Grace-Haters are incapable of honestly admitting what the (P) in Calvinism really means.

[atpollard]

You do better. I would love to see it.

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good … St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion:“What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” - (The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566, Art. VIII)​

 

[atpollard]

You do better. I would love to see it.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected … are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. - (The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643, Chap. III, Art. VI and VII)​

 

[Cooper]

“Reformed Theology, also known as Calvinism, is the doctrinal basis of a movement within Protestant Christianity, and traces its origin to the protestant reformer John Calvin (1509- 1564).”​

Right out of the gate, he has his facts wrong.
First, the reformation started almost a CENTURY before John Calvin was born. John Calvin did not believe in Limited Atonement (so technically, John Calvin was not a Calvinist). The 5 points of Calvinism were created by the Synod of Dort to address the 5 Remonstrances of the Arminians and Calvin played no major role.

The LUTHERANS are the ones that gave the reformed movement the name “Calvinist”. They did so specifically as an ad hominem attack on the theology that they could not argue against on the basis of scripture alone. They used the term ‘Calvinist’ to accuse the reformers of following the man Calvin rather than Scripture … exactly as the “grace-haters” still use it today.


This is like reading a book by the Nazi’s discussing “what’s wrong with the Jews” and assuming that everything it says must be true. If you are going to condemn the teachings of the Reformation (which are really the teaching of the Bible) on the Sovereignty of God and His Grace-based salvation without even bothering to learn what the reformers believe from their actual words … then there is little point in attempting to discuss the lies of those who raise strawmen because they have an agenda to advance that has nothing to do with scripture or truth. Enjoy the Kool-aid.

I was speaking about the scriptural errors.

 

[atpollard]

You do better. I would love to see it.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” - Ephesians 1

Sola Gratia, the idea that we are saved by Grace Alone, is a key Reformed principle. It opposes medieval thought that God’s Grace is necessary but insufficient for our salvation.

The Reformers, the Bible and the modern ‘Calvinists’ stress the necessity and sufficiency of Grace. Medieval theologians and their modern counterparts teach that men must contribute our own merit to achieve final salvation.

Even our obedience, fueled by grace, cannot be added to grace to help us merit or earn eternal life … salvation is the work of GOD’s GRACE from first to last.

Ephesians 1 reveals that God’s grace begins working in our salvation long before we are born.
Before the foundation of the world, God chose those whom He would save from their sin and His wrath.
Thus in eternity past the Lord numbered HIS PEOPLE and chose to set His saving love on His elect … not every person. Some teach this was based on God “looking ahead” to see our obedience, but scripture denies this when it affirms that we are saved because of what Christ has done and our position IN HIM, and not because of any merit in us. The choice is based on what Christ has done and not what we have done.

Jacob and Esau are given as the example … chosen by God before they could do anything good or bad. Not even our good choice to believe in the Lord, moved the LORD to choose us for salvation.

Soli Deo Gloria … all of the Glory belongs to God alone!

That is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the Elect “working harder” to be in the NFL.

 

[atpollard]

I was speaking about the scriptural errors.

If he starts out telling lies, what are the odds that he will suddenly start speaking truth?

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad treebears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. - Matthew 7​

 

[post]

Medieval theologians and their modern counterparts teach that men must contribute our own merit to achieve final salvation.

Oh? Huh. Interesting.
Well the church and the scripture taught justification by faith alone through grace alone since the beginning, so I wonder why that changed 1300 years later in the middle ages?

Are we then to suppose that the apostle abstained through fear from openly calumniating God, from whom notwithstanding He did not hesitate to withdraw men? Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as to point against them the denunciation of the prophet,

“Through you the name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles).” (Rom 2.24)

But how absurd, that he should himself blaspheme Him for blaspheming whom he upbraids them as evil-doers! He prefers even circumcision of heart to neglect of it in the flesh. Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter. Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah:

“Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart;” (Jer 4.4)

and even of Moses:

“Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart,” (Dt 10.16)

—the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and “the Jew which is one inwardly” will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is “a Jew outwardly;” (Rom 2.28) because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

It was once the law; now it is

“the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ.” (Rom 3.21-22)

What means this distinction? Has your god been subserving the interests of the Creator’s dispensation, by affording time to Him and to His law? Is the “Now” in the hands of Him to whom belonged the “Then”?

Surely, then, the law was His, whose is now the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God. It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods.

He enjoins those who are JUSTIFIED by faith in Christ and not by the law to have peace with God (cf. Rom 5.1).

With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation, been?

Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in relation to His written law and His law of nature?

Now, as peace is only possible towards Him with whom there once was war,

we shall be both JUSTIFIED by Him, and

to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are JUSTIFIED by faith, and through whom alone God’s enemies can ever be reduced to peace.

- Tertulian, 2nd century ​

 

[Cooper]

If he starts out telling lies, what are the odds that he will suddenly start speaking truth?

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad treebears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. - Matthew 7​

Then I had best avoid Calvinism.

 

[Cooper]

Reformed means different. I will stay with Jesus, not Calvin.
.

 

[Addy]

what about me; is it OK if i quote you?

Mr. Cooper does not like me... He has me on ignore...

 

[atpollard]

Well the church and the scripture taught justification by faith alone through grace alone since the beginning, so I wonder why that changed 1300 years later in the middle ages?

Church TRADITION placed increased importance on the SACRAMENTS (actions required for salvation) rather than ORDINANCES (actions commanded because of salvation) … like Baptism and the Eucharist, etc.

Like so much of the Christian walk, it comes back to “keep FIRST things, FIRST.”

 

[atpollard]

Then I had best avoid Calvinism.

That is probably best … for them. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

 

[Cooper]

That is probably best … for them. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

One follows the teachings of Jesus, who is our Great High Priest, the author and finisher of our faith, while others mess around with man-made dogma, incense, candles and rituals.
.

 

[robert derrick]

All the Father DRAWS will believe.

Not Scripture of course, but we'll roll with it:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And so all that the Father draws comes, since they will believe, and since all have not come, then the Father does not draw all, and so the Father would not have all men to be saved, but only them He chooses to draw.

And so a twisting of Scripture leads directly to a contradiction of Scripture: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2)

Unless, of course, God would have all men to be saved, but He will not draw all, so the Scripture is just wistful thinking by Paul.

 

[atpollard]

All the Father DRAWS will believe.

Not Scripture of course, but we'll roll with it:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

That is why it is important to read the verses that come BEFORE and AFTER a verse as well as just the one verse. John wrote a letter, not a fortune cookie. With context comes understanding. Plucked from context, all we ever get is bad semi-Pelagianism or an anti-Doctrines of Grace strawman.

Who was Jesus talking to?
What had He and they just said immediately before it?
What ELSE does Jesus say immediately after that?

I stand by my conclusion that those whom the Father draws, will both come and they will believe.
Isn’t that sort of the point of MOST of the Gospel of John? (Jesus’ sheep will hear and follow and believe, while the tares, goats and “children of your father the devil” will not.)

Maybe your Bible has a DIFFERENT Gospel of John.

 

[atpollard]

And so all that the Father draws comes, since they will believe, and since all have not come, then the Father does not draw all, and so the Father would not have all men to be saved, but only them He chooses to draw.

You are working too hard at this. The logic is far simpler:

GOD DOES NOT TRY, GOD DOES.

If God chose to save all men, then all men would be saved … God does not try and fail.
Since some men are not saved (MOST, by Jesus’ reckoning), then God must not have saved them (or they WOULD be saved).

I leave it to YOU and God to explain WHY.
I simply acknowledge the reality (there is a HELL) and accept that God saved SOME BUT NOT ALL from going to Hell. If you want to believe in “universalism” (hell is empty because God saves everyone) or embrace divine impotency (God tried to save everyone, but failed), that is YOUR problem and not mine. Scripture does not teach that “hell is empty” or that “God tried and failed”, so you are on your own.

 

[atpollard]

One follows the teachings of Jesus, who is our Great High Priest, the author and finisher of our faith, while others mess around with man-made dogma, incense, candles and rituals.

Your ignorance of the reformation is LIMITLESS!
“man-made dogma, incense, candles and rituals” is what the Reformers opposed about Roman Catholicism and was the reason they translated the Bible into the common language so people could read it for themselves. I shake your dust off my sandals and leave you to wallow in your deliberate self-inflicted ignorance.

 

[robert derrick]

You are working too hard at this. The logic is far simpler:

GOD DOES NOT TRY, GOD DOES.

If God chose to save all men, then all men would be saved … God does not try and fail.
Since some men are not saved (MOST, by Jesus’ reckoning), then God must not have saved them (or they WOULD be saved).

I leave it to YOU and God to explain WHY.
I simply acknowledge the reality (there is a HELL) and accept that God saved SOME BUT NOT ALL from going to Hell. If you want to believe in “universalism” (hell is empty because God saves everyone) or embrace divine impotency (God tried to save everyone, but failed), that is YOUR problem and not mine. Scripture does not teach that “hell is empty” or that “God tried and failed”, so you are on your own.

I have ceased to respond to you personally, since you have failed to do so for me. I gave you the specific Scriptures on two separate occasions, that I wanted an answer from in order to have a two-sided exchange. You refuse. I am not a sounding board.

You can continue with your mantra, and if I see anything I want to respond to, then I will do so in an open post. Until, you do me the same courtesy as I have for you, this is my last personal interchange with you.

 

[robert derrick]

GOD DOES NOT TRY, GOD DOES.

God tries us to know our hearts. (2 Chron 32:31)(Psalms 26:2)

If we are eternally saved without condition, then no need to even try:

That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1)

If God chose to save all men, then all men would be saved … God does not try and fail.

If God chose to save one and not the other, it is because one believed and not the other.

Since some men are not saved (MOST, by Jesus’ reckoning), then God must not have saved them (or they WOULD be saved).

Since some men are not saved, then they must not believe, and so God must not have saved them, because they do not believe, or they would be saved, because they believe.

You are working too hard at this. The logic is far simpler:

It is hard to unwork and make since of simple stupidity posing as logic, but God's grace is sufficient for the task.

 

[atpollard]

I have ceased to respond to you personally, since you have failed to do so for me. I gave you the specific Scriptures on two separate occasions, that I wanted an answer from in order to have a two-sided exchange. You refuse. I am not a sounding board.

I cannot say for certain whether my “non-response” was intentional or your question was simply overlooked in a flurry of posts. With 300 posts, it seems unlikely that I will locate the posts to which you are referring unaided.

If you can offer a simple post #, I will promise to respond to those specific posts. I hate to make enemies unintentionally.

Hanson’s razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

 

[robert derrick]

I cannot say for certain whether my “non-response” was intentional or your question was simply overlooked in a flurry of posts. With 300 posts, it seems unlikely that I will locate the posts to which you are referring unaided.

If you can offer a simple post #, I will promise to respond to those specific posts. I hate to make enemies unintentionally.

Hanson’s razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Fair enough:

My premise: There are those who once knew God, believed Jesus, confessed unto salvation, who have and can turn from God to such a point where God no longer draws them back to Him, nor even remembers their name, which He has blotted out of His book of Life and of the Lamb.

We can only come to the Son if the Father draws us: reprobation is such a state where God has gevin up on us, and no longer draws us to the cross, and so impossible to confess and repent our sins.

These are just a few Scriptures speaking of them that were saved and turned from God, and their latter end is worse than before Salvation:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. (Rom 1)

They knew God, God gave them up to uncleanness, they then changed the truth of God into a lie: wresting Scripture from what is written, and so served themselves and their own minds, not wanting to retain the truth, and finally God give up on them altogether to a reprobate mind.

(Heb 6:4-8) They tasted of the heavenly gift. They crucified Christ afresh. They are rejected and burned as thorns, even as Jesus prophesied of branches that abide not in Him. (John 15) They so turn from God, that it is become impossible for them to repent and are only awaiting a certain fearful judgment to come. (Heb 10:27)

(2 Peter 2:18-22) Peter warning of false teachers who turn believers from the Lord, who had clean escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of the Lord, and returned once again to their old life of sin, with a latter end worse than before they were saved, and it is better for such in the judgment of God, that they had never believed in the first place.

These are Scriptures of God. Not opinion nor imagination of man. It does not matter whether we can personally fathom it or not, but only to acknowledge it as so, and not only possible, but confirmed: Judas Iscariot is the only example needed as such. A personally chosen apostle by Jesus, later called by Jesus the son of perdition. (John 17)

Thanks.