5 Points of Calvinism

[Catholic_Dude]

Sorry to interrupt- but I am sitting around twittling my thumbs . . . :yawn:

I have made some serious assertions, and have given some meaningful exegesis- (directly challenging the Catholics on this thread) - and all I have receieved is silence. Either the Catholics agree with me- or they are at a loss of words.

Maybe you could demonstrate these “Catholic arguments” for us, and engage with some of the material I have provided in the following posts:

#165
#205
#212

Thank you for your time-

And I really, honestly do not mean to be rude or offend you in any way. I just think that it would be nice if someone would respond to a really, really, really good Calvinist!

I tried to stay on topic here, so I originally focused on the 5 points themselves, then this thread turned into a Predestination thread which is a different topic (though there is overlap).

Post 165 started talking about Free Will, which again is not quite the same as the 5 points, so I didn’t give much thought to it (especially in light of the fact it is one post buried in over 200 out there already). Whether Free Will is true (or even defined) or not does not make TULIP logically or Biblically true. The same can be said in regards to justification and Predestination, which does not require justification be by imputed alien righteousness. For more info on justification, click on the link in my signature.

Post 205, you are already deep in a conversation with someone else, and what exactly you are even arguing isn’t even clearly defined in 205. Second, if it is an argument about terms like “all” then that to me is a different discussion than the main topic, and a case I dont feel like defending given there are much stronger ones to make (eg Penal Substitution is not taught in Scripture, it is read into scripture with some unfortunate Christological heresies as a consequences).

Post 212 is a predestination post which I feel is too far off the main topic and too far into the post to invest time into. My point would simply be that Catholics affirm Predestination (and in a way far more compatible with Scripture and people like St Augustine) than Protestants and that further, even if a fully Protestant understanding of Predestination were agreed to by Catholics that would not logically make the points of tulip or justification by imputation true or bibilcal.

Again, if you really want a challege and want to learn why the Catholic position harmonizes Scripture, just read the link in my signature. If that’s too long, read my Ephesians 2:8 apologetics article on my homepage.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree, TriuneUnity is one of my favorite Christians on this site. He is quite gifted from God. Actually, I can go either way with baptism depending on the church that I am attending. I can embrace both the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. I don’t have to worry about paedo baptism since my three boys are all teenagers. Personally, my parent’s baptized me as an infant in a Protestant Church. I also was baptized as a believer at my middle twenties. How do you see baptism?

Thanks Reformed

 

[Reformed]

Thanks Reformed

You didn’t think I was going to debate you on our minor differences, right? We all know in part, and are growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. All regenerate Christains are sinners in process… to the praise of His glorious transforming grace. Thanks for always sharing with gentlenss and respect. I hope it rubs off on me. BTW… I have been on a long vacation and probably will not participate much on this site when I return to work next week.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You didn’t think I was going to debate you on our minor differences, right? We all know in part, and are growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. All regenerate Christains are sinners in process… to the praise of His glorious transforming grace. Thanks for always sharing with gentlenss and respect. I hope it rubs off on me. BTW… I have been on a long vacation and probably will not participate much on this site when I return to work next week.

We’ll miss your presence. Do try to make it back often, though!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We’ll miss your presence. Do try to make it back often, though!

 

[Crusador]

Jesus was His Beloved Son and, more importantly, He was innocent. There is nothing just about punishing an innocent man, in fact it undermines justice at its very core.

It is just as crazy as the pro-abortion argument that says a woman who is raped should be able to abort the child…so because the woman was offended she can justly turn around and murder an innocent bystander?

Further, that notion undermines forgiveness at its very core because if the “price is paid” then the concept of forgiveness doesn’t exist. The Bank doesn’t “forgive you” if someone comes and pays your debts.

You are right about that- the bank does not forgive you if someone comes and pays your debt . . .

BUT

If that one who pays your debt for you does not demand for you to pay him back - then you are forgiven- not by the bank- but by the one who you now owe- the one who has paid your debt.

Also to say that God would be unjust to pour his wrath out upon Christ is to misunderstand the nature of the atonement. The Scriptures plainly declare that God “hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5:21)

So when Christ was made sin- by imputation (taking upon himself the sins of his people) God was certainly just to pour out His wrath on him. This is the only way for God to be BOTH Just and the justifier of guilty sinners. The demands of the Law had to be satisfied.

Consider these passages:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-11)

“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, now being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1 Peter 2:22-24)

This might help to put things in perspective for you- May God bless you!

 

[RobHom]

Not to make an enemy - but shouldn’t you have a little more humility? To say that you already have the WHOLE TRUTH is a direct contradiction of Holy Scripture. And to say that you have NOTHING BUT the whole truth is a little arrogant- is it not?

Fear not… You are not making an enemy. Humility? Frankly I don’t suffer for the lack of it…honestly. I just have a “reactionary side” that is capable of responding to people that seem a bit “ignoble” in their intent.

I am not the least bit “arrogant”, as it is not my nature. What you perceive as “arrogance” is merely my response to someone who purports to possess “more truth”, though unsubstantiated, than anyone else… Its a “response in kind”…that’s all.

Not that I mind arrogance- we are all a little prideful (when it comes to the positions we hold) BUT when you claim that you have the WHOLE TRUTH- I would say that this is overboard- wouldn’t you?

No, not necessarily…as no-one has ever managed to prove differently.

Doesn’t the Apostle Paul say, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then we shall see face to face: as of now, I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Cor. 13:12)

Do you suppose that you have more knowledge of the Truth than the Apostle Paul? :ehh:

I would never be so brash as to even suggest that I am smarter than Paul…however, I do not place his words above those of Christ Himself…

 

[Crusador]

I agree, TriuneUnity is one of my favorite Christians on this site. He is quite gifted from God. Actually, I can go either way with baptism depending on the church that I am attending. I can embrace both the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. I don’t have to worry about paedo baptism since my three boys are all teenagers. Personally, my parent’s baptized me as an infant in a Protestant Church. I also was baptized as a believer at my middle twenties. How do you see baptism?

I am a Credo-baptist. I beleive in the baptism of disciples alone.

For a great book on this subject, see Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul K. Jewett.

The book has a very respectful tone, and is irenic- not polemic.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am a Credo-baptist. I beleive in the baptism of disciples alone.

For a great book on this subject, see Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul K. Jewett.

The book has a very respectful tone, and is irenic- not polemic.

I have the read book by Founders Press The Baptism of Disciples Alone, I would also recommend that one.

Even though as a paedobaptist I like to tear it apart haha

 

[Reformed]

I am a Credo-baptist. I beleive in the baptism of disciples alone.

For a great book on this subject, see Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul K. Jewett.

The book has a very respectful tone, and is irenic- not polemic.

When I first started to embrace Reformed theology about 10 to 12 years ago, I lived near Westminster West seminary. I had the privlidge to attend many bible studies led by seminary students on both sides of the issues of baptism. I also discussed this in depth with my pastors, one being a seminary professor too.

Everybody agrees that there are difficulties on both padeo and credo positions. One of my favorite seminary students who led a home bible study believed in believer’s baptism. He said we should call it professor’s baptism. We really don’t know if someone has been granted a new life in Christ when they are baptized. Even with our children, is it right to hold off baptism until a certain age. I say if they profess Christ and understand the basics of the gospel, baptize them very early. Or, we can baptize all the covenant children at infancy…LOL.

 

[Reformed]

I have the read book by Founders Press The Baptism of Disciples Alone, I would also recommend that one.

Even though as a paedobaptist I like to tear it apart haha

What should we call a baby dedication…(joke only)?

 

[TriuneUnity]

What should we call a baby dedication…(joke only)?

haha baby dedications. I would call it antiquated attempts to have baptism without baptism lol

 

[MarcoPolo]

Again, don’t make it a personal issue.

Agreed. So you also lose the “I understand if you don’t want to look at Scripture” scarcasm when dealing with my other good friends on this forum.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I agree with your position on grace here, Marco. But we have to ask, do they deserve God’s grace? Would God be unjust to withhold it from them?

No one deserves God’s grace. Anyone who receives it does so out of His infinite generosity. He would not be unjust to withhold it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

No one deserves God’s grace. Anyone who receives it does so out of His infinite generosity. He would not be unjust to withhold it.

Okay. So I guess the question then becomes whether, in the preaching of the gospel, He ever does withhold it. That’s where I would part ways with the Calvinists. They would say, in the preaching of the word, the non-elect never have the Spirit working in them when they hear the gospel. I believe that contradicts the apostolic writings.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Okay. So I guess the question then becomes whether, in the preaching of the gospel, He ever does withhold it. That’s where I would part ways with the Calvinists. They would say, in the preaching of the word, the non-elect never have the Spirit working in them when they hear the gospel. I believe that contradicts the apostolic writings.

I agree, and I have tried with effort to articulate that in this thread.

 

[Reformed]

haha baby dedications. I would call it antiquated attempts to have baptism without baptism lol

That’s pretty good. How about a dry baptism?

My current pastor went to an Arminan seminary similar to Dalles Theological seminary. His father is a baptist pastor too. My pastor became Reformed from self study and married into a Reformed (padeo) family His father-in-law has a solid Reformed radio ministry in southern CA… His kids have been baptized twice, once as an infant and once as a young child professing Christ. I guess you have to keep peace in the extended family of grandparents who are in ministry. He told me that his Reformed friends who are also pastors joke all the time about wet infant baptism and the dry baptism of dedication. Oh…how we over-focus on things that probably shouldn’t matter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

(You quoted Romans 8:29) “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.”

There are a few key facts about this text that leads me away from your interpretation:

1. In this passage- it is not cooperation that is foreknown, but it is persons who are foreknown.

The text says, “For WHOM He did foreknow” and says nothing about “WHAT He did foreknow these people WOULD DO.” In order for you to extract that from this text, you would first have to implant it into this text. This is not exegesis but eisegesis- a reading into the text something that is not there.

1. In this passage- the definition of “foreknow” clearly takes on a stronger, more active definition than to merely take in information passively- by looking into the future.

To assert that God’s Predestination is based upon what He already foreknows will happen, is to make the eternal purpose of God subject to that which will eventually take place in time. This is to put the carriage before the horse, and assumes that God derives his purposes from His own creation- rather than having an eternal purpose for His own creation, that will be realized in time.

Clearly, God knowing the future is not the cause of His Predestination.

You cannot support this interpretation with other passages of Scripture, and therefore it must be rejected.

I did not respond to this earlier, because if you saw post 206, I have grown tired of exegeting passages only to have cheap, dismissing counter-examinations in return.

But if you really must know, the word “whom” does not preclude God’s knowledge of the person’s choices along with the person’s identity. In other words, the Molinist interpretation which I openly articulated earlier, would say that those “whom” God foreknew to be elect were those whom God recognized before time as having accepted His grace. If it’s only a person’s identity God foreknows, you would have to say God “foreknew” the elect, but didn’t “foreknow” the reprobate! This interpretation does not make God’s will subject to man’s, because it is God’s will for man to chose.

The other acceptable interpretation, would be to say God “foreknew” to whom He would give the grace of perseverance (aka, irresistible or efficacious grace). This would not automatically mean that persons who did not receive persevering grace would receive NO grace at all.

Whichever interpretation one prefers, he must acknowledge that at a minimum, God gives enough grace to all souls to be saved. He does not deny grace to anyone.

This is consistent with the other Scriptures I referenced in post 177, and the exegesis I did of Romans 9 and of Titus 2.

Take just 1 Tim 2:3-4 I mentioned there. Same author as Romans. Expand it:

1 Tim 2:1-6 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
Jesus died for all. So Paul wants prayers made for all. God died for all because He wants all to be saved. We all have the opportunity to accept His grace. And I preempt a probable response, that yes, all does not always mean exhaustively all, but we know the saved will be “few” (Mt 7:14) and therefore in this context, it is foolish to interpret the word “all” in 1 Timothy as “few.”

 

[sandusky]

I did not respond to this earlier, because if you saw post 206, I have grown tired of exegeting passages only to have cheap, dismissing counter-examinations in return.

But if you really must know, the word “whom” does not preclude God’s knowledge of the person’s choices along with the person’s identity. In other words, the Molinist interpretation which I openly articulated earlier, would say that those “whom” God foreknew to be elect were those whom God recognized before time as having accepted His grace. If it’s only a person’s identity God foreknows, you would have to say God “foreknew” the elect, but didn’t “foreknow” the reprobate! This interpretation does not make God’s will subject to man’s, because it is God’s will for man to chose.

The other acceptable interpretation, would be to say God “foreknew” to whom He would give the grace of perseverance (aka, irresistible or efficacious grace). This would not automatically mean that persons who did not receive persevering grace would receive NO grace at all.

How do you define “foreknew?” What does it mean?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You are right about that- the bank does not forgive you if someone comes and pays your debt . . .

BUT

If that one who pays your debt for you does not demand for you to pay him back - then you are forgiven- not by the bank- but by the one who you now owe- the one who has paid your debt.

Except that is not the Christian model, the debt doesn’t go from one person we owe to another. However, you are heading more towards orthodoxy in that the debt is outright dropped rather than paid off.

Also to say that God would be unjust to pour his wrath out upon Christ is to misunderstand the nature of the atonement.

Not really, because you have not shown how justice is served when someone is executed in your place.

The Scriptures plainly declare that God “hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5:21)

The only thing “plain” here is how much the Protestant system reads into 2 Cor 5:21 and how much weight they put on this passage. The plain reading of this says nothing about Jesus undergoing divine chastisement. Christ being “made sin” does not equate to punished by God or anything of that nature.

I suggest you read appendix1 of this article:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm#appendix1a
It is only about a paragraph long.

So when Christ was made sin- by imputation (taking upon himself the sins of his people) God was certainly just to pour out His wrath on him. This is the only way for God to be BOTH Just and the justifier of guilty sinners.The demands of the Law had to be satisfied.

False. You are approaching Scripture with preconceived notions and reading them into the text. Nowhere does the Bible say sins were imputed to Christ, yet that dogmatic statement is tossed around left and right. Nowhere does it say God’s wrath was poured out on him, not to mention the blasphemous implications. And nowhere have you shown this senario can rightly be called “justice.”

As for the “demands of the law,” if you think that means Christ fulfilled the Law in our place, and imputed that fulfilled law in our place, you couldnt be more wrong.

Consider these passages:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-11)

You have to look at how this unfolds in the New Testament. For example when it says He carried their griefs and their sickness, what does that mean? Try looking at Mat 8:16f, nothing to do with imputing sins or punishment.

“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, now being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”(1 Peter 2:22-24)

This quote quotes Is 53 more than any other NT passage, so 1 Pt must be used as our main guide. And if you read this 1 Pt 2 passage carefully, and in context, you will see it explicitly denies the idea God poured out his wrath on Jesus.

This might help to put things in perspective for you- May God bless you!

Cool! At least someone here is interested in talking.