5 Points of Calvinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
😃 Have you ever stopped to consider that you are really engaged with a party who is having a very one-sided argument with themself, and you are more or less having a one sided conversation with yourself?..😃

Reformed isn’t actually interested in having a “conversation”, he is only interested in regurgitating the the same foul tripe redundantly. You could prove him 100% wrong…and he would just continue without a hiccup. I sometimes wonder if Reformed is little more than a “bot”.
You guys tried to warn me in the last discussion, but I wouldn’t listen. 🙂

Reformed will not interact with what you put whenever it challenges him, the only time he “responds” is to ask a question from you (which he DEMANDS you answer), or (even worse) he “responds” by asking if we have ever read a given chapter of the Bible and proceeds to cut and past the entire chapter…the conversation is clearly one sided and that gets annoying quick! :mad:

Either he is not here to discuss and only proselytize (in the Fundamentalist 'Im right your wrong" style), or else he is so afraid of what the Bible really says that he can only hide behind a few verses and whenever confronted retreat back to posting the same things.
 
You guys tried to warn me in the last discussion, but I wouldn’t listen. 🙂

Reformed will not interact with what you put whenever it challenges him, the only time he “responds” is to ask a question from you (which he DEMANDS you answer), or (even worse) he “responds” by asking if we have ever read a given chapter of the Bible and proceeds to cut and past the entire chapter…the conversation is clearly one sided and that gets annoying quick! :mad:
You may have noticed or read where I have made mention of the fact that “I know their playbook”…well, my friend you are learning it. I have cornered him, and have proven him completely in the wrong…but he does precisely what I know he will do. Its known as “obfuscating”…and he loves to “shadow box” with himself…because his position as well as his theology is “specious” at best. You will learn quickly that “intelligent discussion” with someone like “Reformed” is like “herding cats”.
Either he is not here to discuss and only proselytize (in the Fundamentalist 'Im right your wrong" style), or else he is so afraid of what the Bible really says that he can only hide behind a few verses and whenever confronted retreat back to posting the same things.
Considering that he espouses to a theology that “damns man to perdition” and a lot of other “hoooey”…he has to hide behind out of context “snippets” of scripture twisted to fit an agenda that is disingenuous at best… but yet he will ardently attempt to sell his “hoooey” to drag others into the quagmire he resides in…
 
😃 Have you ever stopped to consider that you are really engaged with a party who is having a very one-sided argument with themself, and you are more or less having a one sided conversation with yourself?..😃

Reformed isn’t actually interested in having a “conversation”, he is only interested in regurgitating the the same foul tripe redundantly. You could prove him 100% wrong…and he would just continue without a hiccup. I sometimes wonder if Reformed is little more than a “bot”.
I think there are a handful of Reformed Christians, and one grounded and gifted Lutheran Christian on this thread who better represent the same Christian Faith than myself. Please don’t make it about me or them, but focus on the person and work of Jesus Christ for those who believe. You can ignore me, but there are others proclaiming the same truth to you. We are united on the essentials of the Christian Faith! 😉 To God be the glory!

2 Timothy 2:10

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
 
First question, as a sola scripturist, perhaps you can first show “natural” and “special” revelation in Scripture. But of course, one who was saved by the grace given them apart from hearing the formal Word of God is not saved in the normal capacity. Yet since Christ is still the source of all grace, it is still by Him that the ignorant are saved. The Spirit is not limited. It is no doubt more of a challenge to grasp Christ for those ignorant of the Word in this way, thus we must evangelize all men, as God wills and has commanded.

Second question…because the Cross is what allows saving grace to enter any of us.
Could you please show me the word Trinity first? Can you really not see the doctrine of special or natural revelation in Romans chapter 1 and Psalm 19? Does the magestrium reject the doctrine of natural (general; universal) revelation? Does Rome teach that natural revelation can save a sinner? You see, a synergstic position like Arminianism, Semi-Pelagiusim, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, etc will leave you with many problems which dimishes the need of proclaiming the gospel to the lost. It opens doors to heretical ideas of God saving sinners apart from hearing the good news of God. Do you think hearing and rejecting the good news of God about His Son makes you accountable and condemned? According to Scripture (John 3), Christ did not come to condemned the world, but rather to save it. God incarnate is a rescue mission of our terminal condition from condemnation, wrath, and enmity with God because of our rebellious and sinful condition against Him.
 
:confused: This isn’t about ease, it is about truth. Show me where the OT Sacrifices were said to have been the objects of wrath and/or had punishment transferred to the animal.

It is the MODE of the appeasing that is the issue. Appeasing God’s wrath does not require it be emptied on someone else.
If a child breaks his dad’s window and deserves a beating, it does not follow that the wife can take that beating instead, rather the wrath can be appeased through acts of love around the home so in the end nobody gets a beating.

Christ’s life of perfect love atoned for the sins of the world, He did not have to stand in our place and receive divine chastisement. This verse proves that sin can be atoned for in another way than Penal Substitution thinks.

That is because life has value, the value is not in that something living gets to die. As for Is 53, it must be interpreted in light of how the NT unfolds.

My point is that none of these offerings involved transferring punishment, in fact the fact grain offerings can be accepted in place of animal offerings (for those too poor for animals) further hurts the penal substitution model.

Irrelevant. The Passover Lamb was not punished.

No. A DEBT is NOT forgiven when someone PAYS it. Forgiving a debt means to drop it, not have it payed.

All I was doing was giving a clear example of what it means to forgive a debt.

No, what you propose is heretical and blasphemous.
🤷 Dude…
 
I think the difficulties of Sacred Tradition as being revelation from God is trying to determine what is Sacred Oral and Written Tradition from God, and what is traditions of men. If you use the blanket view of apostolic sucession, whatever the Catholic Church tells you what is Sacred Tradition, then your faith is built upon the hope of Apostolic Sucession, and not the Word of God. Our foundations are very different. That is the reason of the Protestant Reformation. I rather have an extremely high view of the Scriptures, because we both agree the Scriptures is revelation from God.
So then you do not accept the Holy Spirit’s ability to protect matters of faith and morals through oral tradition?
 
Could you please show me the word Trinity first?
I don’t believe it has to be in there…then again I’m not a sola scripturist. But the irony is not lost on us that you call Catholic teaching “traditions of men”… :rolleyes:
 
I don’t believe it has to be in there…then again I’m not a sola scripturist.
Perhaps you should drop your preconceived notions concerning the sense in which “Reformed” is a “sola scripturist”?😉

Edwin
 
There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or “four-point Calvinists,” who hold all of TULIP except for “L.”
  1. Including Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, myself, and numerous others.
You are quoting two separate footnotes there. Footnote 8 is referring back to the text (mentioning Calvinists who have become Catholics) and is not listing four-point Calvinists.

I don’t know whether Hahn and Akin and other ex-Calvinist Catholics were four- or five-point Calvinists. My assumption would be that they were five-point Calvinists unless evidence to the contrary appears, and you haven’t provided evidence to the contrary.

However, we could have a conversation about why limited atonement is so essential to Calvinism in your view. It’s particularly interesting that Calvin himself does not teach limited atonement. (He doesn’t explicitly deny it either, but on the whole I think his statements on the subject fit better with a four-point position.) I know of course that you don’t think Calvin is infallible, but I would expect that he plays an important enough role in your theological heritage that you wouldn’t want to define “Calvinist” in a way that would exclude him (the linguistic oddity of this is of course unimportant–I know that “Calvinist” is simply a conventional term).

Furthermore, the Catholic distinction between “sufficient” and efficient" is useful here as well. One formula states that Christ died “sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect.” Actually everyone should be able to agree on this, no matter what our view of election. So I don’t think limited atonement is as either/or an issue as you are claiming.

Edwin
 
You are quoting two separate footnotes there. Footnote 8 is referring back to the text (mentioning Calvinists who have become Catholics) and is not listing four-point Calvinists…
I
However, we could have a conversation about why limited atonement is so essential to Calvinism in your view. It’s particularly interesting that Calvin himself does not teach limited atonement. (He doesn’t explicitly deny it either, but on the whole I think his statements on the subject fit better with a four-point position.) I know of course that you don’t think Calvin is infallible, but I would expect that he plays an important enough role in your theological heritage that you wouldn’t want to define “Calvinist” in a way that would exclude him (the linguistic oddity of this is of course unimportant–I know that “Calvinist” is simply a conventional term)…
Edwin
I see that you are Episcopalian. I agree with the 39 Articles of Faith on the essentials of the Christian Faith. What else can a say? The joke about 4 pointers is that all 5 points are linked together. If one point is not true, I don’t think the 5 points of Calvinism is biblical truth. The 5 points of Calvinism is for spiritual growth and are not needed to be united to Christ, or being born from above. Here is interesting articles from the 39 Articles of Faith related to our topic. 🙂 I think we essentially believe the same things.

]IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

X. Of Free-Will. The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works. Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification. Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

XVII. Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
 
Perhaps you should drop your preconceived notions concerning the sense in which “Reformed” is a “sola scripturist”?😉

Edwin
I’m still waiting for a simple yes/no from him on post 64…cut my satire some slack! :rolleyes:
 
Why did John write? So we could read and believe. What comes from reading? Life. So John essentially is saying that, even though his gospel doesn’t contain everything possible, it does contain what we need to know to believe and to live.
I feel John was writing about Old Testament scriptures that foretold the Messiah in the scripture you provided. You have to remember, John was writing to those of those times particularly. Many times the Lord referred to Old Testament scriptures for those of those times to see who He was.

Had the Apostles known what they wrote was going to be Holy scriptures or in a “Bible”, why didn’t they all get together and write it as such?

Jesus never wrote anything, nor did He have anything scribed.

**Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. **
I read the early church fathers. However we must realize that even if some might have been taught by the Apostles, they were capable of error. Being taught by an Apostle does not guarantee that they are correct. After all, Paul personally taught the Galatians and Corinthians but had to send them letters to correct errors that were being taught. Many of the epistles were written to correct errors that were entering the Church. In Revelatin, Jesus himself dictates letters to the seven churches pointing out some errors the were falling into. If this was needed even while the Apostles were still alive we should be cautious of early church writings.
Please provide the evidence that Jesus Himself dictated letters. This is the very first time I’ve ever heard that.

Ok, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the earliest Church fathers who learned directly from the Apostles erred. What happened to make the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin or any of the other reformers have a better insight 1500 years later? (Reformed may want to chime here as he quotes or refers to the articles of faith and other writings from the reformers.)

Paul started or had provided oral instructions for those Churchs he wrote. He wrote specific corrections for specific problems that arose. Would he have written anything about those things that were being done correctly through oral tradition?

Being cautious of the early Church fathers because they received letters of correction would fully support the argument that the teachings of the reformers can not be trusted. Again, the reformers wrote and taught things 1500 years later and never received a letter of correction for anything they could have erred on. Can you not see the contradiction of your argument?
 
40.png
MarcoPolo:
Yes, the word translated for “men” is in there. It is ἄνθρωπος, word #444 in Strong’s Greek Lexicon.
Anthropos is in Titus 2:11.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
Additionally, no, the word “all” does not always mean “all.” However, in this conversation, there are defenders of Calvin’s position that only the elect are given grace by God, and the reprobate are never given the grace to be saved. So if the word “all” here is only referring to the elect, then it is referring to what is described as the “few who enter the narrow gate.” (Mt 7:14). That renders this either a highly improbable interpretation of the word “all” or a completely untenable one. The verse would instead read, “for the grace of God has appeared to a few.”
Simply citing a verse, and asserting that it “proves” your position is not sufficient proof.

You must demonstrate the sense of “all men.” Is it “all men without exception,” or “all kinds of men without distinction.” You’re simply asserting the former without having made the case.

Furthermore, you’re neglecting the immediate context, particularly that which follows v11. Is the primary focus of the writer with respect to the grace of God that He gives “sufficient grace to all,” or is the primary focus of the grace contained elsewhere in the context?
40.png
MarcoPolo:
Contrary to this notion of God withholding grace to some of mankind are these examples, some of which I cited earlier to no avail:
Acts 17:30
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved…

Romans 11:32 For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
Everyone has a chance to be saved. Although his exegesis remains absent, our good brother, Reformed, has apparently pitted the analogy of the potter in conflict with these verses and Christ’s mission.
For the most part, you are reading your theology into those verses, IMO. Simply citing those verses does not make a case for anything.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
There are at least three reasons why Romans 9 cannot not trump the verses I have cited. The first, is Paul’s musing of the phrases “what if God” made people for good or some for destruction (e.g. v. 22). By this hypothetical language, He simply demonstrates who is in command. The point being no one can supersede His will.
🤷 ”What if God…” is not hypothetical language. It’s a rhetorical device, and is in fact, stating as fact what God did.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
The second is because no two Scriptures cannot conflict. They all must be harmonized.
Scripture doesn’t conflict.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
The third is what I have been articulating for a number of posts now, which is the God’s foreknowledge recognizing in advance from the beginning of time, who would cooperate with His grace and who wouldn’t. Those whom He “foreknew” would cooperate therefore were His “predestined.” (e.g. 1 chapter earlier, Rm 8:29). And thus, in Romans 9, those whom He foreknew to cooperate correspond to the noble (v. 21) and the those whom He foreknew to not freely cooperate still entered time and served “dishonorable” purposes. The analogy of the clay cannot go so far as to equate man as a completely passive, inanimate blob with no free will. To take the analogy that far would also be to contradict Scripture, especially since Calvinism teaches that those who go to hell go there of their own fault.
You misunderstand not only Rom 8:29, but the entire point of Romans, IMO.

As I said earlier in the thread, in your interpretation of Romans 8:29 God’s predestination is based upon foreseen merit, actions…. Your church does not teach that with respect to initial conversion.

Besides, your wrong idea of “foreseen merits” is killed later in the context of the passage:**Romans 9:10-11

10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, SO THAT God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,**God, in His foreknowledge, does not, as you say, recognize in advance from the beginning of time, who would cooperate with His grace and who wouldn’t, and therefore He ‘predestined’ those that cooperate."

🤷 To the contrary, He makes it clear that His choice is not based on what one does cf v11.
40.png
MarcoPolo:
No matter how you slice the chapter, it does not refute, but rather is harmonized with, the rest of Scripture, that demonstrates God wills the salvation of all and so provides grace to all.
You haven’t even begun to prove that.
 
Furthermore, the Catholic distinction between “sufficient” and efficient" is useful here as well. One formula states that Christ died “sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect.” Actually everyone should be able to agree on this, no matter what our view of election. So I don’t think limited atonement is as either/or an issue as you are claiming.
The sufficient/efficient distinction does NOT fit the Calvinist Limited Atonement model. In Limited Atonement Christ did NOT die sufficiently for all, He COULD HAVE, but He didn’t. In LA Christ’s merits were sufficient only for the elect. Further, and just as significant, we do not agree on what the Atonement was about (eg Christ did not endure divine chastisement).
 
You must demonstrate the sense of “all men.” Is it “all men without exception,” or “all kinds of men without distinction.” You’re simply asserting the former without having made the case.

11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, SO THAT God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
[/indent]God, in His foreknowledge, does not, as you say, recognize in advance from the beginning of time, who would cooperate with His grace and who wouldn’t, and therefore He ‘predestined’ those that cooperate."

🤷 To the contrary, He makes it clear that His choice is not based on what one does cf v11.

As to Titus 2:11, I was directly exegeting it in light of the Calvinist position that grace only appears to the elect. They therefore MUST interpret the “all” in Titus 2:11 as “few”. That cannot stand. All either means “all” or “with minor exceptions” in every instance I can think of in Scripture. And you simply dismissed passages that say the same thing. God’s free gift of grace is offered to all.

The Catholic Church teaches that all are given sufficient grace to accept by either a Thomistic or Molinistic view. Calvinism, as I have learned in this thread, teaches that God withholds salvific grace to the “many.” I provided a Molistic interpretation of Romans 9. And one could interpret the above passage about the twins the same way. You said I conflicted with Catholic teaching. I did not conflict with Catholic teaching on initial justification or otherwise.

Interpreting that passage such that God does not choose based on what one does is in conflict with every “do this” or “do that” command in Scripture to attain salvation. God’s gift of grace is free, of course, but He gives it to all, so that they might accept it. I think you misjudge how I would interpret the twins story.

What we have not seen in this thread, is any evidence that God withholds the grace to be saved to anyone, much less “the many” we know will be damned.
 
Please don’t take the easy way out. Please continue this discussion with the other Protestants on this thread if I’m the issue. Actually, those other Protestants are really really really good… of course by the grace of God alone. 🙂 👍 🙂 😉
LOL, I’m not the one taking the “easy way out.” I have interacted with all the major points. As has been clear all along, if anyone is guilty of that charge it is you, you are not interacting, in fact when someone raises an objection you pretend like it never happened, and you “speak up” on irrelevant posts like these ones.

As for those other Protestants that are “really really really good,” I’ll let the readers judge to see how they compare to the Catholic arguments.
You can do better than that. You have not shown Penal Substitution in the OT sacrifices.
 
What I see, Reformed, is a 😦 lack of understanding of the whole redeeming work of Christ…
You asked,
If Christ came to save the entire world, why has He failed?
But you see, Christ came to redeem the entire world…and He did. That is what Calvary is all about. We are all of us, every person on this earth (present, past, future) redeemed
But whether or not we will be saved, is a question that only eternity will answer.
Two different concepts: confuse them, and chaos ensues…and from chaos, emerges the dark spectre of Calvinism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top