Run AWAY from Calvinism!

[stunnedbygrace]

Sometimes, I'm just wrong!

I can attest to that!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

We all have our different perceptions of others, but I can't tell you how many times over the years when I've told someone they've reverted to ad hominems, or this is something they don't actually know, or whatever, to get that reply, "Don't be so touchy!" "You're too sensitive!" "You are being carnal!"

It's a way people can sidestep what I'm saying, and it's just another ad hominem on top of the others. It diverts from the statement being expressed, what I'm actually saying, to replace it with what the other person considers the desired narrative.

I realize most people don't have as low a negative emotional affect as I do most of the time. But sometimes I do feel frustrated when what I feel is a valuable discussion is tanked by that sort of behavior.

Much love!

I think we should drop this. I do not want to get you into defense mode. I really don’t.

 

[reformed1689]

Calvinism is an unsettled theology.
Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and
always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs.
Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. “The Supralapsarians
hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians,
that he permitted it” (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at The Calvinism Debate
14
the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues. Te Swiss
Calvinists who wrote the Helve tic Consensus Formula in
1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School
of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate
Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper Calvinists (differing
especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement
and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3
pointers, and 2 pointers. In America, Calvinists were divided
into Old School and New School.
Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and
refute it, there are Calvinists who will claim that you are
misrepresenting Calvinism. You might be quoting directly
from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. Te
problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism!
Is this correct?

Here is some help, there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist, 3 Point Calvinist, or 2 Point Calvinist. They may try to use the title, but they aren't Calvinist.

 

[BarneyFife]

I can attest to that!

I knew I could count on you to back me up.

 

[reformed1689]

Patient with YOU, means patient with them. Got it.

Rolling of eyes without any exegesis. Yep, such a solid argument there.

 

[reformed1689]

You have to add words to the text to make it say what you are asserting. And that is specifically NOT exegesis. You are literally adding in.

The verse you are referencing, out of context, is 2 Peter 3:9 which states:
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should reach repentance. (ESV)

A similar thought construction is seen in Matthew, "if those days were not cut short, no flesh would survive, but for the sake of the elect, those days have been cut short". The general group is "all flesh", the sub-group is "the elect". In Peter, the general group is "all", and "any", generally inclusive, the sub-group is "you".

Without your implied additional words, the reading is simple, God doesn't want anyone to perish, God wants all to come to repentance, and God is patient toward you for that reason.

Much love!

Don't be ridiculous. You don't need to add any supplied words because the context is already there. I know that bothers you because it doesn't agree with your feel-good theology.

 

[Lambano]

call it what you will. We arent supposed to sit back and do nothing against false doctrines.

I keep tryin' man, but you guys never listen to me!

 

[BarneyFife]

Here is some help, there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist, 3 Point Calvinist, or 2 Point Calvinist. They may try to use the title, but they aren't Calvinist.

That's no help. They say the same thing about tulips.

 

[reformed1689]

If you are thinking of a place that contradicts the plain meaning of that passage, quote it for us, and show how that is so, and we can discuss it.

Much love!

1 John 5:10-12 - Not everyone has eternal life.
John 3:15 - Only those who believe
John 3:36 - Those that do not believe remain in the wrath of God.
1 John 2:25 - He made the promise to "us" the elect.
John 6:40 - Only those who believe
John 6:47 - Those who believe


Those are just a few references. Salvation is not for every person. Some people go to Hell. Their sins were not paid for.

 

[BarneyFife]

Here is some help, there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist, 3 Point Calvinist, or 2 Point Calvinist. They may try to use the title, but they aren't Calvinist.

It's all about the acronyms?

 

[Lambano]

its actually not hard to determine if you are of the elect right now…. Are you producing good fruit?? If so, then you are of the elect.

My friend, may I correct you? The primary evidence of being part of the Elect is TRUST (faith) in Jesus Christ. That should be a common understanding among both Arminians and Calvinists. Do you need me to chapter and verse?

Bro, that is why your lack of trust in Christ to save you worries me more than your sin. You believe your theology, but you don't believe in Christ.

 

[marks]

It’s funny, earlier you said when you see you’ve sinned/not trusted in something He’s said, you hide from God. I don’t do that. I say, ah, I see…thank You, Lord! Then I correct and practice trust.

This is what I wrote:

It seems counterintuitive . . . When I stop thinking that sin takes me away from God, I stop sinning. While I trust that I'm am always accepted by God, because my acceptance is in Jesus Christ, not me, while I'm trusting in that, I have full access into the Spirit walk of victory, and life is like those 5 weeks, completely free, joyful, peaceful, faithful, loving, self-controlled. When I start to think I'm disqualifying myself, that my sin will condemn me, I do what everyone does in that situation, I try to hide.

That's what everyone does. When you see you sin, you hide from God. But in Christ, we no longer have to hide, we can come boldly to obtain help . . . when we need it, not when we don't! God doesn't push us away when we need Him most, when we've become entangled in our sin! No. Even when we are walking in the works of the flesh, we are reconciled to God in Christ, and He can release us from that snare in a moment!

Not "when I've sinned". I know that God is ever with me, ever loving me, ever ready to lift me up.

Rather, "when I start to think I've disqualified myself". This is what believing we are condemned does, it turns us away from God.

I'm speaking in generalized ways, and using myself not another for the example.

It's interesting, I wrote,

When I start to think I'm disqualifying myself, that my sin will condemn me, I do what everyone does in that situation, I try to hide.

while you read,

when you see you’ve sinned/not trusted in something He’s said, you hide from God.

And these are very different things.

@Johann

Much love!

 

[marks]

It’s a GOOD thing to become less touchy. Does it disturb you if someone sees some improvement in you…?

Well of course it's good! And no, it doesn't disturb me. Some will say things to self-affirm while trying to sound complimentary, and that's something different.

Maybe I've "become less touchy", maybe you've become more aware of "me" . . . either way, to me it's a distraction if someone is in fact launching into ad hominems, destroying a discussion, and that's their response when I point to it, "you're too touchy". Maybe saying I'm less touchy now is a way of saying "It's not that I misunderstood earlier", or maybe something else entirely.

Whichever, I'm not nearly as interesting or as useful a topic of discussion for which to replace a discussion of Scripture.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I think we should drop this. I do not want to get you into defense mode. I really don’t.

This is projection, I think.

I appreciate open and honest discussion. Whatever you want. If you aren't comfortable, you needn't continue.

Much love!

 

[marks]

1 John 5:10-12 - Not everyone has eternal life.
John 3:15 - Only those who believe
John 3:36 - Those that do not believe remain in the wrath of God.
1 John 2:25 - He made the promise to "us" the elect.
John 6:40 - Only those who believe
John 6:47 - Those who believe


Those are just a few references. Salvation is not for every person. Some people go to Hell. Their sins were not paid for.

Some Scripture snippets plucked from their contexts, tossed out there as it this were some discussion of how this passage shows that God didn't actually mean He desires all to come to repentance, even though that's exactly what God said, that seems rather shallow to me.

Of course those who do not believe remain in God's wrath, that never was the question. Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Those who do not believe? Is it God's intent that some remain under wrath, and not come to repentance, even those some don't come? That's more the question, if you were to want to actually engage with it.

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

Some Scripture snippets plucked from their contexts, tossed out there as it this were some discussion of how this passage shows that God didn't actually mean all when He said all, that seems rather shallow to me.

Of course those who do not believe remain in God's wrath, that never was the question. Does God take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Those who do not believe? Is it God's intent that some remain under wrath, and not come to repentance, even those some don't come? That's more the question, if you were to want to actually engage with it.

Much love!

Do you believe that there are some created as vessels of wrath as opposed to mercy? The whole point was you take 1 John 2:2 to mean all individuals, but it cannot mean that because we know not all individuals are saved. You claimed it was inclusionary, and I said that means you have to square that with John's writings that show an exclusionary salvation. So no, these were not just snippets of Scripture plucked out of context. These were verses from the same author on the same subject that shows not everyone is saved. Not everyone gets eternal life.

 

[marks]

The whole point was you take 1 John 2:2 to mean all individuals, but it cannot mean that because we know not all individuals are saved.

I see what you are doing. You are going to say that if this word means such and such in one context, then of necessity it must mean that same thing in another context. But that would be to treat panta as a technical term, which I don't think is correct. Are you aware of any passage that tells us God does NOT desire all come to repentance? I mean, if we read somewhere that God's desire is that some not repent, then we'd need to give some serious looking between these two passages. There would be that "tension" as they say, we'd need to find the harmony.

1 John 2:1-3 KJV
1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

You seem to deny the straightforward statement made here, that this is for the "whole world", "holou tou kosmou". You use that to suggest this limits "any should perish but all come to repentence" to that God does want some to perish, and does not want some to come to repentance.

The words aren't actually the same, panta, and holou.

Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Seems simple, but is it as simple as it sounds?

John 1:29 KJV
29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Should we expect that Jesus takes away the whole worlds sins? John would say yes. Why shouldn't we?

Is there more?

2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV
19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

It's "the world", simple, plain.

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

Are you aware of any passage that tells us God does NOT desire all come to repentance?

I have never said there is a passage that says God does not command all to come to repentance. That's not the discussion here.

 

[marks]

I have never said there is a passage that says God does not command all to come to repentance. That's not the discussion here.

So are we agreed this means exactly what it says?

2 Peter 3:9 KJV
9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God is not willing for ANY to perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

I see what you are doing. You are going to say that if this word means such and such in one context, then of necessity it must mean that same thing in another context. But that would be to treat panta as a technical term, which I don't think is correct. Are you aware of any passage that tells us God does NOT desire all come to repentance? I mean, if we read somewhere that God's desire is that some not repent, then we'd need to give some serious looking between these two passages. There would be that "tension" as they say, we'd need to find the harmony.

1 John 2:1-3 KJV
1) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

You seem to deny the straightforward statement made here, that this is for the "whole world", "holou tou kosmou". You use that to suggest this limits "any should perish but all come to repentence" to that God does want some to perish, and does not want some to come to repentance.

The words aren't actually the same, panta, and holou.

Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Seems simple, but is it as simple as it sounds?

John 1:29 KJV
29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Should we expect that Jesus takes away the whole worlds sins? John would say yes. Why shouldn't we?

Is there more?

2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV
19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

It's "the world", simple, plain.

Much love!

I have already addressed this. You have to find how world means all individuals when we know all individuals are not saved. We know at least two people, confirmed, in Scripture were not saved, Pharaoh and Judas. Did Christ pay for their sins? No. So you have a problem here, you want to say world means all individuals and that God is not willing that any should perish.

Two problems, we know that some perish. So that means God cannot accomplish his will. Second, if Christ paid for their sin, why do they still have to pay their debt?

To say that world automatically must mean all individuals is absurd.

Say I am watching the World Series and the announcer says "The eyes of the whole world are on this moment." Does he literally mean every individual in the world is watching the game? Of course not.