Run AWAY from Calvinism!

[Johann]

You are quite abusive Johann. I don’t know if that comes from being abused yourself, if you mostly do it to women or if it’s nongender specific, if I remind you of someone who harmed you, if it’s a South African trait. I don’t know the why, but as I’ve said though, it doesn’t hurt or bother me. You just keep doing it if it helps you to feel better.

Hit the ignore button, at the moment I am a confused cat and I have at least two brothers on this forum that really understand Ol' J.
J.

 

[marks]

That'll probably get me in trouble one day when the lights go out.

When the lights go out, the Light will come in!

Much love!

 

[Johann]

Maybe take a little more time to try to understand @Johann better? I needed that myself. Someone from a different culture, a native speaker of a different language, communication can take more effort.

And Johann, I apologize for how I must have seemed to you at the first! I'm glad you have come, and I'm hoping for edifying fellowship between us.

Much love!

Thank you Marks.
You explained it well to @stunnedbygrace.
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Thank you for responding, stunnedbygrace. I'm going to break what you say into two parts and respond to each in kind:


Okay, so, what I think I'm understanding (correct me if I am mistaken) is that the bolded parts of the two dichotomies above are what you are attributing to me (I realize that they are not two different dichotomies, that the second is basically a restatement of the first). And, with all due respect, both are falsely attributed to me. I'm quite sure these false attributions are unintentional ~ they are not deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said, so I am not accusing you in any way of dishonesty ~ but still, both are false, specifically, the "gave him no choice" in the first dichotomy above and the "makes him choose correctly" in the second. I get that both represent your honest takes on what I have said, and I can certainly understand why ~ if I really had said what you say I said (that's a bit of a mouthful... :) ~ that would prompt you to say what you said about the "opposite extreme" and why you would react negatively to that, but I would and surely do disavow both.


Absolutely. So I would be very interested in hearing how you resolve those two seemingly ~ seemingly ~ mutually exclusive things. Maybe you were thinking of the following two passages specifically, but here are two passages in scripture that affirm both of the things you have said here:

• God has said, you did not choose me, I chose you. ~ "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide..." (Jesus, John 15:16)

• I put before you death or life, choose life, why should you die? ~ "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying His voice and holding fast to Him, for He is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Moses, in relating the words of the covenant that the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb, Deuteronomy 30:19-20)

A lot of very intelligent people think both of those cannot be true at the same time, that one makes the other false. But I think you and I would both say ~ I know I would... :) ~ that both can be true at the same time and most certainly are. And to add a couple of other passages of Scripture, both statements by the same man that show the same seeming mutual exclusiveness as above, but both of which likewise are absolutely true and cannot be soft-pedalled in any way:

• "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..." (Paul, Philippians 2:12)

• "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: 'About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.' And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad ~ in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls ~ she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." (Paul, Romans 9:6-18)

And one more... sorry:

• "I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules." (Ezekiel 36:24-29)

Yeah so again, not the case, at least regarding me. I would absolutely affirm both "extremes" ~ because God, in His Word, does. Again, certainly, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you agree.


Sure. Absolutely. And this is exactly what I have said. So again, I would be interested in hearing your understanding of how the seeming mutual exclusiveness of the two passages above is resolved. How do you strike that balance?

Grace and peace to you.

You are extremely polite and gentle. You seem to take no offense. It’s rare enough that it’s surprised and refreshed me. Thank you.

I have come to resolution of seemingly opposing verses by seeing that some verses talk about a man being led by the Holy Spirit who is learning righteousness and that some talk of a righteousness that is not our own which comes by trust and by selling all we own to follow. This righteousness that comes by full trust and a surrendered will (which is the putting under of the flesh) then sometimes leads to being swept into Gods own holiness, where we actually walk IN the Spirit rather than just being led by Him. It is a place of no sin because there is NO sin IN Him.
So some verses talk of being led, learning righteousness and sometimes hitting the mark sometimes missing the mark because of the weakness of the flesh, learning humility by this. Other verses speak of a righteousness not of our own hit or miss style and not of ourselves, a man no longer tossed about. Other verses are in holiness, as when the Spirit a man walked in knocked a man and woman dead because they thought holiness could be messed around with. In righteousness a man can fall many times and get back up. In holiness, you get one chance before you’re out. We thirst for righteousness in our inner man as we are tossed about by or flesh and learning righteousness. The scriptures are for training in righteousness and discernment. Holiness is not learned. You are either taken into it or not.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Those that accepted are then chosen by God of course. He would not choose someone that does not want him.

That is exactly right. But that is not what those who created T.U.L.I.P. meant with limited atonement. To them there was no choice, nor anything up to them. They do not believe in free will. Be careful, or you'll be thought of as part of Calvinism, and your statement is not related to them. The atonement is for anyone who chooses. They are not forced to choose because of predestination.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Of course it is an open invitation. But nobody wants to accept it.

Almost everyone wants to accept the invitation. Almost no one wants to pay the cost, which is everything, including your own life.

 

[marks]

Cornelius was declared to be a righteous man, but he still required salvation.

Much love!

 

[marks]

In holiness, you get one chance before you’re out.

This is not an accurate representation.

Ephesians 4:24 KJV
24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Are you recreated in holiness? Or no?

How do you define "holiness"? What does holiness actually mean to you? What does it mean that you are created patterned after God in righteousness and true holiness?

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

Almost everyone wants to accept the invitation. Almost no one wants to pay the cost, which is everything, including your own life.

If by the invitation you mean escape from Hell yes, but I don't think that is what the invitation is.

 

[reformed1689]

You make His invitation empty. Offering something with no intent to give it is dishonest.

And God is not a liar. That's what men do, not God.

Much love!

Who said anything about no intent to give it? That is not what I said at all.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No, not like you are saying.

Saved from slavery. Saved from Egypt. Not born again, not saved from sin.

Much love!

I meant saved from death by the sea. He called them out of their bondage just as He calls us out of our bondage. Then after He saved their very lives at the Red Sea, they did not abide in trust. He gave them 40 years, then refused them entrance into what He had prepared for them.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The high calling in Christ is what few attain to. This makes men angry. They don’t understand that God makes a place for the righteous too or that humility and fear of God goes a long way with God. So they stop everything to gnash their teeth and insist they are holy.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Maybe take a little more time to try to understand @Johann better? I needed that myself. Someone from a different culture, a native speaker of a different language, communication can take more effort.

And Johann, I apologize for how I must have seemed to you at the first! I'm glad you have come, and I'm hoping for edifying fellowship between us.

Much love!

I understand him more than you think. I was where he is.

 

[Johann]

I understand him more than you think. I was where he is.

I understand him more than you think. I was where he is.

...and where exactly am I now?
J.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

...and where exactly am I now?
J.

I know you are not asking me for spiritual counsel so I’m not going to answer that. I’m not going to help you to where me answering would lead, not because it hurts me, but because it would not help you right now. You should speak with the two men who you understand.

 

[APAK]

That is exactly right. But that is not what those who created T.U.L.I.P. meant with limited atonement. To them there was no choice, nor anything up to them. They do not believe in free will. Be careful, or you'll be thought of as part of Calvinism, and your statement is not related to them. The atonement is for anyone who chooses. They are not forced to choose because of predestination.

Agree although what you consider choosing with human 'free' will might not be the same as my definition in this topic. I have actually touched on it in post #416...Run AWAY from Calvinism!

God actually does choose in the context that scripture uses it. For a person, scripture does not use the term 'choose' or chose for salvation to the best of my knowledge, and there is a good reason for it - because God actually chooses the person (in the final analysis)...

One key idea that really need to be understood here: God does actually choose and act to give or not to give (no salvation) his spirit to that person who thinks he chose and made a life decision, based on his (God's) requirements for salvation.

The person who makes a 'free' will spiritual decision for Christ and salvation from their heart still needs God, who is the judge and jury to validate and authenticate this human choice...for his verdict or outcome...if his spirit will be sent to or not to this person based on God's requirements for salvation and not this person's view of salvation. And this personal decision is not an every day decision choice made daily with our 'limited free' will..by a long shot.

 

[marks]

Who said anything about no intent to give it? That is not what I said at all.

You promote that only God choses who will be saved, and leave many unsaved. Isn't that right? Or am I confused?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I meant saved from death by the sea. He called them out of their bondage just as He calls us out of our bondage. Then after He saved their very lives at the Red Sea, they did not abide in trust. He gave them 40 years, then refused them entrance into what He had prepared for them.

Then it's apples and oranges.

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

You promote that only God choses who will be saved, and leave many unsaved. Isn't that right? Or am I confused?

Much love!

Right because nobody chooses God. It is offered to all, but nobody takes it. So he takes ones that he chooses.

 

[marks]

I understand him more than you think. I was where he is.

All I can say is the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I suppose @Johann would be the correct one to say whether you understand him, wouldn't you say?

Much love!