WHY CALVINISM IS UNBIBLICAL - UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

[PaulChristensen]

Yes, chose them to be Apostles.

Yep. I can go along with that.

 

[PaulChristensen]

If you are referring to Ephesians, then yes, much can be gleaned from the first 12 verses, as to what Paul was saying, especially when we read verse 13.


Verse 4 is crucial to understand.

• just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love

People try to make this verse say… we are unconditionally elected for salvation, and nothing we do will change the inevitable outcome of our it; unconditional election


Understanding how we come to be “in Christ” is important.

Understanding how we remain “in Christ”, is even more important.




JLB

I agree. It goes along with the only place in the New Testament where the word "predestined" appears: "Whom He foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ: (Romans 8:29).

It is obvious that God knew before the foundation of the world who was going to believe the Gospel and turn to Christ for salvation. This was because of His omnescience. But foreknowing does not mean predetermination.

Therefore, God had His plan and purpose for those He foreknew who were going to turn to Christ, and who were going to reject Him.

I want to make another point that maybe the prestinators have not seen. The only two people whom God directly created were Adam and Eve. All of their descendants were born through the natural reproductive process. God did not directly create them. Therefore, God did not directly create Adam and Eve in order that they end up in hell.

This also explains why all mankind after Adam and Eve are condemned. When Adam disobeyed God, something happened to him at the genetic level. He lost his immortality. Therefore, his seed was corrupted, causing every birth to carry that corruption that leads to death. Not only that, but Adam's spirit died, causing him to lose direct fellowship with God, and his heart became corrupted by sin. He passed all these corruptions to his descendants. Paul explains this in Romans to show that Adam's disobedience blighted the whole of mankind coming after him to physical death and spiritual corruption. This is why all of mankind were condemned already, because Adam passed on that condemnation to all of his descendants.

So, my view is that God did not create anyone for destruction - Adam, and every father descended from him did through corrupted seed. This is why Jesus was born of a virgin, so that the natural course of reproduction was bypassed, and His birth was without the corruption passed down from father to son through the ages.

As we know, God knew all this was going to happen, so He had formulated His plan through Christ before the foundation of the world. So, in effect, the whole of mankind was in "jail", and the Gospel of Christ is the "get out of jail free" card for those who believe it.

 

[PaulChristensen]

How was Calvin countering Pelagianism since it no longer existed by the 16th century, having been put to rest by Augustine and the council of Carthage?

I'd say that Calvin was writing because he believed fully in Augustines' doctrines of his later life....in which he taught original sin as Adam's sin being imputed to all mankind and thus changing the custom of baptizing babies as a welcome into the Christian community and having to now force them to be baptized since his doctrine was accepted by the CC and it was believed that babies were born lost and into sin and would go to hell if they died without baptism. Something that was not believed prior to Augustine. And which the CC does not even accept today.

Another aspect of Augustine upon which Calvin based his doctrines was the absence of free will....
thus we have unconditional election (which you do not agree with), and irresistible grace.
I wish I could find a YouTube talk on irresistible grace given by RC Sproul when he was younger....
He started by saying that he didn't care for the term because men have always resisted God.
He preferred the term Diving Grace (maybe, can't remember).
THEN he went on to explain irresistible grace!
(this is why I find calvinism totally illogical - there is no real way to explain it and keep with scripture).

I'm not certain about total depravity. I can't remember what Augustine taught about that.
I know that he taught that we can do nothing without the help of God (which was one of the disagreements at Carthage), but we all agree with this - that man is born weak and needs God.

Irresistible grace makes Hebrews 3:15 senseless:
“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

If a person hearing the voice of God through the Gospel and has no choice but to accept it, it would make the Apostle to the Hebrews' instruction pointless, because the instruction implies that the voice of God can be resisted and the heart can be hardened against it.

Furthermore, if enlightenment brought immediate conversion to Christ, why did the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, when they were cut to the heart, ask Peter, "What shall we do?' If it was irresistible grace, then they would have automatically been converted to Christ without having to ask Peter what they should do.

What this goes to prove is that the grace of God can be resisted. I just thought of another Scripture: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Galatians 2:21). What this means is that the grace of God can be frustrated. A person can receive enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but choose to harden his heart against it and reject the Gospel.

 

[GodsGrace]

Irresistible grace makes Hebrews 3:15 senseless:
“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

If a person hearing the voice of God through the Gospel and has no choice but to accept it, it would make the Apostle to the Hebrews' instruction pointless, because the instruction implies that the voice of God can be resisted and the heart can be hardened against it.

Furthermore, if enlightenment brought immediate conversion to Christ, why did the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, when they were cut to the heart, ask Peter, "What shall we do?' If it was irresistible grace, then they would have automatically been converted to Christ without having to ask Peter what they should do.

What this goes to prove is that the grace of God can be resisted. I just thought of another Scripture: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Galatians 2:21). What this means is that the grace of God can be frustrated. A person can receive enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but choose to harden his heart against it and reject the Gospel.

This post, and also no. 62, are excellent posts and they leave nothing further to say.
:nod

 

[Chocolate Roadrunner]

"The dice are thrown into the lap, but their every decision is from the LORD."
Proverbs16:33

 

[JLB]

my point was that the church would have to admit ,only one view of eschatology is right ,

not pre,post,mid or no,trib with the views of millenialism.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 1 Thessalonians 4:15

• The resurrection and rapture as well as the destruction of the Antichrist, all occur at His coming.

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8


This is plainly and without a doubt what the scriptures say.

All the church of the Lord Jesus Christ should totally agree on this.

This is the teaching of Jesus Christ; The Truth!


Obviously the destruction of the Antichrist is something that occurs after the tribulation.

The resurrection occurs on the last day, before the Antichrist is destroyed.

The rapture comes after the resurrection, which occurs on the last day.


This is why we as the Church will not be taken by surprise by the Day of the Lord.






JLB

 

[JLB]

Jacob got mercy ,Esau not as much ,no,acres to God ,for didn't promise land like that and no promise or dealing with like Isaac ,is Isaac any better ?

This had nothing to do with salvation, but had to do with God choosing Jacob over Esau for His purpose; the purpose being the lineage of people through whom the Messiah would come.


For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac, (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Romans 9:3-13

• that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What purpose ?

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

Election has to do with God choosing some over others for His purpose, not choosing some over others for salvation; Jacob was better suited for God’s purpose.






JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

This had nothing to do with salvation, but had to do with God choosing Jacob over Esau for His purpose; the purpose being the lineage of people through whom the Messiah would come.


For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac, (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Romans 9:3-13

• that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What purpose ?

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

Election has to do with God choosing some over others for His purpose, not choosing some over others for salvation; Jacob was better suited for God’s purpose.






JLB

Great explanation.

 

[Walpole]

Enjoy...

 

[JLB]

Enjoy...

Great explanation of Calvinism.

 

[Blade]

Hi.. seems some really disagrees with " Calvinist ". Thread after thread. Which is not bad but my question is.. John Calvin we know about but I don't know anyone here. Why is your belief or doctrine right? Me saying Calvinist is wrong.. means nothing. My words have no weight.

Song playing.. "Sold Out" Hawk Nelson.. YES AMEN.. I am.

So not sure why John Calvin is wrong. Well by that I mean many do the same exact thing. They read the word then write a book or books about (John Mac*)what the word was really saying, really means. I as always went back and looked into something said here and found what someone said here is not what they (Calvinist about 1500) exactly said. So nothing to say. Is when we look up words how they were originally written is there only on GREEK we run to? Many words can have different meanings. Remember this. One of the verses a word in that verse has many meanings. To this day is still be debated about. Yet reading these threads one would never know it.. unless you searched.

Thanks OP for sharing this

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi.. seems some really disagrees with " Calvinist ". Thread after thread. Which is not bad but my question is.. John Calvin we know about but I don't know anyone here. Why is your belief or doctrine right? Me saying Calvinist is wrong.. means nothing. My words have no weight.

Song playing.. "Sold Out" Hawk Nelson.. YES AMEN.. I am.

So not sure why John Calvin is wrong. Well by that I mean many do the same exact thing. They read the word then write a book or books about (John Mac*)what the word was really saying, really means. I as always went back and looked into something said here and found what someone said here is not what they (Calvinist about 1500) exactly said. So nothing to say. Is when we look up words how they were originally written is there only on GREEK we run to? Many words can have different meanings. Remember this. One of the verses a word in that verse has many meanings. To this day is still be debated about. Yet reading these threads one would never know it.. unless you searched.

Thanks OP for sharing this

You're right that greek words might have meant something totally different.

But I've read some writings of the early church fathers. That would be men that knew the Apostles and learned from them.

Do you think THEY would have known the truth?
They didn't believe anything of what calvinists believe.

God is a God that created a world to love it.
Not to hate it and it's people,,as they claim.

What do you think about God?

 

[JLB]

Hi.. seems some really disagrees with " Calvinist ". Thread after thread. Which is not bad but my question is.. John Calvin we know about but I don't know anyone here. Why is your belief or doctrine right? Me saying Calvinist is wrong.. means nothing. My words have no weight.

We only evaluate what people put forth in their post’s and compare that to the scriptures; the doctrine of Christ.

Why don’t people call themselves Christians; followers of Christ.

When we see people calling themselves by the names of men, there already is a problem.


Let me explain by using the words of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, because like you said, my words have no weight.



And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? 1 Corinthians 3:1-4

• For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

If Paul describes people who claim to be of “Paul” an apostle of Jesus Christ, as carnal and immature, then what would he call someone who calls himself a “Calvinist”?


We are to identify with Christ and His teachings; holding fast to His instructions.


Can we learn from Teachers? Yes we can.

The problem is, what are these teachers teaching? Then New Testament is filled with warnings against giving heed to doctrines that are not from Christ, in which ungodly men pervert the way of truth.


Here is one such warning from the Holy Spirit —


Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1

again


Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
1 Timothy 4:16


John says it this way —

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9

• Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.

Please read and meditate on these scriptures, as they are important to understand.


The outcome of our eternal destination ways in the balance.




JLB

 

[Episcopius]

Calvin didn't like Arminius

Uh... a little history
Calvin never knew Arminius, or any of his writings.
Calvin kicked the bucket when Arminius was a small child.

 

[Episcopius]

John Calvin 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564


Jacobus Arminius 10 October 1560 – 19 October 1609

So Arminius was, like, 4 when Calvin died.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Uh... a little history
Calvin never knew Arminius, or any of his writings.
Calvin kicked the bucket when Arminius was a small child.

Ok. I get that.

John Calvin 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564


Jacobus Arminius 10 October 1560 – 19 October 1609

So Arminius was, like, 4 when Calvin died.

Great. Thanks for sharing that. Puts things into perspective.

 

[Episcopius]

Arminius was from Holland/the Netherlands - but had gone to study at Geneva - where Beza had become the successor to Calvin. Arminius was well thought of by Beza and his boys, and was chosen to write a paper against a guy named Koornheert who had challenged Calvin's doctrine. In studying Koornheert's writings as a precursor to refuting them - basically - Arminius switched sides.
Thus was born ArminianISM - as Arminius pastored back in Holland and wrote and preached on Romans 7 and Romans 9. So Arminius was a former Calvinist. His followers (after his death) were known as REMONSTRANTS - and were driven out of Holland after the Synod of DORK (I mean Dort).
Wesley in England discovered Arminianism and for a while published The Arminian Magazine.
Early Baptists were divided as to General baptists (Arminian) and Particular Baptists (Calvinistic).

The ancient church had already decided against the Double PreDestination of Augustine - not accepting it - neither accepting the full Pelagianism that Augustine fought against. A thousand years later, Calvin vomits back up this double predestination of Augustine's and proposes it in his INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

 

[Episcopius]

Really, there need not have been any such thing as Arminianism.

The ancient church was correct in rejecting the doctrine of individuals being selected by God for damnation/reprobation before they were born and these souls could not do a thing about it - but Calvin regurgitated this abominable doctrine - and Arminius was one well-armed to write against it. He knew the intricacies of all these "imagined decrees of God" - supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and other Calvinistic gobbledy-gook - knew it as one coming out of it.

Predestination ACCORDING TO FOREKNOWLEDGE is in the Bible. God looks through the tunnel of time and can see who will believe in Christ AND PERSEVERE IN BELIEVING TIL DEATH. He chose a CLASS of people - BELIEVERS - and it is termed CORPORATE PREDESTINATION. He also chose individual people on the basis of His knowing who would believe and persist in believing.

Arminius wrote much of both CORPORATE PREDESTINATION and INDIVIDUAL PREDESTINATION. It is not an easy thing to follow.

Recommended biography is ARMINIUS by Carl Bangs.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Arminius was from Holland/the Netherlands - but had gone to study at Geneva - where Beza had become the successor to Calvin. Arminius was well thought of by Beza and his boys, and was chosen to write a paper against a guy named Koornheert who had challenged Calvin's doctrine. In studying Koornheert's writings as a precursor to refuting them - basically - Arminius switched sides.
Thus was born ArminianISM - as Arminius pastored back in Holland and wrote and preached on Romans 7 and Romans 9. So Arminius was a former Calvinist. His followers (after his death) were known as REMONSTRANTS - and were driven out of Holland after the Synod of DORK (I mean Dort).
Wesley in England discovered Arminianism and for a while published The Arminian Magazine.
Early Baptists were divided as to General baptists (Arminian) and Particular Baptists (Calvinistic).

The ancient church had already decided against the Double PreDestination of Augustine - not accepting it - neither accepting the full Pelagianism that Augustine fought against. A thousand years later, Calvin vomits back up this double predestination of Augustine's and proposes it in his INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

Informative.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Really, there need not have been any such thing as Arminianism.

The ancient church was correct in rejecting the doctrine of individuals being selected by God for damnation/reprobation before they were born and these souls could not do a thing about it - but Calvin regurgitated this abominable doctrine - and Arminius was one well-armed to write against it. He knew the intricacies of all these "imagined decrees of God" - supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and other Calvinistic gobbledy-gook - knew it as one coming out of it.

Predestination ACCORDING TO FOREKNOWLEDGE is in the Bible. God looks through the tunnel of time and can see who will believe in Christ AND PERSEVERE IN BELIEVING TIL DEATH. He chose a CLASS of people - BELIEVERS - and it is termed CORPORATE PREDESTINATION. He also chose individual people on the basis of His knowing who would believe and persist in believing.

Arminius wrote much of both CORPORATE PREDESTINATION and INDIVIDUAL PREDESTINATION. It is not an easy thing to follow.

Recommended biography is ARMINIUS by Carl Bangs.

I read the first 400 page volume of his works. He did base predestination on foreknowledge but not on pre-determination. He complained on many occasions during his works that he was being constantly slandered by his Calvinist opponents. This may have given rise to some of the theology attributed to him, that might not have originated from him.