Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Looking to grow in the word of God more?

    See our Bible Studies and Devotionals sections in Christian Growth

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

The Five Points of Calvinism

jBird, Butch5, and reba, This is from the guidelines to the one on one debate forum:

  • Two members should agree that they will engage in a debate. (Done by Private Message with each other)
  • The scope of their debate needs to be agreed upon between the two of them.
  • One of the two members should PM an admin, explaining the first two points. We suggest including the other member in the PM.
Soooo, it seems if you guys both agree to this in PMs, let us (Staff) know with a PM and we will set it up for you. Happy debating! :)
 
Yes, Calvinism is a bad doctrine. Great points.

(A&T Guidelines: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.")

We need to compare and divide all scriptures together. False doctrines cherry pick scriptures and twist them.

Good example of why a one on one debate would be better. :thumbsup

This is just cheerleading for your side of the divide.

jBird
 
jBird, Butch5, and reba, This is from the guidelines to the one on one debate forum:

  • Two members should agree that they will engage in a debate. (Done by Private Message with each other)
  • The scope of their debate needs to be agreed upon between the two of them.
  • One of the two members should PM an admin, explaining the first two points. We suggest including the other member in the PM.
Soooo, it seems if you guys both agree to this in PMs, let us (Staff) know with a PM and we will set it up for you. Happy debating! :)

I'm game. Just need one other person...unless they'd like to do doubles? You both work on a post, both approve it, privately of course and then post. I could probably find another fella to get in on it. Also, I'd like to have a week to ten days to offer a reply. I tend to be a smart alec and giving a longer period between posts would allow me to remove those smart alec comments and remarks.

Thank you.

jBird
 
I'm game. Just need one other person...unless they'd like to do doubles? You both work on a post, both approve it, privately of course and then post. I could probably find another fella to get in on it. Also, I'd like to have a week to ten days to offer a reply. I tend to be a smart alec and giving a longer period between posts would allow me to remove those smart alec comments and remarks.

Thank you.

jBird
:lol It's refreshing to hear someone admit it and take the time to be polite.
 
JBird, welcome. And just so you are aware, this is a debate forum so any comments made within the forum guidelines and ToS are open to debate by all members. There is a separate one on one debate subsection of this forum here for one on one debates that you may want to take a look at.

Yes, thank you.

Here is one example of why this kind of "debate" is fruitless.

No, it's not. There is no one who does not receive understanding from the Lord.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world1.
(Joh 1:6-9 NKJ)

Every person get some form of understanding from God.

The poster didn't offer any exegetical evidence for his conclusions, he simply read into the text his own presuppositions...which run contrary to the chapter.

Does the chapter claim everyone is offered salvation or has the ability to believe? Nope.

Was the poster held responsible for his lack of exegesis by the fellows on his side? Nope.

They simply cheerlead.

If you continue reading the same chapter the context becomes clear. It's not "every person get some form of understanding from God" for the divine author also stated, (v.13) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will..." That is the will of the creature, the creature does not will himself or herself to believe which is the very point the poster was trying to prove. It is not "of the flesh, nor of the will of man..." John is telling us twice in a row that it's not YOU buddy. To find out who it is that makes a difference keep reading... "but of God." God makes the difference. It is God that changes a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. (Jer. 31.31)

This is what I'm looking for in a one on one debate. Let's examine the biblical text without folks jumping in and slapping each other on the back for offer a less than biblical argument.

(a video I made feature quotes from John Wesley)


Yours,

jBird
 

Thank you.

The format I suggest:
- Butch outlines of what he believes
- I post an outline of what I believe
- Butch posts a rebuttal of what I believe
- I post a rebuttal of what Butch believes
- Butch posts questions for me to answer (maybe 10 or 15?)
- I answer the questions and ask Butch the same amount of questions
- Butch answers my questions and make summation
- I make a summation
In Him who saves to the uttermost,
jBird
 
Yes, Calvinism is a bad doctrine. Great points.

(A&T Guidelines: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding.")

We need to compare and divide all scriptures together. False doctrines cherry pick scriptures and twist them.
Good example of why a one on one debate would be better. :thumbsup

This is just cheerleading for your side of the divide.

jBird
Please note the only problem with that post was the lack of a chapter and verse reference to the quoted scripture (as well as the version reference required by law had it been a copyrighted version) and there was no action taken on it other than to edit it as a reminder to everyone to include these references. This is to be fair to those who may be new to Christianity and not yet familiar enough with the Bible to know by heart where all scripture is located or know how to find out. This was not a disciplinary action in this particular post and any you may perceive as having been taken was for other issues, not this post. We have just found that short of editing and giving warnings, too many people ignore these things. And we have also noticed and appreciate all of you who are doing such a great job of remembering these things too!
 
Yes, thank you.

Here is one example of why this kind of "debate" is fruitless.



The poster didn't offer any exegetical evidence for his conclusions, he simply read into the text his own presuppositions...which run contrary to the chapter.

Does the chapter claim everyone is offered salvation or has the ability to believe? Nope.

Was the poster held responsible for his lack of exegesis by the fellows on his side? Nope.

They simply cheerlead.

If you continue reading the same chapter the context becomes clear. It's not "every person get some form of understanding from God" for the divine author also stated, (v.13) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will..." That is the will of the creature, the creature does not will himself or herself to believe which is the very point the poster was trying to prove. It is not "of the flesh, nor of the will of man..." John is telling us twice in a row that it's not YOU buddy. To find out who it is that makes a difference keep reading... "but of God." God makes the difference. It is God that changes a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. (Jer. 31.31)

This is what I'm looking for in a one on one debate. Let's examine the biblical text without folks jumping in and slapping each other on the back for offer a less than biblical argument.

(a video I made feature quotes from John Wesley)


Yours,

jBird


I can address this here or in the debate whichever you'd prefer.
 
Hey brother, I responded to your message. Let me know how you want to proceed.

In Christ,

jBird
Thank you.

The format I suggest:
- Butch outlines of what he believes
- I post an outline of what I believe
- Butch posts a rebuttal of what I believe
- I post a rebuttal of what Butch believes
- Butch posts questions for me to answer (maybe 10 or 15?)
- I answer the questions and ask Butch the same amount of questions
- Butch answers my questions and make summation
- I make a summation
In Him who saves to the uttermost,
jBird

I thought we were debating the Reformed doctrines. My beliefs have no bearing on that.
 
I thought we were debating the Reformed doctrines. My beliefs have no bearing on that.

That's actually a faulty idea. We all claim to hold to the Bible alone. You call me a Calvinist. Fine. I'll call you an Arminian since your doctrines follow the teachings of Arminius. Is that what you were thinking?

I'm logging off until tomorrow.

jBird
 
That's actually a faulty idea. We all claim to hold to the Bible alone. You call me a Calvinist. Fine. I'll call you an Arminian since your doctrines follow the teachings of Arminius. Is that what you were thinking?

I'm logging off until tomorrow.

jBird

I didn't call you a Calvinist. In this thread we were discussing Calvinism and you joined and said "My posts were meant to clear up some misunderstands about the passages used in defense of TOTAL libertarian FREE WILL." That, to me, seems to be a defense of the Reformed doctrines. So, I don't think it's faulty to ask if you are going to defend reformed doctrines in the debates.

What I believe is not relevant to the doctrines of Reformed Theology. If the doctrines are Biblical they will stand regardless of what I believe, if they are, not they will fall regardless of what I believe.
 
Ok Butch. I understand better now. I'll have a post up by Saturday at the latest.

God bless you brother.

j
 
OK...I'm jumping in late here, and I'm not used to posting here, but...here goes...

...a little background. I was raised very liberal PCUSA (mother was an elder for a time). Both parents come from Calvinist backgrounds. Saved by Teen Challenge (God bless those people!), finally got saved 2 years ago. Now...I'm revisiting TULIP and such for a number of reasons, including my narrative of my own come to Jesus moment and subsequent progress as a Christian.

OK...(drum roll, please...)...here are some verses I consider as backing up some sort of predestination: John 10:27; Romans 9:13; Romans 8:28; Romans 9:18.
As a former Calvinist, I have had to study these passages in depth and have a quite different perspective on them now. Let me know what you think.

To make each of the manageable I will make a new post for each Scripture.

John 10:27

Let's include a little more context.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." John 10:27-29 (ESV)

This particular text seems to imply a couple different points of the Calvinists' TULIP. Unconditional election, in that the Father gives these sheep to the son, and Perseverance of the Saints in that he says that no one can snatch them from his hand. This is one of the things that seems so natural for the Calvinist, that texts like this seem to fit in the system so easily.

However, the unspoken assumption is that "those who the Father has given to [Jesus]," are the elect believers. I think that the identity of this group is actually a lot more specific, and it refers to his close disciples.

We learn this in the high priestly prayer.

"since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." John 17:2 (ESV)

Here again we have a reference to those, "whom you have given him," and this reference is continued. Let's now quickly analyze some observations about this group.

1) Given eternal life to them. (John 17:2)
2) Manifested your name to them. (John 17:6)
3) They have kept Jesus word. (John 17:6)
4) They know that everything given to them is from the Father. (John 17:7)
5) They have heard, received and believed that the Father has sent him. (John 17:8)
6) His prayer is for them, not the world. (John 17:9)
7) They are in the world. (John 17:11)
8) While Jesus was with them, he kept them and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition. (John 17:12)
9) The world has hated them. (John 17:14)

Now let's make some observations about the observations we made.

Observation #1:
All of these took place in the past, in reference to Jesus' remarks.

For example:
"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word." John 17:6 (ESV)

The bolded words "manifested," and "kept," as well as many others are references to the past. The Greek word translated "manifested," is Ἐφανέρωσά which is in the Aorist tense, which signifies an action completed in the past. While the word, "kept," is from the word τετήρηκαν which is in the perfect tense, which indicates an action performed in the past with consequences going into the future. This would indicate that these people whom the Father have given, have already during Jesus' life kept his word and will continue to.

Observation #2:
That of this group described in the past, only one of them has been lost.

This person is identified as "the son of perdition," which I will contend must be a reference to Judas Iscariot. And this was to "fulfill Scripture." See the Scripture below.

"I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ John 13:18 (ESV)

This text perfectly fits Jesus' statements in the Highly Priestly Prayer, that he chose those close disciples, or rather he chose all those the Father had given him. Yet, one of them was selected for a different purpose, to fulfill the Scripture and to bring about his own crucifixion.

Observation #3:
The final observation which I think proves my case is this verse.

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word," John 17:20 (ESV)

He transitions his prayer from being specifically for his close disciples, and now prays for all believers. If the first group, "those whom the Father has given to him," could be applied as true to all the elect, then this transition would make no sense. This makes a clear distinction, those chosen by God and given to Jesus to be his close disciples whom Scripture would be fulfilled through and also those who will believe through their word.

Conclusion:

It is easy to read oneself into the text, and make the Scripture seem to support a doctrine like Calvinism, but when we consistently analyze the text to see who it is really referring to, we can see that their interpretation doesn't fit.
 
As a former Calvinist, I have had to study these passages in depth and have a quite different perspective on them now. Let me know what you think.

To make each of the manageable I will make a new post for each Scripture.

John 10:27

Let's include a little more context.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." John 10:27-29 (ESV)

This particular text seems to imply a couple different points of the Calvinists' TULIP. Unconditional election, in that the Father gives these sheep to the son, and Perseverance of the Saints in that he says that no one can snatch them from his hand. This is one of the things that seems so natural for the Calvinist, that texts like this seem to fit in the system so easily.

However, the unspoken assumption is that "those who the Father has given to [Jesus]," are the elect believers. I think that the identity of this group is actually a lot more specific, and it refers to his close disciples.

We learn this in the high priestly prayer.

"since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." John 17:2 (ESV)

Here again we have a reference to those, "whom you have given him," and this reference is continued. Let's now quickly analyze some observations about this group.

1) Given eternal life to them. (John 17:2)
2) Manifested your name to them. (John 17:6)
3) They have kept Jesus word. (John 17:6)
4) They know that everything given to them is from the Father. (John 17:7)
5) They have heard, received and believed that the Father has sent him. (John 17:8)
6) His prayer is for them, not the world. (John 17:9)
7) They are in the world. (John 17:11)
8) While Jesus was with them, he kept them and not one of them has been lost except the son of perdition. (John 17:12)
9) The world has hated them. (John 17:14)

Now let's make some observations about the observations we made.

Observation #1:
All of these took place in the past, in reference to Jesus' remarks.

For example:
"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word." John 17:6 (ESV)

The bolded words "manifested," and "kept," as well as many others are references to the past. The Greek word translated "manifested," is Ἐφανέρωσά which is in the Aorist tense, which signifies an action completed in the past. While the word, "kept," is from the word τετήρηκαν which is in the perfect tense, which indicates an action performed in the past with consequences going into the future. This would indicate that these people whom the Father have given, have already during Jesus' life kept his word and will continue to.

Observation #2:
That of this group described in the past, only one of them has been lost.

This person is identified as "the son of perdition," which I will contend must be a reference to Judas Iscariot. And this was to "fulfill Scripture." See the Scripture below.

"I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ John 13:18 (ESV)

This text perfectly fits Jesus' statements in the Highly Priestly Prayer, that he chose those close disciples, or rather he chose all those the Father had given him. Yet, one of them was selected for a different purpose, to fulfill the Scripture and to bring about his own crucifixion.

Observation #3:
The final observation which I think proves my case is this verse.

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word," John 17:20 (ESV)

He transitions his prayer from being specifically for his close disciples, and now prays for all believers. If the first group, "those whom the Father has given to him," could be applied as true to all the elect, then this transition would make no sense. This makes a clear distinction, those chosen by God and given to Jesus to be his close disciples whom Scripture would be fulfilled through and also those who will believe through their word.

Conclusion:

It is easy to read oneself into the text, and make the Scripture seem to support a doctrine like Calvinism, but when we consistently analyze the text to see who it is really referring to, we can see that their interpretation doesn't fit.
That's very good Doulos, thank you.
 
OK...I'm jumping in late here, and I'm not used to posting here, but...here goes...

...a little background. I was raised very liberal PCUSA (mother was an elder for a time). Both parents come from Calvinist backgrounds. Saved by Teen Challenge (God bless those people!), finally got saved 2 years ago. Now...I'm revisiting TULIP and such for a number of reasons, including my narrative of my own come to Jesus moment and subsequent progress as a Christian.

OK...(drum roll, please...)...here are some verses I consider as backing up some sort of predestination: John 10:27; Romans 9:13; Romans 8:28; Romans 9:18.
Let's take a look at Romans 9 now.

The context of Romans 9 is given in the first few verses.

"I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." Romans 9:1-5 (ESV)

To summarize, he brings up the anguish he has as a result of his fellow Israelities (ethnic Israel) is cut off from Christ, although they have all these blessings (patriarchs, Christ's line of descendants, adoption, glory, covenants, the law, worship and promises etc.).

His next statement then reveals what we are dealing with.

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed." Romans 9:6a (ESV)

Paul is defending God's faithfulness to his word, on account of Israel's exclusion and unbelief. His reasoning?

"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," Romans 9:6b (ESV)

The Calvinist will then reason that this is because it is those of the faith who are truly Israel, and therefore ethnic Israel is of no bearing with regards to the Covenant. This can be supported, as you could just go to Romans 4, where Paul talks about this. However, that is not Paul's reasoning here.

"and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”" Romans 9:7-13 (ESV)

His point here is that it was God's choice. He alludes to the the time where Isaac had two sons, and God chose one and not the other, which was not on the basis of any works performed by them. This seems like unconditional election right? It does, if we lose sight of the context. Which we must realize is about Paul's justification for God's faithfulness in light of Israel's rejection of the Messiah and exclusion from the New Covenant.

That like the time with Jacob and Esau, God has made a sovereign choice. What that choice is will be seen shortly.

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Romans 9:14-18 (ESV)

Paul continues with raising another issue, is there injustice with God's right to sovereignly choose? Paul's answer is no. For God reserves the right to have mercy on whomever he will. That God's Covenant faithfulness and decision on who to enter into is his prerogative. There is more I could say here, but I think the rest of this chapter is explained in concluding statements. Even though this chapter should be seen as part of a unit, Romans 9-11.

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Romans 9:19-21 (ESV)

Paul uses the example from Jeremiah, where Israel is the clay and God is the potter and he has a right to do with the clay as he pleases. That he could make from that same clump of clay, Israel, vessels for honorable use and vessels for dishonorable use. That he has taken Israel, and used the obedient and disobedient for his sovereign purposes.

"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" Romans 9:22 (NASB)

This is Paul's summary, which I will now summarize. That God was willing to demonstrate his wrath, but instead he chose to have patience on disobedient Israel. Why?

"And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Romans 9:23-24 (NASB)

That God has allowed their disobedience to continue, in order to have mercy on more and more people! Which he states so brilliantly in his final summation in Romans 11.

"For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all." Romans 11:30-32 (NASB)

That unlike the Calvinist's understanding of this text, that it isn't about God's sovereign right to ordain the salvation and reprobation of every individual, but rather a defense of his faithfulness and pointing to God's great plan for mercy to extend to all! That it isn't about limiting God's grace, but expanding it to the greatest amount possible, and that he would use things such as Israel's disobedience and the Gentiles disobedience in order to have mercy on more and more.

Paul then follows up with quoting Hosea to demonstrate that this is fulfilling God's plan all along.

"As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God
.’” Romans 9:25-26 (ESV)

This, like many other texts is about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the New Covenant, and God's present purposes for Israel in their disbelief.
 
Back
Top