SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Five Points of Calvinism Considered By David Servant

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread
LoveHim
Member



Joined: 2007/6/14
Posts: 562
Indiana, US

 Re:

Quote:
I will admit that the phrase “all men” can mean every single person who ever lived and I hope that non-Calvinist's can admit the phrase also can mean certain groups (or sorts) of men.

brother let's go further and say that it does mean every single person sometimes and other times it means all of a particular group. i am also willing to admit that.
Quote:
Paul is singling out a particular group (kings and all that are in authority). Why is Paul requesting prayer for this particular group? “That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” In verse 3 Paul says that praying for this group is “good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;” Then in verse 4 Paul says that God “…will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” Now, taking verse 4 and reading it out of context it is easy to assume that God will have every single person to be saved, but we know that not every single person will be saved because they do not believe

"who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. for there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, WHO GAVE HIMSELF A RANSOM FOR ALL, to be testified in due time" (v4-6).

who is the all in verse 6? this is the same all as in v4- all men. it is the same all that says "all have sinned". have just some sorts of men sinned?? no all have sinned. or isaiah 53:6 "ALL we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL" who is the all that have gone astray?? all of some sorts of men?? no all men have gone astray, all have sinned and Jesus bore the sin of us all (all mankind that sinned and have gone astray).
Quote:
So, if God wills that all men be saved then all men be saved.

let us differenciate between God's perfect desirable will and what God permits. it is the perect will of God that we avoid sexual immorality. does that mean that a christian will never engage in sexual immorality?? no, it means that it is God's perfect desirable will. but God has permitted to allow man to chose sin or not, to do good or sin. in the same way, our text in 1 timothy 2 shows us the very same thing. it is God's desirable will that all men (all mankind) be saved, but what God has permitted is for mankind to choose whether they will aceept or reject. that kind of reasoning runs all through scriptures. God 's perfect will was for adam to partake of the tree of life and not the tree of good and evil. but God permitted adam and eve to disobey and sin. do you understand what i am trying to say?? i'm not really great with expressing stuff in words.
Quote:
If ‘all men’ mean every single person then 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches universalism. Since universalism is false, we must conclude that ‘all men’ refers only to types (or sorts) of men.

i believe i explained the answer to this above. so i don't believe that this passage teaches universalism, because while He desires all mankind to be saved, He will allow them to choose to accept or reject. thus this passage does not mean "all sorts of men", but "all men" like it says.

if God wanted to say that He desired all men to be saved, how would He word it? He would say that He desires all men to be saved like the Holy Spirit did through paul.

if God wanted to say that He only wanted some sorts of all men to be saved, how would He word it?? He would say that He desires all sorts of kinds of men be saved, but not all men. that kind of wording is contrary to the word of God.


 2007/7/26 11:05Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

LoveHim, thank you for your graciousness in your replies. I can see that you do love him because of your desire to know the truth and the love in which you enter into it.

Concerning what you wrote:

Quote:
"who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. for there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, WHO GAVE HIMSELF A RANSOM FOR ALL, to be testified in due time" (v4-6).



If Paul is saying that Jesus gave himself for a ransom for every single person who ever lived, then Paul is contradicting Jesus' own words in Matthew 20:28, "[color=000099]even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."[/color]

Many does not mean all. So we have a contradiction here if Paul is talking about Jesus giving His life for a ransom for every single person.

So what is the answer? It is found in Acts 13:48, "[color=000099]And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed[/color]

There is a fixed number of people throughout the Earth's existence that are considered Relationally Foreknown by God. These are the people who respond to God in repentance and belief. All of these people will believe. These people are the 'many' out of the world, but not 'all' of of the world.

When Paul says that Jesus died to give His life as a ransom for all, he is saying that Jesus died to give His life as a ransom for all sorts of men throughout the world--who believe and repent--the elect.

When Jesus says that He gives His life as a ransom for many, He is saying that many will respond in repentance, but not all.

No contradiction.

 2007/7/26 12:18Profile









 Re:

I suggest for everyone on this thread, however noble your intentions may be, read this link.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18309&forum=35]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18309&forum=35[/url]

 2007/7/26 12:32
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

While we are at it, let's take a look at another verse that is used against Calvinism:
1 John 2:2
[color=000099]He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. [/color]

Clear enough to reject Calvinism right?

As [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Corso]Lee Corso[/url] would say, "Not so fast my friend!"

What does John mean by 'the whole world'? Is he talking about every single person living or has lived or will live on the entire Earth?

Look at another one of John's writings to get a more accurate picture, John 11:51-52
[color=000099]He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.[/color]

Notice the similarities. [1 John 2:2 will be in brackets]

He [Jesus] would die for the nation [is the propitiation for our sins] and not for the nation only [and not for ours only] but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad [but also for the sins of the whole world.]

Also let us look at Galatians 2:9"[color=000099]and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.[/color]

John was devoted to the circumcised...the Jews. In 1 John 2, John's primary audience is a Jewish audience. 1 John obviously is wonderful scripture for us Gentiles to read and learn from, but when John mentions the world, he is saying this in the context of "more than just the Jews". He is not saying that Jesus died for every single person who has, is, or ever will live.

 2007/7/26 12:34Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

I will post this on the other forum as well.

I understand that some people do not like the discussions concerning Calvinism. I also understand that this discussion can easily become very unfruitful and distracting. I also understand that many great minds have wrestled with this topic for many centuries.

Having said all that, a discussion concerning Calvinism can be very fruitful and encouraging. I simply ask that if someone does not want do discuss Calvinism, don't discuss it. If someone doesn't want to see it, don't click on the link to the forum.

I know that this can get annoying when there are 5 or 6 different threads all on Calvinism and I do hope that changes. I will be sure not to start any new threads on the subject and only respond on ongoing threads.

I hope we all can agree that discussing Calvinism can quickly get out of hand, but I also hope that we would not turn our backs on discussing this doctrine.

Also, I wish everyone would see the dialog that me and my brother LoveHim are having. We are both gracious and loving and seeking to find the truth of the matter. I applaud LoveHim for his graciousness and I am enjoying the discussion of scriptural truth.

God Bless.

 2007/7/26 12:42Profile
LoveHim
Member



Joined: 2007/6/14
Posts: 562
Indiana, US

 Re:

dear jaysaved,

first off, let me say thank you for being very kind and loving in your responses. it is nice and refreshing to talk about this subject with loving brothers (actually whyme and roaringlamb have been great also).

i think that having all the new threads opened on the same subject is what is bothering everyone as well, i know it does me.

anyways brother, i will be busy for a while, but i plan on talking and looking at romans 9 with you later.. thank you once again.

 2007/7/26 13:27Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re: The Five Points of Calvinism Considered By David Servant

i will not continue to discuss this subject, i feel we wont get anywhere :-) but i feel i should post the rest of the article by David Servant for those who want to read the rest of it, its worth to consider.

--------------------------------------

Limited Atonement

Finally we come to the L of the TULIP acronym, which stands for Limited Atonement. Because Calvinists believe that God unconditionally elected before time only certain people to be saved, Calvinists are thus faced with some difficult questions: Why does Scripture say that Jesus died for everyone? and Why would Jesus die for those who are not predestined to be saved, but who are predestined to be damned?

The non-Calvinist has no such questions to wrestle with. Because God wants every person to repent and believe, Jesus died for all, making it possible for anyone who repents and believes in the Lord Jesus to have eternal life through His substitutionary sacrifice. It is just that simple.

The Calvinist solves his dilemma by claiming that Jesus did indeed die for everyone, but that He died in a different way for the elect than for the non-elect. For the elect, Jesus purchased “saving grace,” which results in their being granted everything that was needed to save them, including Calvinism’s irresistible grace, regeneration, the gifts of repentance and faith, and so on. For the non-elect (those predestined to damnation) Jesus died that they might enjoy only “common grace,” that is, the mercy and blessings that every person enjoys during his life. It is on this basis that Calvinists like Piper interpret Paul’s words that God “is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10). To Piper, Jesus saves all men from the immediate eternal punishment they deserve all during the time they are allotted to live on the earth, but He saves only the elect from eternal punishment after they die (see Piper, p. 14, prgh. 6).

I hardly think, however, that this would make Jesus much of a “savior” to the non-elect, as it would have been better for them to never have been born than that they “enjoy” such a temporal “salvation.” Every second of “common grace” will cost them billions of years in hell where they will be tortured forever. The “common grace” that God extends to those predestined to be eternally damned makes Jesus more of a sadistic, deranged maniac than a savior to them. (What would you think of a person who conceives children with the intention of being kind to them for five years and then torturing them for seventy?)

Thus, the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is unnatural, forced and far-fetched. A more natural interpretation would be that since Jesus died for all people, He is the Savior of all men, but especially believers, because they receive and enjoy the benefits of the salvation He offers to all men. This interpretation would harmonize much better with Paul’s earlier words in the same epistle, where he wrote, “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4, emphasis added).

In contrast to the Calvinistic view which says that God offers His saving grace to only a select few, the apostle Paul declared that God offers His saving grace to everyone:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age (Tit. 2:11-12, emphasis added).

Piper’s Arguments

Piper claims that the non-Calvinist view of Christ’s atonement is incompatible with the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace, (see p. 13., prgh. 5 through p. 14., prgh. 3), and he is entirely correct, because those two doctrines themselves are erroneous. Piper states that if Christ’s atonement only purchased the potential of salvation for sinners, there is no way anyone could be saved, because people would be left to overcome their total depravity by their own power and regenerate themselves apart from God’s irresistible grace that was purchased by Christ on the cross. Since I have already shown the grave errors of the Calvinistic doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, there is really no need to argue against Piper’s flawed logic here. His logic is built on false doctrines. God doesn’t save people by bestowing on them irresistible grace, and no one needs to overcome Calvinistic total depravity because there is no such thing as total depravity by the Calvinistic definition. No one needs to regenerate himself because regeneration does not precede faith. God regenerates those who believe, as Scripture plainly says.

Furthermore, to imply that non-Calvinists believe that Christ’s atonement only purchases the potential of salvation for sinners is very misleading. Christ’s atonement does much more than that. It purchases for everyone what is necessary for their salvation—forgiveness, regeneration, eternity in heaven, and so on. It does not, however, purchase the forcing of people against their wills to believe in Christ, as that is not God’s desire or His plan. God has given every person a free will because it is His will that each individual exercise the right to believe in Christ or reject Christ. If God wanted robots, He would have created robots. But He didn’t want robots. He wants a family that loves Him. Apart from freedom of the will, love is impossible.

Jesus died for every person’s sins, but that doesn’t automatically mean that everyone will be saved (as Piper erroneously argues would be true if Jesus atoned for everyone’s sins). Every individual must receive salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. When people believe, then what Christ accomplished for them becomes effectual in their lives. This is the only conclusion we can rightfully draw from Scripture that tells us that Jesus died for everyone’s sins and yet also tells that not everyone will be saved.

Is it true that God extends His saving grace to only a select group of unconditionally elected people? Not according to the apostle John, who believed that Jesus’ atonement was not limited for the saving of some, but accomplished on behalf of every person in the world:

And He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2, emphasis added).

The word propitiation means “the appeasement of wrath.” John plainly declared that Jesus appeased the wrath of God, not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. What could be more plain?

In regard to this verse that so obviously contradicts the Calvinistic idea of a limited atonement, Piper attempts to convince us that John must have meant something other than what he wrote. John must have meant, claims Piper, that Jesus not only appeased God’s wrath on behalf of his little group of Christians, but also for the sins of the rest of the Christians scattered all over the world! (see p. 15, prgh. 7). So, according to Piper, the “whole world” really means “the children of God scattered throughout the whole world” (p. 16, prgh. 4). But that is a forced and unnatural interpretation and a redefinition of terms. Are we really to believe that the Christians to whom John wrote thought that Jesus didn’t atone for the sins of all believers around the world, and that John wrote to correct their misunderstanding? Does Piper think his readers are that stupid? And why doesn’t Piper use the same redefinition of the phrase “whole world” when John uses it later on in the same epistle, in 1 John 5:19? There we read:

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19, emphasis added).

Was John saying that all the other Christians outside his little group were not of God and that they were lying in the power of Satan? The answer is obvious (see also 1 John 4:14).

Piper claims that John couldn’t have meant that Jesus appeased God’s wrath for the sins of the entire world, because “propitiated sins cannot be punished….Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved” (p. 16, prgh. 6). This, of course, is only logical to the Calvinistic mind, because only Calvinists believe that man plays no part in his salvation. All others realize, as Scripture repeatedly teaches, that in order for any person to experience the benefits of salvation that Christ purchased for him on the cross, he must repent and believe. Christ’s atonement becomes effectual for people only when they meet His conditions.

We have already read where Paul wrote to the Romans that the adoption as sons belonged to the Jews (see Rom. 9:4). Using Piper’s logic, we would have to conclude that because sonship belongs to every Jew, then every Jew will become God’s child. But Paul made it clear that every Jew had to believe in Jesus if he was to actually posses his rightful adoption as a son. This principle is so abundantly plain in Scripture that we must wonder why Piper would even attempt to persuade us against it. Only those who have first bought into the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace can be fooled by Piper’s conclusion that Christ’s atonement was intended to save only some.
The Testimony of Jesus

Consider the following verses from John’s Gospel, all of which prove that the benefits of Christ’s atonement were not limited to any supposed group of unconditionally elected people, but were available to all who would believe. Except for the first quotation of John the Baptist, all the rest are from Jesus’ own lips:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, emphasis added).

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:16-17, emphasis added).

For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world (John 6:33, emphasis added)

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (John 6:51, emphasis added).

I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:46-47, emphasis added).

Jesus couldn’t have made His message clearer. He gave His life for the world. Completely ignoring those passages, however, Piper isolates three passages from the Gospel of John in order to prove that “the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God’s people, not for every individual” (p. 15, prgh. 2).

Piper begins with John 10:15, in which Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep.” Piper claims this verse proves that Jesus only died for the ones God predestined for salvation, the “sheep.” But are we to ignore or nullify the many just-quoted verses from John’s Gospel and exalt this single verse? Or would it be better to believe everything that Jesus said and let scripture interpret scripture, so that we arrive at a biblically-balanced understanding?

Note that Jesus did not say in John 10:15 that He laid His life down exclusively for His sheep. If He did, then He contradicted Himself in the other passages I’ve just quoted from John’s Gospel. In the passage Piper quotes, Jesus is only emphasizing His love for His followers. If Jesus said to you, “I died for you,” would that prove that He died for you and no one else? Obviously not. Then why should we conclude, as Piper does (see p. 16-17), that when Scripture sometimes says that Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many, or for the church, that Jesus died only for the elect and not everyone? Consider Piper’s logic in the following quotation from his booklet:

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ’s death like this: “[Jesus] gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquities and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.” If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, “He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself”? (p. 17, prgh. 2)

Piper is again forcing his interpretation on a text. Why couldn’t the “us” whom Jesus “gave himself for” be “those who have repented and believed”? Why must the “us” be “those individuals whom God has pre-selected for salvation”?

Once again, Piper selects a verse that seems to support his Calvinistic view and ignores all others that would contradict his view. Simply because Paul wrote in Titus 2:14 that Jesus gave Himself to “redeem us,” rather than to “redeem all,” that supposedly proves that Paul was a Calvinist who believed that Jesus only died for the people God predestined to be saved! Using the same flawed logic, what must Piper conclude from Paul’s words in Galatians 4:4-5? There we read,

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (emphasis added).

Note that Paul said God sent His Son to redeem “those who were under the Law.” That would mean all Jews and only Jews. Applying the same logic that Piper applies to interpreting Titus 2:14, we would have to conclude that Jesus only died for the Jews. And if we adopt Piper’s previously-mentioned logic (i.e., that “propitiated sins cannot be punished”; see p. 16, prgh. 6), we would also have to conclude that since God sent His Son to redeem those under the Law, then all under the Law must be redeemed, because redeemed people can’t be sent to hell. Thus all Jews are saved! Thus we see the glaring errors and inconsistency of Piper’s pathetic methods of Bible interpretation.

Piper next pulls from their context verses 6, 9 and 19 of John 17, passages from Jesus’ high priestly prayer, a prayer in which Jesus prays that His church might be one in order that the world will believe that God sent His Son (see John 17:21). By isolating specific requests Jesus made for His followers from within this prayer, Piper tries to prove that Jesus didn’t die for the very world that He prays would believe in Him! Amazing!

Piper next quotes John 11:51-52, a passage which tells of how Caiaphas prophesied that “Jesus should die for the nation, and not the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” Piper is truly on a search for needles in the haystack here. In the very same sentence which says that Jesus should die to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad (which Piper claims proves that Jesus didn’t die for everyone), we also read that Jesus should die for the nation of Israel! Piper consistently ignores the majority of scriptures that contradict his doctrine, and focuses only on those that seem to support his doctrine, even if he has to ignore the first half of a sentence and focus solely on the second half of a sentence.

Did Jesus die for everyone that everyone might be saved? What does Scripture say? Consider the following:

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Is. 53:6, emphasis added).

The same all who like sheep have gone astray are the same all whose iniquity fell upon Jesus. Calvinists would quickly endorse the first part of this verse as being supportive of their doctrine of total depravity. All are totally depraved, they would say. However, the Lord caused the iniquity of all those same totally depraved people to fall on Jesus. Why doesn’t Piper conclude from this verse that all will be saved, since the iniquity of all fell upon Jesus, and “propitiated sins cannot be punished” (Piper, p. 16, prgh. 6)?

For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Rom. 11:32, emphasis added).

The same all who are disobedient are the same all to whom God is showing saving mercy.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:14-15, emphasis added).

Paul clearly states that Christ died for all, thus he concludes that “all died.” Notice the flow of his logic. The foundation of Paul’s logic is the truth that Christ died for all. From this, Paul concludes that “all died.” That is, the proof that all had died was the fact that Christ died for all. There can be no mistaking Paul here. Christ died for all who were spiritually dead, which is everyone. Paul then declares Christ’s intention in dying for all, that they should repent and “no longer live for themselves, but for Him.” Everyone should do that because Christ died for all, but not all do.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6, emphasis added).

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9, emphasis added).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Pet. 2:1, emphasis added).

The last-quoted scripture proves that Jesus even paid for the sins of false teachers who will spend eternity in hell. Jesus died for the sins of all people because God wants all people to be saved.

Piper implies that non-Calvinists believe that the cross was only “intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves” (p. 17, prgh 1). That is, however, a very unfair accusation. No true Arminian believes such nonsense. No person can save himself. We can only respond to the gospel in faith, as God expects us to, using our God-given free wills under the influence of God’s drawing, in order to receive the salvation that Christ has purchased on the cross through His sufferings. That is a far cry from a person “saving himself.”
Piper’s Conclusion

Piper saves his best argument for last, which is nothing more than a twist on the argument he has used throughout his chapter on Limited Atonement. He correctly states that Arminians believe that (1) Christ died for all the sins of all men, and (2) the reason that not all men are saved is because they don’t believe. He then asks his “clincher” question: “But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?” (p. 18, prgh. 1). If the Arminian answers yes, then according to Piper, that would mean that everyone would be saved, because God would have nothing to hold against anyone, not even their unbelief.

Certainly unbelief is one of the sins for which Jesus died. But what Piper again misses is the obvious fact that what Jesus did for everyone only becomes effectual in the lives of individuals when individuals believe. This couldn't be more obvious in Scripture. God provided a way for every Israelite to escape His wrath upon Egypt, but the benefit of that salvation that God provided only became effectual in the lives of individual Israelites who believed God and applied the blood of the lamb to their lintels and door posts. God parted the Red Sea for every Israelite, but the benefit of that salvation only became effectual in the lives of individual Israelites when individuals trusted God and walked across on dry land. God provided manna for all the Israelites, but the benefit of that salvation only became effectual when individual Israelites believed God and gathered what they needed for a day. Many such biblical examples could be cited, all which foreshadowed the salvation that Christ would make available to all people in the world, a salvation that could be enjoyed by everyone who believes.

In conclusion, God is not a monster who creates people in order to take pleasure in torturing them forever! Rather, He is a Great Lover who yearns that all will be saved, and who suffered horribly on the cross to make salvation possible for all! Praise the Lord! All glory to Him!

May I now ask every reader: Did you begin reading this paper as a Calvinist? If so, do you still believe in the doctrines of Calvinism? If you do, then you must be able to refute every bit of logic and Scripture I've used in this paper by showing that what I've written contradicts Scripture and/or logic. I am still waiting for the very first refutation from a Calvinist. If you remain a Calvinist and are not able to refute what I've written, then you remain a Calvinist from some motivation other than obedience to Christ and His Word. Is it because of pride that you are unable to admit that you have been wrong? Or is it because of fear of what other Calvinists might think if you defect from their doctrinal system? If either is true, then I must ask an even a more searching question: Is Jesus your Lord?


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/7/26 13:42Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Brother phil, I apologize for all the threads. It seems our brother Abe is zealous for the doctrines of grace, and much like many of us when we first came to Christ, we want to tell the world(not a bad thing at all)!

My concern is that we at least get a fair share in being heard, it seems Jesse comes on every night, and posts an inflamatory thread with untruths, or skewed ideas of what we believe, and then many look upon us(jay, me, and others) as if we had tails and horns. Nothing could be further from the truth, we are your brothers. I do not believe that anyone has said that a person has to agree with us to be a Christian(not true at all), but rather we seek the same One, and are learning, and teaching one another as a Family should.

I have not been a Calvinist for my entire walk, and was very Arminian prior to coming to these conclusions. It has not been easy at all, but I must realize that if these doctrines are true, it changes much of how I view God, much of how I view Chriist's work on the Cross and in Heaven.

Brother, I have one friend who recently told me that he was apalled that I believe this, and that he was worried for me!!! Why I do not know, I am still a Christian brother, but these are difficult things to grasp.

Blessings to you brother


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/26 13:43Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
May I now ask every reader: Did you begin reading this paper as a Calvinist?


Yes.
Quote:
If so, do you still believe in the doctrines of Calvinism?


Yes.

Quote:
If you do, then you must be able to refute every bit of logic and Scripture I've used in this paper by showing that what I've written contradicts Scripture and/or logic.


I have read most of the 62 pages of it and I have compared what has been said against scripture in its context. I have posted a rebuttal on this forum and I will let the reader determine whom they believe is most accurately representing scripture.

Quote:
I am still waiting for the very first refutation from a Calvinist. If you remain a Calvinist and are not able to refute what I've written, then you remain a Calvinist from some motivation other than obedience to Christ and His Word. Is it because of pride that you are unable to admit that you have been wrong? Or is it because of fear of what other Calvinists might think if you defect from their doctrinal system? If either is true, then I must ask an even a more searching question: Is Jesus your Lord?



I find it laughable that not one refutation has come and that I am the first one. I answer in the affirmative Jesus is my Lord, He is the LORD!

 2007/7/26 14:12Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

LoveHim,

Thank you as well. God Bless and hope to talk to you soon.

 2007/7/26 14:15Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy