have heard about Calvin is that he believes that every action of man is predestined by God. The doctrine that I believe in gives mankind a free choice to choose how he wants to live his life here on earth, but God does not leave it up to man to choose to have eternal life, because God knew that no one would choose eternal life. God regenerates the elect so that they will a desire to trust him and lean upon him for their every need, giving him praise, honor and love for what he has done for them. I am 85 years old, and have no doubt of my eternal inheritance. With the fruits that you display, I also do not doubt that you are of the elect also.

Thank you.

Be they conscious of what it means to be elect or not, I think as far as TULIP's formula goes, the background of its formula being all God's will and doing, it then remains that double predestination is a factor. When God predetermines someone to be saved because He has first made them unable to seek His face, it stands in the converse that God would have predetermined the fate of those whom He did not call into salvation or the status of the Elect.

The non-elect may not know of this, however the TULIP formula informs of this in itself.
I don't consider that a sign of Omni-Benevolence when all of that was predestined before God created anything at all. In fact, having predestined that prior to creation, it implies God then committed to creating the paradox that would allow TULIP to unfold as planned.

 

[garee]

Well said.
The issue I have with Unconditional Election and all of the TULIP formula, but UE in particular, is that the way it is disseminated in Calvinism and other RT TULIP aligned denominations, is to say that Jesus only died for the select(elect) that were known by God before the world came to exist and have a human population upon it that would need saving.
It makes out to say that God saved people by name who did not yet exist. And that would then lead to the premeditated intention by God to create a paradigm wherein those named people would need to be saved. And all of that of course would necessarily be God's creative/creator responsibility.
"I saved people from the sin I'll have to make possible so that there is a reason for me to have saved people. The rest, damn them!"

I think such an ideology nullifies the cross, revokes all those scriptures that inform Christ's purpose and message was for all people who would hearken unto it, and makes God out to be one that created damnation and assured it for all but those whom for his own reasons He would save from that eternal fate by name.

I don't see that , my synopsis of TULIP, as endearing or something that would make someone want to run into the arms of the God that orchestrated such a thing. Because as one RT theologian taught, even the elect in that TULIP formula will not know if they are so until after they've passed on and find out from God Himself.
Can you imagine that one? Living deluded all one's life, say they live 80 years as someone who believes and adheres to the TULIP formula, finding out when they're before God that they were not one of the Elect He predestined before He created anything at all?

Talk about an eternal everlasting bummer. And that comes with a lot of pain and suffering.

They are born dead God does not make them unable they are unable.

It makes out to say that God saved people by name who did not yet exist. Names he wrote down in two books .One erasable the other eternal indelible.

Remember he was slain as a lamb from the foundation (6 days) When he did the actual work .He rested from all his works on the 7th .Not in respect to the outward demonstration thousands of years later.

Daniel 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

You could say one book will have names and compared to the other it will be empty or blank on the last day as, if they never were born . They will not rise to new spirit life and a new incorruptible body, the propmise..

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Thank you.

Be they conscious of what it means to be elect or not, I think as far as TULIP's formula goes, the background of its formula being all God's will and doing, it then remains that double predestination is a factor. When God predetermines someone to be saved because He has first made them unable to seek His face, it stands in the converse that God would have predetermined the fate of those whom He did not call into salvation or the status of the Elect.

The non-elect may not know of this, however the TULIP formula informs of this in itself.
I don't consider that a sign of Omni-Benevolence when all of that was predestined before God created anything at all. In fact, having predestined that prior to creation, it implies God then committed to creating the paradox that would allow TULIP to unfold as planned.

I am curious about your terminology "Omni-Benevolence". Can you inform me including scripture?

 

[brighthouse98]

United I never question the salvation of any person. I question the fruit. And your fruit is wrapped up in a man made doctrine,which I do not care for is all. lol

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

United I never question the salvation of any person. I question the fruit. And your fruit is wrapped up in a man made doctrine,which I do not care for is all. lol

Reformed theology would have existed without John Calvin.

You are simply employing mindless rhetoric.

Additionally, your version of God is ill-informed.

And, I noticed that you did not respond to the Scripture I presented that says God hates sinners..he says it throughout Psalms and Proverbs, too, by the way.

Your weak, effeminate god cannot make sense of Ananias and Sapphira for example. This event makes mincemeat out of your claim that God doesn't act in the same way as the OT.

By the way, that's a Marcion mindset. Marcion was a heretic who tried to split the God of the Bible into the God of the OT and the God of the NT.

If you don't think people are under the wrath and condemnation of God until they come underneath the covering of Christ, I don't think you can respond coherently to God's actions towards them.

And, by the way, God is love..you simply don't understand how his love is exercised. He eventually deals with wicked men in his economy, and actually he is glorified in doing this. The fact that the wicked will be eternally punished actually glorifies God, because it shows how much his holiness matters to him. No more will he allow rapists, child molesters, murderers, etcetera to roam the earth unrestrained doing their will.

Read further if you dare....I bet this section of your Bible hasn't been read much.

Acts 5:1-11 1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
(ESV)