The Five Points of Calvinism

[Waiting on him]

I'm rally not following how this ties into the Calvinist / non-Calvinist discussion.

A lot of Christians claim their flesh chooses Christ. That’s what’s in question(act of God or act of man) what’s your answer did Jesus’s flesh accomplish anything? Why would I assume mine would

 

[Waiting on him]

A lot of Christians claim their flesh chooses Christ. That’s what’s in question(act of God or act of man) what’s your answer did Jesus’s flesh accomplish anything? Why would I assume mine would

And I’m not Calvinism. I’d never even heard of these 5 points until this post

 

[Jane_Doe22]

A lot of Christians claim their flesh chooses Christ. That’s what’s in question(act of God or act of man) what’s your answer did Jesus’s flesh accomplish anything? Why would I assume mine would

I think you are misunderstanding the non-calvinist position. This isn't about "flesh".

Rather, when a person accept Christ, it is because they heard the words of Christ and the Holy Spirit testified of the Truthfulness therein. And that person can then accept that testimony and His gift.

This is different than the doctrine Calvin taught, wherein God forces things.

 

[Waiting on him]

The Five Points of Calvinism

David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas

The Five Points of Calvinism

Total Depravity

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

(Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10)

 

[Waiting on him]

I think you are misunderstanding the non-calvinist position. This isn't about "flesh".

Rather, when a person accept Christ, it is because they heard the words of Christ and the Holy Spirit testified of the Truthfulness therein. And that person can then accept that testimony and His gift.

This is different than the doctrine Calvin taught, wherein God forces things.

Did Jesus’s flesh accomplish anything? If you don’t have an answer I’m okay with that.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Did Jesus’s flesh accomplish anything? If you don’t have an answer I’m okay with that.

Everyone agree's that Christ sacrificial death of the cross was a HUGE and powerful event, the only way in which men are saved.

This is agreed upon by Calvinist and nonCalvinists, so I'm not sure what bearing it has on this discussion.

 

[Waiting on him]

I think you are misunderstanding the non-calvinist position. This isn't about "flesh".

Rather, when a person accept Christ, it is because they heard the words of Christ and the Holy Spirit testified of the Truthfulness therein. And that person can then accept that testimony and His gift.

This is different than the doctrine Calvin taught, wherein God forces things.

My position is we have nothing to choose with(total depravity).

 

[Waiting on him]

Everyone agree's that Christ sacrificial death of the cross was a HUGE and powerful event, the only way in which men are saved.

This is agreed upon by Calvinist and nonCalvinists, so I'm not sure what bearing it has on this discussion.

Yes or no is sufficient

 

[Jane_Doe22]

My position is we have nothing to choose with(total depravity).

Ah, so you are a Calvinist, even if you were previously unaware of the historical origin of that teaching.

I respect your belief and acknowledge it. But I do not share it and personally find it to to be completely opposite of the Biblical God of love.

 

[Waiting on him]

Ah, so you are a Calvinist, even if you were previously unaware of the historical origin of that teaching.

I respect your belief and acknowledge it. But I do not share it and personally find it to to be completely opposite of the Biblical God of love.

So is that yes or no? I believe this is what separates sheep from goats

 

[Jane_Doe22]

So is that yes or no?

The position you are posing here is essentially "either God forces everyone to Heaven and Hell, or His sacrifice meant nothing!"
I find such a position to be inherently flawed.
Rather, I acknowledge the power of Christ's sacrifice and His love for all men.

 

[Waiting on him]

The position you are posing here is essentially "either God forces everyone to Heaven and Hell, or His sacrifice meant nothing!"
I find such a position to be inherently flawed.
Rather, I acknowledge the power of Christ's sacrifice and His love for all men.

The question is did his flesh perform this or the Spirit?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

The question is did his flesh perform this or the Spirit?

I see this question having zero to do with anything we are discussing here.

 

[Waiting on him]

I see this question having zero to do with anything we are discussing here.

It has everything to do with everything. It okay if you can’t answer

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It has everything to do with everything. It okay if you can’t answer

How about you explain why you think it relates to the topic at hand?

 

[Waiting on him]

How about you explain why you think it relates to the topic at hand?

It’s okay I’m sure someone else will have an answer.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It’s okay I’m sure someone else will have an answer.

I am trying to have an open discussion with you here, but you seem very unintrested discussing. It is frustrating.

 

[Waiting on him]

I am trying to have an open discussion with you here, but you seem very unintrested discussing. It is frustrating.

Did his spirit take up the cross or his flesh?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Did his spirit take up the cross or his flesh?

Again: I see this as having zero relationship to this discussion. Repeating it again does not suddenly make it relate to the topic.

If you want to continue on this tangent, please explain how you see it relating to the topic at hand. Otherwise it is just a unrelated tangent.

 

[Waiting on him]

Again: I see this as having zero relationship to this discussion. Repeating it again does not suddenly make it relate to the topic.

If you want to continue on this tangent, please explain how you see it relating to the topic at hand. Otherwise it is just a unrelated tangent.

Flesh or Spirit, then I’ll explain why I think it’s on topic