Re: " CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?"
 

Gord stated:

Aloha brother Gord,

I am greatly disappointed that you did not choose to refute my points (one by one) with Scripture, rather than post some comments by some man who does not deal with my Post, but is presenting his own arguments in favor of Calvinism.

Here are some “QUOTES” from the “esteemed” Dr. Keith Sherlin:

Did it “slip” your notice that the “esteemed doctor” quoted from FIVE (5) CORRUPT bibles? Am I to take what any man says seriously when he has NO FINAL AUTHORITY? If you were to ask this man for a “Definition” of the “Bible” he professes to believe in – WHAT would he say? He said: “All Bible Believers Admit the Bible Contains the Subject of Predestination/Election”. WHICH “BIBLE” is he referring to? Hmmm?

WHAT do I care about: “The Articles of Religion in 1571”; “The Formula of Concord in 1577”; “The Westminister Confession of Faith of 1643-1646”; or the “The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689”? All of these “confessions” came during or after John Calvin, and so they are just “parroting” John Calvin’s PHILOSOPHY! My whole Post uses only the Holy Scriptures and I do NOT rely on any man to write what I believe – the entire study is entirely my own with the exception for the very last Post concerning John Calvin’s life.

The “esteemed” Dr. Keith Sherlin continually uses corrupt bibles as the following illustrates:

Under: “Election/Predestination is Related to the Omniscient Foreknowledge of God’

Under: God Eternally Knows Some, But Not All, As His Children


The “esteemed doctor” quotes:

And again Under: Fear Being a Vessel of Wrath and Flee to Jesus Christ for Salvation

Did you not notice that the “esteemed” doctor failed to quote from the Holy Bible? Doesn’t it bother you (at least a little) that the “esteemed” doctor fails to quote from God’s Holy word (the King James Bible) – NOT EVEN ONCE in his entire essay? Are you so desperate to “DISPROVE” what I have written that you will appeal to a man who REFUSES to quote from the Holy Bible – NOT EVEN ONCE?

IF after studying this issue for the past three months, this is ALL that you can up with, then I suggest that you go “back to the drawing board” and SKIP the “esteemed doctor” (and all of the rest of the commentators) and “search the Scriptures” yourself (instead) to see if what I presented was true or NOT.

As for the “esteemed doctor. Keith Sherli, If he were in our church, we wouldn’t let him teach Sunday School! :eek:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Gord,

Did you even know the man you were quoting does not think the KJV Bible is perfectly preserved word of God.

look how many versions he has to post to make his argument.

Paul's view on predestinate and Calvin's are not even in the same ballpark.

Re: "CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?"
 

Aloha brother Gord,

This is just a short follow up to my comments in my Post #121 (in response to your Post #120). In order to know where you are coming from – would you answer a few questions? These questions are not meant to “trip you up” or to be used against you:

1. Have you ever been a Calvinist? YES? Or NO?

2. Were you a Calvinist BEFORE I posted my Series on Calvinism? YES? Or NO?

3. Are you NOW a Calvinist? YES? Or NO?

Did you notice that Dr. Keith Sherlin used about 20 verses (all from corrupt bibles) presenting his case for the doctrine of “Unconditional Election”, whereas I used approximately 85 verses of Holy Scripture in presenting my case against “Unconditional Election” in my Post #9 on Calvinism (not counting any verses that I may have quoted in the subsequent Posts {Posts #13; #16; #25; & #37} that were all related to the issue of “Unconditional Election”)?

Granted – I could have twisted, wrested, and taken many of those verses out of their context to make them “mean” something other than what they “SAY” in order to “PROVE” MY POINT; but if I did, it would be up to you to “POINT OUT” where I “misused” (or “abused”) the Scriptures –and, “point by point”, demonstrate WHERE I WAS WRONG.

Just to say: “Brother George, as lot of the scripture references you provided especially on election, just didn't make any sense to me.” doesn’t tell me anything.

Dr. Keith Sherlin’s essay on “Unconditional Election” did NOT deal with all of the points that I made in my essay against “Unconditional Election”, instead, his essay was just another (amongst hundreds) in support of the doctrine of “Unconditional Election”.

You said that: “I have spent the past 3 months reading and studying as much as I can on this topic.” Since you spent that much time studying the “topic” - did you examine the “topic” from BOTH SIDES {Pro and Con}?

Since you referred to Dr. Keith Sherlin (an obvious Calvinist),and used his essay in support of your belief; and since you spent three months “reading and studying as much as I can on this topic”; you surely must have read BOTH SIDES of the “topic” - didn’t you? And IF you did read BOTH SIDES of the “topic”, perhaps you could cite some the books, essays, articles, etc. that presented “The Other Side of Calvinism”? By now you know that I normally don’t go around recommending men, however, IF you haven’t read BOTH SIDES of the “topic” then before you commit yourself to Calvinism, you should check out “The Other Side Of Calvinism” by Laurence M. Vance (788 Pages <> Copyright 1991 – Revised 1999).

It is a given that there are at least two sides to every issue; and IF (over the last three months) you have only checked out ONE SIDE of this “topic”, you haven’t thoroughly examined the issue (from BOTH SIDES).

That is why I asked the questions at the beginning of this Post. IF you were a “committed” Calvinist BEFORE I posted my essays, then there’s not much chance that my articles are going to change your mind or, especially, your heart. A peculiar thing about the heart of a man is – ONCE he truly BELIEVES in “something” (anything), it is extremely difficult for him to CHANGE. It’s as if, in “believing”, a “commitment” is made (by the heart) to the “BELIEF”, and very seldom will a person “reverse” themselves and embrace another “BELIEF”.

If you have NOT examined the other side of Calvinism, I urge you to do so – before you commit yourself to a doctrine, that I believe to be not only false, but also pernicious, in that it CHANGES the Holy word of God and takes away from the precious “promises” of God.

I will answer your question within the quote in blue.
[QUOTE=George;23338]Aloha brother Gord,

This is just a short follow up to my comments in my Post #121 (in response to your Post #120). In order to know where you are coming from – would you answer a few questions? These questions are not meant to “trip you up” or to be used against you:

1. Have you ever been a Calvinist? YES? Or NO?
Not until only recently

2. Were you a Calvinist BEFORE I posted my Series on Calvinism? YES? Or NO?
No, but I thank you for lighting my inquisitive fire.

3. Are you NOW a Calvinist? YES? Or NO?
Yes

Did you notice that Dr. Keith Sherlin used about 20 verses (all from corrupt bibles) presenting his case for the doctrine of “Unconditional Election”, whereas I used approximately 85 verses of Holy Scripture in presenting my case against “Unconditional Election” in my Post #9 on Calvinism (not counting any verses that I may have quoted in the subsequent Posts {Posts #13; #16; #25; & #37} that were all related to the issue of “Unconditional Election”)?
Yes of course I noticed that, the version is not the issue, ELECT and PREDESTINE mean the same thing in plain english regardless of the version.

Granted – I could have twisted, wrested, and taken many of those verses out of their context to make them “mean” something other than what they “SAY” in order to “PROVE” MY POINT; but if I did, it would be up to you to “POINT OUT” where I “misused” (or “abused”) the Scriptures –and, “point by point”, demonstrate WHERE I WAS WRONG.

Just to say: “Brother George, as lot of the scripture references you provided especially on election, just didn't make any sense to me.” doesn’t tell me anything.
See my answer and you quote below.

....I will post a further response later as time is my enemy at the moment.

....

From your post #1,

I agree, but you failed to show the reason WHY.

and God takes it completely out of the hands of MAN. He made that choice for us. This is neither Arminian, or Calvin I read this from the KJV of my bible. It just so happens that John Calvin agreed with Paul.

Greetings Gord. I'm wondering this. If the free will of man has nothing to do with believing...because you said "God takes it completely out of the hands of MAN. He made that choice for us." How is it that we now have a free will to obey or disobey? How is it that before salvation God imposed His will on us who are now saved but does not impose His will now that I am? :confused: by your theology.

Gord,

The version issue is very much the issue. if they use a Bible that has changed the words it changes the context and meaning. without these perversions Sherlin could not support his personal interpretation of his doctrine of Predestination or Election.

Elect and Predestine do not mean the same thing. Not in the English Dictionaries I have.

you will notice that not once in the KJV does Predestinate apply to an unbeliever. Predestinate only applies to people who are already saved, not before they get saved. It what we would call a Church Doctrine, for they only apply to the church

IN order to understand Rom 8:30 you will need to study out how God chooses. Eph 1:4 tells us he chose us IN HIM (Christ) as it says in the context of Roms 8:29 his foreknowledge. God by his foreknowledge chose those who were IN HIM then afterwards the predestinated verse follows. so one must be IN HIM to have any predestination applied to him.

George did an excellent study on it. apparently you did not read it or believe it. but he used only KJV Bible and all in context tot he surrounding verses. Dr Shelin used multiple choice versions and the verses are used out of context. How did you miss that?

Re: "CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?"
 

[quote=Gord;23367]I will answer your question within the quote in blue.
Aloha brother Gord,

I am saddened and disappointed that my study on Calvinism has prompted you to become a "Calvinist". But since I believe in Christian "liberty", I will not castigate or berate you over your "decision", especially since I do NOT have "dominion over your faith" [2Corinthians 1:24].

I said:
To which you replied:
Your statement:"the version is not the issue" and "regardless of the version" is even a bigger disappointment to me, because you fail to see the importance of deriving "pure doctrine" from an equally "PURE SOURCE". [Matthew 7:18; Luke 6:43-44; Jeremiah 2:13; Psalms 33:4; Psalms 119:140, 160;' Proverbs 30:5] Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Your statement: "ELECT and PREDESTINE mean the same thing in plain english regardless of the version" is in serious error. "Election" PRECEDES "Predestination". God "elects" us based on His "foreknowledge"; He THEN "predestinates" us "to be conformed to the image of his Son". {These are two separate "operations" of God.}

Please read the Scriptures:
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

The "election" of the saints is the operation of God CHOOSING us "in Him before the foundation of the world."

The "predestination" of the saints is the operation of God wherein, AFTER He has "elected" us - He "predestinates" us "to be conformed to the image of his Son".

That is - AFTER God "CHOSE" us, He "predestinated" the eternal destiny of each and every one of us. Or to put it another way: "Election" = God "Choosing". "Predestination" = God predetermining our eternal destiny. BUT this whole issue still comes down to God's "foreknowledge".

Did you read what I said about the "FOREKNOWLEDGE" of God in AV1611 BIBLE FORUMS > DOCTRINE > " CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?" Post #9 And in the same Post:
And again from the same Post:
I wonder - did you read the part of the same Post where I said:
I believe that I summed up the issue of election, foreknowledge, predestination, etc. in my last Post:

AV1611 BIBLE FORUMS > DOCTRINE > " CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?" Post #67

And what about my earlier Post:

AV1611 BIBLE FORUMS > DOCTRINE > " CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?" Post #3

1. The belief that God predestined people for salvation before the beginning of time. God’s election is not conditioned by anything in man, good or evil, foreseen or present, but upon God’s sovereign choice.

2. The Bible clearly teaches that election is not conditioned on man.

3. The words “predestine,” “choose,” “appoint,” and “foreknow” are
all in the active voice, which speaks of the initiative of the actor
behind the action (God). One would have to have a preconceived
bias against the doctrine of election in order to interpret these
words in a conditional sense.

4. Romans 9:8–29 clearly and contextually teach unconditional
election of individuals.

5. Salvation is by grace alone and for God’s glory alone. If people are elect based on their own choice, then merit is gained through the work of the individual (i.e., their faith).

6. If all people of all time have “equal opportunity” to come to the
Lord through God’s prevenient grace and their own free will, why
is it that salvation is not more evenly dispersed?

In other words God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace.

This is so clear to me, I hope this explains why I think and see this.

[QUOTE=George;23385]Brother George, please don't feel saddened or disappointed. I'm am really not sure why it's so important to 'pigeon hole' people of varying thoughts or believes into a label? The uniqueness of everyone's understanding of God's Grace is as varied as the stars in the sky, and soon we will run out of labels.

By your definition, and need to for lack of a better term, 'pigeon hole', then I am what you call a Calvinist. But like you I too do not agree entirely with all Calvin taught, nor Arminus, so in reality I am just a Gordist, and you would be a Georgeist.

You should be delighted that your study sparked me to look deeper and discover this great mystery of our Lord and Saviour, I know I sure am humbled to know that I had nothing to do with it. Please see my response to Brother Forest for my reasons of that excitement. I thank you for challenging my mind.

Believing is not a work
 

Bro. Gord said,
Paul tells us that believing is not a work.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.



John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Brother John G., you are absolutely correct. The reason you got to that point of belief (faith), is by the Grace of God you were elect from the beginning, and that opened your heart to 'beleiveth on him'. God initiated that process for you. If he had not, you would never had the ability to see the truth.

Are you serious? Where does the Bible teach God desires equal and fair distribution of salvation?

You asked..."why is it that salvation is not more evenly dispersed?" Gord, where does the Bible ever teach that salvation will be evenly disbursed?

Anyone and all who believe are saved. Salvation is offered to all, but all do not believe...read Brother George's thread. He has already covered that truth thoroughly with precise, clear, easy to understand scripture. This is so basic.

I clearly see, discern, and perceive that you are ensnared with the erroneous teaching of men (who fail to use the Bible as their authority) and that you are not set free by the unfeigned word of truth. I clearly see, discern, and perceive that you stubbornly and blindly refuse to heed Brother George's counsel to put the books, commentaries, and articles down and prayerfully study the word of God.

I will not repeat the truth that has already thoroughly been provided. I strongly urge you to diligently search the scriptures but fully agree with Brother George, it's difficult to hear God when you are so full of man.

Re: " CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?"
 

Aloha brother John,

:amen:You got it brother! :) "BELIEVING" IS NOT A "WORK"! I thought, with all of the Scripture and illustrations that I provided, that I made that clear in my studies, but either brother Gord REJECTS the teaching, or he MISSED it. :confused:

Please reread the Question
Note the word IF
Note the punctuation mark at the end ?

It must be hard to see clearly, how then can you be objective with what you read? When a simple question is asked to prove an obvious point, as sarcasm.

Brother George, with all due respect and love,
you call my summary statement "In other words God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace." my rejection.

It's really showing me that "human pride" really is stronger than one cares to admit or even notice within themselves. I thought I explained correctly that I wasn't a 'Georgist' and agreed that you aren't a Gordist, and you take that a rejection.

It's no wonder Mohandas Gandhi said "The only thing that keeps me from being a Christian, is Christians." They disguise their pride as did the Scribes and Pharisees behind the cloak of religion.

But what was I thinking, a Calvinist (reformed based on the word of God) on a KJV only Baptist based forum, we could learn from each other but not when only one side pays attention.

I apologize ahead of time, for also letting my pride take this to a personal level, so I will excuse myself.

I appreciate your study in opening my eyes to the truth, my payer is you will understand.

The problem is Gord, you will now make everything about Calvinism, because that is the essence of Calvinism. Nothing will be untainted by God's "eternal decree".

Let me ask you this. Since you believe "God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace.", why did he reject billions more, if he actually wants them to be saved? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11), and yet, according to you, God intentionally reprobated or passively passed them by, depending on your lapsarian view, for his sovereign pleasure, when he could have elected them.

So either God does take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, or he doesn't take pleasure in it.

The Bible says that all things were created for His pleasure (Rev 4:11), but God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11).

Now, the standard calvinist answer to my above question is either

i) The secret will of God cannot be known, who art thou O man that repliest against God...

Or, if you want to be more discussive & turn it around to be positive, it's usually

ii) God looked down upon man concluded all under sin and was not obliged to save any. The wonder of His grace is that He chose to save some!

But those don't answer the question at all, but bypass it. The question remains, why does a Sovereign God who emphatically states he

i) Takes no pleasure in the wicked
ii) Wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth
iii) Is not willing that any should perish
iv) Recieves glory from praise and obedience

,Secretly declare that BILLIONS will go to hell (because he either chose them (reprobated) to go, or passed over them while he was decreeing unconditional election - the difference is moot really), and that the reason they go to hell is for his Sovereign PLEASURE and GLORY?

You have a God who contradicts his own nature and very word.

:amen: Brother

In an effort to make it clear, explanatory, and why I totally refute what you think and see.

John 3:17-19 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

This is so clear to me, I hope this explains why I believe, receive, and teach whosoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, how that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on he third day will be saved. I trust the Bible has proven an obvious point. IF you believe...you are not condemned. IF you do not believe, you are condemned.

I recall when I was sucked into Calvinism. It was shortly after I "got serious" about Bible study. I first resisted it. This is how it went:

1. Somebody tells me, God predestinated us to be saved or not.
2. I say, no, that makes us all robots.
3. They point out all the verses that use the word "predistinate" "elect" and the forms thereof.
4. Suddenly I have to become a Calvinist.

Why the leap from 3 to 4? Because I let the Calvinist define what predestination affects, so when I run across the word, I have to accept their position.

The key (and why I finally dropped Calvinism and took God out of Calvin's box) is what does God predestinate? You ask a Calvinist to find you a verse that says God predestines us to belief or not, and they will never produce a single one -- they will run all sorts of circuits trying to link things up, but they can't do it.

The fundamental failure in the Calvinist "process" of Salvation is that they place the seal if the Holy Spirit before belief. They say nobody can believe God until the Holy Spirit changes them so that they can. But Paul leaves no room for this error:

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

The whole point of predestination is that God chose us IN CHRIST. We become in Christ by believing on him and receiving him. The corporate body of Christ was predestined to this inheritence (verse 14), which is still future.

Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

What we "get" out of predestination hasn't even occurred yet -- it's a future redemption.

The other taboo verse for Calvinism is this:

Revelation 22:17 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.

Calvinism turns this verse into a mockery instead of an invitation. It turns our Saviour into a disingenuous pleader. The standard Calvinist response to this is "nobody will." That just turns the words of our Lord into a void, and we know that isn't possible. (Isa 55:11)

For additional edification, expound on this:

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Re: "CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?"
 

Aloha brother Gord,

Now I am going to be real careful here - because I am not out to offend you in any way.

you said:
But I said nothing of the kind. I never referred to your "summary statement" once. I never called your "summary statement": ""In other words God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace." - "my rejection. "I'm afraid that you are putting words in my mouth. The following is what I said:

My quote:
My comment was in relation to my belief (expressed in several of my Posts on Calvinism) that "BELIEVING" is NOT a "WORK". The verse that brother JohnG cited (I include Romans 4:4 for "context".) is one of the strongest verses in the Bible in support of my "belief":

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {Notice the "contrast" between "WORK" & "BELIEVING"?}

Now, I was in no way referring to your "summary statement", I was referring to the fact that you either "missed" (which was possible) what I taught, or you "REJECTED" (which is your prerogative) what I taught - your ""summary statement" was not included in my comments at all!

In your Post #129 you said:
But there is such a thing as God's "TRUTH"; and our "understanding" (or inability to understand) does not ALTER that "TRUTH". God's "truth" is not as "varied as the stars in the sky". God's "TRUTH" is "RIGHT" - regardless of "everyone's understanding": [Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.]

Your Post #129 continued:
As far as pigeon-holing believers, I don't believe I engage in the practice. If a person is a Baptist they ought to declare themselves so (and more power to them). Brother tonybones makes no "bones" about being a "hyper-dispensationalist" - he declared so when he joined this Forum. If you want to be a Calvinist, that's your business. I wasn't berating you with my comment, I was just stating the obvious - you either have "missed" what I taught or you have "rejected" it.

As to declaring what I am (I am NOT a Georgeist) - whenever I am asked, I simply say that I am a Bible believing Christian. I stopped calling myself anything with a "ITE" after it or a "IST" after it over 20 years ago. I refuse to follow men (even those men that I may admire). With whatever time I may have left on this earth I am going to try to follow the Apostle Paul (as he has instructed us) as he followed the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

According to the biographies on Calvin - John Calvin did NOT follow Paul. Please check out my last lesson (Post #96) on Calvinism where I gave a short biography of John Calvin's life. Neither John Calvin nor his "exemplar" "Saint" Augustine were "exemplary" Christians {And certainly not somebody who we should be following!}.

Your Post #129 continued:
WHY should I "be delighted"? IF what you now believe is really "true", then I am WRONG; and what I am teaching is "FALSE", and therefore I am found to be a "FALSE TEACHER"! :tsk: IF, on the other hand, what you believe to be "true" is "FALSE", then you have embraced a "FALSE TEACHING" - there are NO "TWO WAYS" about it! One of us is "WRONG" - terribly "WRONG", :( WHY should I be "delighted" in that? :confused:

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

:Brother Luke,
If you took the time to study this, you would know the answer, rather that formating your ideas and statements on the quotes of the hearsay of others who likewise did not take the time to search the scriptures for specific answers.
Please show me the so called contradictions from the above scriptures.

Brother Brandon:
Thank you for chiming in, could you please do me a favor then and look at my arguments of scripture that I posted to Brother Luke and Brother Forest back a few, and tell me how that relates to your experience. I didn't use any of the quotes you mentioned, as I am trying not to 'pigeon hole' myself as a Calvinist, but rather some of what Calvin preached, makes perfect sense to me based on my thoughts responding to Brother Luke and what I see and understand in scripture.

Brother George, I am sorry I am really not HTML savvy, and when I try to respond to you I get lost in hyperlink html hell. All the bolds, quotes, colors take away from my train of thought.

I really wish I could just sit with you over a lemonade and chat and learn.

Please read my responses to Brother Luke, and Diligent, and reread my thoughts to Brother Forest above, as they pretty much answer your questions about my theology. I am sorry if I offended you with the Georgist handle, it was my way of being sarcastic. I have not learned your art of being that literal, or the art or rereading before I post, as I don't have near the experience that you have. I thank you for your patience though.

This is just a plain out accusation with no foundation. You assume I know nothing, yet it would appear that I know more about what you believe than you do... without trying to sound proud, because I am not in this situation, I will try to educate you in your own belief system...

Ezekial 18:23 and 33:11 both say what I was saying - that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rev 4:11 says all things were created for His pleasure.

Now, here is where you spin out... I never said anything about reprobation from Eze 33:11. I simply stated that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Now, to link them up, and I quote myself with some modifications -

According to the Calvinist view, God takes pleasure in reprobation. I'll explain what the lapsarian views are.

By lapsarian view, I mean the order of God's decree. There are generally three views. Sub, Supra and Infra. There are supposedly five parts to God's eternal decree. Here they are in no particular order

i) The decree to elect some to salvation and leave others to their just condemnation. (some modify this to include the purposeful reprobation of the wicked, rather than the passive "leaving others")
ii) The Decree to create all men
iii) The Decree to permit the fall
iv) The Decree to provide salvation for men
v) The Decree to apply salvation to men

Those are given in no order. The three different lapsarian views attempt to put in order God's decrees.

The Sublapsarian view puts them in this order

i) Decree to create all men.
ii) Decree to permit the fall.
iii) Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation those who do not believe.
iv) Decree to provide salvation for men.
v) Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.

In this order, God creates all men, permits the fall, elects those who believe and then provides Jesus Christ as the means to redeem those he has elected.

The Infralapsarian view puts them in this order

i)Decree to create all men.
ii)Decree to permit the fall.
iii)Decree to provide salvation for men.
iv)Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation all who do not believe.
v)Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.

This view is normally taken by more moderate calvinists. Charles Stanley, Lewis Sperry Chafer and most older dispensationalists held to this view. It is similar to the Sub view...

And then there is the Superlapsarian view. This is the consistent view of most calvinists especially presbyterians, as well as men like John Piper, Paul Washer, A.W. Pink, Sproul, Ryle etc.

i)Decree to elect some to be saved and to reprobate all others.
ii)Decree to create men both elect and non-elect.
iii) Decree to permit the fall.
iv) Decree to provide salvation for the elect.
v) Decree to apply salvation to the election.

Here is the most consistent calvinist view of God's eternal decrees. Except the order given directly makes God the author of all sin.

You see, according to the common calvinist view, God elects those who he would save BEFORE he even permits the fall, before he provides salvation, before he decrees anything else. It's not that he looks on all mankind and sees none worthy of salvation and has grace on some anyway, but that he "sovereignly" decrees some to heaven while reprobating all others and so the fall is the means to reprobation. Everything that follows is simply to complete this "secret will" of divine reprobation. God created the elect and non elect because he had already decreed to save some and damn others. He FORCED the fall because he had already decreed to save some and damn others. He provides salvation for those he chose to save while leaving the others without hope. And he forcibly saves those He chose while forcibly offering no hope to those he willed to perish.

So you still didn't answer my question

Does God take pleasure in damning souls to eternity that he personally reprobated, or does it sadden him? And if it saddens Him, why did he do it? And if he willed it all to happen, as the common calvinist interpretation sees it, why does He say it's not His will to see any perish?



And here it is! Everyone that is not calvinist is Arminian. You have been taught well. You'll find I will very rarely accuse a man of not knowing scripture well enough. Because anyone can know the scripture well enough to support their own view. It's not about knowing the most, it's about knowing the truth.

Those verses are great. But it doesn't answer the question, since that is what most of us have been saying. It is NOT God's will that ANY perish. And yet I showed you above how the common Calvinist view (Supralapsarianism) says the very opposite!
But that's not God's decree according to the Calvinists. God's decree is that some would perish, BEFORE he even decreed the fall. The fall was decreed as the means to the perishing, so that God would be justified in damning billions to hell for His glory.

And as I pointed out, the common view of God's decree taken by all Calvinist superstars (Washer, Piper etc) is that God elected those to be saved BEFORE he even decreed the fall. So in actuality, he looked upon all men as innocent, declared who he would saved, reprobated the others, and decreed the fall as the means of reprobation, and then decreed Christ as the way to get those that he chose to save back.

There are no contradictions in the scriptures you quoted. The scriptures contradict YOUR theology, not each other.

Also:
It's really hard to reply when you make changes to a quote. You should quote small portions at a time.

God bless

I simply wanted to share my own experience on this topic. In your post 120, you said something that caused me to remember how I originally bought into Calvinism:

Since the verse you quote specifically says that the predestination is for those whom God forknew "to be conformed to the image of his Son," not to believe, I thought that perhaps you did what I did and let someone else tell you that predestination means God decided you would believe. Romans 8 was one of the passages I recall reading and then deciding that Calvin must have had it right -- because I was letting someone else define predestination for me. That's why I thought it related in some part to your own experience.

Anyway, we can move on, as my past experience is really only anecdotal.

I looked over your list of verses to Forrest. I wish I had time to respond to each one, as I have seen the same list many, many times. I will respond to a few of them:

You said:

Then you quoted Ro 3:10-18; Jer 13:23; Tit 3:3; Joh 6:44, 65, 37 -- none of which say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. This stems from the fundamental error of Calvinism in equating works with and in defining belief as a fruit of the Spirit that can only come after salvation. I am not arguing that in my unsaved state that I could "come to" God. I couldn't. He came to me. I could not do anything to please God nor would I have sought to in my unsaved state. But I could believe. God did the work -- I simply believed. Belief is not a work.

As I pointed out before:

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Note that Paul says "ye believed." That's us. Not God. Belief is not a work and it is something that we did.

You then said:

One of the verses you quote is Romans 9:10-13, which has nothing to do with salvation, from a passage talking about the national selection of Israel. I do not have time to go into this as deeply as I'd like.

Then you quote this verse:

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Which is odd, since neither you nor I can claim the promise "whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you," and more interestingly, Judas was among those that Jesus said he chose. Why not quote this verse too:

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

What business does anyone have saying that John 15:16 describes how we are saved? It doesn't.

This is how proof-texting in Calvinism works. They find verses that use words like "elect" "choose" and "predestinate" and then say that means we can't believe the Gospel without God making us believe it.

You say: "God’s election is not conditioned by anything in man." To that I say Amen -- his election is in Christ. But your point is that there is no "condition" on our salvation. That's simply not true:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There's your "condition." And there's that word again: believe.

You also say:

Which, again, is a problem with the way Calvinism has defined belief as a work, contrary to how the Bible clearly defines belief as not a work (Romans 4:5). My belief does not merit me anything. God's work is what saves me. The work of Christ; his faith, is imputed to me. It is not of me. I have no works at all to boast over in my salvation, save the works of Christ!

The gifted Bible teacher, scholar, desiring to grow in knowledge of the Bible, Pink immigrated to the United States to study at Moody Bible Institute. He died in 1952. He once began a sermon by
saying this, "I am going to speak tonight on one of the most hated doctrines of the Bible, namely that of
God's sovereign election,"

He was right. It is a hated doctrine at least it seems around here.


He later wrote these words, and I find them very insightful, "God's sovereign election is the truth
most loathed and reviled by the majority of those claiming to be believers. Let it be plainly announced
that salvation originated not in the will of man but in the will of God that were it not so none would or
could be saved. For as the result of the Fall man has lost all desire and will unto that which is good and
that even the elect themselves have to be made willing and loud will be the cries of indignation against
such teaching." Then he says, "Meritmongers will not allow the supremacy of the divine will and the
impotency of the human will. Consequently they who are the most bitter in denouncing election by the
sovereign pleasure of God are the warmest in crying up the free will of fallen man,"


What he's saying is it's hard for some people to accept the biblical doctrine of sovereign election.
It's hard for man to acknowledge the fact that his salvation is an act of God. In his fallenness he wants
to assume some responsibility, even if it's a small responsibility, for having believed. He wants some
credit desperately for having made a right choice.


Furthermore, the doctrine of election seems repulsive to some because by our standards it seems unfair
that God should out of all the world of human beings choose some at His own discretion to be saved
and not the rest. But you understand, don't you, that the reason man so desperately wants to have a part
is because in his fallenness he wants to exercise his pride.

And so we can eliminate pride as a real issue,
it only is an expression of fallenness. What about the part about being unfair? Is God unfair? No, God
is never to be measured by any human standard, certainly not by the human standard of fairness which
is also a reflection of man's fallenness, or sin if you will.

Are we so foolish as to assume that we who are fallen
sinful creatures have a higher standard of what is right than an unfallen and infinitely and eternally holy
God? What kind of pride is that? Therein lies the real problem.

Arthur Pink again said, "The only reason anybody believes in election is because he finds it taught in
God's Word. No man or number of men ever originated this doctrine. Like the doctrine of eternal
punishment, it conflicts with the dictates of the carnal mind and is repugnant to the sentiments of the
unregenerate heart and like the doctrine of the holy trinity and the miraculous birth of our Savior, the
truth of election must be received with simple unquestioning faith."

That is enough for me, I don't understand the Trinity, but I believe it, Virgin birth, I don't understand it, but I believe it, so I will continue to pray and study this for the truth. As brother George said, one of us is right, one of us is wrong, like him I don't want that to be me who is wrong.

I also pray that everyone would take the time to look within, and make sure you don't let your pride make the choice for you. Do not let your preconceived ideas stop you from taking the time.

Since you replied with a quote from A.W. Pink that basically said we all have carnal minds, instead of actually reading what the Bible says, I have quoted again for your benefit the teaching of A.W. Pink on God's decrees and his reprobation.

A.W. Pink believed that God decreed the fall simply to give a reason for him to condemn those he had already chosen to reprobate. Many publishers removed the chapter on "Reprobation" from his book "The Sovereignty of God" for this very reason.

Here are some quotes from Calvin for you to ponder.

According to Calvin, not even Adam, in the image of God, had free will, since God had ordained him to fall.

--references
Secret Providence p 266-67
Eternal Predestination p 93

Both by Calvin


--
No one is arguing with you that none would come if God did not draw them. But God does draw all men through the preaching of His word and Christ lifted up. We are saying that men can choose to reject the influence of the spirit, or heed it and believe. Without the spirit, there is no way a man could believe, because he is bent towards natural things.

The Calvinist ideal of God's sovereignty is decidedly unBiblical. Let's see an example:

Jeremiah 19:1-5 Thus saith the LORD, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

I know what a Bible corrector would do with this verse -- he might go to his Bible Buffet and select a version that works better for him, or he may correct it with "the Hebrew." What does a Bible believer do with this verse? Doesn't it clearly teach that there are things happening that God has not decreed to happen?

Brandon, thank you for your insight. But I must add that you really proved my point on a lot of things I said about everyone coming in with preconceived ideas about the "C" word and going blind to give the response they 'preconceived' to give me.

Let me point out:

I made a statement:
1. The belief that God predestined people for salvation before the beginning of time. God’s election is not conditioned by anything in man, good or evil, foreseen or present, but upon God’s sovereign choice.

Then I cited scripture to verify that statement.
Ro 3:10-18; Jer 13:23; Tit 3:3; Joh 6:44, 65, 37

Then you go on to give me the standard anti-"C word" answer about
-- none of which say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. Gods sovereign choice was not conditional on man, but you had to tell me about belief. That's a condition of man. Belief comes after regeneration, and that is what God granted to us.

I know that the ability of man to believe is paramount, but if you re read the statement and verify it with the scriptures I provided to back up my statement you will see I didn't want to say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. At least not in the context of the point I was trying to share.

This could go on forever, back and forth as I assume you know what I mean, and you assume I know what you mean, so I will spend a few days on my word processor, I will come back to post a start to finish, and back it with scripture, explanation of what I gather the scriptures to mean on this topic. I won't be using quotes from the respondents per say, but I will answer all the questions and objections of the respondants with scripture to back it up.

I don't believe my theology is entirely Calvinistic, (even though that's where I've been pigeon holed) but I do believe it to be entirely scriptural. I understand that this is a very difficult topic, and quite frankly a sore spot with those who have already formulated their own theologies based on scripture as they understand it, and what I would like to do, from a new angle share mine in a way that no one will come in with that idea, and perhaps we can share and edify each other. Even (as they understand it) will rub a lot the wrong way, but remember, before we were saved, things like the Virgin Birth, the Trinity were totally incomprensable until we believed. I don't want this going in the direction of an 'I know more than you' or 'my belief is more correct than yours' forum, but I want us all to learn from each other what the Holy Spirit has taught us each through His precious Word (KJV) and thereby each become edified in His name for the Glory of God.

So when God pricks the heart...we don't have a choice to make or God has made that choice for us already? :jaw:

That is some pretty warped theology there Chief...indeed. I guess you'll have to do away with countless Scriptures about believing, faith, choosing...etc.

Choose you this day whom you will serve? Why would Joshua say this if God already chose for us?

LOL, Calvinism is so laughable...but I am sorry for all those who have been bewitched by this doctrine.

BTW, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-OES...e=channel_page

:eek: :pizza:

Good thoughts, Cloudwalker. Brother George has thoroughly covered, with scripture, every single question that has been asked by those who follow the heretical teaching of unconditional election and irresistible grace. It's peculiar to me that now that we are born-again children of the living God...we have a choice, a free will, and the ability to resist His grace. "Choose you this day!" Good one.

Outstanding Forrest!

We absolutely can resist His Grace and I will prove it from Scripture...

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." ~ {Acts 7:51}

Blessings!

:)

I've always seen my ability to resist grace in this verse:

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

To my shame, in the 30 years I've been a believer I have resisted the grace that brought salvation and has taught me I should deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and how I should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. Would that be resistible grace?

Help
 

Hello All,

Would you please help me figure out which denominations believe in Calvinism? Reformed Baptists, etc.
I don't know all the lingo.

This study is awesome and blessed by the Lord. Thank You so much!


I grew up in a First Baptist Church and have not been a member of a local congregation in 16 years. We are searching but it seems to me I am finding all kinds of things that disagree with scripture in the local church.


Thanks in advance!

Brother-Smith

Brother Smith, I don't know them all, but one group is Reformed Presbyterian.

Please keep em' coming
 

Thank you brother Forest. I am going to keep a list for my own sanity. I have been a Christian for almost 30 years and never have had this belief system pop up until the last 2 months. I guess I just was either backsliding, reading my bible and walking with the LORD or oblivious. The quest for a church home has really brought this issue into the forefront.

Re: "CALVINISM: Sound Doctrine?"
 

Aloha brother Smith,

Here is some information I was able to glean from the NET:


Information supplied by: Dr. Richard P. Bucher


My wife and I joined an Independent Baptist church (Anatola Baptist Church) in 1966. The pastor was a young man fresh out of Baptist Bible College - he was a full-on 5-Point Calvinist. {We became very close friends - until I became a King James Bible believer (1968) and after that we gradually drifted away from each other.}

I had been saved for about 8 years at the time, and didn't have the slightest inkling what Calvinism was. I only know that that pastor's Library was chock full of Reformed Theologians Commentaries. And when he studied the Bible he might have a half a dozen commentaries strewn around his desk as he prepared his studies and sermons.

During the time that we were friends, that pastor persuaded me to buy some of Arthur W. Pink's books (I ended up with about 12-15 of them), fortunately they bored me (to begin with) and after I became a genuine Bible believer I became aware of Pink's habit of "spiritualizing" the Holy words of God, so I dumped all his books in the rubbish.

The point is - there are Independent Baptist churches that have also embraced Calvinist doctrine, and according to brother Tony Bones, Calvinism has also spread into some of the "Brethren" churches also.

John Calvin's doctrine has infiltrated many different "Christian" Denominations, so we have to be careful which church we fellowship with, because Calvin's doctrines are not just confined to the "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" churches. :(

Even some Calvary Chapel churches have adopted certain points of Calvinism.

You should add English Standard Version to the Calvinist Bibles. I understand the KJB was also done by Calvinists, but the ESV was done especially for Calvinists, with a focus on translating in "their favour", so to speak.