The Five Points of Calvinism

[Jethro Bodine]

Where did Paul exclude the gift of eternal life from 11:29? That has yet to be addressed.

Your problem is where did he include it? You're the one who decided he did.

What you have failed to address is the Biblical teaching of how the free gift of forgiveness can and will be revoked by the Father in the kingdom of God:

" 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' 34 "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:32-35 NASB)

This alone shows that Paul could not have been including the free gift of forgiveness (salvation) in his statement about the ministerial gifts given for free to Israel. But even if you want to argue that it's not about salvation, the forgiveness spoken about is still an unmerited, free gift in the kingdom, and it was given, and it was taken away. Until you can make this example in the kingdom of a free gift being taken away go away, your argument that 'gifts' by definition has to mean any and all gifts, and therefore, must include eternal life and can not be taken away, will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The argument about "context and clear language" is superfluous. What "clear language" tells us that eternal life isn't irrevocable?

This clear language:

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." " (Hebrews 10:26-27,29-30 NASB capitals in original, bold and italics mine)

Of course, I'm familiar with the arguments against this passage meaning one can lose salvation, but we'll address those arguments if/when you bring them up.

The passage in ch 11 about branches broken off has NOTHING to do with loss of salvation, but is an agricultural metaphor dealing with usefulness to God. There is nothing useful to God about our salvation. What is useful to God is His children producing fruit for Him.

Sounds good (you know...tickles the ears), but the problem is the Bible says the fruitless person is an unrighteous person who does not belong to God, not a righteous person who does belong to God but is simply being disobedient (1 John 3:6-10 NASB).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Malachi started the thread.

Yeah, blame it on Malachi.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

:biggrin

Be careful! It's loveliness is designed to draw you into it's deceitfulness.

 

[Brother Mike]

It has been noted at least by some that Five Point Calvinism is influencing the doctrines of evangelical and fundamentalist churches today. According to truthreallymatters.com it is one of the "The 10 Most Deadly Heresies Affecting American Churches in These Last Days".

Going back to the original post, we are already told that Calvinism is a Deadly doctrine. I am not sure about effecting churches in the last days, the doctrine has been confusing the simple of mind since the early 1600's.

Now 31 pages later shows that there must be some who are still simple. Otherwise we would have taken the OP's original statement and said AMEN and been on to something more productive.

Calvinism does one thing. It removes "FAITH" out of scriptures.
Then it gives the simple an excuse that whatever happens, it's not their fault. However it turns out, it was God's divine and Sovereign will.

They get saved, God's fault, they go to hell, God's fault, get sick and die, God's fault, get healed, God's fault.

It's the blame game, it's not my fault. After all, man is depraved, and can't make his own choices. Man is not much smarter than a monkey.

 

[Deborah13]

Be careful! It's loveliness is designed to draw you into it's deceitfulness.

You are too witty for your own good.

 

[Deborah13]

Then it gives the simple an excuse that whatever happens, it's not their fault. However it turns out, it was God's divine and Sovereign will.

I agree with you on this one.
Any non-believer hearing these doctrines could say to himself. God has not chosen me to believe, 'U'. If He had I would believe. He hasn't regenerated me so I can have faith, He did not die for my sins, 'L', He hasn't called me with His irresistible message of grace, 'I', so therefore I can't live righteously, 'P'.

 

[Deborah13]

Yeah, blame it on Malachi.

2
What can I say. I don't want to do it!

 

[Brother Mike]

I agree with you on this one.
Any non-believer hearing these doctrines could say to himself. God has not chosen me to believe, 'U'. If He had I would believe. He hasn't regenerated me so I can have faith, He did not die for my sins, 'L', He hasn't called me with His irresistible message of grace, 'I', so therefore I can't live righteously, 'P'.

I know, it's amazing.

Nobody has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the general public, and no Doctrine has just vanished away underestimating the intelligence the the Average Christian.

God's patience must also endure forever.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"Where did Paul exclude the gift of eternal life from 11:29? That has yet to be addressed."

Your problem is where did he include it? You're the one who decided he did.

Paul specifically defined what he meant by "gifts" in Romans, before he penned 11:29. So, UNLESS he somewhere specifically excluded eternal life as an irrevocable gift, there is NO REASON to ASSUME that he did exclude it.

I've decided nothing. I HAVE accepted what he described as gifts:
1:11 is about spiritual gifts
5:15,16,17 is about justification
6:23 is about eternal life

11:29 SAYS that God's giftS are irrevocable. Where did he exclude eternal life? He defined 'gift'. He decided what he meant by 'gift', not me. And he wrote that God's gifts, which he ALREADY defined, were irrevocable.

It is a total and false ASSUMPTION to think that Paul excluded eternal life from the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

What you have failed to address is the Biblical teaching of how the free gift of forgiveness can and will be revoked by the Father in the kingdom of God:

Stop! The Bible NEVER defines forgiveness as a gift. So your premise is a pretense.

" 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' 34 "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 "My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:32-35 NASB)

This alone shows that Paul could not have been including the free gift of forgiveness (salvation) in his statement about the ministerial gifts given for free to Israel.

More pretense. Where ever did Paul define "the ministerial gifts to Israel" as gifts? Your side is simply ignoring the OBVIOUS in order to maintain your view that salvation can be lost. Yet no verse says so.

Further, the PARABLE in Matt 18 isn't even connected to Romans. Paul never quoted or cited from it, so again, just another false claim. And parables aren't the standard for teaching doctrines.

But even if you want to argue that it's not about salvation, the forgiveness spoken about is still an unmerited, free gift in the kingdom, and it was given, and it was taken away.

See above for full refutation.

Until you can make this example in the kingdom of a free gift being taken away go away, your argument that 'gifts' by definition has to mean any and all gifts, and therefore, must include eternal life and can not be taken away, will fall on deaf ears.

This is silly. I'm dealing with ONLY what Paul defined as gifts in Romans, where he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable. The attempt to insert the parable from Matt 18 is disingenuous. And not even in the parable is forgiveness described as or called a gift.

So, your defense has no legs to stand on.

So, if your defense really wants to stand up, it needs to find where in Scripture forgiveness is called a gift. But, Paul wasn't even talking about forgiveness, so your point has no relevance to what Paul wrote.

 

[FreeGrace]

This clear language:

"26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." " (Hebrews 10:26-27,29-30 NASB capitals in original, bold and italics mine)

Of course, I'm familiar with the arguments against this passage meaning one can lose salvation, but we'll address those arguments if/when you bring them up.

Uh, does "context" mean anything at all? How does anything the author of Hebrews have to do with what Paul wrote?

The trick of trying to bring in other passages from other authors to re-define what Paul wrote is intertaining only. It has no bearing on what Paul wrote.

It was Paul who described and defined what he meant by 'gift'. Not the author of Hebrews, who only mentioned 'gift' once. Heb 6:4, the heavenly gift.

Your view has no legs to stand on. Not any support from Scripture. Just the opposite for eternal security.

From all that has been posted, your side only wants to ignore what Paul wrote and try to re-define what words mean.

Fact is, eternal life is an irrevocable gift of God. Thus proving that once one has received eternal life through faith, they cannot lose eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace]

I agree with you on this one.
Any non-believer hearing these doctrines could say to himself. God has not chosen me to believe, 'U'. If He had I would believe. He hasn't regenerated me so I can have faith, He did not die for my sins, 'L', He hasn't called me with His irresistible message of grace, 'I', so therefore I can't live righteously, 'P'.

Exactly! Calvinism gives those in hell an excuse for being there: "I wasn't chosen by God to go to heaven. And those that He did choose are just as much a sinner as I am. So it's not my fault for being here. I wasn't chosen. If I had been, I wouldn't be here."

 

[Brother Mike]

Exactly! Calvinism gives those in hell an excuse for being there: "I wasn't chosen by God to go to heaven. And those that He did choose are just as much a sinner as I am. So it's not my fault for being here. I wasn't chosen. If I had been, I wouldn't be here."

Right, all God's fault. God's fault your sick, God's fault your not, God's fault you lost a Job. God's Fault your roasting in Hell, despite hearing the Word many times.

Since it's all God's fault, then God ought to not hold a thing against anyone!!! He made the man He designed to go to hell. He is to blame.


If I make a Water balloon to throw at someone, it's my fault the balloon Broke, it's not the Balloon's fault!!

I know God is at least this smart.

So you blame God.

Since you were picked to be saved, You might have also taken some time to ask for (Edited because I get tired of infractions) while you where there getting your Saved Badge of approval. Sure would not have hurt anything.

Here's the thing, You only think you might be saved. You might be here to die horribly, being made an example to us. You DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT YOUR FAITH THAT SAVED YOU. God picked, and who can reply against God that made the pot out of the clay.

 

[Deborah13]

Since you were picked to be saved, You might have also taken some time to ask for (Edited because I get tired of infractions) while you where there getting your Saved Badge of approval. Sure would not have hurt anything.

Who's the you? Not all people who believe OSAS are Calvinists or agree with the Calvinist doctrines.

 

[Brother Mike]

And those that He did choose are just as much a sinner as I am

Who's the you? Not all people who believe OSAS are Calvinists or agree with the Calvinist doctrines.

Seems to be some left over doctrine of God being the one choosing. Trying to wash it all out.

 

[Malachi]

Very nice.
Now what does the T in TULIP stand for, and can we discuss it.
I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
I have never studied Calvinism, so you take the lead.
Thanks Ed

Ed,
The "T" stands for "Total Depravity" and according to Theopedia (which anyone can Google) here is how it is defined:

Total depravity (also called total inability or total corruption) is a biblical doctrine closely linked with the doctrine of original sin as formalized by Augustine and advocated in many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, especially in Calvinism. The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

They use this Scripture to support their view:
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3, ESV).

What this definition fails to address is that even though all human beings are sinners, lost, and spiritually dead, they all have (1) consciences, (2) free will, (3) the capacity to respond to the Gospel under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists fail to understand that the Gospel is THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION, and that it is the work of the Holy Spirit within hearts and souls that ultimately brings men to salvation. That is the true grace of God in bringing sinners to Christ, and none are excluded from God's grace.

They also reverse the sequence of salvation, which is that those who repent and believe are then born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists claim that sinners are first born again as "elect" sinners, then they repent and believe, which is contrary to Scripture.

 

[Deborah13]

Seems to be some left over doctrine of God being the one choosing. Trying to wash it all out.

Nope, there are people that believe in 'free will' to choose or not to choose that believe in OSAS.

 

[JLB]

Ed,
The "T" stands for "Total Depravity" and according to Theopedia (which anyone can Google) here is how it is defined:


They use this Scripture to support their view:
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3, ESV).

What this definition fails to address is that even though all human beings are sinners, lost, and spiritually dead, they all have (1) consciences, (2) free will, (3) the capacity to respond to the Gospel under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists fail to understand that the Gospel is THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION, and that it is the work of the Holy Spirit within hearts and souls that ultimately brings men to salvation. That is the true grace of God in bringing sinners to Christ, and none are excluded from God's grace.

They also reverse the sequence of salvation, which is that those who repent and believe are then born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists claim that sinners are first born again as "elect" sinners, then they repent and believe, which is contrary to Scripture.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I find it hard to believe that many Protestants believe that way.

Please go to the next letter.

Thanks JLB

 

[Brother Mike]

Nope, there are people that believe in 'free will' to choose or not to choose that believe in OSAS.

You can't believe that you have free will, until suddenly you get saved, then not have any Free will to walk away from Jesus. There is no such thing as that.

A person Has free will or they don't have free will. People that believe in OSAS do not believe in Free will. Just ask them who decides if you stay sick or not. Their will to have faith and believe, or God's will.

You will find out real quick they don't really believe what they say they do.

 

[Deborah13]

You can't believe that you have free will, until suddenly you get saved, then not have any Free will to walk away from Jesus. There is no such thing as that.

Well, it seems to me that it takes a lot of faith in the power of God to believe He has the power to keep you and not lose you. To believe that if you stray He will find you and carry you back to the flock.

Is it easier to heal a sickness or to forgive sin?
So who has the stronger faith the one who believes their sins are forgiven or the one who believes for a physical healing in this world?

So I don't get arrogant towards those who do believe in OSAS.