ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--concerning your question in post 1516--Grace is always unmerited favor. Covenanted grace is grace which God dispenses according to the terms agreed upon between the Father and the Son in eternity, before the world was, concerning God's elect.

Common grace is grace given to mankind in general without regard to that special convenant struck between Father and Son.

Common grace explains all of God's goodness to the nonelect--everything they receive other than immediate judgement and casting into a Christless eternity; things such as wonderful gifts of ability, rain for their fields, prosperity, lives lived with relative moral rectitude despite their irreverance toward God Himself as He, by His common grace, restrains them from wickedness which would have otherwise ensnared them according to their own nature.

Are these concepts explicit in Scripture (decrees, grace definitions, etc.) or are they reasonings to prop up a preconceived theology? If you believe TULIP, I would say the latter.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--Under my statement that "all rights to His gifts" belong only to God and that men therefore "have no right to complain against Him for leaving them to the wickedness of their own nature," you say that you agree completely; BUT your doctrine is very contrary to that statement. It does NOT believe God has the right to apply regenerating grace to some (the elect) and leave others in the bond of iniquity.

You say that LOVE slays Calvinism. To the CONTRARY--God's love for those He chose in Christ is the ONLY reason everyone will not descend into the pit with the non-elect. God's love does not simply give men an OPPORTUNITY to be delivered. It DELIVERS. What love would it be that simply offered men an opportunity that NONE OF THEM would use???

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--what do you doubt that you question in your post of 1601??

Do you doubt that grace is an unmerited gift?

Do you doubt that God is able and does have mercy on whom He will have mercy?

Do you doubt that there was from everlasting an agreement between the Father and the Son concerning His elect?

Frame a challenge, and I will answer it.

 

[1Way]

Rolf,
You said

Clete--Under my statement that "all rights to His gifts" belong only to God and that men therefore "have no right to complain against Him for leaving them to the wickedness of their own nature," you say that you agree completely; BUT your doctrine is very contrary to that statement. It does NOT believe God has the right to apply regenerating grace to some (the elect) and leave others in the bond of iniquity.

I agree with Clete, and I agree with what you said here except that it violates our theology. I believe the contention is your definition of the elect that might be problematic.

Clete and myself tend to go with the bible's prominent "whosoever" explanations for who will become saved and thus also be God's "elect". You probably believe that God has always known every individual who will become saved, even though many bible teachings contradict the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge, i.e. closed theism.

If your going to become an effective communicator, a great help is to keep crucial terms clear.

Nice seeing you again, isn't TOL great!

 

[1Way]

Rolf,
Partly because I see that Clete is here right now in this thread, I'm going to interject my response again, partly to see how much we are on the same page prior to seeing his actual response.

You said

You say that LOVE slays Calvinism. To the CONTRARY--God's love for those He chose in Christ is the ONLY reason everyone will not descend into the pit with the non-elect. God's love does not simply give men an OPPORTUNITY to be delivered. It DELIVERS. What love would it be that simply offered men an opportunity that NONE OF THEM would use???

Clete did not suggest the issue of God's love was one of if it exists or not, silly. Sure Clete believes that Calvinists believes that God has love. Instead, Clete is calling attention to authentic love, it's over the nature of what love really is that slays the closed view.

Godly or righteous authentic love requires a free will response. You can not force another person to trust you, to respect you, to honor you, let alone to love you. That is more like what a kidnapping rapist does (scratch that, tries to do) than it is what God does in winning soles to His love. God is healthy enough to suffer the loss when people freely reject Himself, and He is also healthy enough to respond appropriately when people freely choose to love Him as Lord and Savior.

If God controls both parties, then God is simply loving Himself which reduces man into a zero sum portal, and self love is not a very grandiose thing compared to love freely given and received between different parties.

Ok Clete, show your hand.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz--what do you doubt that you question in your post of 1601??

Do you doubt that grace is an unmerited gift?

Do you doubt that God is able and does have mercy on whom He will have mercy?

Do you doubt that there was from everlasting an agreement between the Father and the Son concerning His elect?

Frame a challenge, and I will answer it.

I do not fully understand what you mean in your post.

Grace is an unmerited gift, but it is not cheap. Grace is possible due to the death of Christ. God is gracious, but He also must be truthful and just in regards to holiness.

We all deserve condemnation. No one merits grace. If you are talking about 'irresistible grace' than I would disagree with that assumption. God's love is as much an attribute as sovereignty, grace, justice, mercy. God's love is impartial, not arbitrary. The atonement is not limited. The provision is efficacious for all who respond to His free offer of grace and mercy. All are not saved because of their rejection, not because God withholds grace from those He could save.

The triune God did chose to call out a people for Himself. The question is if election is corporate or individual. God chose Israel and the Church to be His people. He does not predestine the individuals who would make up these groups. They become part of the corporate elect through individual response to His call, not through predestination. Elect vs non-elect rooted in the arbitrary will of God is a wrong assumption.

These things have been hashed over on multiple threads. Biblical defenses have been given for the views. I believe TULIP relies on deductive reasoning, eisegesis, proof texting, etc. Open Theism or Arminianism (free will theism) would be closer to the truth (I would disagree with Arminianism's idea that God choses the elect based on foreknowledge and the Calvinist idea that it is based on predestination).

 

[Rolf Ernst]

One way--The church is the bride of Christ. Does a suitor "force" his bride to love him?

A foreshadow of the Holy Spirit's work in drawing men to Christ is seen in Abraham's servant, who returned to Abram's people to get a bride for his son Isaac. What you see there is not any pressure, but a convincing wooing of Isaac's future bride by the servant who spent all his time speaking of his masters goodness and riches. That is an apt picture of the Holy Spirit's work as He testifies concerning Christ.

Accordingly, we also are to testify of Christ in a similar manner so that our testimony is in accord with the work that the Holy Spirit does.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

One way--The church is the bride of Christ.

where does the NT teach this? it was my understanding that we are the body of Christ, but i haven't heard of it being the bride.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

SERVANT 101--In response to your post # 1600--In another place, God inspires His penman to write, "add not to His words lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar."

Is that in agreement with what is wriutten in Revelation? God's prohibition against adding to or taking away from His word applies not only to revelation, but to the whole Bible. I believe even arminians and calvinists would agree on that. Your rejection of it is far from usual. It is very unusual.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

GIT--Concerning the church being the bride of Christ--Look in Ephesians for this phrase "...that He might present it to Himself..." and see what follows after it.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--concerning your questioning of "irresistable" grace in your post #1606--In a way, I am sympathetic with your complaint. I believe "irresistable"would have been more properly termed either regenerating or "empowering" grace in accord with the apostles' statements,

"He has begotten us again unto a lively hope..." or,

"...we believe according to the working of His mighty power..."

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

GIT--Concerning the church being the bride of Christ--Look in Ephesians for this phrase "...that He might present it to Himself..." and see what follows after it.

found it, chapter 5. but my question then is, how can we be both the bride of Christ and the body of Christ?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Lee: And there's another alternative! But that's another topic...

Godrulz: Alternative? Do you believe in annihilation or universalism rather than heaven/lake of fire for eternity?

I believe we may hope that all will be saved...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. That's called "soft" universalism, as opposed to believing that all will certainly be saved, which is called "hard" universalism.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

found it, chapter 5. but my question then is, how can we be both the bride of Christ and the body of Christ?

There is more than one way to describe the Church, just as there is more than one title or name for God. Are these not figures of speech (?metaphor)? We are also the army and family of God.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi Godrulz,



I believe we may hope that all will be saved...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. That's called "soft" universalism, as opposed to believing that all will certainly be saved, which is called "hard" universalism.

Even God desires that all will be saved. It is evident that millions are godless.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by godrulz

There is more than one way to describe the Church, just as there is more than one title or name for God. Are these not figures of speech (?metaphor)? We are also the army and family of God.

perhaps so, just seemed odd to me.

 

[1Way]

Rolf,

Post 1of2

The church as it has been since the beginning of our current dispensation of Mystery and Grace is not considered "the Bride of Christ". I believe you violate biblical grounds by mixing up together or equating two different groups of believers that God teaches are two "different" groups. I think He has a good reason to consistently separate us (as well as what we have in common), and you have no good reason to confuse the two different groups as though they are one.

It is common and traditional for Christians to wrongly mix up and make the same what God has made different. Law and grace, circumcision and uncircumcision, Israel (the Bride, she has the weaker faith, she has a weaker vessel and will end up marrying the Groom, Jesus) and the body of Christ (the groom, well, He does not have a female body. Keep what God teaches is different, different.)

Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar——
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children——
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

In summary, God establishes throughout scripture these two different covenants and how the two different peoples under each covenant are not treated the same. And make special notice that these two groups were God ordained. God established both covenants and callings to obey Him in each different calling.

Next we see more of this difference between nationalistic Israel and the rest of the world, and how it is that God's calling is irrevocable, you do not have the standing of mixing which group you are in.

Romans 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."
5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles.
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

Notice that God says that Israel was not cast away, and then teaches that she was cast away. Also that they did not fall, and that they did fall. Also that they are enemies and also beloved. God is not contrary, He simply expects us to understand to what extent each concept is true. Don't overstate or understate the truth, get it exactly right. And don't mix up what God makes clear and separate.

The following continues to show the differences between the circumcision and the uncircumcision, and how it is that obeying God is the most important issue, and is our common thread no matter which group we belong in. God says our two different groups are different, so obey God and teach the differences, don't violate the differences.

1 Corinthians 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.
20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

The calling of God is irrevocable, you do not have the standing to say that the body of Christ is also the bride of Christ.

 

[1Way]

Rolf,

Post 2of2

Next, there are those who are "under the law", or is God the God of the Gentiles only? No, He's also the God of those who are "of the law". Keep the two different groups different, they are not the same group.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."
9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

God wisely kept the differences between these two different groups in Paul's writings even though in this current dispensation there is only one body, one group for salvation! Because back when God through Paul was starting our current dispensation, there was many believers who were still of the law and did not have the standing to jump over into our group. Also, after this dispensation, there will be a time when the teachings for being under the law will return as God has made is very clear that He will return to those who are under the bondage of the law, Israel will again become God's national focus for reaching the rest of the world.

Lastly, God through Paul wants us to remain clear about which group and set of teachings belong to us and which do not. So on one hand, in this current dispensation which was given to Paul to give to us, there is no national distinction. It is not optional as to which set of teachings we are to believe and teach, it is only those given to Paul to give to us, which includes cross dispensational teachings from all parts of the bible as they naturally apply. Of course Paul makes direct references to Moses and Abraham and Adam, the men who came from James, Peter and so on, so it is a dispensation of mystery and grace teaching to appropriately understand the rest of the bible as it applies to our faith, sometimes as an illustration for what to believe, and for what not to believe. God is Lord over both groups, He did not do away with that distinction except for within this dispensation, and even then, He says that you can not become as the circumcised if you want to keep from falling from grace, if you don't want to make the grace that Christ brought become void.

The first bible precept is that your beginning method of faith or calling is how you are to continue your walk of faith in God, you do not have the standing to change from one group to another

The second precept is that even though in this current dispensation there is no more Jew or Gentile, there is no circumcision and uncircumcision, that is specifically for all those who are saved and as such are in the body of Christ. We are necessarily not of those who are of the Law, we are not identified with the bond woman, we are not in the group that is the bride, we are of the groom. And if we try to contradict these bible teachings, then we risk voiding or loosing what God has done for us by making us a different entity very separate from Israel.

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness [comes] through the law, then Christ died in vain."
Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Don't mix law and grace as though they are synonyms. Our faith which has now been revealed is justification apart from the law (that is no part of our justification is by works of the law, it's only our faith in Jesus and His imputed righteousness according to faith by grace), thus prior to faith alone without works being revealed, justification used to be a part (not the only part, but a part) of the law, they were inclusive, but now they are exclusive to each other. Don't make the same what God made different.

 

[godrulz]

Ephesians 5 illustration (husband-wife; Christ-Church)

Rev. 19:7 wedding of Lamb and bride (Second Coming)

21:2 New Jerusalem prepared as a bride for her husband (post-mill.)

21:9 bride, the wife of the Lamb

22:17 The Spirit and the bride say come (Church Age)

I thought the bride was the people of God. Could it include Israel and the Church? (Some references in the OT would refer to Israel only). Could it be one of several titles applies to Israel, the Church, and the future combined people of God?

Walvoord (19:6-8) (I only checked this after I formulated my opinion, so chill)

"In Scripture, marriage is often used to describe the relationship of SAINTS to God. In the OT Israel is pictured, as in Hosea, as the unfaithful wife of Yahweh who is destined to be restored in the future kingdom. In the NT, marriage is ALSO used (context determines...more than one use of concept....watch read own ideas back into it...Mid-Acts - rulz) to describe the relationship between Christ and the church, but the illustration contrasts with the OT, for the church is regarded as a virgin bride waiting the coming of her heavenly bridegroom (2 Cor. 11:2 rulz= context= church= pure virgin; Christ= husband).

19:9 does distinguish between types of saints (OT, NT/Church= neither Jew/Gentile, Tribulation saints will be here at the wedding forming the bride).

21:2 "...some have tried to identify the New Jerusalem's inhabitants as specifically the church saints, excluding saints of other dispensations. However, the use of marriage as an ILLUSTRATION is common in Scripture, not only to relate Christ to the Church but also Yahweh to Israel..."

(bride also used to refer to city, not people)

22:17 "..the Holy Spirit joined with the bride, the church, in extending an invitation..."

It is the Church that preaches the Gospel in Rev. 2;3 and throughout the church age leading up to the end time events in Revelation (except 7 year Trib.).

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
You can use the subjects in one analogy in another figurative speech without the teachings in each analogy having to be the same. It's done all the time in language and is why we rightly say, you can only take an analogy so far. You need to first get a solid grasp of the context involved before you suggest the contradictory idea that the bride teachings from the circumcision and for the circumcision mean the same thing as the bride teachings for the uncircumcision for the uncircumcision.

A relationship of marriage for us in the body is to teach what? Is it to teach that God will fulfill His prophetic plans with "now fallen and cast away Israel" as is the focus in the circumcision writings? Or could it be that God is trying to explain to us a different aspect of our relationship with God? Namely that we are not our own, there is a different relationship when we belong to God and are a new creation, just as two single people become not their own when they become one in marriage. See, two very different teachings but each is about marriage. Let the message remain true, don't violate the context.

Instead of saying, some of God's word indicates that we are like a bride, but others indicates that Israel is the bride as though both teachings mean the same sort of thing, just realize each analogy needs to be understood for what it is specifically trying to teach. Israel is the bride and God is the groom, she is the weaker vessel as she has the weaker faith, she is the focus of God winning her back after writing her a certificate of divorce and calling her a harlot and adulterous and after sending her away for rejecting Jesus as Lord and savior, and God ultimately plans on winning her back and having the marriage supper of the lamb where she is the bride to be. We are part of Christ's body, and He is male, Israel is of the weaker vessel and form of faith, and she is ,,, go figure ,,, the bride! Come on, this stuff should be quite easy to see if you but let man's ideas be false compared to God's word being true.

God through Paul makes other otherwise conflicting analogies, like about the law for example. But the answer is not to say that conflicting teachings mean that they both wipe out the individual differences each teach, rather, it is incumbent upon the bible student to learn what each teaching is for and to not violate another teaching just because there may seem to be a conflict.

Don't make the same what God made different, as in mutually exclusive. Need I repeat God's points? WE ARE NOT OF THE BONDWOMAN WHO REPRESENTS ISRAEL. GOD MADE TWO GROUPS OF BELIEVERS AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE STANDING TO SAY THERE IS NOT TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS. DON'T FALL FROM GRACE, DON'T KNULLIFY WHAT CHRIST DID, INSTEAD OF GOING AGAINST GOD, AGREE AND LEARN FROM HIM.

Like I said before, God via Paul teaches that (IN THIS DISPENSATION) there is no more Jew or Gentile, between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, yet for some good and godly reason, Paul almost constantly brings up the difference between these two different groups of believers.

The

there is no difference between them

and the

there is are serious differences between them

teachings are not contradictory, and they do not nullify each other and allow you to pick and choose which group you belong to. Instead of accepting conflict as a way to broaden what scripture applies to you, humble yourself to God's word that clearly indicates that you are not in the other group, and that you are fearfully warned to not take their teachings and apply them to our group!