25 quotes on Calvinism

[GodsGrace]

How come the double post?

Sorry Elected....
I just read through my post again and I don't see a double post....!

 

[electedbyHim]

Hmmm. I know the Covenants pretty well.
Never heard of the above.

Perhaps you could post some sources?




Did I say that??
Could you please steelman me?



A surety?
So you know about how OSAS cannot be correct because it is only a SURETY....DOWN PAYMENT....on our eventual salvation. However, the mortgage must be paid every month in order for the house to be ours.

Hebrews 6:4-6
What are the spoken of falling away from?

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
The above states we can fall away and be worse off than before.



Jesus died for everyone.
Even those in hell.
But they didn't take advantage of it.
I gave you scripture.
Could you do the same?



WHERE does it state that Jesus put away the sin of His elect church?
Please post the verse.
Ditto for the elected church...



Verse please.
The above is not a verse.
And, where is it stated that the elect are the only ones sanctified?
Verse please.



The Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory came about in 1800AD.
Check out the ones that came about in the early church before the Reformation changed what the early church believed.
Here is the atonement theory I posted:

#2 The Ransom Theory​

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way, Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way, they are drastically different.



Here is the Penal Substitution Theory:

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory​

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical

I'd venture to say that anything that came about 1,500 years after Jesus' death must be questioned.

Perhaps stick to the Bible instead of doctrines of men.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hmmm. I know the Covenants pretty well.
Never heard of the above.
Perhaps you could post some sources?

I will only answer you when You can say you are not going to threaten me with imagined TOS. infractions.
I have to be able to speak freely, and uncensored in what I post.
I have to be able to disagree with people, or agree. Nothing I said in the other thread was demeaning.
Your friend was in fact wrong. I said so not to be demeaning at all, but rather it was accurate.
She made derogatory comments about me, claiming things I never said. You do not stop her from saying what she did. I do not believe in censorship, unlike you I do not mind that she posted how she feels about me.
I do not have thin skin. There should be no double standard.

Did I say that??
Could you please steelman me?

What do you mean ....."steelman me"? what is that... I have never heard that expression.

A surety?
So you know about how OSAS cannot be correct because it is only a SURETY....DOWN PAYMENT....on our eventual salvation. However, the mortgage must be paid every month in order for the house to be ours.

You do not////////I cannot answer you because if I do, you will claim a TOS violation. If you tell me I can answer uncensored I could answer you, or If you come to my site, I could answer you.

I cannot answer you here, unless you say it will not be censored

 

[Iconoclast]

Hmmm. I know the Covenants pretty well.
Never heard of the above.

Perhaps you could post some sources?




Did I say that??
Could you please steelman me?



A surety?
So you know about how OSAS cannot be correct because it is only a SURETY....DOWN PAYMENT....on our eventual salvation. However, the mortgage must be paid every month in order for the house to be ours.

Hebrews 6:4-6
What are the spoken of falling away from?

2 Peter 2:20-22
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
The above states we can fall away and be worse off than before.



Jesus died for everyone.
Even those in hell.
But they didn't take advantage of it.
I gave you scripture.
Could you do the same?



WHERE does it state that Jesus put away the sin of His elect church?
Please post the verse.
Ditto for the elected church...



Verse please.
The above is not a verse.
And, where is it stated that the elect are the only ones sanctified?
Verse please.



The Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory came about in 1800AD.
Check out the ones that came about in the early church before the Reformation changed what the early church believed.
Here is the atonement theory I posted:

#2 The Ransom Theory​

The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:

“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the devil at the time of the Fall’ hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.” 1

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil. The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way, Ransom relates the Christus Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another way, they are drastically different.



Here is the Penal Substitution Theory:

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory​

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical

I'd venture to say that anything that came about 1,500 years after Jesus' death must be questioned.

Penal substitution is taught in Gen.22......Lev16...... Isa53....all before the reformation

 

[GodsGrace]

I will only answer you when You can say you are not going to threaten me with imagined TOS. infractions.
I have to be able to speak freely, and uncensored in what I post.
I have to be able to disagree with people, or agree. Nothing I said in the other thread was demeaning.
Your friend was in fact wrong. I said so not to be demeaning at all, but rather it was accurate.
She made derogatory comments about me, claiming things I never said. You do not stop her from saying what she did. I do not believe in censorship, unlike you I do not mind that she posted how she feels about me.
I do not have thin skin. There should be no double standard.

What do you mean ....."steelman me"? what is that... I have never heard that expression.

You do not////////I cannot answer you because if I do, you will claim a TOS violation. If you tell me I can answer uncensored I could answer you, or If you come to my site, I could answer you.

PS
I don't imagine infractions.
I tell you PRECISELY how you're breaking the rules, or I post them.

And You should know them and adhere to them.
We have rules here for a reason. On Your site you can do as you wish...not here.

 

[electedbyHim]

Sorry Elected....
I just read through my post again and I don't see a double post....!

#297 and #299

 

[GodsGrace]

#297 and #299

Mistake. Not sure how.
You can always delete a double post.
Report it in Mod Actions Thread....

 

[electedbyHim]

There will always be those who can't believe in the Doctrines of Grace, a.k.a. Calvinism. Notice I used the word can't. I used this word because I personally believe that the Lord has to open the spiritual eyes of these doctrines to them.

Further, those who claim to understand yet oppose this doctrine have no knowledge of what is really taught. Reading through many posts, just in this thread, proves that.

This is why Systematic Theology is very important. I understand many on this forum do not like doctrine or theology because they believe it is man made teaching and will only stick to what the Bible teaches. However, men who have been called to Pastor/teach are also lead (inspired) by Holy Spirit. I am in no way sayong That all are 100% correct.

Indeed the Scriptures are priority.

There will always be this opposition to Calvinism. These truth are very comforting to the saints that knows and understands them, they are also extremely humbling.

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on the Sovereignty of God? There are many good resources on the Sovereignty of God and I welcome any member to start a thread

This is one of the most hated doctrines of the Bible, but I believe it is the base for Calvinism.

As the new overseer of the Calvinism forum, I will inject my thoughts and Scriptures from time to time.

I have asked the Lord to keep my bias out of the picture.

Being on forums for a long time and debating back and forth can be a challenge. We cannot see body language and hear tone of voice. Words on a screen can be deceptive to what we are reading and what a posters thoughts really are when typing. I also believe that Calvinism is very offending to those who do not understand it. It is a very hated doctrine.

O.k, I went on a tangent.

 

[electedbyHim]

Mistake. Not sure how.
You can always delete a double post.
Report it in Mod Actions Thread....

No worries.

These things happen.

I have been known to double post out of my own ignorance.

 

[Iconoclast]

A surety?
So you know about how OSAS cannot be correct because it is only a SURETY....DOWN PAYMENT....on our eventual salvation. However, the mortgage must be paid every month in order for the house to be ours.

No...That is not what The biblical term surety is! A surety is a guarantee of our salvation100%

Here from preceptaustin

​

SO MUCH THE MORE ALSO JESUS HAS BECOME THE GUARANTEE OF A BETTER COVENANT: kata tosouto kai kreittonos diathekes gegonen (3SRAI) egguos Iesous:

• Genesis 43:9; 44:32; Proverbs 6:1; 20:16
• Heb 8:6-12; 9:15-23; 12:24; 13:20; Daniel 9:27; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25
• Hebrews 7 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries

BETTER THAN A
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE!

Wuest - In this verse, the writer states the proposition which he wishes to prove, namely, that the New Testament in Jesus’ blood is better than and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood. His argument here is that Jesus is the surety of a better covenant because God took an oath that His priesthood would be an everlasting one. Jesus is the guarantee or pledge of a better covenant or testament. (Hebrews Commentary online)

Jesus = our Guarantor, our Security that there will be no annulment of the Better covenant. (A description occurring only here).

Has become (ginomai) is in the perfect tense which speaks of the permanence of His guarantee! Our Lord Jesus does more than mediate the New Covenant. He also guarantees it. He has become surety for it.

All of God’s promises in the New Covenant are guaranteed to us by Jesus Himself. He guarantees to pay all the debts that our sins have incurred, or ever will incur, against us. Hallelujah. Amen.

Spurgeon on guarantee - We are absolutely certain that the covenant of grace will stand because the Redeemer has come into the world and has died for us.
The gift of Christ is a pledge that the covenant, of which He is the substance, cannot be dissolved.

Christ has been born into the world, God Himself has become incarnate. That is done and can never be undone; how can the Lord draw back after going so far? More, Christ has died: He bears in His flesh today the scars of His crucifixion. That also is done, and can never be undone. The priests of the house of Aaron were poor sureties of the former covenant, for they could not keep it themselves. But Christ has kept the covenant of grace; He has fulfilled all that was conditional in it, and carried out all that was demanded on man’s part. It was conditional that Christ should present a perfect righteousness and a perfect atonement; He has effected this to the full, and now there is no “if” in it. The covenant now reads as a legacy, or a will—the will of God, the New Testament of the Most High. Christ has made it so, and the very fact that there is such a person as Jesus Christ the Son of Man living, bleeding, dying, risen, reigning, is the proof that this covenant stands secure.

Guarantee (1450) (egguos from eggúe = pledge, bail, security) describes one who gives security, who guarantees the reality of something. It was used of one who guarantees someone else's overdraft at a bank, thus becoming surety that the money will be paid. Someone who goes bail for a prisoner; he guarantees the prisoner will appear at trial. It also refers to a bond, bail, collateral or some kind of guarantee that a promise will be fulfilled. In Greek secular writings egguos referred to in legal and promissory documents as "a guarantor" or "one who stands security." The idea of surety of one person for another was not new. Judah promised surety for Benjamin (Ge 43:9, 44:33); Paul promised to be surety for Onesimus (Philemon 1:18,19)

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2 on surety;
Better (2909)(kreitton/kreisson) is a comparative of kratus (strong) and the comparative degree of agathos which means “good”. This reminds one of our English comparative "good, better, best." That which is of high status, is more prominent or higher in rank (Of a person -Heb 7:7; of things Heb 7:19). Kreitton relates to that which has "a relative advantage in value" (BDAG) (Heb 6:9).

Better - Stronger, more useful, more profitable covenant

Better than what? Old Covenant, Mosaic. Why is it "better"? The covenant that God made through Jesus is better than the old one because the old one was temporary and the new one is eternal. A better Priest guarantees a better covenant. God did not make the new because the old was bad, but because it was imperfect and temporary. The New Covenant is better simply because the Old was incomplete. The Old was good; the New is better.

Spurgeon on a better covenant - The first covenant was typical and shadowy. It was but a school lesson for children. Just as we give to our boys models of churches or models of ships, so was the ceremonial law a model of good things to come, but it did not contain the things themselves. Christ is no surety of a mere model or pattern of things in the heavens, but of a covenant that deals with the heavenly things themselves, with real blessings, with true boons from God. It is implied in the use of the word “better” that the ordinances of the ceremonial law were good in their place, but Jesus is better than the best of all visible things. The eternal Christ is better than the best of all the temporal arrangements that God has made for the good of man.

Covenant (1242) (diatheke from dia = two + tithemi = to place pictures that which is placed between two Thus, a covenant is something placed between two, an arrangement between two parties.) was a commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to define a legal transaction in settling an inheritance. Diatheke denotes an irrevocable decision, which cannot be cancelled by anyone. A prerequisite of its effectiveness before the law is the death of the disposer and thus diatheke was like a "final will and testament". In reference to the divine covenants, such as the Abrahamic covenant, diatheke is not a covenant in the sense that God came to agreement or compromise with fallen man as if signing a contract. Rather, it involves declaration of God’s unconditional promise to make Abraham and his seed the recipients of certain blessings.

The thought of covenant is introduced for 1st time, and foreshadows Heb 8:6-13. It adds to the thought of the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood that of the inferiority of the Old Covenant which it represented.

Spurgeon on covenant - Learned men have fought each other very earnestly over this word. Some say that it means “testament”; others answer that in the Septuagint Greek it is used as the interpretation of the Hebrew word that signifies “covenant.” I feel quite sure that the combatants are both right. I am always glad when I can conscientiously take both sides in a battle. I do so in this instance, because it matters nothing which of the two conquers, though it would be a loss for either side to be defeated. The word means both testament and covenant. God’s covenant of grace has had the conditional side of it so completely fulfilled that it has virtually become a “testament,” or a deed of free gift, in which the one party is a donor and the other has become simply a receiver. Though the economy of grace is a covenant under one aspect, under another it is no covenant, now requiring something from each of two parties, but it has become a testament or will as to its practical result. The first covenant was temporary: it was meant to be so. It was meant in part to teach the coming covenant, and in part to show the weakness of man and the necessity of divine grace, but it was never meant to stand. This covenant of which Christ is the surety stands forever and ever. The everlasting hills may bow, and the heavens themselves be rolled up like a worn-out vesture, but God’s covenant shall stand forever and forever while Christ its surety lives.

 

[electedbyHim]

I am glad you made that clear, here I thought that is what happened several times already;
Your post in the thread GOD OF THE OT / GOD OF THE NT.......IS IT THE SAME GOD? was deleted. Reason: SILLY AND DISRESPECTFUL EMOJIS. PLEASE REMEMBER WHAT FORUM YOU'RE IN. GODSGRACE
Sunday at 8:19 PM

Y0U ARE BREAKING TOS RULES.
YOU MUJST REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE IN THE THEOLOGY FORUM.
YOUR DEGRADING REMARKS TO OTHER MEMBERS ARE NOT ACCEPTED HERE.
1.1
1.3
1.5

YOU WILL BE REMOVED FROM THIS THREAD FOR 3 DAYS.
THIS IS THE SECOND WARNING YOU'VE RECEIVED.
IF THE ATTITUDE DOES NOT CHANGE, YOU WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED FROM THIS THREAD.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST ON THIS THREAD.

I answered the poster honestly and did not say demeaning things. She was wrong then as she is wrong now.
You are wrong most times you post, what do you want me to do, bake you some cookies?
You break TOS rules often. No one complains about it.

Iconoclast please do not post content from a different thread in this forum.

I can relate to your frustrations.

Perhaps you message Free with your concerns.

Lets stay on topic.

 

[brightfame52]

Iconoclast

SO MUCH THE MORE ALSO JESUS HAS BECOME THE GUARANTEE OF A BETTER COVENANT: kata tosouto kai kreittonos diathekes gegonen (3SRAI) egguos Iesous:

We know that God has a Covenant that relates to Salvation Ps 25 14

14 The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

 

[GodsGrace]

Iconoclast please do not post content from a different thread in this forum.

I can relate to your frustrations.

Perhaps you message Free with your concerns.

Lets stay on topic.

We don't sent PM to the Admin.
We use TALK WITH STAFF.
Will PM you....

 

[electedbyHim]

We don't sent PM to the Admin.
We use TALK WITH STAFF.
Will PM you....

We don't sent PM to the Admin.
We use TALK WITH STAFF.
Will PM you....

I should have reworded differently.

Moving forward I will take your advice on ‘Talk With the Staff’ option.

 

[GodsGrace]

Show where what I posted was not accurate! you made a subjective judgment that was wrong.

I'm requesting that the overseer, electedbyhim immediately delete this post and the subsequent posts that pertain to this. (from post no. 310 and onward).

If you wish to discuss this, please use TALK WITH STAFF.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast



We know that God has a Covenant that relates to Salvation Ps 25 14

14 The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

Yes BF... that is one of the verses I treasure. Having been around Baptist churches for all of my saved life, many Baptists are or have been slow to the party to grasp what richness is contained in these wonderful promoises and our reality.

 

[electedbyHim]

Brothers in Christ, we are not allowed to call out a Moderator in the forum.

Moving forward start using the "talk with the staff" option.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps stick to the Bible instead of doctrines of men.

Where, in my above post, do I refer to the doctrines of men?

You told me that teachers are good and that God uses them to teach us.

It's those "men" that read the entire bible and came up with the different theories on the atonement.
How do you think the Penal Substitution Theory was conceived?

By men.

 

[electedbyHim]

Where, in my above post, do I refer to the doctrines of men?

You told me that teachers are good and that God uses them to teach us.

It's those "men" that read the entire bible and came up with the different theories on the atonement.
How do you think the Penal Substitution Theory was conceived?

By men.

I would answer this, but it invovles another thread about doctrines of men.

That would take us off topic as I did posting my reply to you.