Understanding God’s election

[Inquisitor]

Read Rom 1:11. He addressed his letter primarily to Gentile believers.

That's why Paul said, Are we Jews any better off?

 

[HeIsHere]

They have zero respect for the context.

That's why they miss the mark.

It is the tradition they were taught.

Less than zero sometimes.

 

[Cranberry]

That's interesting! So, like me, you discovered this "on your own" -- with personal study. And I'm not surprised because it seems that most Christians don't get it!

But what I'm still curious about is how did you become convinced that God didn't save Adam in the first place?

Genesis 3
Well, for me it would seem a contrary act on God's part to have condemned Adam and of course Eve so to suffer God's appointed curses and then Save Adam from bearing the responsibility of being the one by which Sin entered God's sinless world.

Saving Adam before affixing those punishments would be just as contradictory. Maybe even worse.
There are other reasons too. Those are just off the top of my head.

If by one man Sin entered the world, God giving Salvation to that one man should remove Sin from the world. Because Adam was the one by which it entered. Even though Eve disobeyed God first.

 

[cv5]

Less than zero sometimes.

How about willful contempt?

 

[Inquisitor]

How about willful contempt?

They were probably raised in Calvinist Churches.

So they do regard any other view or interpretation as heresy, ignoring the absolute sovereignty of God.

There is certainly a dash of contempt without any doubt.

 

[GWH]

I don't know about the rest of you reformed folks, but I find much more than megabytes of irony in this self-deceived, awareness-free freewiller's post! How ironic is it that he appeals to the Parable of the Good Samaritan to prove something (God only knows what) when that parable should be the last parable that any freewiller should appeal to in the context of a salvation discussion! After all, the Good Samaritan RESCUED a HELPLESS crime victim -- a man Jesus described as half dead! Yet, freewillers are loathe to take this parable at face value and even more reluctant to draw parallels between between the Good Samaritan's salvation of this helpless crime victim and God's salvation of totally DEAD sinners who are even more helpless! When God does so much more for us helpless sinners by rescuing us, the freewillers reason carnally that God would be an unrighteous, unjust, tyrannical monster if, like the Good Samaritan, He stopped by the "roadside" to rescue any of us. If God is going to dare presume to rescue some helpless person, He is somehow morally obligated to seek the helpless person's permission or approval or acceptance of his help before proceeding any further.

How twisted is that kind of thinking!? Is that what any of us would do in the real world if we found someone in a helpless state, or would we, like the Good Samaritan, just jump in and do what we could to help? In FWT theology the Good Samaritan is actually more righteous than God!

No, per YOUR view the GS is more righteous/loving than God, because he would have helped anyone in the world, but you think God only helps the elect. Please do not project YOUR hatred for humanity onto God or those who manifest the love of God's HS. Thanks.

 

[brightfame52]

Its not true that no one understands.

The verse that Romans 3:11 cites was citing commentary found in Psalms on the state of apostate Jews in the day it was written.

Yes it is true none understands spiritual things of God nor seeks God , the True God. And it goes for all men naturally whether jew or gentile, as Paul concludes both are under the power of sin Rom3:9,19

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

When Adam sinned it caused death for the whole human race not just jews, all mankind went apostate

 

[ParticularWife]

They were probably raised in Calvinist Churches.

So they do regard any other view or interpretation as heresy, ignoring the absolute sovereignty of God.

There is certainly a dash of contempt without any doubt.

I’ve been immersed in high Calvinist circles for years—probably some of the most Calvinist spaces you’ll find—and here’s the thing: we don’t go around branding everyone who disagrees with us on supralapsarian election as heretics. Sure, some views on the doctrine of God can veer into heretical territory if taken to their logical extremes. But disagreement on predestination itself does not automatically make someone a heretic, especially if their broader theology is sound.
Take Calvin himself or theologians like Turretin, Perkins, or even Bavinck. They understood that predestination, while central to Reformed theology, is not the dividing line of church unity. Francis Turretin, for instance, emphasized that charity and unity in essentials should govern how we engage with other Christians. Calvin, in his Institutes, always pointed back to the glory of God and the centrality of Christ, not endless polemics over election.
Now, what makes me pause is the way some folks caricature John Calvin, as though he’s some proto-Simon Magus. These critiques often come from people who do not actually engage with Reformed theology but only with its critics. There is a lot of straw-manning out there. If you want to critique Calvinism, read Calvin—or Owen, Edwards, or Hodge. Engage the best of the tradition.
And let’s be real—there are fringe types in every theological camp who throw around the word “heretic” too freely. You can find someone online from any non-universalist tradition ready to anathematize the world. But predestinarian election? It is not even a secondary issue when it comes to church unity. There are far graver errors that deserve the term “heresy,” but this is not one of them.

I have been called a hyper-Calvinist by Calvinists. Don't straw man our view.

 

[HeIsHere]

Sure, some views on the doctrine of God can veer into heretical territory if taken to their logical extremes.

It is essential to take a view to its logical end (not extreme) and yes that is a good test for heresy since most times heresy is presented covertly.

Don't straw man our view.

Even if we steel man Calvinism the doctrine (TULIP) is still not established in scripture when those cherry picked proof texts verses are understood in correct context.

is not the dividing line of church unity

If is so unifying then why is it receiving such backlash by many solid theologians, probably because it is outside the Christian faith as established by Jesus and His disciples.

The doctrine of "predestination" and its accompanying "man cannot make a positive response to the truth of the Gospel message" unless regenerated first as argued by Calvinists across the spectrum of Calvinists is heretical.

 

[ParticularWife]

It is essential to take a view to its logical end (not extreme) and yes that is a good test for heresy since most times heresy is presented covertly.



Even if we steel man Calvinism the doctrine (TULIP) is still not established in scripture when those cherry picked proof texts verses are understood in correct context.



If is so unifying then why is it receiving such backlash by many solid theologians, probably because it is outside the Christian faith as established by Jesus and His disciples.

The doctrine of "predestination" and its accompanying "man cannot make a positive response to the truth of the Gospel message" unless regenerated first as argued by Calvinists across the spectrum of Calvinists is heretical.

This is such low info internet meme debate nonsense that I see no point in actually interacting with you. Your impression of Reformed theology is beyond the time I have to correct.
And since you're one of these people calling everyone a heretic, I'm blocking you. I don't take you seriously as a theologian. Grow up.

 

[HeIsHere]

How about willful contempt?

Yes when one believes this about God "He withholds grace and faith from them simply because it brings Him the most glory" I would agree it is wilful contempt!

The false premise of being individually eternally immutably elect may make a believer feel more special… but it is at the expense of logically and unbiblically making God into a monster masochist!

 

[HeIsHere]

This is such low info internet meme debate nonsense that I see no point in actually interacting with you. Your impression of Reformed theology is beyond the time I have to correct.
And since you're one of these people calling everyone a heretic, I'm blocking you. I don't take you seriously as a theologian. Grow up.

Regeneration prior to belief is an heretical doctrine because it is not established in scripture ......you made it personal why is that?

It is always we are misunderstood, not really what we believe, we have the high intellectual doctrine not understood by the masses....on and on...

 

[cv5]

I’ve been immersed in high Calvinist circles for years—probably some of the most Calvinist spaces you’ll find—and here’s the thing: we don’t go around branding everyone who disagrees with us on supralapsarian election as heretics. Sure, some views on the doctrine of God can veer into heretical territory if taken to their logical extremes. But disagreement on predestination itself does not automatically make someone a heretic, especially if their broader theology is sound.
Take Calvin himself or theologians like Turretin, Perkins, or even Bavinck. They understood that predestination, while central to Reformed theology, is not the dividing line of church unity. Francis Turretin, for instance, emphasized that charity and unity in essentials should govern how we engage with other Christians. Calvin, in his Institutes, always pointed back to the glory of God and the centrality of Christ, not endless polemics over election.
Now, what makes me pause is the way some folks caricature John Calvin, as though he’s some proto-Simon Magus. These critiques often come from people who do not actually engage with Reformed theology but only with its critics. There is a lot of straw-manning out there. If you want to critique Calvinism, read Calvin—or Owen, Edwards, or Hodge. Engage the best of the tradition.
And let’s be real—there are fringe types in every theological camp who throw around the word “heretic” too freely. You can find someone online from any non-universalist tradition ready to anathematize the world. But predestinarian election? It is not even a secondary issue when it comes to church unity. There are far graver errors that deserve the term “heresy,” but this is not one of them.

I have been called a hyper-Calvinist by Calvinists. Don't straw man our view.

I just want to know about this Bronze Serpent on a pole thing.

Free will or super-determinism?

One is obvious, one is utterly absurd.

And BTW, the nations roundabout Israel were likewise to LOOK UPON God's nation, SEE His works, SEEK Gods face, COME to the God of Israel..........and be saved.

Like Rahab, the Gibeonites and Ruth and millions of others.

Calvinite super-determinism is WRECKED at every juncture WHENEVER a salvation scenario is presented.
And the template begins in the garden at the fall.

The problem with Calvinite-ism? Devastating Biblical illiteracy, irrational though processes, and brute fleshly obstinacy in the face of Biblical truth. Its more like a ritual chant, a dogma, a doctrinal dog whistle.

Adam chose to sin (a wrong choice) of his own free will.....WHILE HE WAS SINLESS AND PERFECT in full fellowship with God.

And THEN, Adam chose to do the RIGHT THING.....by preventing Eve from eating from the tree of life, and refusing to eat from the tree of life himself AFTER HE FELL. And then did the RIGHT THING by testifying TRUTHFULLY (as did the Woman) at the trial of Satan.

Which of course demolishes this "total depravity" nonsense once and for all.

 

[rogerg]

The problem with Calvinite-ism? Devastating Biblical illiteracy, irrational though processes, and brute fleshly obstinacy in the face of Biblical truth. Its more like a ritual chant, a dogma, a doctrinal dog whistle.

Yeah, it would definitely seem to be that way to those who are unable to recognize that Christ is the Savior and not man.
Under those conditions, no one would be able to accept it. Until salvation is in one's possession as a free gift,
it is impossible to perceive it as such, so instead, they try to earn it one sinful way or another making a mockery of the gift and
the giver of the gift.

Oh, BTW, that snake thing? That was Old Covenant; New Covenant - the remedy of looking at the snake to be healed, wouldn't be necessary because Christ already achieved it all. See what I mean about not being able to perceive the free gift? Since you're so up on the tenets of salvation, do you recognize that Christ is the Savior? The Bible is replete with notifications to us that He alone is.

 

[cv5]

Yeah, it would definitely seem to be that way to those who are unable to recognize that Christ is the Savior and not man.
Under those conditions, no one would be able to accept it. Until salvation is in one's possession as a free gift,
it is impossible to perceive it as such, so instead, they try to earn it one sinful way or another making a mockery of the gift and
the giver of the gift.

Oh, BTW, that snake thing? That was Old Covenant; New Covenant - the remedy of looking at the snake to be healed, wouldn't be necessary because Christ already achieved it all. See what I mean about not being able to perceive the free gift? Since you're so up on the tenets of salvation, do you recognize that Christ is the Savior? The Bible is replete with notifications to us that He alone is.

And there we go. Calvinites trotting out their ritual chanting with zero Biblical back-up, zero credibility.

Your position has been destroyed, over and over again. Just did it in my last couple posts.
But the Calvinites are just too zombified and mind-wiped by the Calvinite doomer virus to know better.

"Look Around the Poker Table; If You Can’t See the Sucker, You’re It"

 

[rogerg]

And there we go. Calvinites trotting out their ritual chanting with zero Biblical back-up, zero credibility.

Your position has been destroyed, over and over again. Just did it in my last couple posts.
But the Calvinites are just too zombified and mind-wiped by the Calvinite doomer virus to know better.

"Look Around the Poker Table; If You Can’t See the Sucker, You’re It"

And exactly what I would expect from someone who doesn't realize Christ is the Savior
yet sees himself as a Christian

 

[Cranberry]

I’ve been immersed in high Calvinist circles for years—probably some of the most Calvinist spaces you’ll find—and here’s the thing: we don’t go around branding everyone who disagrees with us on supralapsarian election as heretics. Sure, some views on the doctrine of God can veer into heretical territory if taken to their logical extremes. But disagreement on predestination itself does not automatically make someone a heretic, especially if their broader theology is sound.
Take Calvin himself or theologians like Turretin, Perkins, or even Bavinck. They understood that predestination, while central to Reformed theology, is not the dividing line of church unity. Francis Turretin, for instance, emphasized that charity and unity in essentials should govern how we engage with other Christians. Calvin, in his Institutes, always pointed back to the glory of God and the centrality of Christ, not endless polemics over election.
Now, what makes me pause is the way some folks caricature John Calvin, as though he’s some proto-Simon Magus. These critiques often come from people who do not actually engage with Reformed theology but only with its critics. There is a lot of straw-manning out there. If you want to critique Calvinism, read Calvin—or Owen, Edwards, or Hodge. Engage the best of the tradition.
And let’s be real—there are fringe types in every theological camp who throw around the word “heretic” too freely. You can find someone online from any non-universalist tradition ready to anathematize the world. But predestinarian election? It is not even a secondary issue when it comes to church unity. There are far graver errors that deserve the term “heresy,” but this is not one of them.

I have been called a hyper-Calvinist by Calvinists. Don't straw man our view.

Welcome to our community.

I'll tell you from my experience here that you are in for quite an experience in witnessing the T of Calvin's five points. And that is because you have openly identified as a Calvinist.

Those of us who are not so are attacked by that which infers we are affiliated merely because we defend God's word itself.

You've admitted to being a Calvinist. The target for the hate we who are not so will now likely focus on you.

I will hold you in my prayers.

 

[Cranberry]

So that my sister's and brothers may follow PW's post I have shared a link to what I found as a 4 point Calvanist resource.

https://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html

 

[ParticularWife]

Welcome to our community.

I'll tell you from my experience here that you are in for quite an experience in witnessing the T of Calvin's five points. And that is because you have openly identified as a Calvinist.

Those of us who are not so are attacked by that which infers we are affiliated merely because we defend God's word itself.

You've admitted to being a Calvinist. The target for the hate we who are not so will now likely focus on you.

I will hold you in my prayers.

I appreciate the concern, but I grew up around Gary North, internet people can't bother me. I find it annoying when they're hysterical and misinformed, and sometimes pointless to engage, but I don't get bothered by it. It's actually funny how much Calvinism had influenced aspects of their own denominations and they don't even know it.

 

[GWH]

I’ve been immersed in high Calvinist circles for years—probably some of the most Calvinist spaces you’ll find—and here’s the thing: we don’t go around branding everyone who disagrees with us on supralapsarian election as heretics. Sure, some views on the doctrine of God can veer into heretical territory if taken to their logical extremes. But disagreement on predestination itself does not automatically make someone a heretic, especially if their broader theology is sound.
Take Calvin himself or theologians like Turretin, Perkins, or even Bavinck. They understood that predestination, while central to Reformed theology, is not the dividing line of church unity. Francis Turretin, for instance, emphasized that charity and unity in essentials should govern how we engage with other Christians. Calvin, in his Institutes, always pointed back to the glory of God and the centrality of Christ, not endless polemics over election.
Now, what makes me pause is the way some folks caricature John Calvin, as though he’s some proto-Simon Magus. These critiques often come from people who do not actually engage with Reformed theology but only with its critics. There is a lot of straw-manning out there. If you want to critique Calvinism, read Calvin—or Owen, Edwards, or Hodge. Engage the best of the tradition.
And let’s be real—there are fringe types in every theological camp who throw around the word “heretic” too freely. You can find someone online from any non-universalist tradition ready to anathematize the world. But predestinarian election? It is not even a secondary issue when it comes to church unity. There are far graver errors that deserve the term “heresy,” but this is not one of them.

I have been called a hyper-Calvinist by Calvinists. Don't straw man our view.

Re "I’ve been immersed in high Calvinist circles for years": Does that mean you affirm TULIP?

Re "we don’t go around branding everyone who disagrees with us on supralapsarian election as heretics...": For what disagreement WOULD you view the other person as a heretic?

Re "...especially if their broader theology is sound.": What theology do you have in mind?

Re "Reformed theology, is not the dividing line of church unity": What is?

Re "Calvin, in his Institutes, always pointed back to the glory of God and the centrality of Christ": Did he ever point to the justness of God and love of Christ toward all of humanity?

Re "There is a lot of straw-manning out there.": True.

Re "there are fringe types in every theological camp who throw around the word “heretic” too freely.": Yes, and this is a concern of mine.

Re "predestinarian election? It is not even a secondary issue when it comes to church unity. ": That depends upon whether it contradicts GRFS.

Re "There are far graver errors that deserve the term “heresy,” but this is not one of them.": True (which I will identify next time unless you want to go first. :^)