Five Point Calvinism sweeping S. Baptist seminaries
Anonymous
Southern Baptists may wake up one Sunday soon and find they really aren't
Southern Baptists unless they are Presbyterians.
A growing movement is sweeping the denomination's seminaries over the role
and impact of historic Calvinist beliefs, especially the idea that
salvation is predetermined by God and there is nothing humans can do to
change who will be saved and who will be damned.
Most Southern Baptists - who make up the nation's largest Protestant
denomination - are evangelical, believing any sinner who seeks salvation
through Jesus Christ will receive eternal life.
The fight is being fueled by a wave of "Five Point Calvinism" that some
believe is washing over Baptist seminaries and infecting pulpits, and has
led to schism in some congregations. Five Point Calvinism is based on the
teaching of 16th-century Protestant reformer John Calvin and his views of
unconditional election and limited atonement, meaning God's choice of
certain individuals for salvation is conditioned only on God's sovereign
will and that Jesus' redeeming work on the cross was only to save those
already elected by God.
Churches in the Calvinist, or Reformed, tradition include Presbyterian
denominations, the Reformed Church in America and the United Church of
Christ.
For Baptists, at issue is this central question: If God has already
predetermined who goes to hell and who goes to heaven even before they're
born, why preach the Gospel? Why send missionaries to India? Why, indeed,
evangelize?
"The logical conclusion (of predestination) is that evangelism is useless,"
said W.R. Estep, professor emeritus of church history at Southwestern
Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, arguing that a strong belief in
predestination would pull the rug out from under Baptist evangelism.
Baptists, he said, have traditionally believed in the absolute freedom of
the human will to choose or reject salvation.
"Generally, Baptists have always held that God's plan of salvation was that
in Christ all people would have an opportunity to accept the invitation to
belief and to the Christian life and to become a disciple."
Some lay members, too, are concerned.
Kelly McGinley, a member of First Baptist Church of North Mobile, Ala.,
said she does not believe in Calvinism and would be upset if her pastor
started to teach it.
"It would give all those who don't like going to church something else to
make fun of us for," she said. "It might cool some people going to church.
. It's very scary."
Others argue, however, that the denomination needs to recover a notion of
the sovereignty of God and dismiss the fear that Calvinism leads to a
waning of evangelistic fervor.
"Our Lord died particularly for the sins of his elect people, accomplishing
their salvation from beginning to end - and for no one else," said the Rev.
Fred Malone, pastor of First Baptist Church in Clinton, La.
Malone is part of the Founders Conference, a loose-knit network of Southern
Baptist Calvinists who say their five-point doctrine was the theology of
most early leaders of what became the Southern Baptist Convention.
To many Christians who adhere to Calvinist precepts, however, the zeal to
evangelize is not quenched by belief in predestination.
"It was the most freeing thing that ever happened to me, to discover that
there was nothing I could do to win God's grace, that it had all been done
for me already," said Bob Norman, a member of Grace Fellowship Presbyterian
Church in Mobile, Ala.
Scholars say the debate goes back to the 17th century, when the Baptist
movement was first being formed.
According to Timothy George, dean of the Beeson School of Divinity at
Samford University in Birmingham, at that time there were two "streams" of
thought - the General Baptist tradition and the Particular Baptist
tradition.
The General Baptist tradition, George said, received some of the same
influences that shaped the Methodist movement and held that salvation was
by faith through grace, but that a person's free will to choose God's
redemption was necessary.
"Like (Methodist founder) John Wesley, they placed more emphasis on free
will, less emphasis on predestination," George said.
The Particular Baptist tradition, he said, involves a belief in "partial
redemption," or the belief that God has destined some people for salvation
and others for damnation. George said that when the Southern Baptist
Convention was founded in 1845, the vast majority of Baptists were
Particular Baptists, or Reformed Baptists.
"That was the founding doctrine of Southern Baptist life until the early
20th century, and there are some who want to recover that and see what it
has to offer to us today," he added.
But that direction has led to error in the past, George added. Deep within
the Baptist "consciousness" is a fear that Calvin's doctrine of
predestination will engender "hyper-Calvinism," an attitude of indifference
to those who are not saved and a reluctance to invest in evangelism or
missions work.
Estep, however, calls the movement "superficial intellectualism."
"It gives the person who thinks he's a Calvinist an intellectual frame of
reference and gives him a superior attitude toward others. He is not only
elect, but he has a system of theology that is not from his own research
but it looks good, is a consistent system and relieves him of the
responsibility of evangelism."
There have been churches in the Southern Baptist Convention that have
disintegrated or divided over the issue, Estep said. When preachers begin
to talk about predestination, their congregations conclude that missions
and evangelism programs are going to suffer.
"But I'm not sure that the Baptists in the pews know anything about Calvin
and care anything about these issues that the preachers get involved in,"
Estep added.
San Antonio Express-News
August 30, 1997
RELIGION NEWS SERVICE
KK4TL
http://www.founders.org/abstract.html
http://www.gty.org/~phil/baptist.htm
From the upper link, it appears that the *first* SBC seminary was founded on
the principles of Calvinism.
What has swept the seminaries and the SBC since was Arminianism. Salvation
based on works and numbers. Walk-the-aisle-shake-my-hand-join-the-church
gimmicks. Easy-believism.
In the words of an elderly SBC minister from Memphis .. "Arminianism has left
us as empty as last year's cabbage patch". His words .. not mine.
>Baptists, he said, have traditionally believed in the absolute freedom of the
human will to choose or reject salvation.
>
The human will? To choose salvation?
Psalm 14:2-3 -
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there
were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none
that doeth good, no, not one.
Romans 3:10-12 -
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
And if we ain't gonna seek after God, then we prob'ly ain't gonna "choose
salvation".
Vernono
"Anonymous" <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote in message
news:da97c034fe63c152...@paranoici.org...
> Five Point Calvinism sweeping Southern Baptist seminaries
>
> Southern Baptists may wake up one Sunday soon and find they really aren't
> Southern Baptists unless they are Presbyterians.
>
> A growing movement is sweeping the denomination's seminaries over the role
> and impact of historic Calvinist beliefs, especially the idea that
> salvation is predetermined by God and there is nothing humans can do to
> change who will be saved and who will be damned.
>
And you are a liar and you know that you are.
Tiger
news:wR4r9.23727$Pa.4...@news1.west.cox.net:
Al Mohler is clearly a Calvinist. So what's the lie?
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
Jack
>>For Baptists, at issue is this central question: <><><<> Rest snipped.
>
>http://www.founders.org/abstract.html
>http://www.gty.org/~phil/baptist.htm
>
>From the upper link, it appears that the *first* SBC seminary was founded on
>the principles of Calvinism.
>
>What has swept the seminaries and the SBC since was Arminianism. Salvation
>based on works and numbers. Walk-the-aisle-shake-my-hand-join-the-church
>gimmicks. Easy-believism.
What an odd thing to say!
Certainly Calvinism's "once saved always saved" theology is easier to believe
than what the Bible actually says about the obedience of those who love the
Messiah and will do works without thought of getting a reward.
"Say one prayer - be saved for life no matter what act of evil and perversion
you commit," sells alot better to the masses than the scripture where Messiah
says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of
Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants. On that Day, many
will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we
expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?'
Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me,
you workers of lawlessness!'" (Matt 7:21-23).
Jack
Vernono, we can only hope that you are right and that Calvinism is being
rejected by most Baptists. But, saddly, it seems that many fall for the lies
of Calvinism.
Jack
not mean correctness. If theology were a democracy, the followers of Yshu`a
would have been outvoted six to one. The real test is to evaluate the
biblical validity of the theology in question. I have chosen the Talmudic
style of investigation that allows for the supporting arguments of an opinion
to be fully explored rather than a one sided lambasting of the opinions of
others that is so popular in Christian theological discussions. This is
especially appropriate since Paul frequently used Talmudic forms in those of
his writings included in the New Testament.
I have gathered a few Calvinist sources to quote for the Calvinist opinion.
Most of then used the same arguments and quoted the same verses, so the number
that I will use will seem smaller than it actually was durring research. I
will simply number them rather than listing names. I will use one that was
rather complete but not too longwinded as the core of the Calvinist argument
and add corroborative statements as needed to support the Calvinist opinion.
This corroboration primarily consists of Scriptural citations. I have also
found one "anti-Calvinist."
A note on terminology: Christianity has changed the names of the people in
their translations of the Bible. This is not only grammatically incorrect, in
many cultures, including Messiah's culture, this is an insult. We do not call
President George Bush "Farmer Shrubbery;" why would we show less respect to
the Son of God? In quotations, I do not correct this error, but in my
responses I do use correct names and terms. Also, the vowels are removed from
G-d and L-rd because these are used to translate the Name of G-d and the Title
of G-d. I may use the Hebrew "Elohim," "Adonai," and "HaShem" for the name or
title of G-d purely out of habit. Also, I will use Messiah's real name
"Yshu`a," rather than a euphemism.
Calvinist #1 claims:
First, the overall emphasis of "Calvinism" is the sovereignty of Almighty God,
and the means to know Him is close Scriptural exegesis.
Calvinist #1 outlines:
There are five major doctrines that package the entire Calvinistic theology,
easily remembered by the acronym, TULIP. Each point of doctrine develops from
the other, and discarding any of the five points can destroy the whole system
of thought. We will try to go the five points briefly for you.
Calvinist #1 explains:
T= Total Depravity:
This first point is foundational for the remaining four. It is the belief
that all men are sinners because of the original sin of Adam, who was our
federal representative head in the beginning with God. Adam was created in
the image of God; meaning he was given moral agency to have secondary cause
and effect in this world. Adam used his agency to disobey God through
unbelief and sin, thus bringing death upon himself and all his progeny. All
his descendents since, are born with a corrupted human nature that has
enslaved their moral agency totally, and they are unable to please God in the
flesh, because they are inclined to evil only. Yet, God does not change and
His eternal principles do not change, so God still holds man accountable to
live according to His will and subject to His decrees, but man is so depraved
and dead in his sins and trespasses, that he cannot do what God commands.
This is a tragedy and a dilemma. All men are doomed to Hell because of Adam's
sin and their own voluntary sinning added to it and because they are unable to
live according to God's Laws.
I respond:
Adan did sin, but not through lack of belief; Adam believed in HaShem.
Adam DID allow the introduction of the Yetzer HaRa (the evil urge) into the
human consciousness. However, the Yetzer HaTov (the good urge) is still
plainly visible in human affairs.
Many Atheists, who are obviously not saved, act in a good and moral manner to
other people based upon their ethical idea that this the "right" thing to do.
Since these Atheists do not believe in any gods at all, they have no reason to
behave this way except that there is good in all people.
Calvinist #2 cites:
Mark 7:21-23
"For from within, out of a person's heart, come forth wicked thoughts, sexual
immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, indecency, envy,
slander, arrogance, foolishness. All these wicked things come from within,
and they make a person unclean."
I respond:
This verse does indicate the corrupted nature of mankind but does not support
the theory of a totality of corruption. It is also taken out of context. The
context was the discussion of how a person becomes corrupted - whether a
physical act such as physical contact with a Gentile or failure to recite the
traditional prayers when washing one's hands prior to eating can corrupt a
person.
Calvinist #2 cites:
Romans 6:20
"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relationship to
righteousness."
I respond:
In dealing with the Romans who converted from a hedonistic
theology/philosophy, Rabbi Sha`ul (Paul) needed to express the Jewish idea
that sin is the reality of slavery with the illusion of freedom, but that
obedience to G-d is freedom that pagans claim to be slavery. Additionally,
since the Romans were Pagans they did not know that they could be free from
idolatry, thus they were slaves to it. Even without the understanding of the
context of this verse, there is no reason to believe that it supports the idea
of total depravity.
Calvinist #2 cites:
He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12).
I add the quote of the entire passage:
"As the Tanakh puts it,
'There is no one righteous, not even one!
No one understands,
no one seeks God,
all have turned away
and at the same time become useless;
there is no one who shows kindness, not a single one!'"
I respond:
Calvinist #2 has taken this quote out of context. The passage deals with the
question of whether or not Jewish believers in Messiah are intrinsically
better than non-Jewish believers.
It should also be noted that Rabbi Shaul in his comparison is quoting verses
first referring to the Pagans (Psalm 14 was written to pagans who claimed that
by allowing Babylon to attack Israel they had done no evil since they had not
attacked), and then to the apostasy among the Jews, which resulted in the
destruction of the Temple. Also, if one continues reading in Psalm 53 (the
second psalm quoted), one sees that the Jews will be fully restored, and
knowing that the Gentiles who are grafted into Israel share the fate of
Israel, those Gentiles will be restored with Israel.
Further, the fact that men do not seek G-d spontaneously does not support
total depravity either. The Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) calls to all
humanity; only a few of us listen to Him.
I comment:
Based upon Calvinists #1's original assertion that the remaining four parts of
this "TULIP" theology are dependant upon this one, I could stop here and
reject Calvinism entirely. However, in the ethics of the Hagelian dialectic,
we should investigate all five points, in case some elements of Calvinism are
correct. Also, in Talmudic style all of the associated attempts to prove a
theology, even a false theology, must be investigated to prevent corrupt
people from furthering a false theology.
Calvinist #1 explains:
U=Unconditional Election:
God, in His grace and mercy, and His love for His Son, (the second Person of
the Triune Godhead), decreed to elect some men, choosing to spare them in
Jesus Christ who acts as their representative, in order to spare them this
fate of Hell. The purpose was also to fulfill His Covenant to provide an
everlasting kingdom for Jesus Christ, inhabited with sinless human beings, who
would share this inheritance and live forever with God. So, without any merit
on the sinners' parts, God elected and named a certain people, predestinating
them to everlasting life in Jesus Christ, and electing to leave the rest of
mankind in their sins to suffer Hell . . .all before the world was created.
[Eph. 1:3&4]
I comment:
My first reaction to this idea was to laugh. My second was to be offended
that Calvinism would call G-d "evil." The Calvinist theology does so in
ignorance, but it does so none the less. This element of Calvinism requires
that G-d commit evil actions, namely that he violates the Commandment "Lo
tirtzach" ("Don't Murder.") "Lo tirtzach" forbids destruction of a human
being in any way: psychological, physical, moral, or spiritual. I list those
four from least severe to most severe. This "Unconditional Election" requires
that G-d commit the worst kind of murder: the mass murder of souls. Further,
the only "election/choosing" of people is the Choosing of the Jewish people to
be G-d's People for all time.
Calvinist #1 cited Ephesians 1:3&4:
"Praised be Adonai, Father of our Lord Yshu`a the Messiah, who in the Messiah
has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heaven. In the Messiah, He
chose us in love before the creation of the universe to be holy and without
defect in his presence."
I comment:
This is a blessing in traditional Jewish form. It is a modification of the
blessing for the Torah, "Praised… …Who chose us from all people and gave us
His Torah." Obviously, there are Jews who rejected the Torah. These Jews are
"Karet" (cut off from Israel and from salvation (depending upon wording in the
Hebrew)). Using the second Rule of interpreting Scriptures, G'zerah Shavah
(Equivalence of expressions) it is obvious that these terms must be used in
the same sense. There is definitely a condition upon our Salvation.
I should also clarify the entire paragraph (Ephesians 1:3-6):
"Praised be Adonai, Father of our Lord Yshu`a the Messiah, who in the Messiah
has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heaven. In the Messiah he
chose us in love before the creation of the universe to be holy and without
defect in his presence. He determined in advance that through Yshu`a the
Messiah we would be his sons - in keeping with his pleasure and purpose - So,
that we would bring him praise commensurate with the glory of the grace he
gave us through the Beloved One."
I comment:
This passage explains that Salvation through Messiah was G-d's intention from
the start and not just an afterthought. So, it is obvious that the intent of
the passage is to show that God intended for all people to be saved just as He
intended for Adam and Eve to resist the temptation of the Fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil. Sadly, some people are not in G-d's will for
them.
Calvinist #2 quotes:
Romans 9:11:
"and before they were born, before they had done anything at all, either good
or bad (so that God's plan might remain a matter of his sovereign choice,
not."
For clarification and context, I quote:
Romans 9:10-12
And even more to the point is the case of Rivkah; for both her children were
conceived in a single act with Yitzchak, our father; 11 and before they were
born, before they had done anything at all, either good or bad (so that God's
plan might remain a matter of his sovereign choice, not 12 dependent on what
they did, but on God, who does the calling), it was said to her, "The older
will serve the younger." 13 This accords with where it is written, "Ya'akov I
loved, but Esav I hated."
I comment:
Calvinist #2 takes the verse completely out of context. The quote is not even
a complete sentence! When taken in context we see that the passage deals with
G-d's selection of the Jewish people as His People, not with salvation. The
Fact is that the "Elect" are the "Chosen People," the Jews. John Calvin was
just too racist to admit that God had future plans for His Chosen People,
including their complete acceptance of Messiah and mass Salvation at the Third
Outpouring of the Holy Spirit described in the Book of Joel. (The first two
were the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai (and with it limited access to the
Holy Spirit), and the anniversary of that day just after Messiah's ascension
(and the universal accessibility to the Holy Spirit). The results of this
Third Outpouring of the Holy Spirit are stated in Romans 11:25-27: "For,
brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but
has now revealed, so that you won't imagine you know more than you actually
do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Israel, until the
Gentile world enters in its fullness; and that it is in this way that all
Israel will be saved. As the Tanakh says, 'Out of Tziyon will come the
Redeemer; he will turn away ungodliness from Ya'akov and this will be my
covenant with them, … when I take away their sins.' "
Calvinist #1 explains:
L = Limited Atonement:
God decreed that this promise of salvation from Hell, would be worked through
His Son, to whom these people were to be given. This was necessary, for all
men being sinful, could not ever escape their sin and corruption. Jesus
Christ was ordained to be given a human body, enter the world, live the
perfect life of obedience to the Law of God, thereby qualifying Himself to be
the purist sacrifice, without blemish, to be offered for the sins of these
Elect people. Jesus Christ was to die their particular deaths, and suffer
eternal Hell on their behalf. He was to rise from the dead, demonstrating His
divine power, and ascend back to the Father to act as Mediator and High Priest
for these Elect, until the last day, when they would be raised up to glory to
inherit the kingdom promised to the Son by the Father. Jesus Christ was
considered slain before God created the world. [Rev. 13:8]. Jesus Christ
offered atonement for sins in the fullness of time, for the "chosen ones"
only. It was a limited atonement, only vicarious for His sheep who He knows
by name.
I respond:
Here Calvinist #1 makes the mistake of thinking that a sinless person can get
into Heaven without need of Messiah. This is called "Legalism." The Law was
not meant to outline a method of entering Heaven. Thus, the sin that results
from failing in our efforts to obey G-d's Law does not bar us from Heaven. We
need to be sinless when we go to Heaven, thus forgiveness is integral to the
salvation process.
I continue:
It should be noted that forgiveness of sins is limited, but not in the way
that Calvinism describes. Forgiveness though Messiah is limited as per the
model that G-d gave us in the system of Offerings found in Leviticus and
clarified in Hebrews 10:26-29. Atonement is never made for intentional and
defiant sins against God such as Antinomianism.
I quote Hebrews 10:26-29:
"For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but only the terrifying
prospect of Judgment, of raging fire that will consume the enemies.
Someone who disregards the Torah of Mosheh is put to death without mercy on
the word of two or three witnesses. Think how much worse will be the
punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God; who
has treated as something common the blood of the Covenant which made him holy;
and who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, giver of God's grace!"
I continue:
Further, Since the "Chosen Ones" refers to the physical descendants of Avraham
Yitzchak and Ya`akov (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), this would mean that only
Jews could be saved. Rabbi Sha`ul spent a great deal of time dispelling that
myth. Calvinism brings the myth back married to the heresy of Replacement
Theology.
More compelling than these arguments is the passage in Romans 10:11-13, "For
the passage quoted says that everyone who rests his trust on him will not be
humiliated. That means that there is no difference between Jew and
Gentile-Adonai is the same for everyone, rich toward everyone who calls on
him, since everyone who calls on the name of Adonai will be delivered."
Everyone means "all people", not just those who are "permitted" to call upon
His name. The word "humiliated" not only indicates that the sins of the
unsaved are exposed, but also that they are responsible for their own sins.
Calvinist #1 explains:
I = Irresistible Grace
Jesus Christ promised that after He accomplished all these things, and was
ascended back to the right hand of God, that He would send His Holy Spirit,
who has the office and duty to draw and call the chosen to the Son, through
the power of the preaching of the gospel. The Holy Spirit bestows the grace
of God upon elect sinners, quickening their hearts and regenerating their
souls and spirits; gifting them with faith to know and believe in Jesus
Christ, and leading them to repentance and forgiveness of sins. No man can
come to Jesus Christ, unless the Father who sent Him, draw them with grace
extended by the Holy Spirit. And those God calls, He also justifies, without
fail. The grace of God never fails. All whom the Father gave His Son, and
whom the Son died for, will hear the good news through the power of the gospel
preached and the work of grace through the Holy Spirit and be saved.
I respond:
In the first place, the lack of freewill espoused here denounces the biblical
fact that mankind is created in Elohim's image (Genesis 1:26). In the second
place, Calvinism claims to exalt the sovereignty of G-d, but a "god" who
cannot create creatures with freewill is crippled. In the third place, to say
that G-d never fails, and to talk up His abilities is absolutely true, but it
has no bearing on this issue. If G-d simply wanted victory over evil, it
would already be accomplished. He wants us to chose victory over evil. That
is why evil still exists. It is the purpose of G-d that you be able to reject
Him if you choose or accept Him if you choose.
I must also point out that since the term "the Elect" refers to Jews, as
evidenced by the verses Calvin cited to prove the existence of the elect, this
would be DNA Salvation, which is also ridiculous. Gentiles can be saved too.
Calvinist #3 tells claims:
Those who are predestined for this salvation are drawn by the Father and
called by the Holy Spirit who is irresistible. [John 6:44&45]
I looked up the citation:
"No one can come to me unless the Father-the one who sent me-draws him. And I
will raise him up on the Last Day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, 'They
will all be taught by Adonai.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns
from him comes to me."
I respond:
Calvinist #3 would have been more convincing if he had not cited verse 45 as
well as 44. When taken out of context, verse 44 could be misunderstood to
mean that only certain people chosen by G-d will come to Messiah, but can also
mean that only those who see Messiah in the Torah will come to Him. Verse 45
removes any doubt. The term "Everyone who listens" shows that the choice is
that of the person who must choose to listen to G-d to be saved. The phrase
"taught by Adonai" is a direct reference to the Torah. The word "Torah"
literally means "instruction/teaching." So, only those who understand the
Messiah through the Torah actually come to Him. This leads to Mattityahu
(Matthew) 7:21-23 where Messiah teaches that those who renounce the Torah and
the 613 Commandments therein are not saved even if they say the sinners prayer
and call upon the Name of Messiah. Since the Majority of Calvinists reject
God's Commandments, they are not saved according to this passage.
I continue:
Calvinist #3 has also failed to note the end of the teaching that Messiah was
giving. Messiah closed with, "Suppose you were to see the Son of Man going
back up to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is
no help. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life, yet some among
you do not trust." (For Yshu`a knew from the outset which ones would not
trust him, also which one would betray him.) "This," he said, "is why I told
you that no one can come to me unless the Father has made it possible for
him."" (Yochanan 6:62-65) So, Yhudah Ish Kiriot (Judas Escariot) was barred
from knowing Messiah until after the betrayal that was required by the
Prophecies of the Tanakh (OT). In this case, Yhudah Ish Kiriot was not barred
for life but only for a time, and then only for a specific and extreme
purpose. Whether or not he repented before his suicide is unknown to mankind.
Calvinist #1 sums up:
Every and each Elect will be saved, and not one will be lost. They have
inherited the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ and will live forever with
Him. No sinner can reject or resist this tremendous salvation by the grace of
God through faith. This is God's will and it cannot be thwarted or denied.
I respond:
Those who have never sinned can accept salvation as well as sinners. However,
many sinners refuse the gift of salvation that Messiah has offered them. They
refuse salvation of their own freewill and deserve the punishment that they
receive. Messiahs's gift of salvation has been rejected by many, some who
have received salvation later rejected it. Of the "Elect," the Jews, Romans
11:26&27 says that every and each Jew will be saved. This does not apply to
some nebulous "elect" as Calvin asserts. His concept of this "elect" was
based on Replacement Theology. This theology which is motivated by
anti-Semitism and Antinomianism, which Rabbi Shaul (Paul) identified with the
Anti-Christ in Second Thessalonians.
I continue:
To address Replacement Theology it is best to simply go to the Scriptures
(Revelation 3:9). "Here, I will give you some from the synagogue of the
Adversary, those who call themselves Jews but aren't-on the contrary, they are
lying-see, I will cause them to come and prostrate themselves at your feet,
and they will know that I have loved you." Those who try to steal the role of
G-d's chosen people are effectively calling themselves "Jews" only their
anti-Semitism prevents some of them from vocalizing the word "Jew."
Calvinist #1 explains:
P=Perseverance:
When a sinner is converted and born from above by the work of the Holy Spirit,
he is changed into a new man, with renewed abilities to exercise his moral
agency to live according to the will of God and be pleasing to Him. The
sinner is given the capability to choose to walk in the Spirit and not
according to the lusts of the flesh. The Holy Spirit takes up residence in
each regenerated sinner and acts as his teacher, guide, comforter, intercessor
and guarantor of everlasting life. The sinner is kept by the power of God
until the last day, when he will resurrect to glory. Jesus Christ mediates in
heaven for the saved elect, and when and if they sin, they can go to the
throne of grace, confess their sins, and be continually cleansed and covered
by the blood of Christ's offering. Each and every believer will persevere and
endure to the end of their time, and when they die physically, their souls
immediately go to be with the Lord in heaven to await the New Jerusalem; the
new heavens and new earth, where all sin, evil, wickedness, Satan, death and
Hell will be removed into the lake of fire, forever and ever. God will
establish the everlasting kingdom, and be all in all, and the believers will
live forever in and with Jesus Christ.
I respond:
This portion seems rather rambling. The mix of truth and falsehood is like a
checkerboard. A person who accepts Yshu`a as Messiah IS re-born. The Ruach
HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) does indwell in the believer. The New Believer has
always had the ability to obey the Commandments physically; now he has the
capacity to obey them spiritually (Belief in G-d is required). If the New
Believer is Jewish, he was able to obey the Commandments physically and
spiritually before accepting Messiah, but that did not accomplish his
salvation. Messiah mediates for the saved Jews (Elect), but he also mediates
for the saved non-Jews.
I comment:
Calvinism seems to suggest that these "elect" can be righteous. Some
Calvinists have even called them "Saints." The word "Saint" is used to
translate the Hebrew word Tzaddik. A Tzaddik is a person who uphold all 613
Commandments. Baptists are the biggest example of Calvinists. In fact,
"Calvinist #4" is a Baptist Pastor. I have never know a Baptist who was a
Tzaddik. Their denomination even requires their congregants to commit sins
against G-d. …But that is another discussion.
I continue:
What Calvinist #1 means by "Persevere" is somewhat vague.
Calvinist #3 restated:
Those saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and born again by the Holy
Spirit will endure and persevere unto everlasting life. [John 10:28&29]
I will quote his citation (I included verse 27 so that it would not begin in
the middle of the sentence:
"My sheep listen to my voice, I recognize them, they follow me, and I give
them eternal life. They will absolutely never be destroyed, and no one will
snatch them from my hands. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than
all; and no one can snatch from the Father's hands. I and the Father are
one."
I comment:
I gather that this "perseverance" is a belief that saved people cannot loose
their salvation. I was still compelled to check another source. This verse
does say that evil cannot overcome the salvation given to the believer, but it
does not say that the believer cannot reject his own salvation.
I quote:
"Those who are not with me are against me, and those who do not gather with me
are scattering. Because of this, I tell you that people will be forgiven any
sin and blasphemy, but blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) will not
be forgiven. One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven;
but whoever keeps on speaking against the Ruach HaKodesh will never be
forgiven, neither in the `Olam Hazeh (This World) nor in the `Olam Haba (The
World to Come). (Matthew 12:30-32)
I comment:
So, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit bars one from salvation.
Calvinist #4 stated:
It follows from what was just said that the people of God WILL persevere to
the end and not be lost. The foreknown are predestined, the predestined are
called, the called are justified, and the justified are glorified. No one is
lost from this group. To belong to this people is to be eternally secure.
I respond:
Now it is obvious that this "P" means that the Calvinists think that once a
person is saved they cannot loose their salvation. If their theory of
predestination/election were correct then there would be no need to say this.
If you are forced, you are forced. However, their theory is wrong. This
point only serves to bring out the mistakes of Calvinism.
I quote Hebrews 10:26-29:
"For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but only the terrifying
prospect of Judgment, of raging fire that will consume the enemies.
"Someone who disregards the Torah of Mosheh is put to death without mercy on
the word of two or three witnesses. Think how much worse will be the
punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God; who
has treated as something common the Blood of the Covenant which made him holy;
and who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, giver of God's grace!"
I explain:
Rabbi Sha`ul (aka "Pavlos" or "Paul") wrote that a saved person could become
damned. In fact, a person who commits Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
CANNOT be saved, and only a saved person can commit blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit. Since this is true, there is no way that Predestination can be true
at all.
I close:
In summation, Calvinism requires that G-d be limited in creative ability, that
G-d commit sins, that Messiah lie and that G-d lie. If Calvinism were true,
evil men would be unable to act otherwise, thus they would be "G-d's victims."
Furthermore, I am unsure that anyone who can say these things or support such
a theology actually knows Messiah at all.
John W
us, and where we don't interact, and we can't share burdens of others,
or our own.
Or we could be faithful. "Do not forsake the assembly, as is the habit
of some."
John W
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:31:17 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:46:47 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>Personally, I am not a follower of Calvinism. I often think we'd be
>FAR Better off quietly worshipping the Lord AT HOME instead of
>publicly assembling in a church building, where so many simply 'go to
>be seen'............ The TRUE FAITHFUL can worship just as well
>privately at home.
>
>I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this sir...
>
>Elaine
In Christ,
John W
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
John W
that we follow Christ MORE than our pastor!
John W
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:36:51 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:48:39 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>
>>In summation, Calvinism requires that G-d be limited in creative ability, that
>>G-d commit sins, that Messiah lie and that G-d lie. If Calvinism were true,
>>evil men would be unable to act otherwise, thus they would be "G-d's victims."
>> Furthermore, I am unsure that anyone who can say these things or support such
>>a theology actually knows Messiah at all.
>
>To sum it ALL up, Calvin was a mere man. NO HUMAN, whether male or
>female is perfect! The LORD IS perfect.
>So, anyone who follows Calvin, or any other 'church leader' in such a
>manner clearly does NOT follow CHRIST THE LORD.
John W
"All fall short..." "...none is righteous..."
John W
In Christ,
KK4TL
>
after God.
That we become saved is a work of the grace of God. Plus nothing.
Aaron
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:46:47 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>Personally, I am not a follower of Calvinism. I often think we'd be
>FAR Better off quietly worshipping the Lord AT HOME instead of
>publicly assembling in a church building, where so many simply 'go to
>be seen'............ The TRUE FAITHFUL can worship just as well
>privately at home.
>
>I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this sir...
Would you like my thoughts as well?
I believe that the congregations provide vital social support for
people who chose to follow God rather than the fashions of the secular
world - or they are supposed to at any rate.
It is manmade theologies that cause the problems.
>
>Elaine
Aaron
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:48:39 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>
>>Those who have never sinned can accept salvation as well as sinners.
>
>WHOAH!! The Bible tells us that there is NOT ONE PERSON who has NOT
>sinned................ "For ALL have sinned, and have come short of
>the glory of God"..................
The Bible also mentions a few - a VERY few - who committed no sins.
These still need Messiah to get into Heaven. Theoretically, even if
you obeyed the Copmmandments perfectly from birth to death, you would
still need Messiah to be saved, because the Bible does not promise
Heaven to those who obey the Law perfectly. So even if no one had
ever been without sin (except Messiah) the fact is that everyone needs
Messiah and that you cannot "work your way to Heaven." I thought that
Jack's meaning was quite clear.
Aaron
wrote:
>We could worship at home, where it's warm and safe and no one bothers
>us, and where we don't interact, and we can't share burdens of others,
>or our own.
>
>Or we could be faithful. "Do not forsake the assembly, as is the habit
>of some."
I must agree. It is not the idea that is wrong; it is the way some
people pervert the idea that is wrong.
Aaron
wrote:
>Careful! We ALL follow SOMEONE's teachings! We need to try and ensure
>that we follow Christ MORE than our pastor!
That is true. If your leader is defying what the Bible says ask him
to explain. If he will not, or cannot, then leave and find another
church or synagogue.
Aaron
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:48:39 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>
>>In summation, Calvinism requires that G-d be limited in creative ability, that
>>G-d commit sins, that Messiah lie and that G-d lie. If Calvinism were true,
>>evil men would be unable to act otherwise, thus they would be "G-d's victims."
>> Furthermore, I am unsure that anyone who can say these things or support such
>>a theology actually knows Messiah at all.
>
>To sum it ALL up, Calvin was a mere man. NO HUMAN, whether male or
>female is perfect! The LORD IS perfect.
>So, anyone who follows Calvin, or any other 'church leader' in such a
>manner clearly does NOT follow CHRIST THE LORD.
I am not sure what "manner" you are refering to.
However, anyone who loves a man-made theology more that the actual
Bible has committed idolatry and has rejected Messiah.
Vernono
"Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92A8EEF07C...@24.25.0.106...
Most "Baptists" are "Calvinist" and always have been. Anyone who doesn't
know that is ignorant of Baptist roots.
The innuendo is five point or ultra. THAT IS A LIE.
Once in a while every denomination goes into humanist or New Age nonsense
and then they come back to roots. The non-Christians / pseudo-Christians
then cry foul with exagerations.
>
> --
> Tiger
>
Tiger
news:hGqr9.53752$Pa.7...@news1.west.cox.net:
>
> "Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92A8EEF07C...@24.25.0.106...
>> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
>> news:wR4r9.23727$Pa.4...@news1.west.cox.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Anonymous" <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote in message
>> > news:da97c034fe63c152...@paranoici.org...
>> >> Five Point Calvinism sweeping Southern Baptist seminaries
>> >>
>> >> Southern Baptists may wake up one Sunday soon and find they
>> >> really aren't Southern Baptists unless they are Presbyterians.
>> >>
>> >> A growing movement is sweeping the denomination's seminaries
>> >> over the role and impact of historic Calvinist beliefs,
>> >> especially the idea that salvation is predetermined by God and
>> >> there is nothing humans can do to change who will be saved and
>> >> who will be damned.
>> >>
>> >
>> > And you are a liar and you know that you are.
>> >
>> Al Mohler is clearly a Calvinist. So what's the lie?
>
>
> Most "Baptists" are "Calvinist" and always have been. Anyone who
> doesn't know that is ignorant of Baptist roots.
Indeed? Were Thomas Helwys and John Smythe Calvinists?
Vernono
"Jack" <N...@Spam.org> wrote in message
news:uqqrhm4...@corp.supernews.com...
Check up on what you or others mean by Calvinism.
If you think you can earn salvation, you are not a typical Baptist.
If you think you can lose salvation, you are not a typical Baptist.
THAT is what Calvinism is about. It is NOT about how much free will you
have or don't have.
Calvinism is rejected by the less educated Baptist because the less educated
reject any word other than Baptist.
Vernono
"KK4TL" <kk...@aol.com123> wrote in message
news:20021016171835...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >By YOUR reasoning, kk, NONE are saved.
> >
> Nope. The verses point out that our fallen nature does NOT incline us to
seek
> after God.
Eph 2:1
>
> That we become saved is a work of the grace of God. Plus nothing.
>
>
Eph 2:8-10
Vernono
taught in a cult.
Translation
You don't know what Calvinism is.
There is no such basic "denomination" with specifics as you try to lie
about.
"Jack" <N...@Spam.org> wrote in message
news:uqqrlb8...@corp.supernews.com...
KK4TL
>reject any word other than Baptist.
>
John W
I look at John 3:`16, which says "whosoever believes on Him..." That
sounds to me like an invitation open to ALL.
Giving us NO choice in the matter. We are robots. Man's free will,
which we OBVIOUSLY have, makes NO sense in this scenario.
In Christ,
John W
John W
minor. 5 major points.
I disagree with at least 2. Election, and limited atonement.
John W
In Christ,
John W
Seriously, though! Can't we say the same for EVERY sect?
John W
In Christ,
John W
makes to believe or not.
"For God does not want that ANY should perish, but that ALL ..."
John W
In Christ,
John W
don't remember the points of Calvinism being hammered, and until about
10 years ago, I was a Southern Baptist.
And John 3:16 is non-Calvinist theology, and it's so "roots" it's in
the Bible!
Romans 10:9 also tends towards non-Calvinist, too.
John W
In Christ,
John W
points us to God!
John W
In Christ,
John W
John W
Vernono
Define what YOU think Calvinist means?
Vernono
"© <:o) docw ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote in message
news:1t1uqus0aitha31go...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Oct 2002 05:13:23 GMT, kk...@aol.com123 (KK4TL) done went and
> wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
YOU stated above that you cannot EARN salvation. That is Calvinism.
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
> _____________________________________________________
> do...@eudoramail.com :o)
Vernono
"© <:o) docw ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote in message
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:10:46 GMT, "Vernono"
> these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
educated
> >reject any word other than Baptist.
> >
>
>
> Calvinism. And I have NEVER said that the Baptist faith is the only
> one with saved in it.......
Really
You apparently fall into the group who don't know what Calvinism is but if
it isn't "spelled" Baptist you aren't one.
Like I said, less educated.
What is YOUR definition of Calvinism?
Stuck?
Try loooking up the history of Baptist "theology" (forget the method of
baptism).
It is Calvinism.
The root of Calvinism is "no works required" for Salvation.
AND "Once saved always saved"
VERY few churches believe that theology and it is called Calvinism.
Not
Assy of God
RCC
Lutheran
Episcopal
Methodist
Penecostal
Jehovahs Witness
Orthodox
Tiger
news:0%Kr9.84727$Pa.10...@news1.west.cox.net:
One who follows the theological tenets of John Calvin. And since you
apparently don't know the answer, both Smyth and Helwys were
Arminians...and they were the *first* Baptists. To put it your way,
"anyone who doesn't know that is ignorant of Baptist roots."
The Boog-man Seven7s
I had to find somewhere to jump into this thread...
Anyway, what I have been finding in my experience is that there is
something legitimate that both sides have to say in Calvinism and
Arminianism. I am more or less still Southern Baptist - those are my
roots and theology, even though I attend an interdenominational church
(where many hold some sort of Calvinist views), and I find that the
Bible can almost be proven on both sides (the only point that I find
weak is the Calvinist argument for limited atonement).
What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views. Neither
is completely correct, yet both have their points to make. We must
remember that there are apparent contradictions in both views, yet we
need to remember that God can work with contradictions, even when they
can be so blatantly opposing (ie God selecting us, yet us being able
to freely follow Him).
I think that the idea that evangelization won't take place in the SBC
is a dumb idea - there are too many that would do it anyway, even if
they took to Calvinism. John Piper, one of the better authors and
speakers today, has probably the best straight-up Calvinist theology
on pro-evangelization.
Anyway, I think that there is a deeper point at hand, and it is not
whether Calvinists or Arminians are correct.
It is that Jesus saves, and that He saves us in His own way, and that
His grace covers both the Arminian and the Calvinist the same, as long
as they acknowledge Him as Lord, and that we are to bring HIM to
people, not Calvin or Arminius.
The Boog-man Seven7s
duke32
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>Personally, I am not a follower of Calvinism. I often think we'd be
>FAR Better off quietly worshipping the Lord AT HOME instead of
>publicly assembling in a church building, where so many simply 'go to
>be seen'............ The TRUE FAITHFUL can worship just as well
>privately at home.
We are called to worship God as a community, not in private.
Jesus talks about us 2 or more of us gathering in his name. Don't you
understand that?
duke
*****
Whoever has left the darkness of sin,
yearns for God
Psalm 63:2-9
*****
Don
>We are called to worship God as a community, not in private.
>
>Jesus talks about us 2 or more of us gathering in his name. Don't you
>understand that?
Well...I guess that "go into your closet" passage was a joke then. I
will just stop praying privately. And forget about "Christ in YOU,
the hope of Glory." That's useless also.
D*
Qualem blennum!
John W
there is also appropriate worship to do corporately, like singing
congregational hymns and songs, and corporate prayer, responsive
readings, whatever.
There is a place for both.
John W
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:56:31 GMT, Don <calldo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
In Christ,
John W
indicate lack of thought and insincerity, all of which I've been
accused of! How interesting!
John W
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:31:56 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:07:24 GMT, duke32 <duk...@earthlink.net> done
>went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet
>NewsFROUPS:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:31:17 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
>><G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>>
>>>Personally, I am not a follower of Calvinism. I often think we'd be
>>>FAR Better off quietly worshipping the Lord AT HOME instead of
>>>publicly assembling in a church building, where so many simply 'go to
>>>be seen'............ The TRUE FAITHFUL can worship just as well
>>>privately at home.
>>
>>We are called to worship God as a community, not in private.
We are called to both. "Pray in your closet..." "Do not forsake the
assembly..."
>>
>>Jesus talks about us 2 or more of us gathering in his name. Don't you
>>understand that?
Yes, anywhere there are two or more gathered in His name, that's
called "church", and He has joined our little circle.
>>
>>
>>duke
>Better one sincere follower of Christ than a group of hypocrites.
Good Grief!! We are ALL hypocrites about something; many of about
SEVERAL things! First time you say, "A" and do "B", you're a
hypocrite. And if the hypocrites are in church with the sinners,
that's the PERFECT place for all three.
>
>I did not say all churches were that way either, did I?
>Leave it to you to try to make something out of it!
Sometimes you leave us wondering, Elaine, just what you are talking
about. I usually try to re-read my response at least twice before I
post it.
In Christ,
John W
John W
If you believe 1 point of Calvin, or if you believe 2 points of
Calvin, does not make you a Calvinist.
I don't consider myself a Calvinist by ANY means. I think Calvin
expresses man's cruelty, and his sadistic nature. The 5 Points were
NOT John Calvin's finest moment!
John W
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:08:04 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:14:30 GMT, "Vernono"
><verno...@contractor.net> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
>these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>
>>
>>YOU stated above that you cannot EARN salvation. That is Calvinism.
>
>So?
>I also say that John Paul II is the current pope- that doesn't make me
>a Catholic!
>
>Even though I am not a Calvinist, I do know that salvation is NOT
>earned.
>It's a FREE GIFT, given to us by Jesus.
John W
John W
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:08:38 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:22:21 GMT, "Vernono"
><verno...@contractor.net> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
>these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>
>>Like I said, less educated.
>
>
>bollocks
Vernono
"© <:o) docw ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote in message
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:14:30 GMT, "Vernono"
> these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
> >
> >
>
> I also say that John Paul II is the current pope- that doesn't make me
> a Catholic!
>
> Even though I am not a Calvinist, I do know that salvation is NOT
> earned.
> It's a FREE GIFT, given to us by Jesus.
You just defined Calvinist, like it or not.
Vernono
"The Boog-man Seven7s" <Seve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d91c51c1.02101...@posting.google.com...
That is a part of what many Calvinists do NOT belive in.
BUT anyone who does not believe in a smal amout of limited atonement has
never read the bible.
Who did God hate before he was born.
What was the predestined roll of Judas?
Whom did GOD harden the heart?
>
> What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views. Neither
> is completely correct, yet both have their points to make. We must
> remember that there are apparent contradictions in both views, yet we
> need to remember that God can work with contradictions, even when they
> can be so blatantly opposing (ie God selecting us, yet us being able
> to freely follow Him).
>
> I think that the idea that evangelization won't take place in the SBC
> is a dumb idea - there are too many that would do it anyway, even if
> they took to Calvinism. John Piper, one of the better authors and
> speakers today, has probably the best straight-up Calvinist theology
> on pro-evangelization.
The most ardent and full Calvinist promotes evangelism.
Only idiots (Catholics and other unlearned) come up with that screwy idea of
"Why evangelize?"
>
> Anyway, I think that there is a deeper point at hand, and it is not
> whether Calvinists or Arminians are correct.
>
> It is that Jesus saves, and that He saves us in His own way, and that
> His grace covers both the Arminian and the Calvinist the same, as long
> as they acknowledge Him as Lord, and that we are to bring HIM to
> people, not Calvin or Arminius.
>
> The Boog-man Seven7s
The problem with full Arminian is there is no hope and no real salvation,
just works and "I'm better than you are".
The Boog-man Seven7s
It's the one that they have the most difficulty with, but it is pretty
standard.
> BUT anyone who does not believe in a smal amout of limited atonement has
> never read the bible.
Incorrect. Look up every verse that has anything to do with the word
"world."
> Who did God hate before he was born.
> What was the predestined roll of Judas?
> Whom did GOD harden the heart?
Does not make Limited Atonement fact, but theory.
> >
> > What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views. Neither
> > is completely correct, yet both have their points to make. We must
> > remember that there are apparent contradictions in both views, yet we
> > need to remember that God can work with contradictions, even when they
> > can be so blatantly opposing (ie God selecting us, yet us being able
> > to freely follow Him).
> >
> > I think that the idea that evangelization won't take place in the SBC
> > is a dumb idea - there are too many that would do it anyway, even if
> > they took to Calvinism. John Piper, one of the better authors and
> > speakers today, has probably the best straight-up Calvinist theology
> > on pro-evangelization.
>
> The most ardent and full Calvinist promotes evangelism.
> Only idiots (Catholics and other unlearned) come up with that screwy idea of
> "Why evangelize?"
There are some hyper-Calvinists that hold this view, though they are a
minority.
> >
> > Anyway, I think that there is a deeper point at hand, and it is not
> > whether Calvinists or Arminians are correct.
> >
> > It is that Jesus saves, and that He saves us in His own way, and that
> > His grace covers both the Arminian and the Calvinist the same, as long
> > as they acknowledge Him as Lord, and that we are to bring HIM to
> > people, not Calvin or Arminius.
> >
> > The Boog-man Seven7s
>
> The problem with full Arminian is there is no hope and no real salvation,
> just works and "I'm better than you are".
Which is why I am not a full Arminian, but this does not mean that
they are not saved. Remember, by faith through grace. No other
qualification.
The Boog-man Seven7s
Vernono
Read Rom 9: 10-24 twenty times, VERY slowly.
Then read John 12:40 twenty times, VERY slowly.
I did this morning. The number twenty came up because I have twenty
different translations. They all agree with each other.
God does what God wants, when He wants for His purpose. There is no magic
little sequence which insures salvation. THAT is limited atonement.
Limited atonement is not the same as predestination nor is it preknowledge.
>
> > >
> > > What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views. Neither
> > > is completely correct, yet both have their points to make. We must
> > > remember that there are apparent contradictions in both views, yet we
> > > need to remember that God can work with contradictions, even when they
> > > can be so blatantly opposing (ie God selecting us, yet us being able
> > > to freely follow Him).
> > >
> > > I think that the idea that evangelization won't take place in the SBC
> > > is a dumb idea - there are too many that would do it anyway, even if
> > > they took to Calvinism. John Piper, one of the better authors and
> > > speakers today, has probably the best straight-up Calvinist theology
> > > on pro-evangelization.
> >
> > The most ardent and full Calvinist promotes evangelism.
> > Only idiots (Catholics and other unlearned) come up with that screwy
idea of
> > "Why evangelize?"
>
> There are some hyper-Calvinists that hold this view, though they are a
> minority.
EXTREME minority
We are talking about "Christians" who are of Calvinist bent. Jesus said "Go
tell". We need not know why or how God works. Just do it.
>
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think that there is a deeper point at hand, and it is not
> > > whether Calvinists or Arminians are correct.
> > >
> > > It is that Jesus saves, and that He saves us in His own way, and that
> > > His grace covers both the Arminian and the Calvinist the same, as long
> > > as they acknowledge Him as Lord, and that we are to bring HIM to
> > > people, not Calvin or Arminius.
> > >
> > > The Boog-man Seven7s
> >
> > The problem with full Arminian is there is no hope and no real
salvation,
> > just works and "I'm better than you are".
>
> Which is why I am not a full Arminian, but this does not mean that
> they are not saved. Remember, by faith through grace. No other
> qualification.
Yep, the motto of Calvinism.
Actually the concept of FULL Arminian or FULL Calvinist is similar in logic
to full human or full monkey.
Saved by God or Saved by Something other than God.
Anyway, "five point" Calvinism is not sweeping anything in SBC. SBC would
have to have some semblance of organization for ANYTHING to sweep through
it. Anyone who has associated with SBC for any length of time knows that
just about the only commonality is the name.
>
> The Boog-man Seven7s
The Boog-man Seven7s
presumtuous to base an entire theology around fifteen verses, when the
entirety of scripture MUST be taken into account. God wants to save
the world, and He makes no bones that the world is evil; and each of
your verses are bordered by men doing independant actions.
It is not that it disproves it, it is that limited atonement is an
incomplete view. God is bigger than both it and unlimited atonement.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views. Neither
> > > > is completely correct, yet both have their points to make. We must
> > > > remember that there are apparent contradictions in both views, yet we
> > > > need to remember that God can work with contradictions, even when they
> > > > can be so blatantly opposing (ie God selecting us, yet us being able
> > > > to freely follow Him).
> > > >
> > > > I think that the idea that evangelization won't take place in the SBC
> > > > is a dumb idea - there are too many that would do it anyway, even if
> > > > they took to Calvinism. John Piper, one of the better authors and
> > > > speakers today, has probably the best straight-up Calvinist theology
> > > > on pro-evangelization.
> > >
> > > The most ardent and full Calvinist promotes evangelism.
> > > Only idiots (Catholics and other unlearned) come up with that screwy
> idea of
> > > "Why evangelize?"
> >
> > There are some hyper-Calvinists that hold this view, though they are a
> > minority.
> EXTREME minority
> We are talking about "Christians" who are of Calvinist bent. Jesus said "Go
> tell". We need not know why or how God works. Just do it.
>
Actually, I am leaning that God actually has a reason for it, rather
than just a command. He tells us that how can men know without a
preacher...so there is something of obedience that works to spread the
gospel.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I think that there is a deeper point at hand, and it is not
> > > > whether Calvinists or Arminians are correct.
> > > >
> > > > It is that Jesus saves, and that He saves us in His own way, and that
> > > > His grace covers both the Arminian and the Calvinist the same, as long
> > > > as they acknowledge Him as Lord, and that we are to bring HIM to
> > > > people, not Calvin or Arminius.
> > > >
> > > > The Boog-man Seven7s
> > >
> > > The problem with full Arminian is there is no hope and no real
> salvation,
> > > just works and "I'm better than you are".
> >
> > Which is why I am not a full Arminian, but this does not mean that
> > they are not saved. Remember, by faith through grace. No other
> > qualification.
>
> Yep, the motto of Calvinism.
> Actually the concept of FULL Arminian or FULL Calvinist is similar in logic
> to full human or full monkey.
>
> Saved by God or Saved by Something other than God.
>
> Anyway, "five point" Calvinism is not sweeping anything in SBC. SBC would
> have to have some semblance of organization for ANYTHING to sweep through
> it. Anyone who has associated with SBC for any length of time knows that
> just about the only commonality is the name.
More or less, true. I highly doubt that many Baptists would become
five-point anyway.
> >
The Boog-man Seven7s
Vernono
THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How much, why, when is
for ignorant men to theorize.
NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save the entire
world as we call the world today.
I don't need fifteen verses. There are HUNDREDS. Scripture does not
disagree with itself. God is God.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views.
Neither
> > > > > is completely correct, yet both have their points to make.
There is either limited atonement or there isn't.
We "earn" salvation or we don't.
We can lose salvation or we can't.
> > We are talking about "Christians" who are of Calvinist bent. Jesus said
"Go
> > tell". We need not know why or how God works. Just do it.
> >
> Actually, I am leaning that God actually has a reason for it, rather
> than just a command. He tells us that how can men know without a
> preacher...so there is something of obedience that works to spread the
> gospel.
>
Of course He has a reason for it.
We are too stupid to know the FULL reason. We are not God.
The first is "How will they hear?"
Mt 13:13 - Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do
not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mt 13:14 - And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and
not perceive;
Mt 13:15 - For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are
hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with
their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their
hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
Mr 4:12 - so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they
may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be
forgiven them.' "
Lu 4:21 - And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled
in your hearing."
Lu 8:10 - And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing
they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'
Ac 18:8 - Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord
with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and
were baptized.
Ac 28:26 - saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and
shall not understand; And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
Ac 28:27 - For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are
hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with
their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their
hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." '
Ro 10:17 - So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Ga 3:2 - This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga 3:5 - Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles
among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
faith?--
Heb 5:11 - of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you
have become dull of hearing.
Tiger
news:b34t9.170459$Pa.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
> THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How much,
> why, when is for ignorant men to theorize.
>
> NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save the
> entire world as we call the world today.
I Timothy 2:3-4 - "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants
all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
Bari Stepanovich
<verno...@contractor.net> wrote:
>NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save the entire
>world as we call the world today.
Except here:
St John 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
but that the world through him might be saved.
Get that, Vern?
"...the WORLD MIGHT be saved."
Destroys both "limited atonement" (which is wrong for the concept of
"satisfactionism" anyway...) and "unconditional election" because
man's free will plays a part.
You blew it again, Vern...you are confusing the ignorance of the
heretic Calvin with real truth from Scripture and the Church.
Calvinism = false gospel = accursed. <=== Read it again...
In XC,
Bari Stepanovich
*****************************************************************************
IC XC
--+-- "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
NI KA
Don
wrote:
>"Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
>news:b34t9.170459$Pa.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
>
>
>> THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How much,
>> why, when is for ignorant men to theorize.
>>
>> NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save the
>> entire world as we call the world today.
>
>I Timothy 2:3-4 - "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants
>all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
So...will God's will (that all men be saved...) be a reality?
D*
Qualem blennum!
Vernono
> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
> news:b34t9.170459$Pa.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
>
>
> > THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How much,
> > why, when is for ignorant men to theorize.
> >
> > NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save the
> > entire world as we call the world today.
>
> I Timothy 2:3-4 - "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants
> all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
The bible is consistant.
What does this passage mean in the light of Romans and John?
What does "all men" mean?
No Women?
All of the men He forordained?
All appointed?
What does God call or treat those who reject.
Just how weak is God?
What about those whom God has "made deaf" and "blinded"?
A literal use of the passage says that one must first be saved and THEN come
to a knowledge of the truth.
It doesn't take much of a grammatic "translation" "interpretation" from
another language to assume "wants all saved men to come to a knowledge of
the truth"
"wants all men who are to be saved to come to a knowledge of the Truth"
Faith come from HEARING
Geoff Robinson
about Calvinism. I would actually learn from Calvinists sources what
Calvinism actually is before going crazy about it. If you want to
disagree afterwards, that's great. This process would also involve
asking questions.
Tiger
news:NQct9.191663$Pa.23...@news1.west.cox.net:
>
> "Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92AF15EDE...@24.25.0.82...
>> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
>> news:b34t9.170459$Pa.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
>>
>>
>> > THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How much,
>> > why, when is for ignorant men to theorize.
>> >
>> > NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save
>> > the entire world as we call the world today.
>>
>> I Timothy 2:3-4 - "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who
>> wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
>
> The bible is consistant.
Do you mean "consistent?" If so, I disagree. James and Paul could not
have been *more* disparate. Peter also disagreed with Paul's theology.
> What does this passage mean in the light of Romans and John?
It means what it means...that God desires that all people be saved. As
it says in Romans, "*Anyone* who calls upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved."
As for John, apparently Jesus came into the world to save it...all of
it...not some. See John 3:16.
> What does "all men" mean?
All people.
> No Women?
No. All people. In case you haven't heard, in some circles the term
"men" can be used generically to refer to "people."
> All of the men He forordained?
Does God exist in time? If not, then what does "foreordained" mean?
> All appointed?
ditto above.
> What does God call or treat those who reject.
Reject what?
> Just how weak is God?
As weak as He chooses to be.
> What about those whom God has "made deaf" and "blinded"?
Like whom?
> A literal use of the passage says that one must first be saved and
> THEN come to a knowledge of the truth.
Literalists don't exist.
> It doesn't take much of a grammatic "translation" "interpretation"
> from another language to assume "wants all saved men to come to a
> knowledge of the truth"
> "wants all men who are to be saved to come to a knowledge of the
> Truth"
That's putting something there that isn't there.
>
> Faith come from HEARING
And?
KK4TL
>about Calvinism.
>
>I would actually learn from Calvinists sources what
>Calvinism actually is before going crazy about it.
>
Glad to help ..
http://www.founders.org/abstract.html
http://www.founders.org/misc/chlist.html
http://www.gty.org/~phil/rformers.htm
http://www.gty.org/~phil/puritans.htm
http://www.gty.org/~phil/baptist.htm
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/index.html
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/
Tiger
The Boog-man Seven7s
"For God so Loved the World..."
It is what He loved...
"He is willing that none should die, but that all come to
repentance.."
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but
so that the whole world might be saved."
Hint, hint.
> I don't need fifteen verses. There are HUNDREDS. Scripture does not
> disagree with itself. God is God.
>
Scripture does not disagree with itself, which means that we cannot
interpret one verse over another, or throw anything out. We have to
be willing to say that we are not 100% certain on all things, because
our human, fallible, limited minds cannot comprehend everything.
> > > > > > What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views.
> Neither
> > > > > > is completely correct, yet both have their points to make.
>
> There is either limited atonement or there isn't.
> We "earn" salvation or we don't.
> We can lose salvation or we can't.
>
There is limited atonement or not in "human" reasoning. God doesn't
have to play in that box. The Bible is clear that we do not earn
salvation; it is up to some debate as to whether or not we lose it (I
lean toward no); limited atonement has serious scriptural issues.
> > > We are talking about "Christians" who are of Calvinist bent. Jesus said
> "Go
> > > tell". We need not know why or how God works. Just do it.
> > >
> > Actually, I am leaning that God actually has a reason for it, rather
> > than just a command. He tells us that how can men know without a
> > preacher...so there is something of obedience that works to spread the
> > gospel.
> >
>
> Of course He has a reason for it.
> We are too stupid to know the FULL reason. We are not God.
Precisely my point.
> The first is "How will they hear?"
>
> Mt 13:13 - Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do
> not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
>
> Mt 13:14 - And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
> 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and
> not perceive;
>
> Mt 13:15 - For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are
> hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with
> their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their
> hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
>
> Mr 4:12 - so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they
> may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be
> forgiven them.' "
>
Again, a greater purpose is at hand. Where is this applicable to
every person on the planet? He was pretty specific who he was
relating these verses to - the Pharisees. Only a few other times in
scripture does this occur, and always to a specific person/group. It
is a stretch to apply this to all who do not know Christ.
> Lu 4:21 - And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled
> in your hearing."
>
> Lu 8:10 - And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of
> the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing
> they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'
Same as above...
> Ac 18:8 - Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord
> with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and
> were baptized.
>
> Ac 28:26 - saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and
> shall not understand; And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
>
> Ac 28:27 - For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are
> hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with
> their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their
> hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." '
"This people..." Not the World, which Christ came to save. Since
there is nothing specific, to drag scripture to that far an
application is to read in something that may not be there.
> Ro 10:17 - So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
And how shall they hear without a preacher?
> Ga 3:2 - This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by
> the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
> Ga 3:5 - Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles
> among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
> faith?--
Hearing of faith. How does this show your point? How do we hear?
> Heb 5:11 - of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you
> have become dull of hearing.
The Boog-man seven7s
Vernono
"The Boog-man Seven7s" <Seve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d91c51c1.02102...@posting.google.com...
have become dull of hearing.
The first is "How will they hear?"
Evangelism. Is that a difficult concept?
Mt 13:13 - Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do
not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mt 13:14 - And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see
and
not perceive;
Mt 13:15 - For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are
hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with
their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their
hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
Mr 4:12 - so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they
may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be
forgiven them.' "
Heb 5:11 - of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you
have become dull of hearing.
Lu 4:21 - And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled
in your hearing."
Lu 8:10 - And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing
they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'
Ac 18:8 - Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord
with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and
were baptized.
Ac 28:26 - saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear,
and
shall not understand; And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
Ac 28:27 - For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are
hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with
their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their
hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." '
Ro 10:17 - So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.
Ga 3:2 - This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga 3:5 - Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles
among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
faith?--
Heb 5:11 - of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you
Don
wrote:
>"Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
>news:NQct9.191663$Pa.23...@news1.west.cox.net:
>> A literal use of the passage says that one must first be saved and
>> THEN come to a knowledge of the truth.
Then Tiger responded...
>Literalists don't exist.
Let me say a big AMEN to that one. I am still waiting to walk into a
Baptist church on the sabbath, Saturday. I want to see how many of
the congregation are missing a hand or an eye.
Last week, I visited with one of my old girlfriends from college days.
It has been over twenty-years since we had seen each other. She is
now at Adrian Rogers's church in Memphis. I used to go to that church
also and really enjoy Adrian's preaching. However, I questioned many
of the things my friend was telling me. I also demonstrated, using
her own words, how she "qualifies" some of her statements...meaning
that they are not "literal" as she would claim.
The fundamentalists aren't so fundamental and the literalists don't
literally believe the Bible...literally!
Sunday night, I attended a little Baptist church service within the
shadow of Texas Stadium and the Billy Graham Crusade. The preacher
was an Arkansas boy, in his sixties, and a good-old independent-type
Baptist. On the surface, his sermon was pretty good with a fine
delivery. But as I listened closely to his sermon, I realized that,
as most Baptist do and as I used to do, he was using a lot of cliches
and disconnected platitudes, backing up his words with disjointed and
out-of-context scriptures. But the people in the pews were just
nodding and saying "Amen" to most of his error.
For example, he began by talking about living for Jesus...a good
thing. Then he pointed out "the law" and our relation to it. While
encouraging obeying God's commandments, he mentioned the 613 "laws of
Moses." If we love Jesus, we will keep his commandments. Christians
should REALLY desire to keep God's commandments, all of them, "not
just the big ten," he said.
Right then, I wanted to STOP HIM and ask specifically HOW we were to
keep the commands to KILL disobedient children and stone adulterers,
homos and murderers. From my observations of the congregation, I
would suspect in that little crowd, we would probably have a few good
stonings before the service was over that evening. Several were
wearing "blends" instead of cotton alone.
THEN the pastor continued with the "In the same way you have received
Christ, so walk in him" passage. He elaborated on walking by FAITH,
not bothering to connect it with the legalism he preached just moments
before.
And regarding the Ten Commandments, I noticed that we were in church
on SUNDAY, and NOT on the Sabbath as commanded. Never mind that there
is NOTHING in the Bible that changes "worship" from Saturday to
Sunday, no matter how Baptists like to rationalize it.
So you see, THAT is why I say that Christians are lazy. I also say
that Christians simply DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE what they claim to
believe. They don't practice what they preach. They are AFRAID to
have their pet-doctrines challenged or questioned. Most of our group
will say they are literallists but when examined closely, they will
"qualify" their beliefs, much like my old girlfriend was doing when I
asked her about the mustard seed statement.
Why should another person believe US when WE are not able to honestly
question our own beliefs?
D*
Disillusioned in Dallas
Still looking for an honest Baptist
Qualem blennum!
Vernono
> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
> news:NQct9.191663$Pa.23...@news1.west.cox.net:
>
> >
> > "Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns92AF15EDE...@24.25.0.82...
> >> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
> >> news:b34t9.170459$Pa.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
> >>
> >>
> >> > THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How much,
> >> > why, when is for ignorant men to theorize.
> >> >
> >> > NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to save
> >> > the entire world as we call the world today.
> >>
> >> I Timothy 2:3-4 - "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who
> >> wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
> >
> > The bible is consistant.
>
> Do you mean "consistent?" If so, I disagree. James and Paul could not
> have been *more* disparate. Peter also disagreed with Paul's theology.
They are in complete harmony unless your theology gets in the way.
Change your theology and they agree.
Hint hint hint
>
> > What does this passage mean in the light of Romans and John?
>
> It means what it means...that God desires that all people be saved. As
> it says in Romans, "*Anyone* who calls upon the name of the Lord shall
> be saved."
And WHO is ANYONE.
Not all will call on the name of the Lord.
Many will say "but" I did so and so in your name. They will still go to
hell.
Maybe you need to look deeper into scripture to dicover what "call on the
name of the Lord" means.
Evidently from what Jesus says when alive and again in Revelation, you don't
know.
>
> As for John, apparently Jesus came into the world to save it...all of
> it...not some. See John 3:16.
>
> > What does "all men" mean?
>
> All people.
It can't. Some are not saved. Some are purposely blinded. YOU may not
like it and your church may not like it but, that's the way it is.
>
> > No Women?
>
> No. All people. In case you haven't heard, in some circles the term
> "men" can be used generically to refer to "people."
Oh, NOW we get into tranliteration discussion and NOT with "all men"
The bible does not disagree with itself.
>
> > All of the men He forordained?
>
> Does God exist in time? If not, then what does "foreordained" mean?
Oh, another "out"
>
> > All appointed?
>
> ditto above.
>
> > What does God call or treat those who reject.
>
> Reject what?
reject Him.
Have you EVER read the bible.
>
> > Just how weak is God?
>
> As weak as He chooses to be.
If He "wills" it happens.
>
> > What about those whom God has "made deaf" and "blinded"?
>
> Like whom?
>
> > A literal use of the passage says that one must first be saved and
> > THEN come to a knowledge of the truth.
>
> Literalists don't exist.
Unless you want to say "all men"
>
> > It doesn't take much of a grammatic "translation" "interpretation"
> > from another language to assume "wants all saved men to come to a
> > knowledge of the truth"
> > "wants all men who are to be saved to come to a knowledge of the
> > Truth"
>
> That's putting something there that isn't there.
It's putting EXACTLY what He says elswhere.
> >
> > Faith come from HEARING
Evangelize knowing full well that God has made some deaf and blind to the
Word and others in waiting to hear and be saved.
Tiger
news:eyot9.35427$o.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
>
> "Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92AF9BFFC7...@24.25.0.82...
>> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
>> news:NQct9.191663$Pa.23...@news1.west.cox.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns92AF15EDE...@24.25.0.82...
>> >> "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote in
>> >> news:b34t9.170459$Pa.22...@news1.west.cox.net:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > THE POINT is that limited atonement exists, period. How
>> >> > much, why, when is for ignorant men to theorize.
>> >> >
>> >> > NO PLACE in scripture does it even hint that God wants to
>> >> > save the entire world as we call the world today.
>> >>
>> >> I Timothy 2:3-4 - "This is good and pleases God our Savior,
>> >> who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the
>> >> truth."
>> >
>> > The bible is consistant.
>>
>> Do you mean "consistent?" If so, I disagree. James and Paul
>> could not have been *more* disparate. Peter also disagreed with
>> Paul's theology.
>
> They are in complete harmony unless your theology gets in the way.
> Change your theology and they agree.
>
> Hint hint hint
>
IOW, find a theology that harmonizes Paul, James, and Peter?
Nah...I'll take 'em at their word.
>
>>
>> > What does this passage mean in the light of Romans and John?
>>
>> It means what it means...that God desires that all people be
>> saved. As it says in Romans, "*Anyone* who calls upon the name
>> of the Lord shall be saved."
>
> And WHO is ANYONE.
> Not all will call on the name of the Lord.
It doesn't say all will. It says that *all* who do will be saved.
>
> Many will say "but" I did so and so in your name. They will still
> go to hell.
>
> Maybe you need to look deeper into scripture to dicover what "call
> on the name of the Lord" means.
> Evidently from what Jesus says when alive and again in Revelation,
> you don't know.
>
Enlighten me.
>
>>
>> As for John, apparently Jesus came into the world to save
>> it...all of it...not some. See John 3:16.
>>
>> > What does "all men" mean?
>>
>> All people.
>
> It can't. Some are not saved. Some are purposely blinded. YOU
> may not like it and your church may not like it but, that's the
> way it is.
>
Nice assertion...but no facts to back it up.
>>
>> > No Women?
>>
>> No. All people. In case you haven't heard, in some circles the
>> term "men" can be used generically to refer to "people."
>
> Oh, NOW we get into tranliteration discussion and NOT with "all
> men" The bible does not disagree with itself.
>
It would be nice if you would converse in English.
>>
>> > All of the men He forordained?
>>
>> Does God exist in time? If not, then what does "foreordained"
>> mean?
>
> Oh, another "out"
Is that an answer to the question? If so, I don't understand it.
>
>>
>> > All appointed?
>>
>> ditto above.
>>
>> > What does God call or treat those who reject.
>>
>> Reject what?
>
> reject Him.
I would imagine much like the father in the Good Samaritan parable.
>
> Have you EVER read the bible.
Is that a question or a statement?
>
>>
>> > Just how weak is God?
>>
>> As weak as He chooses to be.
>
> If He "wills" it happens.
Indeed? We're just puppets, then?
>
>>
>> > What about those whom God has "made deaf" and "blinded"?
>>
>> Like whom?
Again, like whom?
>>
>> > A literal use of the passage says that one must first be saved
>> > and THEN come to a knowledge of the truth.
>>
>> Literalists don't exist.
>
>
> Unless you want to say "all men"
No, unless I mean "all male humans," which I don't and I don't think
John or Paul do either.
>
>>
>> > It doesn't take much of a grammatic "translation"
>> > "interpretation" from another language to assume "wants all
>> > saved men to come to a knowledge of the truth"
>> > "wants all men who are to be saved to come to a knowledge of
>> > the Truth"
>>
>> That's putting something there that isn't there.
>
> It's putting EXACTLY what He says elswhere.
So you pick a theology (Calvinism) and rearrange Scripture to agree
with it. I see.
>
>
>> >
>> > Faith come from HEARING
>
> Evangelize knowing full well that God has made some deaf and blind
> to the Word and others in waiting to hear and be saved.
Says you. I'm still waiting for the "like whom?" answer.
The Boog-man Seven7s
> "The Boog-man Seven7s" <Seve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d91c51c1.02102...@posting.google.com...
> Heb 5:11 - of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you
> have become dull of hearing.
>
>
> The first is "How will they hear?"
> Evangelism. Is that a difficult concept?
Not at all, and it is something that protestants are particularly good at.
The answer is scriptural.
Paul asked it...
"How will they hear without a preacher?"
The Boog-man Seven7s
John W
As for apparent contradictions, they only exist in the minds of small
men (not meant for you).
God who sees the overview isn't confused at all!
John W
On 18 Oct 2002 06:35:01 -0700, Seve...@yahoo.com (The Boog-man
Seven7s) wrote:
>What I'm finding is that God is above and beyond both views. Neither
>is completely correct, yet both have their points to make. We must
>remember that there are apparent contradictions in both views, yet we
>need to remember that God can work with contradictions, even when they
>can be so blatantly opposing (ie God selecting us, yet us being able
>to freely follow Him).
>
>I think that the idea that evangelization won't take place in the SBC
>is a dumb idea - there are too many that would do it anyway, even if
>they took to Calvinism. John Piper, one of the better authors and
>speakers today, has probably the best straight-up Calvinist theology
>on pro-evangelization.
>
>Anyway, I think that there is a deeper point at hand, and it is not
>whether Calvinists or Arminians are correct.
>
>It is that Jesus saves, and that He saves us in His own way, and that
>His grace covers both the Arminian and the Calvinist the same, as long
>as they acknowledge Him as Lord, and that we are to bring HIM to
>people, not Calvin or Arminius.
>
>The Boog-man Seven7s
"You don't break God's laws; they break you."
Charlie Shedd
In Christ,
John W
John W
ALL" men in His grace; some respond, most do not!
"For God does not wish that ANY should perish..."
"For God so loved the WORLD..."
Both sound pretty inclusive to me, but then I'm not an exclusive club
type of Calvinist.
And there's an UGLY side of Calvinism that I don't wish to identify
with!
John W
On 16 Oct 2002 21:18:35 GMT, kk...@aol.com123 (KK4TL) wrote:
>>By YOUR reasoning, kk, NONE are saved.
>>
>Nope. The verses point out that our fallen nature does NOT incline us to seek
>after God.
>
>That we become saved is a work of the grace of God. Plus nothing.
>
John W
I missed a point somewhere.
John W
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 03:15:40 GMT, "Vernono"
<verno...@contractor.net> wrote:
>
>"Anonymous" <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote in message
>news:da97c034fe63c152...@paranoici.org...
>> Five Point Calvinism sweeping Southern Baptist seminaries
>>
>> Southern Baptists may wake up one Sunday soon and find they really aren't
>> Southern Baptists unless they are Presbyterians.
>>
>> A growing movement is sweeping the denomination's seminaries over the role
>> and impact of historic Calvinist beliefs, especially the idea that
>> salvation is predetermined by God and there is nothing humans can do to
>> change who will be saved and who will be damned.
>>
This is my main problem with Calvinism which essentially teaches that
some are "chosen" but not all. That means that no matter HOW BADLY my
next door neighbor wants to be saved, if he's not on God's "chosen"
list, he can't be saved and is doomed for hell!
To take it one step beyond that, this means that BILLIONS of people
have been conceived over the millenniums (), who were DAMNED before
birth, and there was not a DAMN thing they could do to be redeemed!
That's what I call a HATEFUL, ANGRY, MEAN God, and I refuse to believe
in that god.
Again, John 3:16 says He welcomes ALL.
"God does not will that ANY should perish!" God's intent is NOT to
save a very few! God has thrown open the gates of heaven for anyone
who chooses to enter! He hasn't sewed billions of seeds to reap a few
thousand!
Nonsense!
That does NOT describe the Christ who died in my place!
In Christ,
John w
>
>And you are a liar and you know that you are.
John W
to step in and offer my opinion.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:31:17 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:46:47 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>In article <wR4r9.23727$Pa.4...@news1.west.cox.net>, "Vernono" <verno...@contractor.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Anonymous" <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote in message
>>>news:da97c034fe63c152...@paranoici.org...
>>>> Five Point Calvinism sweeping Southern Baptist seminaries
>>>>
>>>> Southern Baptists may wake up one Sunday soon and find they really aren't
>>>> Southern Baptists unless they are Presbyterians.
>>>>
>>>> A growing movement is sweeping the denomination's seminaries over the role
>>>> and impact of historic Calvinist beliefs, especially the idea that
>>>> salvation is predetermined by God and there is nothing humans can do to
>>>> change who will be saved and who will be damned.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And you are a liar and you know that you are.
>>
>>Vernono, we can only hope that you are right and that Calvinism is being
>>rejected by most Baptists. But, saddly, it seems that many fall for the lies
>>of Calvinism.
>>
>
>Personally, I am not a follower of Calvinism. I often think we'd be
>FAR Better off quietly worshipping the Lord AT HOME instead of
>publicly assembling in a church building, where so many simply 'go to
>be seen'............ The TRUE FAITHFUL can worship just as well
>privately at home.
While the true faithful can witness at home, they can't do it "just as
well in private" since one of the requirements for worship in
scripture is "fellowship" which you can't get at home. Add to that the
remark that "Do not forsake the assembling of yourself together with
like-minded believers, as is the habit of some." I can't find that one
at the moment, but it's there.
Church attendance is MANDATORY, not optional! NOT that I would judge
you! I'm just relaying information.
>
>I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this sir...
God bless!
In Christ,
John W
>
>Elaine
John W
scriptural. The spin you put on it is farcical!
John W
On 17 Oct 2002 05:13:23 GMT, kk...@aol.com123 (KK4TL) wrote:
>>Calvinism is rejected by the less educated Baptist because the less educated
>>reject any word other than Baptist.
>>
>I think you just hit a REALLY HUGE nail on the head. :-)
John W
Calvin's 5 points!
We can ALL believe in eternal security without being Calvinists, which
I am not!
John W
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:14:30 GMT, "Vernono"
<verno...@contractor.net> wrote:
>
>"© <:o) docw ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote in message
>news:1t1uqus0aitha31go...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Oct 2002 05:13:23 GMT, kk...@aol.com123 (KK4TL) done went and
>> wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>>
>> >>Calvinism is rejected by the less educated Baptist because the less
>educated
>> >>reject any word other than Baptist.
>> >>
>> >I think you just hit a REALLY HUGE nail on the head. :-)
>> >
>> >
>> But missed the mark....
>
>YOU stated above that you cannot EARN salvation. That is Calvinism.
>
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________
>> SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>> _____________________________________________________
>> do...@eudoramail.com :o)
>
John W
in heaven! ;)
John W
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:55:10 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
<G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:10:46 GMT, "Vernono"
><verno...@contractor.net> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
>these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>
>>Calvinism is rejected by the less educated Baptist because the less educated
>>reject any word other than Baptist.
>>
>
>
>Really! I'm well educated, I'm a Baptist, yet I'm not a follower of
>Calvinism. And I have NEVER said that the Baptist faith is the only
>one with saved in it.......
John W
for a change! A few small barbs, but all friendly! Then Vern opens the
can and releases the snakes!
You should be proud of trying to start something nasty, Vern!
John w
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:22:21 GMT, "Vernono"
<verno...@contractor.net> wrote:
>
>"© <:o) docw ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote in message
>news:oq1uqusda9no7opg5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:10:46 GMT, "Vernono"
>> <verno...@contractor.net> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
>> these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>>
>> >Calvinism is rejected by the less educated Baptist because the less
>educated
>> >reject any word other than Baptist.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Really! I'm well educated, I'm a Baptist, yet I'm not a follower of
>> Calvinism. And I have NEVER said that the Baptist faith is the only
>> one with saved in it.......
>
>Really
>You apparently fall into the group who don't know what Calvinism is but if
>it isn't "spelled" Baptist you aren't one.
>
>Like I said, less educated.
>
>What is YOUR definition of Calvinism?
>Stuck?
>Try loooking up the history of Baptist "theology" (forget the method of
>baptism).
>It is Calvinism.
>
>
>The root of Calvinism is "no works required" for Salvation.
>AND "Once saved always saved"
>
>VERY few churches believe that theology and it is called Calvinism.
>Not
>Assy of God
>RCC
>Lutheran
>Episcopal
>Methodist
>Penecostal
>Jehovahs Witness
>Orthodox
>
>
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________
>> SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>> _____________________________________________________
>> do...@eudoramail.com :o)
>
John W
What makes you think so?
John W
On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:48:39 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) wrote:
>Calvinism is a popular theology in America, but we know that popularity does
>not mean correctness. If theology were a democracy, the followers of Yshu`a
>would have been outvoted six to one. The real test is to evaluate the
>biblical validity of the theology in question. I have chosen the Talmudic
>style of investigation that allows for the supporting arguments of an opinion
>to be fully explored rather than a one sided lambasting of the opinions of
>others that is so popular in Christian theological discussions. This is
>especially appropriate since Paul frequently used Talmudic forms in those of
>his writings included in the New Testament.
>
>I have gathered a few Calvinist sources to quote for the Calvinist opinion.
>Most of then used the same arguments and quoted the same verses, so the number
>that I will use will seem smaller than it actually was durring research. I
>will simply number them rather than listing names. I will use one that was
>rather complete but not too longwinded as the core of the Calvinist argument
>and add corroborative statements as needed to support the Calvinist opinion.
>This corroboration primarily consists of Scriptural citations. I have also
>found one "anti-Calvinist."
>
>A note on terminology: Christianity has changed the names of the people in
>their translations of the Bible. This is not only grammatically incorrect, in
>many cultures, including Messiah's culture, this is an insult. We do not call
>President George Bush "Farmer Shrubbery;" why would we show less respect to
>the Son of God? In quotations, I do not correct this error, but in my
>responses I do use correct names and terms. Also, the vowels are removed from
>G-d and L-rd because these are used to translate the Name of G-d and the Title
>of G-d. I may use the Hebrew "Elohim," "Adonai," and "HaShem" for the name or
>title of G-d purely out of habit. Also, I will use Messiah's real name
>"Yshu`a," rather than a euphemism.
>
>Calvinist #1 claims:
>First, the overall emphasis of "Calvinism" is the sovereignty of Almighty God,
>and the means to know Him is close Scriptural exegesis.
>
>Calvinist #1 outlines:
>There are five major doctrines that package the entire Calvinistic theology,
>easily remembered by the acronym, TULIP. Each point of doctrine develops from
>the other, and discarding any of the five points can destroy the whole system
>of thought. We will try to go the five points briefly for you.
>
>Calvinist #1 explains:
>T= Total Depravity:
>This first point is foundational for the remaining four. It is the belief
>that all men are sinners because of the original sin of Adam, who was our
>federal representative head in the beginning with God. Adam was created in
>the image of God; meaning he was given moral agency to have secondary cause
>and effect in this world. Adam used his agency to disobey God through
>unbelief and sin, thus bringing death upon himself and all his progeny. All
>his descendents since, are born with a corrupted human nature that has
>enslaved their moral agency totally, and they are unable to please God in the
>flesh, because they are inclined to evil only. Yet, God does not change and
>His eternal principles do not change, so God still holds man accountable to
>live according to His will and subject to His decrees, but man is so depraved
>and dead in his sins and trespasses, that he cannot do what God commands.
>This is a tragedy and a dilemma. All men are doomed to Hell because of Adam's
>sin and their own voluntary sinning added to it and because they are unable to
>live according to God's Laws.
>
>I respond:
>Adan did sin, but not through lack of belief; Adam believed in HaShem.
>Adam DID allow the introduction of the Yetzer HaRa (the evil urge) into the
>human consciousness. However, the Yetzer HaTov (the good urge) is still
>plainly visible in human affairs.
>
>Many Atheists, who are obviously not saved, act in a good and moral manner to
>other people based upon their ethical idea that this the "right" thing to do.
>Since these Atheists do not believe in any gods at all, they have no reason to
>behave this way except that there is good in all people.
>
>Calvinist #2 cites:
>Mark 7:21-23
>"For from within, out of a person's heart, come forth wicked thoughts, sexual
>immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, indecency, envy,
>slander, arrogance, foolishness. All these wicked things come from within,
>and they make a person unclean."
>
>I respond:
>This verse does indicate the corrupted nature of mankind but does not support
>the theory of a totality of corruption. It is also taken out of context. The
>context was the discussion of how a person becomes corrupted - whether a
>physical act such as physical contact with a Gentile or failure to recite the
>traditional prayers when washing one's hands prior to eating can corrupt a
>person.
>
>Calvinist #2 cites:
>Romans 6:20
>"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relationship to
>righteousness."
>
>I respond:
>In dealing with the Romans who converted from a hedonistic
>theology/philosophy, Rabbi Sha`ul (Paul) needed to express the Jewish idea
>that sin is the reality of slavery with the illusion of freedom, but that
>obedience to G-d is freedom that pagans claim to be slavery. Additionally,
>since the Romans were Pagans they did not know that they could be free from
>idolatry, thus they were slaves to it. Even without the understanding of the
>context of this verse, there is no reason to believe that it supports the idea
>of total depravity.
>
>Calvinist #2 cites:
>He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12).
>
>I add the quote of the entire passage:
>"As the Tanakh puts it,
>'There is no one righteous, not even one!
>No one understands,
>no one seeks God,
>all have turned away
>and at the same time become useless;
>there is no one who shows kindness, not a single one!'"
>
>I respond:
>Calvinist #2 has taken this quote out of context. The passage deals with the
>question of whether or not Jewish believers in Messiah are intrinsically
>better than non-Jewish believers.
>
>It should also be noted that Rabbi Shaul in his comparison is quoting verses
>first referring to the Pagans (Psalm 14 was written to pagans who claimed that
>by allowing Babylon to attack Israel they had done no evil since they had not
>attacked), and then to the apostasy among the Jews, which resulted in the
>destruction of the Temple. Also, if one continues reading in Psalm 53 (the
>second psalm quoted), one sees that the Jews will be fully restored, and
>knowing that the Gentiles who are grafted into Israel share the fate of
>Israel, those Gentiles will be restored with Israel.
>
>Further, the fact that men do not seek G-d spontaneously does not support
>total depravity either. The Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) calls to all
>humanity; only a few of us listen to Him.
>
>I comment:
>Based upon Calvinists #1's original assertion that the remaining four parts of
>this "TULIP" theology are dependant upon this one, I could stop here and
>reject Calvinism entirely. However, in the ethics of the Hagelian dialectic,
>we should investigate all five points, in case some elements of Calvinism are
>correct. Also, in Talmudic style all of the associated attempts to prove a
>theology, even a false theology, must be investigated to prevent corrupt
>people from furthering a false theology.
>
>Calvinist #1 explains:
>U=Unconditional Election:
>God, in His grace and mercy, and His love for His Son, (the second Person of
>the Triune Godhead), decreed to elect some men, choosing to spare them in
>Jesus Christ who acts as their representative, in order to spare them this
>fate of Hell. The purpose was also to fulfill His Covenant to provide an
>everlasting kingdom for Jesus Christ, inhabited with sinless human beings, who
>would share this inheritance and live forever with God. So, without any merit
>on the sinners' parts, God elected and named a certain people, predestinating
>them to everlasting life in Jesus Christ, and electing to leave the rest of
>mankind in their sins to suffer Hell . . .all before the world was created.
>[Eph. 1:3&4]
>
>I comment:
>My first reaction to this idea was to laugh. My second was to be offended
>that Calvinism would call G-d "evil." The Calvinist theology does so in
>ignorance, but it does so none the less. This element of Calvinism requires
>that G-d commit evil actions, namely that he violates the Commandment "Lo
>tirtzach" ("Don't Murder.") "Lo tirtzach" forbids destruction of a human
>being in any way: psychological, physical, moral, or spiritual. I list those
>four from least severe to most severe. This "Unconditional Election" requires
>that G-d commit the worst kind of murder: the mass murder of souls. Further,
>the only "election/choosing" of people is the Choosing of the Jewish people to
>be G-d's People for all time.
>
>Calvinist #1 cited Ephesians 1:3&4:
>"Praised be Adonai, Father of our Lord Yshu`a the Messiah, who in the Messiah
>has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heaven. In the Messiah, He
>chose us in love before the creation of the universe to be holy and without
>defect in his presence."
>
>I comment:
>This is a blessing in traditional Jewish form. It is a modification of the
>blessing for the Torah, "Praised… …Who chose us from all people and gave us
>His Torah." Obviously, there are Jews who rejected the Torah. These Jews are
>"Karet" (cut off from Israel and from salvation (depending upon wording in the
>Hebrew)). Using the second Rule of interpreting Scriptures, G'zerah Shavah
>(Equivalence of expressions) it is obvious that these terms must be used in
>the same sense. There is definitely a condition upon our Salvation.
>
>I should also clarify the entire paragraph (Ephesians 1:3-6):
>"Praised be Adonai, Father of our Lord Yshu`a the Messiah, who in the Messiah
>has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heaven. In the Messiah he
>chose us in love before the creation of the universe to be holy and without
>defect in his presence. He determined in advance that through Yshu`a the
>Messiah we would be his sons - in keeping with his pleasure and purpose - So,
>that we would bring him praise commensurate with the glory of the grace he
>gave us through the Beloved One."
>
>I comment:
>This passage explains that Salvation through Messiah was G-d's intention from
>the start and not just an afterthought. So, it is obvious that the intent of
>the passage is to show that God intended for all people to be saved just as He
>intended for Adam and Eve to resist the temptation of the Fruit of the Tree of
>Knowledge of Good and Evil. Sadly, some people are not in G-d's will for
>them.
>
>Calvinist #2 quotes:
>Romans 9:11:
>"and before they were born, before they had done anything at all, either good
>or bad (so that God's plan might remain a matter of his sovereign choice,
>not."
>
>For clarification and context, I quote:
>Romans 9:10-12
>And even more to the point is the case of Rivkah; for both her children were
>conceived in a single act with Yitzchak, our father; 11 and before they were
>born, before they had done anything at all, either good or bad (so that God's
>plan might remain a matter of his sovereign choice, not 12 dependent on what
>they did, but on God, who does the calling), it was said to her, "The older
>will serve the younger." 13 This accords with where it is written, "Ya'akov I
>loved, but Esav I hated."
>
>I comment:
>Calvinist #2 takes the verse completely out of context. The quote is not even
>a complete sentence! When taken in context we see that the passage deals with
>G-d's selection of the Jewish people as His People, not with salvation. The
>Fact is that the "Elect" are the "Chosen People," the Jews. John Calvin was
>just too racist to admit that God had future plans for His Chosen People,
>including their complete acceptance of Messiah and mass Salvation at the Third
>Outpouring of the Holy Spirit described in the Book of Joel. (The first two
>were the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai (and with it limited access to the
>Holy Spirit), and the anniversary of that day just after Messiah's ascension
>(and the universal accessibility to the Holy Spirit). The results of this
>Third Outpouring of the Holy Spirit are stated in Romans 11:25-27: "For,
>brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but
>has now revealed, so that you won't imagine you know more than you actually
>do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Israel, until the
>Gentile world enters in its fullness; and that it is in this way that all
>Israel will be saved. As the Tanakh says, 'Out of Tziyon will come the
>Redeemer; he will turn away ungodliness from Ya'akov and this will be my
>covenant with them, … when I take away their sins.' "
>
>
>Calvinist #1 explains:
>L = Limited Atonement:
>God decreed that this promise of salvation from Hell, would be worked through
>His Son, to whom these people were to be given. This was necessary, for all
>men being sinful, could not ever escape their sin and corruption. Jesus
>Christ was ordained to be given a human body, enter the world, live the
>perfect life of obedience to the Law of God, thereby qualifying Himself to be
>the purist sacrifice, without blemish, to be offered for the sins of these
>Elect people. Jesus Christ was to die their particular deaths, and suffer
>eternal Hell on their behalf. He was to rise from the dead, demonstrating His
>divine power, and ascend back to the Father to act as Mediator and High Priest
>for these Elect, until the last day, when they would be raised up to glory to
>inherit the kingdom promised to the Son by the Father. Jesus Christ was
>considered slain before God created the world. [Rev. 13:8]. Jesus Christ
>offered atonement for sins in the fullness of time, for the "chosen ones"
>only. It was a limited atonement, only vicarious for His sheep who He knows
>by name.
>
>I respond:
>Here Calvinist #1 makes the mistake of thinking that a sinless person can get
>into Heaven without need of Messiah. This is called "Legalism." The Law was
>not meant to outline a method of entering Heaven. Thus, the sin that results
>from failing in our efforts to obey G-d's Law does not bar us from Heaven. We
>need to be sinless when we go to Heaven, thus forgiveness is integral to the
>salvation process.
>
>I continue:
>It should be noted that forgiveness of sins is limited, but not in the way
>that Calvinism describes. Forgiveness though Messiah is limited as per the
>model that G-d gave us in the system of Offerings found in Leviticus and
>clarified in Hebrews 10:26-29. Atonement is never made for intentional and
>defiant sins against God such as Antinomianism.
>
>I quote Hebrews 10:26-29:
>"For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the
>truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but only the terrifying
>prospect of Judgment, of raging fire that will consume the enemies.
>Someone who disregards the Torah of Mosheh is put to death without mercy on
>the word of two or three witnesses. Think how much worse will be the
>punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God; who
>has treated as something common the blood of the Covenant which made him holy;
>and who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, giver of God's grace!"
>
>I continue:
>Further, Since the "Chosen Ones" refers to the physical descendants of Avraham
>Yitzchak and Ya`akov (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), this would mean that only
>Jews could be saved. Rabbi Sha`ul spent a great deal of time dispelling that
>myth. Calvinism brings the myth back married to the heresy of Replacement
>Theology.
>
>More compelling than these arguments is the passage in Romans 10:11-13, "For
>the passage quoted says that everyone who rests his trust on him will not be
>humiliated. That means that there is no difference between Jew and
>Gentile-Adonai is the same for everyone, rich toward everyone who calls on
>him, since everyone who calls on the name of Adonai will be delivered."
>Everyone means "all people", not just those who are "permitted" to call upon
>His name. The word "humiliated" not only indicates that the sins of the
>unsaved are exposed, but also that they are responsible for their own sins.
>
>Calvinist #1 explains:
>I = Irresistible Grace
>Jesus Christ promised that after He accomplished all these things, and was
>ascended back to the right hand of God, that He would send His Holy Spirit,
>who has the office and duty to draw and call the chosen to the Son, through
>the power of the preaching of the gospel. The Holy Spirit bestows the grace
>of God upon elect sinners, quickening their hearts and regenerating their
>souls and spirits; gifting them with faith to know and believe in Jesus
>Christ, and leading them to repentance and forgiveness of sins. No man can
>come to Jesus Christ, unless the Father who sent Him, draw them with grace
>extended by the Holy Spirit. And those God calls, He also justifies, without
>fail. The grace of God never fails. All whom the Father gave His Son, and
>whom the Son died for, will hear the good news through the power of the gospel
>preached and the work of grace through the Holy Spirit and be saved.
>
>I respond:
>In the first place, the lack of freewill espoused here denounces the biblical
>fact that mankind is created in Elohim's image (Genesis 1:26). In the second
>place, Calvinism claims to exalt the sovereignty of G-d, but a "god" who
>cannot create creatures with freewill is crippled. In the third place, to say
>that G-d never fails, and to talk up His abilities is absolutely true, but it
>has no bearing on this issue. If G-d simply wanted victory over evil, it
>would already be accomplished. He wants us to chose victory over evil. That
>is why evil still exists. It is the purpose of G-d that you be able to reject
>Him if you choose or accept Him if you choose.
>
>I must also point out that since the term "the Elect" refers to Jews, as
>evidenced by the verses Calvin cited to prove the existence of the elect, this
>would be DNA Salvation, which is also ridiculous. Gentiles can be saved too.
>
>
>Calvinist #3 tells claims:
>Those who are predestined for this salvation are drawn by the Father and
>called by the Holy Spirit who is irresistible. [John 6:44&45]
>
>I looked up the citation:
>"No one can come to me unless the Father-the one who sent me-draws him. And I
>will raise him up on the Last Day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, 'They
>will all be taught by Adonai.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns
>from him comes to me."
>
>I respond:
>Calvinist #3 would have been more convincing if he had not cited verse 45 as
>well as 44. When taken out of context, verse 44 could be misunderstood to
>mean that only certain people chosen by G-d will come to Messiah, but can also
>mean that only those who see Messiah in the Torah will come to Him. Verse 45
>removes any doubt. The term "Everyone who listens" shows that the choice is
>that of the person who must choose to listen to G-d to be saved. The phrase
>"taught by Adonai" is a direct reference to the Torah. The word "Torah"
>literally means "instruction/teaching." So, only those who understand the
>Messiah through the Torah actually come to Him. This leads to Mattityahu
>(Matthew) 7:21-23 where Messiah teaches that those who renounce the Torah and
>the 613 Commandments therein are not saved even if they say the sinners prayer
>and call upon the Name of Messiah. Since the Majority of Calvinists reject
>God's Commandments, they are not saved according to this passage.
>
>I continue:
>Calvinist #3 has also failed to note the end of the teaching that Messiah was
>giving. Messiah closed with, "Suppose you were to see the Son of Man going
>back up to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is
>no help. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life, yet some among
>you do not trust." (For Yshu`a knew from the outset which ones would not
>trust him, also which one would betray him.) "This," he said, "is why I told
>you that no one can come to me unless the Father has made it possible for
>him."" (Yochanan 6:62-65) So, Yhudah Ish Kiriot (Judas Escariot) was barred
>from knowing Messiah until after the betrayal that was required by the
>Prophecies of the Tanakh (OT). In this case, Yhudah Ish Kiriot was not barred
>for life but only for a time, and then only for a specific and extreme
>purpose. Whether or not he repented before his suicide is unknown to mankind.
>
>
>Calvinist #1 sums up:
> Every and each Elect will be saved, and not one will be lost. They have
>inherited the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ and will live forever with
>Him. No sinner can reject or resist this tremendous salvation by the grace of
>God through faith. This is God's will and it cannot be thwarted or denied.
>
>I respond:
>Those who have never sinned can accept salvation as well as sinners. However,
>many sinners refuse the gift of salvation that Messiah has offered them. They
>refuse salvation of their own freewill and deserve the punishment that they
>receive. Messiahs's gift of salvation has been rejected by many, some who
>have received salvation later rejected it. Of the "Elect," the Jews, Romans
>11:26&27 says that every and each Jew will be saved. This does not apply to
>some nebulous "elect" as Calvin asserts. His concept of this "elect" was
>based on Replacement Theology. This theology which is motivated by
>anti-Semitism and Antinomianism, which Rabbi Shaul (Paul) identified with the
>Anti-Christ in Second Thessalonians.
>
>I continue:
>To address Replacement Theology it is best to simply go to the Scriptures
>(Revelation 3:9). "Here, I will give you some from the synagogue of the
>Adversary, those who call themselves Jews but aren't-on the contrary, they are
>lying-see, I will cause them to come and prostrate themselves at your feet,
>and they will know that I have loved you." Those who try to steal the role of
>G-d's chosen people are effectively calling themselves "Jews" only their
>anti-Semitism prevents some of them from vocalizing the word "Jew."
>
>Calvinist #1 explains:
>P=Perseverance:
>When a sinner is converted and born from above by the work of the Holy Spirit,
>he is changed into a new man, with renewed abilities to exercise his moral
>agency to live according to the will of God and be pleasing to Him. The
>sinner is given the capability to choose to walk in the Spirit and not
>according to the lusts of the flesh. The Holy Spirit takes up residence in
>each regenerated sinner and acts as his teacher, guide, comforter, intercessor
>and guarantor of everlasting life. The sinner is kept by the power of God
>until the last day, when he will resurrect to glory. Jesus Christ mediates in
>heaven for the saved elect, and when and if they sin, they can go to the
>throne of grace, confess their sins, and be continually cleansed and covered
>by the blood of Christ's offering. Each and every believer will persevere and
>endure to the end of their time, and when they die physically, their souls
>immediately go to be with the Lord in heaven to await the New Jerusalem; the
>new heavens and new earth, where all sin, evil, wickedness, Satan, death and
>Hell will be removed into the lake of fire, forever and ever. God will
>establish the everlasting kingdom, and be all in all, and the believers will
>live forever in and with Jesus Christ.
>
>I respond:
>This portion seems rather rambling. The mix of truth and falsehood is like a
>checkerboard. A person who accepts Yshu`a as Messiah IS re-born. The Ruach
>HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) does indwell in the believer. The New Believer has
>always had the ability to obey the Commandments physically; now he has the
>capacity to obey them spiritually (Belief in G-d is required). If the New
>Believer is Jewish, he was able to obey the Commandments physically and
>spiritually before accepting Messiah, but that did not accomplish his
>salvation. Messiah mediates for the saved Jews (Elect), but he also mediates
>for the saved non-Jews.
>
>I comment:
>Calvinism seems to suggest that these "elect" can be righteous. Some
>Calvinists have even called them "Saints." The word "Saint" is used to
>translate the Hebrew word Tzaddik. A Tzaddik is a person who uphold all 613
>Commandments. Baptists are the biggest example of Calvinists. In fact,
>"Calvinist #4" is a Baptist Pastor. I have never know a Baptist who was a
>Tzaddik. Their denomination even requires their congregants to commit sins
>against G-d. …But that is another discussion.
>
>I continue:
>What Calvinist #1 means by "Persevere" is somewhat vague.
>
>Calvinist #3 restated:
>Those saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and born again by the Holy
>Spirit will endure and persevere unto everlasting life. [John 10:28&29]
>
>I will quote his citation (I included verse 27 so that it would not begin in
>the middle of the sentence:
>"My sheep listen to my voice, I recognize them, they follow me, and I give
>them eternal life. They will absolutely never be destroyed, and no one will
>snatch them from my hands. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than
>all; and no one can snatch from the Father's hands. I and the Father are
>one."
>
>I comment:
>I gather that this "perseverance" is a belief that saved people cannot loose
>their salvation. I was still compelled to check another source. This verse
>does say that evil cannot overcome the salvation given to the believer, but it
>does not say that the believer cannot reject his own salvation.
>
>I quote:
>"Those who are not with me are against me, and those who do not gather with me
>are scattering. Because of this, I tell you that people will be forgiven any
>sin and blasphemy, but blaspheming the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) will not
>be forgiven. One can say something against the Son of Man and be forgiven;
>but whoever keeps on speaking against the Ruach HaKodesh will never be
>forgiven, neither in the `Olam Hazeh (This World) nor in the `Olam Haba (The
>World to Come). (Matthew 12:30-32)
>
>I comment:
>So, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit bars one from salvation.
>
>Calvinist #4 stated:
>It follows from what was just said that the people of God WILL persevere to
>the end and not be lost. The foreknown are predestined, the predestined are
>called, the called are justified, and the justified are glorified. No one is
>lost from this group. To belong to this people is to be eternally secure.
>
>I respond:
>Now it is obvious that this "P" means that the Calvinists think that once a
>person is saved they cannot loose their salvation. If their theory of
>predestination/election were correct then there would be no need to say this.
>If you are forced, you are forced. However, their theory is wrong. This
>point only serves to bring out the mistakes of Calvinism.
>
>I quote Hebrews 10:26-29:
>"For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the
>truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but only the terrifying
>prospect of Judgment, of raging fire that will consume the enemies.
> "Someone who disregards the Torah of Mosheh is put to death without mercy on
>the word of two or three witnesses. Think how much worse will be the
>punishment deserved by someone who has trampled underfoot the Son of God; who
>has treated as something common the Blood of the Covenant which made him holy;
>and who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, giver of God's grace!"
>
>I explain:
>Rabbi Sha`ul (aka "Pavlos" or "Paul") wrote that a saved person could become
>damned. In fact, a person who commits Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
>CANNOT be saved, and only a saved person can commit blasphemy against the Holy
>Spirit. Since this is true, there is no way that Predestination can be true
>at all.
>
>I close:
>In summation, Calvinism requires that G-d be limited in creative ability, that
>G-d commit sins, that Messiah lie and that G-d lie. If Calvinism were true,
>evil men would be unable to act otherwise, thus they would be "G-d's victims."
> Furthermore, I am unsure that anyone who can say these things or support such
>a theology actually knows Messiah at all.
John W
one person who made that claim, Paul!
And you're right, even living a sinless life (if that were possible)
would not be enough to redeem us. We'd still just be perfect humans.
To be redeemed and washed clean enough to dwell with God in His
celestial palace, we must be pure as fresh snow! "Sinless" doesn't cut
it, unless you're already God! Paul claimed he'd never sinned, yet
called himself a pile of s* when he compared himself to the Jesus
he'd just met!
John W
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:26:14 -0400, Aaron <an...@home.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:25 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
><G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:48:39 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>>
>>>
>>>Those who have never sinned can accept salvation as well as sinners.
>>
>>WHOAH!! The Bible tells us that there is NOT ONE PERSON who has NOT
>>sinned................ "For ALL have sinned, and have come short of
>>the glory of God"..................
>
>The Bible also mentions a few - a VERY few - who committed no sins.
>These still need Messiah to get into Heaven. Theoretically, even if
>you obeyed the Copmmandments perfectly from birth to death, you would
>still need Messiah to be saved, because the Bible does not promise
>Heaven to those who obey the Law perfectly. So even if no one had
>ever been without sin (except Messiah) the fact is that everyone needs
>Messiah and that you cannot "work your way to Heaven." I thought that
>Jack's meaning was quite clear.
John W
>On 16 Oct 2002 21:42:31 +0100, John W <john_wea...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Careful! We ALL follow SOMEONE's teachings! We need to try and ensure
>>that we follow Christ MORE than our pastor!
>
>That is true.
You are astute! :)
If your leader is defying what the Bible says ask him
>to explain.
Or even if you notice he keeps preaching errors that just don't line
up, like "can we REALLY believe in the bodily R?"
I was attending a Baptist church when I was asked to teach due to my
background. The first Sunday I was told/asked, they gave me the
Broadman Quarterly to teach from. My girlfriend suggested I take a
CLOSE look at the Broadman Quarterly. Two successive Sundays, they #1
challenged the Deity of Christ, and left the question unanswered (for
the reader to decide for him/her self); the following Sunday, #2 the
subject was "can we REALLY believe, in the 20th C, that Jesus
performed miracles, walked on water, and cast out demons? Which just
reinforced the previous lesson that we could not be sure of Christ's
deity.
I complained to the pastor. His response to the heresy in that
Quarterly was "No big deal!" and "No, I won't change the curriculum!"
That was my last Sunday at that church.
Another church, and I was confronted with the same, "Was Jesus REALLY
God?" And an ambiguous answer.
I left there, too.
If he will not, or cannot, then leave and find another
>church or synagogue.
Amen! I've done that SEVERAL times!
>
>In Christ,
>
>>John W
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:36:51 -0500, "© <:o) docw ®²°°²"
>><G...@stuffed.hahaha> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Oct 02 13:48:39 GMT, N...@Spam.org (Jack) done went and wrote
>>>as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet NewsFROUPS:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In summation, Calvinism requires that G-d be limited in creative ability, that
>>>>G-d commit sins, that Messiah lie and that G-d lie. If Calvinism were true,
>>>>evil men would be unable to act otherwise, thus they would be "G-d's victims."
>>>> Furthermore, I am unsure that anyone who can say these things or support such
>>>>a theology actually knows Messiah at all.
>>>
>>>To sum it ALL up, Calvin was a mere man. NO HUMAN, whether male or
>>>female is perfect! The LORD IS perfect.
>>>So, anyone who follows Calvin, or any other 'church leader' in such a
>>>manner clearly does NOT follow CHRIST THE LORD.
>>
>>In Christ,
>>
>>John W
>>
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>>
John W
John W
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:14:35 GMT, "Vernono"
<verno...@contractor.net> wrote:
>And you write a whole tirade based on ignorance and what you have been
>taught in a cult.
>
>Translation
>You don't know what Calvinism is.
>There is no such basic "denomination" with specifics as you try to lie
>about.
>
>
>"Jack" <N...@Spam.org> wrote in message
>news:uqqrlb8...@corp.supernews.com...