Run AWAY from Calvinism!

[Lifelong_sinner]

Ever watch the movie: " The adjustment bureau"?
Sometimes I wonder if open theism is closer to the truth than Calvinism.

Your version of God irresistibly choosing some for no reason sure doesn't sound like what I read in scripture. Maybe read something outside of a few verses picked from the center of Romans 9...

i have never seen that movie. There are plenty of other verses that confirm calvinism. But i think i see where the problem is. You are under the misconception that john calvin created new doctrines. He did not. What he did is write that he is in agreement with what the Bible says. While we say calvinism as an identifier, i wonder if we should not just call it what it is, the Road to salvation in 5 points.

 

[BarneyFife]

I think I see where the problem is. You are under the misconception that John Calvin created new doctrines. He did not. What he did is write that he is in agreement with what the Bible says. While we say Calvinism as an identifier, I wonder if we should not just call it what it is, the Road to salvation in 5 points

TULIP seems more like a road hazard advisory than a "road" to anything. Just sayin'. I don't believe Calvin made up doctrines that weren't in the Bible. I think Calvinists did that. He may have overstated things to some extent. I've been a little hard on you. I'm sorry about that. I sometimes do that thinking it will jar someone out of what I believe might be dangerous for them. So maybe you could consider that it comes from a place of love. I'm going to post something that I hope you could take the time to read. I hope and pray that it doesn't upset or offend you. It's transcribed and adapted from a sermon called "Confronting Calvinism." Obviously, it's from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't advocate Calvinism, but it is sympathetic to the Calvinists' welfare and spirituality. I don't expect it to be like an antidote to an ailment, but perhaps just food for thought. I pray you'll be blessed by it. It's a long, but fairly light read.

 

[BarneyFife]

"Confronting Calvinism," Part 1
I was in the home of a man named Mike. Mike is a serious Calvinist. That is his view of the Bible and of religion is that God is the one who is Sovereign to such an extent that he chooses everything that happens, everything that will happen; what you will do and what your neighbors will do. And he's chosen it all from way back when. So for Mike, he really hopes that God has chosen him to be saved.

He really hopes so because he knows if God hasn't chosen him, his case is hopeless. And what really is getting him down right now is that it looks like maybe God hasn't chosen his children to be saved. Because, you know, they're in that teenage to 20 range. He's watching them as he's watching the choices they're making and his heart is just filled with fear that God's eternal purpose for his children is that they will burn in hell forever and ever and ever.

What I want you to just imagine for a minute is how if you believed, like Mike, how that could drive you to distraction. Can you sense how just thinking about the thought that maybe God created you for the very purpose of burning you forever? I mean, just forever burning is enough to cause someone to go to distraction–I mean to lose their mind, but the fact that you were created for the purpose of it, wouldn't that just make it very difficult to love God to consider that? But then, can you imagine, if you're very sincere with yourself, if you don't love God anyway, doesn't that almost guarantee that you have not been chosen to be saved, because those that are chosen to be saved are the ones that God would fill them with love for Himself? I'm just trying to help you understand for a moment to get a picture. There are people on this planet that are under a burden of error that takes away their happiness, will take away their sanity, will cause them to lose their salvation, and I hope that tonight I can give you some tools, so when you encounter someone like Mike, maybe you can do something to help him or her. I want to give you a list of some names that maybe you're familiar with. I think you know the name, William Carey. William Carey was responsible for really changing the direction of many Calvinists, William Carey was a Calvinist and when he had the idea that we should take the gospel to the whole world, he was told that “when God wants to convert the Heathen, he'll do it without your help or mine.”

Carey, who believed in predestination–the thing I've just described to you–yet he was able to see in the Bible so much evidence that we should do evangelism that "how will they believe unless someone has sent to teach them?"--he could see that so plainly. What I'm trying to describe for you is that Carey had two sets of ideas that he thought were both in the Bible. And he did an honest job at trying to believe them both at the same time Calvinism and the Evangelical idea of "take the gospel to the world" and he did that. Carey was a Calvinist. Adoniram Judson, the one who took so much of the Gospel to Burma and Myanmar--he was a Calvinist. John Bunyan, that man who was in the prison, who wrote Pilgrim's Progress, who saved so many souls--he was a Calvinist. And George Whitefield called by some “the greatest of preachers”--he was a Calvinist. John Wesley wasn't. John and Charles were not and John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield had been friends for much of their ministry. And then this issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism. You don't even need to know those words, but most people in religious circles today know something about those two words. That was an exaggeration. I'd say most people who are intellectual about their religion know something about those two words. That issue, these two friends, Whitefield and the Wesley's, they they parted on this issue. The Wesley's believed in Free Will and Whitefield believed in predestination and what he would call election. And because they believed so strongly, they began to oppose each other on this ground, but mutual forbearance and mercy reconciled them, that they had no time to argue while they saw Souls going down to ruin.

In other words, here are people in the past who differed in the same way that you differ from calvinist and yet they were able to to put aside those differences and work together closely. They were able to put that aside because what they had in common was a belief that sinners should be saved, that they should do something for it, and they both worked to save sinners.

Even though the Wesleys were reconciled to George Whitefield, they weren't reconciled to all Calvinists because of the doctrine of divine decrees. That was the phrase that was used back in the 1800s and 1700's for this idea that comes from Daniel 4. In Daniel 4 you have there that there is the Watcher, that made the decree, we might come to that a little bit later tonight.

This doctrine of divine decrees leads quite naturally to antinomianism. That is if you believe that God has chosen you to be saved the sinful mind realizes, that's very good news. And it really doesn't matter what I do. And if God has chosen you to be lost, that's very bad news, and there isn't anything I can do about it. So that, though this didn't happen to Bunyan or to Whitefield, or to The Judsons or to Carey or even to Spurgeon–he was also a famous Calvinist–though it didn't happen there because those were really intellectual Calvinists who really tried to get the whole picture that Calvin taught–though it didn't happen there, there are many more simple-minded calvinist who think something like this: When they hear about this idea of predestination, they don't understand about all the rest and for them, it leads to antinomianism that was opposed by Wesley thoroughly.

Now, we haven't even opened our Bibles tonight and that's a shame. Mmmmm, but I wanted to introduce this idea somehow; turn with me in your Bibles to Romans chapter 8. Romans chapter 8 is a beautiful chapter. It offers victory; It shows why some people are subject to the law and why others can't be. Romans chapter 8, also addresses this issue of predestination. Romans chapter 8 comes, of course, just before Romans chapter 9, which is where you have the difficult passages and rather than read through Romans 8:

Verse 29: for whom, He did foreknow. He also did predestinate to be conformed, to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

In this verse it's very clear–an idea:

What comes prior to predestination in verse 29? Do you see that foreknowledge comes before predestination? That is true in the verse and this verse comes before the troublesome chapter. I say the troublesome chapter, because my guess is that either you have wrestled with Romans 9 or else you just have never studied through the book of Romans. That's my guess. So, they haven't bothered you sufficiently.

And what I'm trying to show you is that in Romans 8:29, you come to a solution even before you get to the problem, which is the way, I'm sure, Paul intended it in that… does God choose people to be saved? He does. Does he choose people to be lost? Well, just wait a minute. But in a sense, He does. Does He cause people to be saved? No, He does not in a sense of forcing them. Does He caused people to be lost? No, He does not, not in a sense of forcing them. But what does He do? According to verse 29? You know, He can see. Now, this is really hard for us to understand, not because it's a difficult or complex subject. It's because we have weak minds. I'm trying to say there is no reason why this would be difficult except for the same reason it's difficult for us to imagine eternity past.

There's nothing unscientific about eternity past. Obviously, there's an eternity past. It just doesn't fit real well in our thinking, so it's hard to think about it. And the idea that God can see the future without causing it is hard. It's not hard when you're talking about Nations, like the idea that Babylon would be followed by Persia, followed by Greece, by Rome. The idea that God can see that never troubles us, right?

But the idea that He can See what I'm going to do and what you're going to do... somehow that is different. It feels different. Does it feel different to any of you that idea, that the fact that God can see that? In the big picture, No problem, but in a little picture, it bothers us because it sort of feels like, if He can see it, then there's nothing that can be done to change it. But that just isn't so. The fact that He can see it doesn't interfere with your choice.

I mean, in a little parallel or corollary to this. I don't know how to describe what I'm thinking. But when I see young people that are under my tutelage, sometimes I can see what's going to happen in their life. Not by prophecy, not by intuition, not by ESP. I just know, if you make choices like that, it's going to end like that. And if I, with my very limited knowledge, can see something fuzzy like that, it shouldn't be any difficulty for us to imagine that God can see something more thoroughly. Anyway, you know that God has set this to his seal that he knows them that are his, is what the Bible says. He knows those.

 

[BarneyFife]

"Confronting Calvinism," Part 2
All right. Look at First Peter 1. First Peter chapter 1 looking at verse 2 First Peter 1 verse 2; that word elect is an adjective in this sentence. You normally would read that word like a verb, right? But in this sentence is an adjective. It means chosen. Chosen according to the what? According to the foreknowledge of God the father. Now, what I like about this verse even better than Romans 8:29 is that this verse shows us when God looks forward, what He's looking for:

Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

Somehow God looks in the future and He sees, am I going to allow His Spirit to sanctify me? Am I going to apply the blood of Jesus to cover my sins, and then to cleanse me from all unrighteousness? Am I going to obey the things that I know? In other words, will truth be more than a theory to me?

Do you see there in 1 Peter 1 verse 2, that when we're elect according to the foreknowledge, that part of what God is looking for, is that we obey the truth? Do you see it there, obedience--that if we're not obedient to the truth that God isn't seeing in you right now what he's looking for.... what he's been looking for?

Romans 9 is the passage that Calvin studied and if we just read it through without any comment you would understand how people could think the way Calvin thought. In fact, you might begin to think like him.

Are you in Romans 9? Now? Let's just start in verse 11.

For the children. (these are the children of Rebecca) Being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls.

Have the children been born yet In this verse? Has God said something about them? He has, and let's go on to the next verse:

For it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger…

Was that said when they were teenagers are before they were born? Slightly before they were born, right? And according to verse 11, that was so God's purpose, according to election, might stand verse 12 13, as it is written. Jacob, have I loved but Esau have I Hated.

You know, the harsh Calvinists don't believe that God loves everyone. Do you see from this verse where they might get that idea? Jacob, have I loved? But Esau, have I hated? I think I want to give the solution to this, before I move on. In case I forget to do it later. This is quoting from Malachi. Jacob. Have I loved. But Esau, have, I hated? It's not speaking about the babies or the children or the adults, but speaking about the nation's. It's not before, some people are born before they made decisions. This is after there's been a thorough development of character and what God is showing is his foreknowledge that he could say accurately before the children were born, what the nations were going to be like, centuries later. Verse 29 in chapter 8 is a key to understanding chapter 9. If you leave chapter 8 out, then you might come to false ideas in chapter 9. Let's go on and pretend I didn't tell you any of that.

Verse 14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? In other words, Paul perceived that if you say Esau have I hated someone's going to say, that's not right. That's not fair. And he says no. Verse 15: For he says unto Moses. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that Wills nor of him that runs, but of God that shows Mercy. What does that mean? Verse 17: for the scripture says, unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you and that my name might be declared throughout all the Earth. Therefore has he Mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will, He hardeneth.


Who would be an example of hardness in these two verses just read? That'd be Pharaoh, right? And Pharoah was raised up for a purpose and was he raised up for the purpose of saving him? Was that why Pharoah was raised up according to these verses? Why was Pharoah raised up? It was to show God's Mighty power, right? All through the world. That's why Pharaoh was raised up.


Verse 19: You will say then unto me: Why does God yet find fault? For who has resisted his will? Don't you feel yourself going along with Paul's argument, like, you feel like saying to Paul. If that's really true, then how can God fault someone, because, who can, who can overpower God's intention? And how does Paul answer this? Not by reasoning with you, but just telling you, you don't have a right to ask questions. Verse 20 nay. But o, man, who are you that replies against God. Shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it: Why did you make me this way? Has not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour and another unto dishonour.


Can you see in these verses just plainly reading them, something that sounds like Calvinism? Can you see that, just going through them, they don't strike you quite the way you would have written about this topic, that you would have said things substantially different with the views you have right now, right? I think you would have; not that you would write, but if you did, you would write it differently. I want us to go back now through these and a few other verses in this Chapter and just look at some things, we have may have not thought through quite well enough. Let's start with verse 17. If predestination was the way Calvinists say it was, then verse 17 wouldn't make any sense. Because God could take the Pharaoh, Whatever Pharaoh there was, and God could Harden him.


But verse 17 indicates that God chose a pharaoh and raised up a particular person to show his power. Let me see if I can help you understand the contrast. One idea is that I'm a victim of God's choosing. I'm pharaoh and God makes me hard hearted. But in the verse it's a different picture. God Finds A Hard Hearted person and puts him in a position where his stubbornness is going to be toughened up by exposure to the light and is going to show God's power that God chooses.

In fact, the Bible is very clear about this that God chooses the basest of men. This is what Nebuchadnezzar had to say after he got his reasoning back there in Daniel 4:17.Turn to Daniel 4:17. All right. So if you have a ribbon or something, leave it here, in Romans 9, but Daniel chapter 4 verse 17: This matter is by the decree of the Watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy ones to the intent that the living may know that the most high rules in the Kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it.

What does it say? Now, which is true in the verse? Does God put a man there and make him to be the basest? Or does he find one of the basest men and put him there? Which is in the verse? Doesn't he find that the man who has the problems and put him in a position? Now, someone may be thinking, are you saying that God put Hitler where he was, or Lenin, or Idi Amin? The answer is Yes... but before you panic, just think it through.

Is it really true that spirituality prospers best under easygoing circumstances?

I think that we will never know until we get to heaven, How thoroughly wise God has been to put base men over rebellious peoples. And it's very clear when you read the Old Testament, that God gives leaders to Israel to match them. In other words, in the days of Solomon and David, it's not that Israel was so spiritual because David and Solomon were spiritual, it was because Samuel started the schools of the prophets. And then there was a change in the nature of the nation that God gave them kings that match them. God gives us rulers for his purposes of leading people to search after him.

I think I ought to show this to you somewhere else. Look at Hosea, chapter 5. You're close to it. Hosea chapter 5 forward about 17 pages. Hosea 5:14: for, I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a Young Lion to the house of Judah, I even, I will tear and go away. I will take away and None Shall rescue him. I will go and return to my place. Till what? Till they acknowledge their offense, and seek my face in their Affliction. They will seek me early.

God often leads us to seek Him by giving us or allowing us to face difficult times.

We're trying to work through the difficulties of Romans 9. And I've spent a lot of time just on one. I'm trying to show you that when God chose Pharaoh, it wasn't that God took a righteous man and made him Wicked. It's that God found a stubborn man and put him in a position where his stubbornness would work out to God's glory? Where the stubbornness of a stubborn man would end up showing what God could do and how willing he was to serve His people. Turn back to Roman's 9 and let's look at a few more things.

 

[BarneyFife]

"Confronting Calvinism," Part 3
Romans chapter 9 pulls in a metaphor in verse 20 and 21. This is the metaphor of the Potter and the Clay. Did Paul originate this metaphor or did he draw it from the Old Testament? Certainly, he got it from the Old Testament, got from Jeremiah 18. And in that Old Testament metaphor, where he's drawing from, it really isn't even speaking, particularly about individuals there. It's talking about Nations. It talks about how when God says that he's going to bless a nation, if that Nation. There's a 'if' right there, 'if' doesn't make any sense in Calvinism,

When God blesses a nation, if that Nation turns away from the good things that it's doing, then God will turn away from the blessing he intended to give. This is what it says there in Jeremiah 18. And if God curses a nation, like he cursed the Ninevites, and then they repent humbly, God will turn away from the Judgment He said he would do them.

This is how God explains the image of the Potter and the clay. Because in Jeremiah 18, God is making something beautiful. And it's marred in the hand of the Potter. Not that the Potter marred it, not that the Potter messed it up, but it got messed up while the potter was working with it and the Potter just starts over and makes something else. In the parable of the potter and the clay, things can go wrong with the clay, but it's not the potter's fault. The Potter works with the clay. And if he can't make what he initially intends to make, then he makes something else. I'm just trying to show you that when Paul uses this metaphor. It doesn't come with Calvinist backing. It comes with a free will backing of the strongest nature and he wouldn't have used it if he was trying to communicate something like Calvin concluded.

I really shouldn't say Calvin anymore because I really don't think Calvin was a Calvinist in the sense that many people are today. He had ideas more like those of William Carey more like those of Adoniram Judson more like those of Spurgeon more like those of John Bunyan, and a lot less like some of the more recent people who have tried to promote his views. Look at verse 22, you're in Romans 9, right? Do you see in verse 22 where it asks the question: What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of Wrath fitted to destruction. Just think about the word long-suffering... Is god making everything happen just the way he wants it to or does he put up with some things?

The word long-suffering says that not everything is the way he wants it. That he endures some things for a long time. They aren't the way he likes. Look back at verse 16: So then it is not of him that Wills nor if him that runs, but of God that shows Mercy. This is a verse that the way the harsh Calvinist reads it is that it's Grace versus Works. In fact, I want you to understand an important idea to the harsh Calvinist. His idea of Grace is wrong.

His idea of Grace is that if there is a condition, it's not Grace.

The harsh Calvinist thinks that if there's any condition connected, that it can't be Grace, because then there's a cause. The harsh Calvinist won't admit it, but he really believes that work is meritorious. Because his view is that, if faith is a condition, then it's no longer Grace. So that means he thinks that faith is a source of Merit. Well, I hope that you don't have this idea of Grace. It's this idea of Grace that makes verse 16 difficult. If verse 16 was Grace versus Faith, then Calvinism would have a point to make, but Paul is not Grace versus Faith, you know, he says very often that he puts faith and Grace together, especially in Ephesians 2:8, right? I mean, this is salvation, how these things work together. But what is Paul always harping on? Especially in this part of Romans. It is Grace versus meritorious works. And what Paul is saying is that the people who depend on God's promise, the people who depend on what God says, this is the first seven or eight verses of the chapter. Those are the ones who are counted as Israel.

In fact, part of harsh Calvinism has to do with quite some strange beliefs about Israel.

Romans says that all Israel will be saved, right? But it says, but they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. It's very clear in Romans that the children of Faith, they are the children of promise. What I'm trying to tell you in verse 16 or trying to show you or help you think through in verse 16 as when it says, it's not him that Wills, not him that runs, Paul is saying, it's not the one who's trying to earn his way.

But it's God that shows Mercy--not the one who's trying to earn his way, but that God shows mercy on whom he chooses to show Mercy. You'd have to go elsewhere to find out who God chooses to show Mercy to. But what Paul establishes here, is it certainly not based on you earning it. It's not that you work really hard and therefore God owes you Mercy. Well, of course not, and you don't believe that way either, but if you read it the way Paul's communicating, there's nothing Calvinistic.

Look at verse 14: What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteousness with God? What's the answer to that? The answer is certainly not. But if harsh Calvinists are right, the answer would be certainly yes. Just the fact that Paul says, there's no unrighteous with God as a strong argument against the harsh view of the Calvinist. There's no unrighteousness with God. So, let me just work you through this chapter again. Now that we've looked through most of the parts of it, Paul starts out in the first few verses talking about the contrast between Ishmael and Isaac. He doesn't mention Ishmael, but he talks about Isaac. He says Isaac was the son of Promise. In other words, it wasn't every one of the genetic children of Abraham that ended up being blessed in the special way, but it was the one that God predicted by promise. Because God knew the difference between Ishmael and Isaac and they weren't just the same. Ishmael was not the same kind of boy that Isaac became. God could see.

And as evidence that God can see, which is what Paul said in chapter 8, he brings up the story of Jacob and Esau. Before they were born, did God know what they're going to do? God did and he said it and he said that the older would serve the younger. He announced it. Then when he made a commentary hundreds of years later, God responded to the character of those Nations. There's nothing unrighteous about any of this. God can see and he's doing these things justly. He's not unfair.

If you have questions about this, you should understand that God, for example, raised up Pharoah, and put a stubborn man in an important position to show that he could deliver his people; to show that he had wrath against stubborn wickedness. He put someone there because there's gonna be a lot of stubborn Wicked people at the end of time and Pharaoh is an important man for us because seven last plagues are coming and if it wasn't for people as stubborn as Pharaoh, there wouldn't be any seven last plagues. But what you see in the story of Pharaoh is that God is willing, but he endures, with much long-suffering, the vessels of Wrath. Did He intend to make them vessels of Wrath? No, the Potter, we learn in Jeremiah 18, intended to make them wholly something good. He might even have blessed them. But what if he blesses them and they turn away from the good that they were doing? Can he make something else out of the vessel? He can make something else out of the vessel, but it's not because he forced them to go the way.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

When I heard this, my mind is made up.
J.

In the final analysis, "Calvinism" isn't the "Gospel", and it's not the "BIBLE". It's just another "Theological systematic".

SOme aspects of it are true, and some aspects aren't.

What is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, is that in all things GOD MOVES FIRST, and man responds. We may PRAY for something, but the REASON we prayed, was that the Holy Spirit moved us to.

 

[BarneyFife]

"Confronting Calvinism," Part 4
There's no Injustice with God. What I'm trying to say, is that Romans 9, if you're really careful with it, doesn't teach what it looks like it teaches when you come at it with a very surface approach. But thank God, Romans 9 isn't the only chapter in the Bible.

Let's look at a few passages that don't sound like that. Look at Titus Chapter 2, Titus Chapter 2, and verse 11. What I've learned from Chad, working with him. He's a gifted Bible worker, as well as an evangelist. I've learned that it's better to wait for the people to find it and let them read it themselves than to, you know, just read it to them. There's something about seeing it in your own Bible that has some conviction to it. So you see it, Don't you, verse 11: For the grace of God, that brings salvation has appeared to who? It appeared to all men. Now turn back just a page or two to First, Timothy Chapter 2, first Timothy Chapter 2 and we'll look at verses 3 to 6. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our savior. What's good and acceptable is to pray for all men--especially those in authority and Kings. This is good. Verse 4: God, will have all men or would wish all men to be (what?) saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Isn't that a beautiful idea for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ, Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for the elect. What's it say there, in verse six? He gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. The Bible is not shy about the idea that the atonement was for all persons; that God does desire all to be saved; that he made salvation available to all

John 3:16, does it need to be explained away as the harsh Calvinists try to do? God really did so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son. Look at revelation 22: And the spirit and the bride, say come, and let him that hears, say come and let him that is athirst come and whosoever will let him take of the Water of Life freely. Now, you remember, Romans 9 said, it's not of him that willeth, but don't misunderstand as not of him that willeth to earn his way to heaven. The Jews that sought after the law of righteousness, never attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it not by faith. But if you are thirsty, certainly if you're willing to take from the fountain, God is willing for you to have it--whosoever will let him take of the Water of Life freely.


I want to close by sharing a few ideas more that you might encounter when you talk to a Calvinist because the Bible says quite a number of things about rulers that it doesn't say about individuals and I want you to see that it's rational and we'll look at what it says. God should allow me to decide whether I'm going to follow him or not. And God should allow Obama to decide whether Obama will follow him or not.

I'm not making a political statement. I will never make a political statement. My wife doesn't even know my political views. How are you ever going to be reaching all classes if you put your political views out for people to know? But while Obama can make decisions for himself about his personal salvation, there are decisions that Obama could feasibly make, that would affect the freedom and salvation of many other people. I don't mean him only, but even many other leaders. In the case of Obama, for example, he has to sign off personally on any missile strike on foreign territory that is not approved by that foreign Nation. In other words, If we are going to send a missile to kill someone in a nation without asking that government for permission to do that, You see that's a pretty politically sensitive thing to do.

And Obama has to personally, as president, sign off on that.

When Obama makes that decision, do you see that his decision could affect the salvation of people, that by authorizing those strikes that our children and other people around could be hurt or killed and it's just a very serious business that the heads of state have to do? God reserves the right to guide the thinking and the decision-making of heads of state for His own benefit, not their decision-making, as it regards to their personal life, but their decision-making as it is in regard to the people under their care. Let me just show this to you in some verses: look at Proverbs chapter 21, verse 1. The king's heart is in the hand of the, what's it say? Of the Lord, as the rivers of water, He turns it whithersoever He will.


When a harsh Calvinist reads that, he thinks he's reading a universal principle. And if this was a universal principle, then it would be very much the view that harsh Calvinists have; that is, if you said, everyone's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and in every little decision that they make, He turns their heart, whichever way He will. Well, that would mean that God chooses some people to be saved and some people to be lost, but I'm trying to tell you is that it's not that way at all.

 

[BarneyFife]

"Confronting Calvinism," Part 5
When Jesus was talking to Pilot, he didn't say, unless it was given to you from above, you would have no power to tie your shoes. It wasn't personal decisions that Pilot needed to have granted to him from above. But what kind of authority was granted to pilot from above? It was governing power. The power to make judgments for life or death. For example, to decide what to do with Jesus. That power was granted from above and God reserves the right to guide men in their decision-making that governs.


Look at Romans 13: What I'm thinking about in my mind right now is that Jesus is the only potentate, that is, He is the only King; you read this in 1 Timothy 6:15. Only one real Sovereign in this universe. Romans 13 and verse 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for there is no power, but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God, whoever, therefore resisteth, the power resisteth, the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. If you think about verse 2, you'll see, clearly that the power that God gives governments is not Universal and totalitarian.

He doesn't give them power over your conscience. Do you see? Do you see how that has to be true in verse 2? It's true in verse 1 because it says be subject to the what power the higher power and is there a higher power than the Civil governments? There is. So, there's order and structure in heaven, order and structure on Earth; we're subject to the higher power. God expects us to be subject to the higher power, but if every Power is set by God, that is if He if he gives them the authority to rule and I think the way He gives them the authority to rule is that He authorized man to organize themselves. Our U.S. Constitution got it very right. When he gave us the authority to organize ourselves and to set up governments over ourselves, He reserves the right to guide those kings and princes--to guide their hearts. It says in Psalm 105 and 106; in one of those verses it says that he caused them to hate His people; in the other one, He caused them to entreat his people with kindness or with mercy. God controls those leaders in regard to their civil authority. Individually, He gives us freedom.

The last verse tonight, look at acts 17. Acts 17 just gives you a philosophical picture, maybe the big picture of what God is doing in the nations. Acts 17 verse 26 and 27. God has made of one blood, all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the Earth, and has determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord If haply, they might feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far from everyone of us. Do you see that when God works with the Nations, when He puts them where He puts them that He's organizing things with one goal in mind that people might seek after Him?

I think he's done it well; I think that he's organized things so that people are seeking; when Hurricane Katrina came to New Orleans, it changed the character of the entire city, except for it killed some people, and their characters were set in concrete forever. But for everyone else, there was a change in that city; before that time It was a hard city to reach; after that time It was an easy city to reach. I mean, I'm talking about actual door-to-door work that my students did in that city.

God organizes things in this world, but not because He's making people do what they do, but it's if, if haply, in other words, if perchance, if it could be, if you would, He organizes your life so that you have a chance. So, that if you would, at least you could, He makes a chance for you to know the truth. Right now and my little hometown of Arkadelphia; obscure, Southwest, rural Arkansas, there are students from Saudi Arabia going to the public university. I've had several meals with them in the last few weeks. Sure, there are millions of people in Saudi Arabia, but might God choose which ones would end up in rural Arkansas? For a benevolent purpose, if haply, if perchance, if they would, so that they would seek after Him?

That's the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God isn't going to force Muhammad and his wife to become preachers of the Gospel. But the sovereignty of God is working things out for the benefit of people; angels are sent to make a difference. Especially for those that are elect. That is if God sees the Muhammad will make that right decision, God will send the angels to make the arrangements with the university, with immigration, with everything else, and the angels will be working tirelessly until Muhammad becomes a light in a dark place. That's what I'm praying for and that's good and acceptable in the sight of God. The summary of all I've said tonight is that Calvinism the way it's taught by harsh Calvinist is wrong, but the Bible isn't wrong.

Let's bow our heads for a closing prayer.

Our Father in Heaven, I ask a gift. For the Calvinist here in Loma Linda, for those who are all over the world. That they would find a Christian who loves the truth and that You would save them from the perplexity and the intense depression and anxiety that could be caused by that belief system. And I ask for us, for everyone here, that You would introduce us to someone. Someone who doesn't know the truth, but would be happy to know more than they know. Bless us in sharing and teach us what is right. We ask in the name of Jesus. Amen.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Make me.

At least I can admit that I don't have it all figured out.

I think the burden of proof might be on you folks in this thread.
I'm not convinced.
I'm trying to become changed by beholding Christ.
Are you ready to behold the brightness of His coming?
I hope 5-point-ism has prepared you.
I truly do.

And I know I do not have it all figured out despite years of intense study. I have learned the more I know the more I don't know!

I debate intensely. I am direct and blunt, but there is no animosity in my writing. I believe in all I believe in 100% But I always know I could be wrong.

If one gives me a stronger biblical argument, I am willing to change. but after 48 years of studying the word and walking with god, One needs to present a very detailed argument.

I have practiced apologetics for many years so I have studied doctrine deeply, from many facets. I did that to know the arguments and the reasoning used behind the arguments, so I can give a better biblical argument or change where I have been shown to be wrong.

 

[PinSeeker]

...I believe the bible shows what are called the five points of calvinism as opposed to the five points of Armenius.

Good. Yes, they do. Regardless of what label one attaches to it, whose name one attaches to it, regardless of anything else, God's inerrant and infallible Word and correct understanding of it is the only thing that matters.

It's very interesting: It all has to do with soteriology, the doctrine of salvation... generally speaking, who does what in salvation. Specifically, Jacobus Arminius actually started out to defend Calvinistic predestination (which is actually the predestination of Paul and Peter) against the teachings of a man named Dirck Volckertzoon Coornhert, but he began to doubt aspects of Calvinism and modified some parts of his own view. He attempted to "reform" Calvinism, and lent his name to a movement ~ Arminianism ~ which resisted some of the Calvinist tenets. The early Dutch followers of his teaching became known as Remonstrants after they issued a document containing five points of disagreement with mainstream Calvinism. So, as I have said, there are not "five points" to Calvinism at all, but rather, using Calvin's whole body of work, five counterpoints ~ really five very Biblical corrections given to refute the five points offered by Jacobus Arminius.

I believe dispensational theology does less harm to Scripture than Covenant theology.

Now this is very interesting. Because if you are reformed in your theology, you really kind of have to be covenantal and cannot be dispensational. I mean you can, but there will be... problems. Anyway, there was not even a question at the time of the Reformation. There really was no such thing as dispensationalism until the nineteenth century. It would be very interesting to discuss Revelation with you.

I believe in literalism vs. allegorism.

Yeah, this is the dispensationalists' song and dance, for sure. But the term 'allegory' really does not apply in Reformed circles. The book of Revelation is heavily, heavily symbolic throughout. This does not in any way mean it's "allegorical." Beyond that, though, the discussion keys on how Revelation is to be read. A couple of points to keep in mind:

1. Where the dispensationalist wants to see one-to-one relationships, those relationships are actually one-to-many.

2. Where the dispensationalist wants to see it sequentially from beginning to end, it is actually a series of histories, each one concurrent and culminating with the return of Christ (which of course only happens once ).

3. Where the dispensationalist wants to see all of as a "puzzle book" in which we need to puzzle out all the details, it should be read actually as a picture book, not becoming preoccupied by isolated details but rather becoming engrossed in the story, praising the Lord, cheering for the saints, detesting the Beast, and longing for the final victory... which is absolutely sure to come.

...Scripture is generally the focal point .

Well, Christ is the focal point. Which you agree with, I'm sure.

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Let's look at a few passages that don't sound like that. Look at Titus Chapter 2, Titus Chapter 2, and verse 11. What I've learned from Chad, working with him. He's a gifted Bible worker, as well as an evangelist. I've learned that it's better to wait for the people to find it and let them read it themselves than to, you know, just read it to them. There's something about seeing it in your own Bible that has some conviction to it. So you see it, Don't you, verse 11: For the grace of God, that brings salvation has appeared to who? It appeared to all men. Now turn back just a page or two to First, Timothy Chapter 2, first Timothy Chapter 2 and we'll look at verses 3 to 6. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our savior. What's good and acceptable is to pray for all men--especially those in authority and Kings. This is good. Verse 4: God, will have all men or would wish all men to be (what?) saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

The problem with the understanding of most people with these verses is that they do not see the construct in the greek which gives it a much differenst shade. and it centers around that little word "all"

Now without giving a grammar lesson, all in Greek is pas or pantos or its derivatives. it has three shades of meaning.

1. all meaning everyone
2. All meaning everyone in a particular group
3. All meaning all sorts or all types.

Number 3 is the context in these verses!

We have an insolvable paradox in Scripture in English. god desires all to be saved but yet at the same time He knows who is damned already and that the saved are few compared to the number of lost!

We must remember there is nothing that takes God by surprise!

 

[PinSeeker]

the sovereignty of God is working things out for the benefit of people...

Well, for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. This is Romans 8:28.

Especially for those that are elect.

Really only for the His elect. These are the ones who:

a. have been called by Him according to His purpose and have been given new birth of the Spirit in the spirit, and therefor love Him

b. will, at some point in the future while they are still alive here on earth, join with those described in (a) above

There is such a thing as common grace, though... God does give everyone grace in some measure, whether they realize it or acknowledge it or not. But the grace of salvation, of eternal life, no.

The summary of all I've said tonight is that Calvinism the way it's taught by harsh Calvinist is wrong, but the Bible isn't wrong.

Well I surely agree that the Bible is not wrong... But ~ and I mean no offense by this ~ what you've said about Calvinism is wrong, and that's the problem. Aside from that, though, I would just offer three things from Scripture, all straight from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ:

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.'" (Matthew 16:13-17)

"At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.'" (John 10:22-30)

"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, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." (John 15:16)

...the perplexity and the intense depression and anxiety that could be caused by that belief system.

This is only perception, and not reality.

Oh, and, my name is not "Buddy." I know a few folks named that, though, or at least called that... Just, you know, poking a little fun at you, Barn...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Now this is very interesting. Because if you are reformed in your theology, you really kind of have to be covenantal and cannot be dispensational. I mean you can, but there will be... problems. Anyway, there was not even a question at the time of the Reformation. There really was no such thing as dispensationalism until the nineteenth century. It would be very interesting to discuss Revelation with you.

Well I am not reformed in my theology, I just see teh "5 points" are biblical! Most dispy's are either 3 or 4 pointers and preach like five pointers.

Yeah, this is the dispensationalists' song and dance, for sure. But the term 'allegory' really does not apply in Reformed circles. The book of Revelation is heavily, heavily symbolic throughout. This does not in any way mean it's "allegorical." Beyond that, though, the discussion keys on how Revelation is to be read. A couple of points to keep in mind:

1. Where the dispensationalist wants to see one-to-one relationships, those relationships are actually one-to-many.

2. Where the dispensationalist wants to see it sequentially from beginning to end, it is actually a series of histories, each one concurrent and culminating with the return of Christ (which of course only happens once ).

3. Where the dispensationalist wants to see all of as a "puzzle book" in which we need to puzzle out all the details, it should be read actually as a picture book, not becoming preoccupied by isolated details but rather becoming engrossed in the story, praising the Lord, cheering for the saints, detesting the Beast, and longing for the final victory... which is absolutely sure to come.

Well allegorical refers both to symbolism and the fact that many covenant theology churches are also replacement churches.

We don't see eschatology as a puzzle book, Just a doctrine that needs to be looked at throughout Scripture. Scripture defines its own symbolisms and symbols also represent something that will literally happen.

I started as a covenantal theology guy and accepted all the allegorical interpretations of many passages, but as I grew, I found the literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding Scripture to be the least harmful to the Word of God.

The common sense Golden Rule of Interpretation
Posted on March 30, 2014


“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God isn't going to force Muhammad and his wife to become preachers of the Gospel.

YOu mean like HE made Jeremiah to be a prophet and Paul was called in his mothers womb?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

When a harsh Calvinist reads that, he thinks he's reading a universal principle. And if this was a universal principle, then it would be very much the view that harsh Calvinists have; that is, if you said, everyone's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and in every little decision that they make, He turns their heart, whichever way He will. Well, that would mean that God chooses some people to be saved and some people to be lost, but I'm trying to tell you is that it's not that way at all.

Well see now you are talking about hyper-Calvinists which are the fringe of biblical election just as Hyper armeniasts are the fringe of your belief system.

 

[reformed1689]

The unsaved are the unelect!

What about the elect who have not yet been converted?

 

[reformed1689]

Maybe…. Just maybe, non-calvinists should stop telling us calvinists what they think we believe??

Exactly because they almost ALWAYS get it 100% wrong.

 

[PinSeeker]

Most dispy's are either 3 or 4 pointers and preach like five pointers.

Hm, I don't think so. I mean, that's not worth arguing, but I don't think so.

Well allegorical refers both to symbolism and the fact that many covenant theology churches are also replacement churches.

Again, I don't think so. I'd like to know what you mean by "replacement churches." I have an idea, but I'm not going to put words in your mouth.

We don't see eschatology as a puzzle book...

But this is what they make it out to be. It is the effect.

...a doctrine that needs to be looked at throughout Scripture. Scripture defines its own symbolisms and symbols also represent something that will literally happen.

Agree, generally speaking.

I started as a covenantal theology guy and accepted all the allegorical interpretations of many passages, but as I grew, I found the literal/historical/grammatical method of understanding Scripture to be the least harmful to the Word of God.

Well, again, the whole "allegorical" characterization is wrong. Tell me what you think covenantal theology is, Ronald.

Common sense Golden Rule of Interpretation “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”[/QUOTE]
I agree. You think covenantal theologians disagree with this? Because they do not.

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

 

[Renniks]

i have never seen that movie. There are plenty of other verses that confirm calvinism. But i think i see where the problem is. You are under the misconception that john calvin created new doctrines. He did not. What he did is write that he is in agreement with what the Bible says. While we say calvinism as an identifier, i wonder if we should not just call it what it is, the Road to salvation in 5 points.

No, Calvin got it from Augustine. Prior to Augustine, the church universally confirmed free will.

 

[PinSeeker]

No, Calvin got it from Augustine. Prior to Augustine, the church universally confirmed free will.

Neither Augustine nor Calvin denied free will. But some underestimate, and even deny, the effect of sin upon man, what the natural state of man is, and that's really the root of the whole debate.

Grace and peace to you.