beloved57
Well-known member
You teach that sinners Christ died for to save are lost, denying that He's Saviour!
Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app
Calvinism: You Must Already be Saved to Get Saved?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app
Epoisses
New member
The Samaritans said that Jesus was the savior of the world (John 4:42) and they were Gentiles! The world of that time was only Jews and Gentiles so it kind of narrows it down. The atonement is universal. The recipients of the atonement are a subset of the world. Jesus died for all sin and for sinners who would never receive Salvation. Calvinists can never reconcile an atonement for the whole world with an election according to grace so they limit the atonement and reject the writings of John.
The God that you believe in is not the God of the Bible. It is not humanly possible to love and have faith in your Calvinist God that predestinates billions to hell before they are born.
What you have is faith in is a doctrine that was conceived in the mind of a heretic.
Shasta
Well-known member
You did not even understand my point about John 3:16 so there is really no point in discussing it with you.
Shasta
Well-known member
Calvin's God hated Esau. Even when Esau was an unborn fetus God had already determined that he would be damned forever. Before Esau did anything God's fingers began shaping him into a vessel of wrath so he would be deserving of the destruction when it came. Since according to Calvin, Esau is supposed to be a type of unregenerate men this same fate is planned for all of them. Also, since only a minority will follow the straight path and enter at the narrow gate God must hate the majority of all humans that have ever lived.
I do not strive with God but against the doctrines that dishonor Him.
Nanja
Well-known member
You're right. It's not humanly possible to love and have faith in the True God and His Word.
Those works of Faith and Love are only possible by one who has been Chosen In Christ Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9 and Born of His Spirit.
1 Tim. 1:14
And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Shasta
Well-known member
I notice that they did not spend any time wondering if they were chosen or not.
Epoisses
New member
We've been studying Romans 8 thru 11 in our bible study and election according to grace where God chooses one and rejects the other is biblically accurate. God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they were born or did anything good or bad. I personally feel predestination was written by Paul to combat the extreme legalism and works religion of the Jews. But God chooses one and rejects the other by the discretion of his Divine will. He's the potter and we are the clay. There is nothing I can do to save myself.
Nanja
Well-known member
Rom. 9:13-23
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on [B]the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory[/B], 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Shasta
Well-known member
You have a point. Paul was saying to them that the only thing that made them special was God's choosing...but that was not talking about choosing individuals to be saved or damned. That concerned which people would have favored nation status in God's plan. If you look back to what God told Rebecca you will see that He was talking about "nations" and "peoples" rather than individuals. In the Hebrew language "hate" meant prefer. God preferred Esau's line over that of Jacob.
God's Truth
New member
You will not even be rewarded unless you have faith first.
Hebrews 116 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
We are not just flesh we are also spirit.
Not everyone only lives to please their flesh.
Hebrews 12:9, Zechariah 12:1, and Malachi 2:15.
The works that do not save are the purification/ceremonial works.
You need to reread that scripture because you said it said something that it does not say.
How do you get that proves you do not have to believe and obey to be saved?
You will never ever find a scripture that says what you teach.
There is no scripture that says we were born not able to believe.
There is no scripture that says God saves unbelievers; in fact, that teaching goes against God who says many times to believe and obey to get saved.
Shasta
Well-known member
Paul uses some examples of how God chooses nations, how he uses even hardened men to accomplish His purposes with them.
1. The lesson about Esau and Jacob concerned how God chose which nations to have favored status in His plan. It was not about the twins as individuals. This is proven by the fact that Esau never served Jacob though the nation of Edom was finally was subdued by Israel.
2. God used Pharaoh's hard heart to multiply his wonders in Egypt...but Pharaoh had no desire to follow God . He was entirelt motivated by pride which is why when he was offended he would fly into rages. Pharaoh periodically relented but only because his pride was preempted by his terror. The point is that Pharaoh did not have to be a willing vessel to play a role in God's plan. The partial hardening of Israel did not stop God's plan either. It only gave Him the opportunity to multiply his wonders in the NT.
3. The Potter does indeed have power over the clay but is God saying men are inert as inanimate matter or that they are totally passive to become whatever God shapes them to be? Are we totally passive? Are we supposed to be. If God can simply make a person into anything He wants why does sanctification not happen simply, effortlessly and instantly? More insight into how God shapes clay pots can be found in Jeremiah 18. Here, as with Esau and Jacob we find a story of two nations. The people of Nation #1 are wicked and, because of that, God prophesies judgement. Nation #2 is filled with righteous people. God has prophesied that good things will happen to them. Then something happens. The people of Nation #1 repent and turn to God. God responds by changing their destiny to one of blessing. The people of Nation #2 also change by backsliding and becoming wicked. Even though God has prophesied that they would receive blessing God changes it giving them judgement instead. Far from everything being predestined, God can and will change even His own judgement in response to changes humans make. In jeremiah 18 the clay either yields or resists but once it has "made its decision" HOW it is used in God's plan is up to Him. This is how He has power over the vessel.
The Church is an example of God making use of a bad thing, in this case, the apostasy of Israel:
…20...They (the Jews) were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. 22 Take notice, therefore, of the kindness and severity of God: severity to those who fell, but kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off (Romans 11:20-22)
Nanja
Well-known member
Unless you're given Faith in New Birth, Born of the Spirit, you cannot please God.
There is absolutely nothing, no works you can do to get yourself saved Rom. 8:8!
Those Christ died for, His Perfect Obedience on their behalf made them Righteous Rom. 5:19!
beloved57
Well-known member
beloved57
Well-known member
Nanja
Well-known member
There are two seeds of humanity, the Seed of Christ Gal. 3:16, 29, and the seed of the devil Mat. 13:38-39.
The Potter Rom. 9:21 made them according to His Perfect Will.
Dan. 4:35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
God's Truth
New member
Show the scripture that says exactly that.
That scripture does not say that.
You proved you do not speak what the scriptures say.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus found me !
Jesus saves who he wants to save, and he tells us who he chooses. He tells us how to get saved. He tells us exactly what to do to get saved.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If You Have No Actual Answer Just Move the Goalposts or Poison the Well
If You Have No Actual Answer Just Move the Goalposts or Poison the Well
Rather than dealing with what has been presented as the proper interpretation of the passage in question, 1 John 2:2, the only rejoinder you have offered is but moving the goal posts to yet more improperly interpreted Scripture and cavils about Calvinism.
For that matter, you haven't provided a single argument to support your claims, e.g., the atonement is universal. Nor have you dealt with what I have provided as analysis of the actual passage in question. Moving to yet another verse is evidence you have no proper answer.
No one can provide an answer to a nonexistent argument. Unless and until you or others like you put an actual argument on the table, there's nothing for anyone to evaluate.
Too many non-Calvinists take crucial intellectual shortcuts.
Critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments. They need to become aware of their unexamined assumptions. When they are pressed to examine them, things usually start off well enough. But as the discussion continues wherein they are asked to dig deeper into what they are asserting without careful examination, the discussion quickly turns into personal attacks; most likely borne of the cognitive dissonance that has erupted within themselves. At that point it usually becomes a matter of fight or flight. Being a good steward of one's time granted by God dictates not to waste one's efforts on those that have shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to engage at the needed substantive level for sacred topics.
The non-Calvinist needs to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct. Non-Calvinist critics need to become aware of how often they beg the question.
Unfortunately, these folks usually shield themselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing their views in a controlled setting (which they themselves can control). They don't usually risk direct and substantive engagement with others who disagree and who happen to be outside their own weight class. And for good reason. :AMR:
Not a few non-Calvinists like to merely nakedly assert, usually involving some lifted Scripture quotes with nice boldface or coloring, without providing and actual argument and then sit back. After all, "Scripture says this, see my boldface therein? That settles it. I win!" :AMR1:
It is simply not the Calvinist's job to make their argument for these sorts, as they are but intellectual freeloaders. Why should anyone enable their intellectual laziness by doing the heavy-lifting they themselves should be doing? Unless there's a well-provided reason to think their view of this or that matter of doctrine is incompatible with God's goodness, love, or whatever, there's nothing for the Calvinist to disprove. We literally have nothing to work with in a real discussion.
Accordingly, it is becoming an increasingly rare occasion for me to actually engage another unless that person has honestly shown themselves to be willing to stay put until the matter is driven to ground versus retreating behind verbal abuse when unable to furnish even prima facie reasons for their objections, toadying to the crowd, lachrymose claims of hurt feelings, refusal to dig deeper into the topic and interact with the same, and other what-nots that purportedly gives them a rationalization to avoid actual discussion of specifics.
I have no problem explaining that which I hold dear to the sincere person wanting to know more about some topic or even question what I believe. It just seems to me in the public arena some are unwilling to be seen as willing to learn something new or increase their knowledge, especially if the person they are directing their mere assertions and opinions toward is the imaginary Bogeyman, the Calvinist.
AMR
If You Have No Actual Answer Just Move the Goalposts or Poison the Well
Rather than dealing with what has been presented as the proper interpretation of the passage in question, 1 John 2:2, the only rejoinder you have offered is but moving the goal posts to yet more improperly interpreted Scripture and cavils about Calvinism.
For that matter, you haven't provided a single argument to support your claims, e.g., the atonement is universal. Nor have you dealt with what I have provided as analysis of the actual passage in question. Moving to yet another verse is evidence you have no proper answer.
No one can provide an answer to a nonexistent argument. Unless and until you or others like you put an actual argument on the table, there's nothing for anyone to evaluate.
Too many non-Calvinists take crucial intellectual shortcuts.
Critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments. They need to become aware of their unexamined assumptions. When they are pressed to examine them, things usually start off well enough. But as the discussion continues wherein they are asked to dig deeper into what they are asserting without careful examination, the discussion quickly turns into personal attacks; most likely borne of the cognitive dissonance that has erupted within themselves. At that point it usually becomes a matter of fight or flight. Being a good steward of one's time granted by God dictates not to waste one's efforts on those that have shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to engage at the needed substantive level for sacred topics.
The non-Calvinist needs to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct. Non-Calvinist critics need to become aware of how often they beg the question.
Unfortunately, these folks usually shield themselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing their views in a controlled setting (which they themselves can control). They don't usually risk direct and substantive engagement with others who disagree and who happen to be outside their own weight class. And for good reason. :AMR:
Not a few non-Calvinists like to merely nakedly assert, usually involving some lifted Scripture quotes with nice boldface or coloring, without providing and actual argument and then sit back. After all, "Scripture says this, see my boldface therein? That settles it. I win!" :AMR1:
It is simply not the Calvinist's job to make their argument for these sorts, as they are but intellectual freeloaders. Why should anyone enable their intellectual laziness by doing the heavy-lifting they themselves should be doing? Unless there's a well-provided reason to think their view of this or that matter of doctrine is incompatible with God's goodness, love, or whatever, there's nothing for the Calvinist to disprove. We literally have nothing to work with in a real discussion.
Accordingly, it is becoming an increasingly rare occasion for me to actually engage another unless that person has honestly shown themselves to be willing to stay put until the matter is driven to ground versus retreating behind verbal abuse when unable to furnish even prima facie reasons for their objections, toadying to the crowd, lachrymose claims of hurt feelings, refusal to dig deeper into the topic and interact with the same, and other what-nots that purportedly gives them a rationalization to avoid actual discussion of specifics.
I have no problem explaining that which I hold dear to the sincere person wanting to know more about some topic or even question what I believe. It just seems to me in the public arena some are unwilling to be seen as willing to learn something new or increase their knowledge, especially if the person they are directing their mere assertions and opinions toward is the imaginary Bogeyman, the Calvinist.
AMR
Last edited: