Grace...an unearned gift

[mandolin]

According to the bible, the grace of God is a gift. It is not by anything people do that we are given this gift. God is so loving, that he gives this gift to us without our earning it.

We can all agree on that, right??

The question is...must one accept this gift?? :shrug:

When was the last time you received a gift without accepting it? Does you having to accept the gift mean that you are earning this gift? Of course not. A gift, whether or not it is deserved, still has to be accepted or denied.

Let's go with a terrible analogy. Say you're a teenager, and your parents buy you a car. Do you deserve the car? By no means. You are a snot-nosed teenage punk. The car is a gift that you really did not earn. They had no reason to buy it for you...accept that they are cool parents. So they dangle the keys in front of your face, and you grab the keys. Your grabbing the keys is a symbol of your acceptance of the gift. Your accepting this gift does not mean you earned it, it is just a necessary step in the process of you receiving the un-earned gift.

The same is with God and his radical grace. We as humans don't deserve the grace, but when he dangles it in front of our faces...we still have to accept it.
Am I right?

the need for acceptance is a necessary attribute of a gift. It does not deny God of his sovereignty.

Furthermore... why must we assume that this gift is only given to a select few? The gift is not by anything a man has done. Why must we think that only a select few are given this unearned gift?

calvinists...(and anyone else for that matter)...read through your prooftexts without the assuption that only a select few are saved. Doesn't the text seem to take a new fashion when we disregard a limited atonement theory, and accept that when the bible says ALL it means ALL.
(i don't mean to sound "polemic"...I am just trying to get a point across. Please forgive me if I sound offensive to calvinists)

Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the whole world (according to the scriptures). This means that the unearned gift of grace is offered to all.

This free gift of grace is given to every man/woman... Whoever accepts it will be saved... Whoever denies the gift will be denied.

Being that it is by nothing we do that we are given this grace, why assume the grace is limited? All we do is accept the unearned gift, and we accept the calling of the un-earned gift.

Though sinful beyond un-aided repentance, the abundant grace of God is calling us to repentance. Those who follow this calling are saved...those who deny this calling are screwed. :teeth:

Any objections to that??

God takes those symbolic car keys of grace and dangles them in front of every human being on the planet.
Some folks don't accept the grace, and throw it back into Christ's face. (pointing their future to an unavoidable hellfire)
Some folks accept this gift, and transform to what followers were predestined to become.
(note the scripturally sound usage of the word predestine)

Christ's blood, love, and grace are offered to all men.
This is why he is so radical.

Look...Guys...our God is freakin' awesome...and this is why!!!

He doesn't cast souls reprobate into hell without giving them a type of choice in the matter. He is totally amazing!!!

He doesn't make them as nothing more than firewood...destined to keep the furnace of Gehennah burning.
This is a disgusting interpretation of God.

And though calvinists don't blatantly teach the firewood theory, it is an inevitable implication of the doctrine.
(think about it)

IMHO
It is up to each human individually to "choose" his own destiny by either following the call of christ's grace or denying the call of christ's grace.

So in a strange way (though entymologically flawed according to many anal critics of anti-calvinistic theology), C.H. Spurgeon was correct when he said:

"God chose me...the devil chose me...my choice is the tie-breaker."

[mandolin]

Granted... I did not use large words in the above post.

Still...i think the question still remains. Does not any free gift still have to be accepted??

The calvinistic argument against such theories as arminianism always ignores the fact that though grace is a free gift...all gifts must be accepted. the only problem with the "free gift of grace" theory seems to occur when folks assert that it is only given to a few randomly selected people who are forced to accept the gift.

A gift is given and freely accepted.

so:
a. why limit the grace to a selected few?
b. why assume that my accepting the gift denies God of sovereignty?
and
c. why assume that God only loves a small fraction of his creation?

[seer]

...Still...i think the question still remains. Does not any free gift still have to be accepted??

The question is, why would anybody in his right mind not accept the free gift of eternal bliss? Do you know any rational person who would refuse a free gift of a million dollars? How much more precious is eternal life and eternal joy? But men walk in darkness, they do not understand the value of Christ and His free gift. Now when God opens a man's mind to this reality the only logical, rational response is to accept said gift (just as no thinking man would refuse the million dollar offer). The only question left is: will God eventually open the minds of all men?

[Solly]

One should clarify terms mandolin. Salvation is the gift, grace is the disposition of God in giving it to us. Salvation is NOT our response to his "offer", salvation is Christ , the substitute, the sin-bearer, dying to save His people from their sins, and then sending the Holy Spirit to make alive those who were dead in trespases and sins, and uniting them to himself. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord
The gift of salvation is God coming upon us in our helplessness, and making us better.
The analogy would be better as the idea of someone seriously hurt in an accident, and rendered comatose; and then someone comes along and helps them to a hospital, where they are treated, even though still comatose, indeed one might say they die on the operating table.
When they wake up they can't NOT live, though.



The images God uses is of people rendered completely helpless - I saw you in your blood, when you were cast out; dead in trespases and sins; valley of dry bones; in a pit, in the grave. The whole issue is the effects of sin, Calvinists see is as total and chronic.

[markporter]

"The whole issue is the effects of sin, Calvinists see is as total and chronic."

mmm, but while it is total and chronic, I think that even then it is possible to cry out "help me"....just as someone with a drug addiction cannot treat themselves, but they can realise that they're in a dreadful condition and ask for treatment

[Solly]

Today @ 12:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128596#post128596)
markporter:

"The whole issue is the effects of sin, Calvinists see is as total and chronic."

mmm, but while it is total and chronic, I think that even then it is possible to cry out "help me"....just as someone with a drug addiction cannot treat themselves, but they can realise that they're in a dreadful condition and ask for treatment

True; Seneca and Cicero are supposed to have bewailed their lot as "sinners". But you know the old adage - inside every fat person is a thin person screaming to get out...and eat everything in sight. It is more the effects of our sins we cry out for, not the sin itself. Drug addicts would be quite happy to have the nice effects without the downside, and so would every sinner - perhaps that is why we like the kind of films and computer games we do, where our heroes/players get to do the things we want, but without the consequences; and there is something for every Christian to think about.
However, we do not call out to God, because we don not want what he can do for us. Heart transplant.
Drug addiction is a good, but not complete analogy of our situation, because we are complete rebels against God, in all aspects of our lives and person, whereas there is still part of the life of a d.a. that might see sense - though not often.
How many times have you done something you know is wrong, and yet you still do it?
The idea of God "dangling" salvation in front of our face, when we are incapable of taking it, is against the Biblical truth as many have seen it; and not just Reformed. It's just that the Reformed seek to be more consistent about it. Total depravity means just that, total.

[themuzicman]

The difference in what we see as "Total" goes back to the underlying assumption of determinism by Calvinists. It colors everything they see.

Total depravity becomes the inability of man to even concieve of God because his path is already determined for him. Which leads to irresistable grace, since man cannot conceive of God, and his path is determined, man has no choice to but to be saved, if God has determined it. Which leads to limited atonement, whereby, since God already determined who would be saved and who would not, then Jesus must have only died for those already determined, and not for anyone else. And, of course, the perserverance of the saints must also follow, since the elect were determined before they existed. If you don't make it, you weren't pre-determined to have been saved.

I know that's a bit simplified, but you can see how determinism has colored the whole foundation of reformed theology, and why Calvinists hold so dearly to that doctrine. If you remove determinism from Calvinism, the TULIP whiters up and dies.

Oh, Eph 2:8 and Eph 3:7 refers to grace as a gift, too. I'm not saying that salvation ISN'T a gift. Just that grace is, as well.

Michael

[Solly]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128679#post128679)
themuzicman:


Oh, Eph 2:8 and Eph 3:7 refers to grace as a gift, too. I'm not saying that salvation ISN'T a gift. Just that grace is, as well.

Michael

Eph 2.8, as Calvinists would point out, refers to faith which is the gift of God; Arminian - the TWeb poster, however, would point out that it is salvation which is the gift referred to here.

Eph 3.7 refers to the dispensation given to Paul, that in spite of what he was, he now preaches the Gospel. It doesn't refer to a quantum of "something", but the "allowance" to do something.

[themuzicman]

Well, let's apply a little context, then, shall we?

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Are we saved by grace or by faith?

I know Calvinists here say that works is contrasted with faith, but that creates a situation where Paul would be claiming that you didn't receive grace through works.

Well, duh... Grace is unmeritted by definition. Such a statement, especially with the followup about boasting would be completely unnecessary.

Clearly the subject of verse 8 is grace and not faith, such that the following phrase describes grace and not faith, as we see further evidenced in verse 9.

Michael

[joelkaki]

mandolin, grace is certainly an unearned gift. And we must certainly accept it. The question is, though, what did Christ actually accomplish on the cross? Did He make men savable? Did He make salvation possible? I believe He did much more than that, and effectually accomplished our salvation. He paid for our sins and bought for us regeneration, faith, etc. If He died for every single person, then His death was, in a very large way, ineffectual, or, in other words, worthless.
Are you familiar with the term "double imputation"?


Joel

[joelkaki]

Granted... I did not use large words in the above post.

Still...i think the question still remains. Does not any free gift still have to be accepted??

The calvinistic argument against such theories as arminianism always ignores the fact that though grace is a free gift...all gifts must be accepted. the only problem with the "free gift of grace" theory seems to occur when folks assert that it is only given to a few randomly selected people who are forced to accept the gift.

I do not believe it is a "few" people. I believe it will be the majority of people through the ages, but I do not want to debate that at the moment.



A gift is given and freely accepted.

True, but the point is that we are all dead in sin so that we cannot accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot believe. But the whole point of the grace given by the Holy Spirit is that we are made alive WHILE WE ARE DEAD IN SINS. He renews us so that we WILL choose Him freely. He changes our nature so that we will want to choose Him.



so:
a. why limit the grace to a selected few?

Again, I believe that it is not just a "few." And God would give the grace of the regeneration to those because those are the ones whom He chose. You act as if God owes every man something, or He owes them all a chance. He doesn't. Every single person is deserving of condemnation, but He graciously chose to save some from that punishment through the death of His Son.



b. why assume that my accepting the gift denies God of sovereignty?

I haven't really said that. I believe we must accept the gift. But that acceptance of the gift comes about only as a result of God's sovereign working in our hearts.
What your view realy denies is the efficaciousness of Christ's death. Here are a few questions for you:
1. If Christ died for every single person, then that would mean He died for people in Hell at the time He was on the cross. Why would He die so that Joe (in hell at the time) could be saved?
2. If Christ died for every single person, then how can God be just? Because that would mean that Christ is punished for the person's sin, and the person is too.



and
c. why assume that God only loves a small fraction of his creation?

First off, again, I do not believe it is a small fraction. And secondly, I do believe that there is a sense in which God loves every single person. That love is manifested in common grace (sunshine, rain, is experienced by every person). But He does not love every single person with the love with which He loves the elect. That love is spoken of in Romans 8:31-39. It is an everlasting love from which we can never be separated. If that love is applied to every single person, then how can anyone end up not being saved? Obviously God does not love everyone the same, for if he did, then He would love everyone forever, and He would be loving people who are in Hell. Those in Hell are definitely separated from the love of God, and so the love in Romans 8 cannot be applied to those people. So that is how I conclude that God's love is given to His elect alone.

Joel

[mandolin]

But why assert that because we are depraved we can't accept the gift??

My point is...the free gift of grace calls each man. You say it cannot be denied...i disagree. There is no reason to say it can't be denied. A gift can be denied or accepted. There is also no reason to say it only calls a few. Therefore each man is called to christ. As is seen when it says he died for ALL. Accept the calling or deny the calling. But we can accept it because his grace calls us to accept it. We can deny it because we can resist the calling.

you asked:
1. If Christ died for every single person, then that would mean He died for people in Hell at the time He was on the cross. Why would He die so that Joe (in hell at the time) could be saved?

You don't understand the concept of christ's atonement. Those in hades before christ are there for not following faithfully the God of the jews. His blood is the atoning sacrifice for all who accepted him through faith. i.e. Abraham, justified by his faith, is in "heaven" because of the promise of the messiah who atoned for his sins, the same way post-messiah christians are atoned by the blood of christ. They were already cast to hades or brought to paradise because of the atonement given by christ to all of his creation...past present and future.

A man in hell had already denied this gift of grace...so though christ died for all...this man had already denied it. So if you limit God by your standards of time...then one could say that christ's blood was not offered to those in hell. But God is not bound by time. Therefore he did die for those in hell with the knowledge that they had already denied his gift. He also died for Charles Manson with the knowledge that he would not accept this gift. (but the foreknowledge of God is not my point..i still have not fully decided my theory on the foreknowledge of God)


you asked:
2. If Christ died for every single person, then how can God be just? Because that would mean that Christ is punished for the person's sin, and the person is too.

What?? I hardly follow you on that question. Your question is again based on your differing view of how the salvation process works. Christ died for all of the "world". Everyone!
That's the first and most imporant thing to realize. Don't fight me on that...fight the writers of the scriptures.

We should alter our theories to fit this scripural teaching. We should not alter this scriptural teaching to fit our theories.

Christ died for ALL
His grace is offered to ALL
Grace + Faith = salvation
Grace is the unearned gift
Faith is our acceptance of this gift.
If we accept the grace..then we are given salvation.
(seems simple enough to me...and I don't really see any biblical contradictions)

Man might be depraved...but the calling of christ through his grace allows us to accept or deny.
The only contradiction is if you assume the Irresistable grace theory. Man can accept or deny the grace of christ...because the grace of christ gives us the ability to accept. This grace is not irresistable. The Irresistable grace theory is only taught because of the fact that it had to be there in order for the whole TULIP to work. So whether or not the bible ever taught it...it is assumed (as is Limited atonement...and in my opinion all the rest of the letters as well)

Calvinism bases all thought on assertions made by determinism, and consequently judges "free willl theories" by the assertions they have made.

Example...
You claim my theory is wrong because you try to piece it in with your irresistable grace ideas and your limited atonement. These are merely theologies created to make the rest of calvinism work. They began because they were necessary..and verses were "altered" to fit the theory. These theologies did not begin because verses taught them...they began beacause they had to begin in order for calvinism to make sense. They are now taught by calvinists as absolute truths..and are used to judge "free will theories".

If God can save every man and doesn't save every man then he is a cruel hate-filled God.

In reality...one can either believe in a form of "free will" or a calvinistic universalism.

In my opinion...calvinism is only possible if it is applied with universalism. But because universalism is (in my opinion) a lie...then the best theological teaching would be to say that christ allows for each man to decide his or her own destiny. This deciding is done by the accepting or denying of the grace of God through our faith.

If christ foreordained who would go to heaven..then everyone would go to heaven because christ desires for all to go to heaven. (i.e. universalism)

If christ foreordained that mankind has a free will...then the acceptors of his grace would go to heaven. The deniers would not. The acceptors of his free gift would be written into the book of life. Those who deny would not..and be cast into the lake of fire.

[themuzicman]

You've just detailed why Calvinists have the 'L' in TULIP: Limited atonement. They DON'T believe that Jesus died for everyone, but only the elect.

They take the Bill Clinton "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" with "all" in certain verses to make it work.

Michael

[joelkaki]

06-20-2003 @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129004#post129004)
mandolin:

But why assert that because we are depraved we can't accept the gift??

My point is...the free gift of grace calls each man. You say it cannot be denied...i disagree. There is no reason to say it can't be denied. A gift can be denied or accepted. There is also no reason to say it only calls a few. Therefore each man is called to christ. As is seen when it says he died for ALL. Accept the calling or deny the calling. But we can accept it because his grace calls us to accept it. We can deny it because we can resist the calling.

So you would agree though, that without God's grace, men are totally depraved, and cannot believe? In other words, you just hold to prevanient grace--that enough grace is given to every man so that he can choose Christ. I just don't find that concept in Scripture anywhere.
I need some clarification, though. What exactly do you think this "free gift of grace" is, though? Is it some sort of partial regenearation by the Spirit, or what?



you asked:
1. If Christ died for every single person, then that would mean He died for people in Hell at the time He was on the cross. Why would He die so that Joe (in hell at the time) could be saved?

You don't understand the concept of christ's atonement. Those in hades before christ are there for not following faithfully the God of the jews. His blood is the atoning sacrifice for all who accepted him through faith. i.e. Abraham,

Wait, so Christ isn't the atoning sacrifice for those who don't accept him through faith? (That is what I believe, but I don't think you do, and your above statement seems to imply that.)



justified by his faith, is in "heaven" because of the promise of the messiah who atoned for his sins, the same way post-messiah christians are atoned by the blood of christ. They were already cast to hades or brought to paradise because of the atonement given by christ to all of his creation...past present and future.

A man in hell had already denied this gift of grace...so though christ died for all...this man had already denied it. So if you limit God by your standards of time...then one could say that christ's blood was not offered to those in hell. But God is not bound by time. Therefore he did die for those in hell with the knowledge that they had already denied his gift. He also died for Charles Manson with the knowledge that he would not accept this gift. (but the foreknowledge of God is not my point..i still have not fully decided my theory on the foreknowledge of God)

I don't believe you can prove that theory from Scripture, but in any case, it just doesn't make sense. Why would Christ die with the intent of saving someone he knew would never be saved? The man yes already denied the promise of the Messiah, but why should Christ die for that man who would already have been in hell? His death in that case would have been illogical and ineffectual.



you asked:
2. If Christ died for every single person, then how can God be just? Because that would mean that Christ is punished for the person's sin, and the person is too.

What?? I hardly follow you on that question. Your question is again based on your differing view of how the salvation process works. Christ died for all of the "world". Everyone!
That's the first and most imporant thing to realize. Don't fight me on that...fight the writers of the scriptures.

I'm going to fight you on that, because I do not believe that the writers of Scripture taught that. If it was true that Christ died for the sins of every single person, then why isn't there some mention of one of the apostles or someone else, in evangelism, ever saying, "Christ died for your sins"?
And you seem to have already preconceived an idea in your mind as to what "world" means. You assume it means every single person of all time. Consider the implications, though, in John 3:16. "For God so loved every single person who has ever lived that he gave his only begotten son..." That would mean God was loving people in Hell who are eternally experiencing the full measure of His wrath and hate. Does God have such conflicting emotions? Does He eternally and fiercely hate those men in hell, giving them the worst punishment possible, and yet loves them at the same time?
And "world" does not always mean every single person in the Scriptures. That is not even difficult to prove. John 17:9 says, "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." Does world here mean every single person? I hardly think so. So merely saying that "Christ died for the world" and that's the end of it hardly does the trick. You must prove that "world" in the context in which you have it means every single person.

And even considering all this, you have not answered my question, and still need to, for it is important. If Christ died for the sins of every single person, then you have Christ being punished for Joe's sins, and then in eternity, Joe is punished for them as well. That would be injustice on God's part, for He would be punishing two for the price of one. :smile: How do you avoid such a problem.



We should alter our theories to fit this scripural teaching. We should not alter this scriptural teaching to fit our theories.

I do not believe that is a Scriptural teaching first of all. And if we were all just to say that about our views in debate, then we wouldn't get anywhere, so let's at least have a reasonable discussion. (Though I certainly believe what you are saying is valid--Scripture is truth, not our desires for truth).



Christ died for ALL
His grace is offered to ALL
Grace + Faith = salvation
Grace is the unearned gift
Faith is our acceptance of this gift.
If we accept the grace..then we are given salvation.
(seems simple enough to me...and I don't really see any biblical contradictions)

But you automically assume that "all" always means every single person who has ever lived. That just is not the case. Even in everyday language this is easy to discern. Consider if I say, "We're all going to Burger King today." Does that mean every single person of all time is going to Burger King? No, it means every person in a specific group. That is one usage of all other than every single person.
All can also mean all types. Not just one type, but all types, and I believe Scripture uses that a number of times.

We may differ a little on your above little equations of whatever. You say "Grace + faith=salvation." I'm not so sure about that. That seems to make it something that we add to what God has done in our behalf, and I don't think we can really add anything. Christ does it all. We are helpless. God's grace given in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit changes our hearts and renews our wills so that we will want Christ and will place our trust in Him. So it is not something we add, in and of ourselves. It is only by God's gracious enabling.



Man might be depraved...but the calling of christ through his grace allows us to accept or deny.

You there assume that Christ calls through the Holy Spirit unto salvation every single man. I do not believe such is the case. That must be proven from Scripture. I believe that there is strong Biblical evidence the other way.



The only contradiction is if you assume the Irresistable grace theory. Man can accept or deny the grace of christ...because the grace of christ gives us the ability to accept. This grace is not irresistable. The Irresistable grace theory is only taught because of the fact that it had to be there in order for the whole TULIP to work. So whether or not the bible ever taught it...it is assumed (as is Limited atonement...and in my opinion all the rest of the letters as well)

I do believe in Irresistable Grace. And you do not give the proper picture. I is not there just to kind of tie up loose ends for the Reformed folks. It is there because we solemnly believe that Scripture teaches it. You straw man us totally. Granted, some who profess to be Calvinists may not have studied the Scriptures thoroughly on this issue, but a lot have, and I have, and I thoroughly believe Irresistable grace to be in Scripture. I would suggest you get "The Five Points of Calvinism" by Edwin Palmer and see at least that we do believe it to be from Scripture. He offers great defenses of all the points FROM SCRIPTURE. So don't accuse us of just trying to make them fit into our theological agenda and forgetting about Scripture.



Calvinism bases all thought on assertions made by determinism, and consequently judges "free willl theories" by the assertions they have made.

No, not really, we believe that Scriptures teaches unconditional election etc, and so don't hold to LFW or variations.



Example...
You claim my theory is wrong because you try to piece it in with your irresistable grace ideas and your limited atonement. These are merely theologies created to make the rest of calvinism work. They began because they were necessary..and verses were "altered" to fit the theory. These theologies did not begin because verses taught them...they began beacause they had to begin in order for calvinism to make sense. They are now taught by calvinists as absolute truths..and are used to judge "free will theories".

I'm afraid you are just not correct about this. I don't claim your theory is wrong because I am trying to piece it in with my theology. I just don't see that it is Scriptural. They are not just theologies created to make the rest of Calvinism work. They are derived from the Scriptures (whether validly or invalidly deduced is of course the matter of debate). You are just wrong about the verses thing. Men have studied these issues over the centuries, and they haven't just slapped verses on there that supposedly back up their position. I would suggest reading Calvin's commentaries or something similar.


Rest later.

Joel

[themuzicman]

That would mean God was loving people in Hell who are eternally experiencing the full measure of His wrath and hate. Does God have such conflicting emotions?

Where did this come from? Where does it say that God hates those who are not saved, and in hell.

Hell is just their eternal judgement as a result of sin. I don't see anywhere that God hates them.

Michael

[joelkaki]

“
That would mean God was loving people in Hell who are eternally experiencing the full measure of His wrath and hate. Does God have such conflicting emotions? ”



Where did this come from? Where does it say that God hates those who are not saved, and in hell.

Hell is just their eternal judgement as a result of sin. I don't see anywhere that God hates them.

Michael

It follows that those whom God pours out his fiercest wrath upon are not being loved by Him. And if they are not being loved by Him, then they are hated.

Joel

[joelkaki]

If God can save every man and doesn't save every man then he is a cruel hate-filled God.

Not at all. "Who are you, O man, that you should reply to God...I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whomever I will show compassion." (Romans 9)
And you really don't escape your own point here either. Even in your model, God could save every man, but instead he chooses to give them "free will."
But the point is God chooses whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. And that is His right, because He is God, and we are all sinners deserving of Hell. Were He to leave all to die in their sin for eternity, He would be completely just, because we all deserve that (Romans 6:23). But because of His love He decided to save some. That choosing of some does not make Him hate-filled. It just means that He is both loving and just.



In reality...one can either believe in a form of "free will" or a calvinistic universalism.

In my opinion...calvinism is only possible if it is applied with universalism. But because universalism is (in my opinion) a lie...then the best theological teaching would be to say that christ allows for each man to decide his or her own destiny. This deciding is done by the accepting or denying of the grace of God through our faith.

If christ foreordained who would go to heaven..then everyone would go to heaven because christ desires for all to go to heaven. (i.e. universalism)

If christ foreordained that mankind has a free will...then the acceptors of his grace would go to heaven. The deniers would not. The acceptors of his free gift would be written into the book of life. Those who deny would not..and be cast into the lake of fire.

You will not find a verse in the Bible anywhere that says that God foreordained that mankind should have free will (in the sense you mean "free will").

You will find many however speaking of his foreordination unto salvation. (Eph 1:4-5; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; Romans 9:11; 2 Thess 2:13 and many others).

Joel

[Arminian]

You will find many however speaking of his foreordination unto salvation. (Eph 1:4-5; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; Romans 9:11; 2 Thess 2:13 and many others).

Of course, they should be considered within context, which would be a fun thing to do.

[mandolin]

well Joel...as was expected, you grasped onto the typical calvinist teaching that God doesn't have to be loving by human terms, because being God...whatever he does is loving.

Really...I love calvinist cop-outs like that one. Especially when followed by an irrelevant verse talking about national election. well done.

Point it this...my theory is as biblical as yours (in fact...probably more) and it also preaches of a righteous and loving God. (something that the TULIP God is not) (something that the biblical God is)

Is a God who foreordains men to be gehenna's firewood a righteous God? Nope
Now granted...we all deserve hell. But forcing some to heaven and others to hell lacks love.
This is why I believe God doesn't force anything to occur.
(not to mention...basic biblical truths)

example...God's grace, given to all, calls all men to be saved. This allows each man to have the power to overcome the fact that he is depraved. But many choose depravity.
Would somebody please show me how this is unbiblical??
(with verses...not tulip presumtions)


1. Christ died for ALL
2. His grace is abundant to ALL
3. This grace saves those with faith
4. This grace calls all to faith
5. This grace is not irresistable
6. Those who accept the grace through faith are accepting the gift of salvation
7. Those who deny are denied salvation

Grace=gift
Faith=accepting of the gift
Grace+faith=salvation

The gift..given to all...is accepted by some. It is predestined that those who accept will be conformed to the image of the son.

Now somebody please show be biblical reasoning why my theory is wrong. Rather than using TULIP assumptions...please use the bible to deny my theory. (If you think it is wrong)

If you cannot deny it...then please accept the fact that God IS righteous and loving...he's not a schyzophrenic Bill Gates, making robots to burn eternally in torment and agony for being what he programmed them to be.

[mandolin]

TULIP:

God makes me a sinfully depraved human...then blames me for being what he made me. He then casts me into eternal torment and agony...unless he randomly chooses to let me into heaven. Because God does this totally unrighteous thing...it is righteous...because he is God. God is allowed to program me and schyzophrenically punish me for being what he programmed...because he's God.

Though the bible says he wants all to be saved...he actually doesn't.

He only loves the randomly preselected

Though the bible speaks of justice...and claims God is just...he actually isn't.

Though the bible talks about love..and says he's loving...he actually is not.

He only loves a small fraction of his creation. And he forces them to love him back.

As robots...we just do precicely what God's providence-inflicting programming foreordained for us.

Somehow...we as humans are guilty for being what God made us (sinfully guilty humans)...and because of this, he is allowed to cast us reprobate into hell without any "justice" or "love" as would be defined by all of humanity.

Those are some of the implied truths of TULIP

TULIP= an unrighteous, unjust, unloving God.
(as the bible defines righteousness, justice, and love)

[joelkaki]

mandolin, I won't be able to answer all that you have said here now, for I don't have the time at the moment, and I leave tomorrow morning for Missions in New York City, where I will have no computer access (nor time anyway--handing out 200,000 tracts takes a while).

However, let me make a strong point here. Here are your last two posts:


well Joel...as was expected, you grasped onto the typical calvinist teaching that God doesn't have to be loving by human terms, because being God...whatever he does is loving.

Really...I love calvinist cop-outs like that one. Especially when followed by an irrelevant verse talking about national election. well done.

Point it this...my theory is as biblical as yours (in fact...probably more) and it also preaches of a righteous and loving God. (something that the TULIP God is not) (something that the biblical God is)

Is a God who foreordains men to be gehenna's firewood a righteous God? Nope
Now granted...we all deserve hell. But forcing some to heaven and others to hell lacks love.
This is why I believe God doesn't force anything to occur.
(not to mention...basic biblical truths)

example...God's grace, given to all, calls all men to be saved. This allows each man to have the power to overcome the fact that he is depraved. But many choose depravity.
Would somebody please show me how this is unbiblical??
(with verses...not tulip presumtions)


1. Christ died for ALL
2. His grace is abundant to ALL
3. This grace saves those with faith
4. This grace calls all to faith
5. This grace is not irresistable
6. Those who accept the grace through faith are accepting the gift of salvation
7. Those who deny are denied salvation

Grace=gift
Faith=accepting of the gift
Grace+faith=salvation

The gift..given to all...is accepted by some. It is predestined that those who accept will be conformed to the image of the son.

Now somebody please show be biblical reasoning why my theory is wrong. Rather than using TULIP assumptions...please use the bible to deny my theory. (If you think it is wrong)

If you cannot deny it...then please accept the fact that God IS righteous and loving...he's not a schyzophrenic Bill Gates, making robots to burn eternally in torment and agony for being what he programmed them to be.

TULIP:

God makes me a sinfully depraved human...then blames me for being what he made me. He then casts me into eternal torment and agony...unless he randomly chooses to let me into heaven. Because God does this totally unrighteous thing...it is righteous...because he is God. God is allowed to program me and schyzophrenically punish me for being what he programmed...because he's God.

Though the bible says he wants all to be saved...he actually doesn't.

He only loves the randomly preselected

Though the bible speaks of justice...and claims God is just...he actually isn't.

Though the bible talks about love..and says he's loving...he actually is not.

He only loves a small fraction of his creation. And he forces them to love him back.

As robots...we just do precicely what God's providence-inflicting programming foreordained for us.

Somehow...we as humans are guilty for being what God made us (sinfully guilty humans)...and because of this, he is allowed to cast us reprobate into hell without any "justice" or "love" as would be defined by all of humanity.

Those are some of the implied truths of TULIP

TULIP= an unrighteous, unjust, unloving God.
(as the bible defines righteousness, justice, and love)

You way you want TULIP backed up by verses, not just opinions and assertions. Look carefully over what I just quoted, and notice that there is not one verse in the entire thing. Now, you condemn my theology, but you provide nothing in the way of Scripture at all. So defend your position Biblically before complaining that we do not do so.

Joel

[mandolin]

Joel... I have in the past defended myself with scriptures...and have been judged for "proof texting". This is why I have used no verses in this message board...and why I am asking for verses from you. If you would like me to show the biblical nature of my theory through scripture, I'd be more than willing.

Also joel...notice how half of what I said were calvinist implications. Of couse they aren't backed by scripture...so why would I use scripture to support it. Calvinism can't be backed by scripture.

My uncalvinistic view of salvation is quite simple.
Grace=gift
Faith=accepting of the gift
Grace+faith=salvation

That's it.

But don't worry...verses will be coming to convey this (and deny tulip) shortly.

[joelkaki]

Joel... I have in the past defended myself with scriptures...and have been judged for "proof texting". This is why I have used no verses in this message board...and why I am asking for verses from you. If you would like me to show the biblical nature of my theory through scripture, I'd be more than willing.

Also joel...notice how half of what I said were calvinist implications. Of couse they aren't backed by scripture...so why would I use scripture to support it. Calvinism can't be backed by scripture.

My uncalvinistic view of salvation is quite simple.
Grace=gift
Faith=accepting of the gift
Grace+faith=salvation

That's it.

But don't worry...verses will be coming to convey this (and deny tulip) shortly.


True, the last post did not require verses. But the first did. I will not be one to condemn you for prooftexting. I will be glad for you to provide verses. But as I say, I will be gone in NYC for 2 weeks, and then be home for a couple of days, and then go to Alaska for a week, so I won't be able to respond for a while.

Joel

[mandolin]

In order to deny calvinism with scripture...it's best to start with Limited atonement. Because Calvinism is so much based on determinism...as one portion is refuted..it all seems to crumble. Keep in mind...I did used to believe this calvinism thing..because I never used to read contextually...and ignored obvious teachings.

Because each of the letters of Calvinism basically relies on the other letters...and were invented to try to make sense of the other letters...if one letter falls, the rest seem to be obscured. If two letters fall...the whole theory is without structure, and becomes worthless.

1 John 2:1-2 says that christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. (That alone is enough to become at least a 4 pointer)

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 says that he died for all and that those who live would live for him (again...all)

Hebrews 2:9 says he tasted death for everyone. (doesn't sound too limited)

Luke 19:10 says he came to save what was lost... we're all lost. He therefore came to save all of us.

So though I could go on...I shall stop, and just blatantly say that Limited atonement is totally against what the bible clearly asserts.

Let us continue...

We'll just randomly cover other letters of TULIP. (now tuip)

Acts 7:51-55... they resist the holy spirit. Never again can a person say that the holy spirit cannot be resisted. Just look at what is said here.

Jn 15:6-7 How can a person read this and say that man doesn't have a type of "free will"? Seriously.

Mtt 11:28 hmmm... what a nice un-calvinistic God

Rev 22:17 Come...WHOEVER WISHES, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (this is my teaching exactly...the gift is free...now we must take it)

Jesus wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem to himself, but they were unwilling, rejected their destiny, and their city was made desolate (Matt 23:37-38). (notice...this gathering is rejected...not very Calvinistic)

Luke 7:30 Yet another example of God's will for people being denied.

God has a will for all.
If we do the will of the father...we will be saved.

Matthew 7:13-14
Only a few find it. (notice christ never says that only a few are shown it)

Man... I feel like stopping. If more verses are needed..trust me they are there.

So given that Ephesians teaches that it is by grace we are saved through faith (and this salvation is not of ourselves...lest any man should boast) then my salvation view seems to be dead on.

Grace=gift
Faith=accepting of the gift
Grace+faith=salvation

Rev 22:17- Whoever is thirsty let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

The free gift...must be accepted. The water of life is symbolic as is seen in Matthew of the grace of God. This grace must be accepted. That is what the verse teaches.

[mandolin]

ok... just to be fair...and to make sure my theory is completely accurate...I'll give a couple of the better "calvinist" texts as well. When taken out of context...and when viewed with pressuposition...these verses blatantly teach calvinism.
(i am not going to give an exegesis of any of these verses at this time...I don't feel like it)

ROMANS 9:10-13
II TIMOTHY2:9,10
JOHN 15:15,16
II THESSALONIANS 2:13, 14
ROMANS 8:28-31
EPHESIANS 1

As you read these supposed calvinistic "proof-texts"... don't presuppose that there is a limited and irresistable grace. This will allow you to see the verses in a whole different light.

Let's even keep in mind what the imfamous John Calvin had to say about this topic.

"Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him" - John Calvin

Grace is offerred to all...not all receive him

But even amidst what now becomes confusion by bringing in some apparently complicated "calvinistic proof texts", one must go about exegeses with simple truths. (as shown below)

God does want all men to be saved!
God does want all men to come to the knowledge of the truth!
Christ did give Himself a ransom for all on the cross!
This ransom is offered to all!
He does want all to come to repentance!
There is no limited atonement!
There is no irresistable grace!

With these truths, the flower of tulip seems to wilt away, and one can clearly see the majestic and radical love of our awesome God. Our God who died for all.
Whoever believes in him should not perish, but shall have eternal life.
WHOEVER!!

The basic truth seems to be this:

Rev 22:17- Whoever is thirsty let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Grace=a free gift
Faith=accepting of the gift
Grace+faith=salvation

You thirsty?? Accept the free gift of the water of life.
You depraved?? Accept the free gift of the grace of God.

The water is offered to all! The grace is offered to all!
Just accept it!!
AMEN!!!

[mandolin]

Here...so that I don't get blamed by others for "proof-texting", or being ignorant and polemic...let us go one step at a time.

Sorry for posting so many posts in a row.
I'm sure it's against some sort of rule.
But don't yell at me :eek:

Let's take this verse by verse. Feel free to comment on my other verses...but for now, I mainly want to focus on one verse. Because I think that even one verse can work wonders in denying "heresy".

OK...let's start with one of my personal favorite verses. (as can be seen in the previous posts)

Revelation 22:17... :teeth:

The teaching seems to be that whoever is thirsty can accept Christ's free gift. This teaches that it is a gift...and that it must be accepted.

Clearly...the verse is referring to the same water that christ talks of in Mattew which is symbolic of the gracious salvation given to men.

First...we see that it is offerred to all men.
Second...we see that each man chooses to accept or deny it.
Third...accepting it gives us life (heaven).

I would be interested to hear a calvinistic exegesis of the verse.
I know my exegeses are not the greatest...but I do feel that the teachings of this verse (as well as countless others) seem to be pretty obvious.

Grace is offered to all. If we accept it..we will be saved.

Someone please give me a calvinistic exegesis of Revelation 22:17.

Rock on...God bless

[optic_threshold]

We should answer your question first with a question.

Why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor doesn’t?

One man, while still in his old nature, either created a right thought, generated a right affection, or originated a right volition that led to his salvation while the other man, did not have the natural wherewithal to come up with the faith that God required of him to obtain salvation

So God, according to this scheme, really chose one man over the other based on something good within one while rejecting the man who lacked this inclination towards goodness. So who are we trusting for salvation then? Why does one believe and not another? Is one naturally endowed with more wisdom to start with? Did one train himself better prior to salvation, so to speak? Even if God initiates with grace, in this scheme, what does the one man have, who chooses God that the one who rejects Him does not? Has evangelicalism gone full circle? ... Isn't that the very reason why we broke off from Rome in the 16th century - to get away from such man-centered doctrines? Are we saved by merit then? I would challenge you to go back to the Council of Trent, the document that came out of the Catholic Counter-Reformation to see how closely it resembles much of modern evangelicalism's teaching on the free will of one who is not yet born again.

In the Council of Trent (1563), which is the standard of the Roman Catholic Church, we find the following statement about freedom of the will written in opposition to one of the most critical recovered biblical doctrines of the Reformation (Sola Gratia):

"If any one shall affirm, that man's freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

"If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man's freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!

We have replaced it with a cheap counterfeit: Grace PLUS Faith. We must recognize that faith does not come from the natural man but the spiritual man. "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Cor 2:14) We would never believe unless the Holy Spirit came in and disarmed our hostility to God, making our heart of stone into a heart of flesh that we might believe.

Our ears must first be supernaturally opened and a new heart given us so that we are even willing to hear God's word and come into vital union with Christ through faith. A man could more easily see without eyes or speak without a tongue than turn to Christ apart from the gracious, life-giving work of God in his soul. Our Lord asks, "Do men gather grapes from thorns?" No, every tree will only bring forth fruit from its own kind. What can be done then? Our Lord tells us in Matt 12:33 that He must "Make the tree good, and his fruit will be good." In other words, the nature of the tree must be changed

[mandolin]

Well... I appreciate your reply.

But your assertion that one man has something that the other man does not is actually my point.

He has faith. He accepts. To assert that this faith is merit based is totally irrational.

Don't assume that just because the man has something that the other does not it means that the man is saved by works, merit, or a God of partiality.

It is not that the man does something better.
It is that he accepts the grace of God that calls him by having faith in this grace.
Faith is not a work.
Faith is belief
Whoever believes in him should not perish. (John 3)

Seems scripturally sound to me.
a. it is by nothing we DO that we are saved (Romans 9)
b. it is by grace through faith that be are saved (Ephesians 2)
c. faith is not something we DO (Hebrews 11)
d. Christ's gift (grace) plus our acceptance (faith) equals salvation (Ephesians 2)

Any reasons why that is wrong??

Also...to be totally honest, I'm not too crazy about basing theories on reformation schemes, and councils. Regardless of whatever the council of trent says, I more prefer the concept of sola scriptura. I do not really care to compare my thoughts with that of historical church leaders.

My point is...let's go with the bible.
Let's forget what theologians have said...let's forget what church fathers have said...let's focus on what scriptural authors have said...and let's focus on what christ himself said.

I never said that this man is saved by merit. The opposite is totally true.
He is saved by his acceptance. This is not based on merit. Acceptance is not based on anything but acceptance.
This acceptance is not forced...it is merely "coaxed" by the grace of christ. Christ calls all. Whoever accepts is saved.
As has been seen in my previous verses (and the many more that I could give)

Anyways... look at revelation 22:17, and then come telling me that tulip is true.

I am still waiting for a calvinist exegesis of the given verse.

And oh yeah...This grace plus faith is not a cheap counterfeit if it is scriptural. And according to ephesians...it is scriptural.
So calling the scripture a cheap counterfeit because you compose more complicated theories based on presupposed calvinistic inclinations might not be a smart thing to do. Let's focus on the obvious scriptural teachings and truths.

Let's focus on the simple verses...and talk about them. One should use simple truths to decyhpher complex verses...not vice versa.

Christ died for all...simple truth
So let's use scripture now.

we'll go one verse at a time.

Someone please give me a calvinistic exegesis of Revelation 22:17

[mandolin]

Ok... the room rages like mad...until the "free will" advocate gives a valid text. (ok..more than one...but one in particular that should be focused on)

This post might offend folks...and it's not meant to. I'm just bored of having everyone refuse to answer my question. So I resort to worthless comedy. (don't worry...I'm not pursuing stand-up comedy)

Why do no calvinists speak anymore?? REV. 22:17!!!!!

Could it be that they have trouble mixing their calvinism with the biblical teachings of "the spirit and the bride"?

I mean...sure...some of us are busy, I understand. But I figure there are enough calvinists on this theologyweb thing for one of them to try to answer my question.

They always stick up for calvinism like crazy...but why do they no longer back their claims when verses come into the picture?? is it merely coincidence?? Or is the polemic, ignorant, rock and roll teenager onto something here?? :huh:

Could it possibly be that calvinism is wrong?? :shrug:
"WHOAH...how dare he say that?!?!?" :eek:

But maybe the bible is true..and we do have a "free will" like it says. Just maybe...I'm not saying it's true...I'm just saying maybe...maybe the bible is true.

I'm not gonna push to the calvinist that the bible is true...i'm just saying maybe. Maybe the bible is wrong in comparison to modern theologians as the calvinist would presume. Maybe it's only true within the confines of TULIP as the calvinist asserts.... but maybe the bible is also true when it speaks of choice...and free will. Just maybe... :huh:

I know...it's a crazy thought...the bible being true...but maybe... you know??

I understand...it's tough for a calvinist to take the scriptures for what they blatantly say. It's tough to let go of false doctrine...but what do you say we give it a shot?? Let's let go of this TULIP for good... you with me??

We could read the bible...and not alter it's meaning. We could study verses..and actually view them in context. We could praise God...and actually think he was righteous and loving.

But first we'd have to let go of this TULIP thing.

Anyways...I do hope someone will finally defend the precious tulip from the evil clutches of scriptural teaching. It would be fun to watch a calvinist squirm around verses. I'm getting all giddy just thinking about the debate:

TULIP vs. SCRIPTURE

Darn bible...always denouncing calvinsim. Don't you hate that?? How dare the bible teach the dreaded heresy of "free will"?

I know...calvinists...it's a tough life. Always having to compete with scripture. I feel your pain...i really do
:smile:

Anyways...I would love for someone to answer me now...so I can stop being a retard.

Here..I'll even ask the question again:

How does Revelation 22:17 fit in with calvinism?

It seems to blatantly uproot the tulip.
WE choose to accept the grace.
not HE chooses to make us accept.

Whoever is thirsty...let him come (hmm...anyone who wants to can come...interesting)

Whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.
wow...whoever wishes...that means...like...anybody can do it. That's odd. Tulip doesn't preach that..does it??

Take the free gift of the water of life.
Wait...WE TAKE IT??? We accept it?? He gives it to anyone and everyone and let's them take it?? Isn't that heresy? Isn't it blasphemy to say that mankind has a free will. Darn bible...it keeps preaching heresy as truth. Don't you hate that? :smile:

I keep trying to find credibility behind TULIP...but verses like these keep shattering my calvinistic thinking.

How would a calvinist go about goose-stepping around the un-calvinistic meaning of this verse??

somebody please give me a calvinistic exegesis of Revelation 22:17

Rock on...God bless...

p.s. again...please nobody get offended by this post. It's meant to be comical. The theological world lacks a little thing called fun. Though I might not be funny...ok, so I'm a complete moron...i know...but at least I'm trying here. It's been SO long, and none of the hundreds of Tweb calvinists will defend their beliefs from my verse. My miserable excuse at comedy is just used to keep me from falling asleep with boredom as nobody responds to my posts anymore.

[mandolin]

:uneasy:

Ok...this is just lame!!

It's been at least a couple weeks now since my first post of this one simple question... How does Rev. 22:17 fit within the realm of tulip??

I understand that calvinism cannot stand when scripturally tested with verses, but can't you calvinists at least TRY to defend your view?? At least say SOMETHING!!

Honestly...I'm bored.

You all used to try to ream me apart with how my thoughts are centered on unbiblical theories...why do you no longer fight me when I bring scripture into the mix??

Granted...I have previously listed tons of uncalvinistic verses..but I'm only asking about ONE!! One little verse.

But this one little verse can play a big role in denouncing calvinism if the calvinists don't put on thir tap shoes and dance around it. So get out here and dance!! :whip:

For the love of donuts...somebody defend your precious tulip from the evil clutches of scriptural teaching!!

REV. 22:17

Come on calvinists...lace up your ballet slippers, put on your leotards, and get out here and dance around the obvious meaning of that verse.
:teeth:

[themuzicman]

06-23-2003 @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130887#post130887)
joelkaki:

It follows that those whom God pours out his fiercest wrath upon are not being loved by Him. And if they are not being loved by Him, then they are hated.

Joel

God's wrath is poured out because of judgement, not because of His personal feelings. Maybe you need to go back and review John 3:16.

Michael

[Solly]

Today @ 01:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141601#post141601)
mandolin:

:uneasy:

Ok...this is just lame!!

It's been at least a couple weeks now since my first post of this one simple question... How does Rev. 22:17 fit within the realm of tulip??

I understand that calvinism cannot stand when scripturally tested with verses, but can't you calvinists at least TRY to defend your view?? At least say SOMETHING!!

Honestly...I'm bored.

You all used to try to ream me apart with how my thoughts are centered on unbiblical theories...why do you no longer fight me when I bring scripture into the mix??

Granted...I have previously listed tons of uncalvinistic verses..but I'm only asking about ONE!! One little verse.

But this one little verse can play a big role in denouncing calvinism if the calvinists don't put on thir tap shoes and dance around it. So get out here and dance!! :whip:

For the love of donuts...somebody defend your precious tulip from the evil clutches of scriptural teaching!!

REV. 22:17

Come on calvinists...lace up your ballet slippers, put on your leotards, and get out here and dance around the obvious meaning of that verse.
:teeth:

Go here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6264) also.

But please take note mandolin, though you seem to have got a bit hot under the collar about it; Calvinists do not have to fit anything into TULIP. It is not an interpretive mould through which we push scripture as if we were making sausages; it is that which is revealed from the study of scripture.

[Theolog]

Yesterday @ 05:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141601#post141601)
mandolin:

:uneasy:

Ok...this is just lame!!

It's been at least a couple weeks now since my first post of this one simple question... How does Rev. 22:17 fit within the realm of tulip??

I understand that calvinism cannot stand when scripturally tested with verses, but can't you calvinists at least TRY to defend your view?? At least say SOMETHING!!

Honestly...I'm bored.

You all used to try to ream me apart with how my thoughts are centered on unbiblical theories...why do you no longer fight me when I bring scripture into the mix??

Granted...I have previously listed tons of uncalvinistic verses..but I'm only asking about ONE!! One little verse.

But this one little verse can play a big role in denouncing calvinism if the calvinists don't put on thir tap shoes and dance around it. So get out here and dance!! :whip:

For the love of donuts...somebody defend your precious tulip from the evil clutches of scriptural teaching!!

REV. 22:17

Come on calvinists...lace up your ballet slippers, put on your leotards, and get out here and dance around the obvious meaning of that verse.
:teeth:


lame indeed!

Well now pilgrim here is a little tulip for you. I‘ve got my little pink too-too on and am ready to spin around a little for you but watch out and don’t get too close, I kick.

Revelation 22:17 (KJV)
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

This verse is not the general appeal to mankind as you wrongly assume it is. The spirit and the bride are talking to members of the elect, which should be plain to such a seasoned reader as yourself unless you just ignore the obvious.

Being as how this verse is directed to specific people, all of whom are believers, it should be obvious, even to the hardest of skeptics, that this verse is not an appeal to the gospel. None of the “whom-so-evers” being addressed is unbelievers.

Just what is it that gives you the impression that this verse might be a Gospel call???

[Thomas2003]

Because each of the letters of Calvinism basically relies on the other letters...and were invented to try to make sense of the other letters...if one letter falls, the rest seem to be obscured. If two letters fall...the whole theory is without structure, and becomes worthless.

The TULIP is not an evangelistic presentation of the Gospel. Calvinists that use it as such are simply not knowledgable and are citing their teaching - it is a conciliar response to the 5 Points of Arminius.

It is presupposed that those coming to the table know what it is at stake - that they understand the basics of Christian Theology. To use the TULIP acronym outside of the conciliar structure is not well considered.

Cordially,

Thomas

[mandolin]

Theolog...

Even in your reading of the verse it still implies that the saved are saved by their own choice. I beg you to read the verse BEFORE implying calvinistic thoughts to it next time.

It says, Whoever hears say, "Come". Notice that it doesn't say whoever hears...come. it says "SAY COME"...

This is a general call to the saved to go unto the nations preaching the name of Christ. We are to repeat the words of God to the world. Am I right??

We are to be the microphones of God...calling all the world with the calling of God. Showing God to all the world.

I see how your reading of the verse would make sense...that is, if you take a couple words out.

Jesus doesn't call only those who hear his voice...those who hear his voice extend out his call to let all hear his voice. Whoever is thirsty...therefore...means whoever is thirsty (i.e. everyone). Are you going to tell me that the rest of the world is not thirsty too?? Only the foreordained are thirsty?? We all thirst...we all need salvation...therefore we ALL may come.

Who "may" come?? ALL
Who "will" come?? WHOEVER WISHES

Wait...I though it was whoever god wishes to come will come. :huh:.....Oh yeah...that's right...that's just a misleading calvinist teaching that the bible never mentions.

Let him take of the free gift of the water of life.
WHO takes of the water of life?? WHOEVER WISHES

My salvation theology is simple...and is blatantly shown throughout the whole of scripture..and is also backed by this one verse. (not to mention is quite logical)

The free gift of the water of life is the grace and salvation of Christ. But notice how whoever wishes also has to TAKE the free gift. Even free gifts must be accepted.

This is where faith comes from. The same faith that justified Abraham, Moses, etc. will also justify the entire world...all of us...because Christ died for, and gave grace to, the entire world.

Don't agree?? Please show me how my teaching that grace+faith=salvation is wrong.
grace=the free gift of the water of life
faith=taking the free gift (as the verse says whoever wishes can do)
salvation is what happens when we accept the gift by our faith.

Notice...God thought Abraham was faithful because Abraham himself was faithful. God did not force Abraham to be faithful...Abraham was faithful. The same goes with ever human being of all time.

Christ died for ALL
that ALL might live
whoever believes in him will not perish

ALL means ALL
Whoever wishes means whoever wishes

But somehow the calvinist claims that I'm unbiblical in my teachings...how ironic :shrug:

Now please...give a calvinist exegesis that actually fits within the teachings of the verse. Just claiming whoever wishes only refers to the elect:
a. ignores the entire verse (and context surrounding the verse)
b. Alters the meaning of the term whoever wishes (thelo...to will, decide, want to...etc.)
c. Is adding in terms such as preselected and foreordained to a verse that just says WHOEVER WISHES
d. Is quite possibly guilty of breaking the rule of verse 18 for this addition to the text. (I know the verse is talking about the prophecies...but maybe this calvinist addition is also meant...just maybe)

So in conclusion...I would really appreciate a decent calvinist exegesis of the verse

Or I guess we could continue onto a different verse..because this one seems to speak for itself. It's like Roundup on these pesky tulip weeds. :teeth:

[mandolin]

You...theolog... said, "The spirit and the bride are talking to members of the elect."

Now...being that the spirit and the bride IS the holy spirit and the church...how could they be talking to the church?? The elect are the ones doing the calling...are they calling themselves??

NO!!

They are calling the rest of the world. Therefore...it is a general salvation call. It is the holy spirit, through the grace given by christ, and the church, who has accepted that grace through faith, calling the rest of the world to come...and take freely of the water of life.

Then again...I'm just a musician...what would I know. :smile:

Hey...also...how do I do that quoting thing like everyone else does?? The cool gray box whenever I quote someone...how do I do that??

[Theolog]

I'll try again.

22:17 “Come!” This is the Spirit’s and church’s answer to the promise of His coming. let him. This is an unlimited offer of grace and salvation to all who desire to have their thirsty souls quenched.
MacArthur, J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Electronic ed.) (Re 22:17). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

[mandolin]

I'll try again.

22:17 “Come!” This is the Spirit’s and church’s answer to the promise of His coming. let him. This is an unlimited offer of grace and salvation to all who desire to have their thirsty souls quenched.
MacArthur, J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Electronic ed.) (Re 22:17). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

Whoah, bro... unlimited grace?? salvation to all who desire?? you're sounding more like me now. Less like a tulip.

The church is the bride...right??
So the "elect" is saying come. They are not saying come TO the elect...because this would be absurd. The elect would not call the elect.

So your position is that they are saying Come to Jesus...right??
You are saying that they are calling Jesus to come...right??
This makes sense...being that jesus says he would come..and they are merely answering it. But that still doesn't explain away the second part of the verse.

Though you are probably very accurate to an extent (because of 22:12)...I beg you to read it again.

Focus now on the second part...

This is why I believe it is a call for evangelism amongst the nations. It is a plea to the churches that the book is too...calling them (as the bride) to saddle up with the spirit, and preach the gospel unto all the world.

That way whoever wishes may take the free gift of the water of life. Remember...more people are thirsty than just the elect

In conclusion...though the first plea of the church to Come may be and probably is directly related to verse 12, the second part distinctly preaches a free will amongst the world. It is this second part of the verse that I think we should focus on.

Here...let me plagiarize something from John Wesley :teeth:


The Spirit and the bride - The Spirit of adoption in the bride, in the heart of every true believer. Say - With earnest desire and expectation. Come - And accomplish all the words of this prophecy. And let him that thirsteth, come - Here they also who are farther off are invited. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life - He may partake of my spiritual and unspeakable blessings, as freely as he makes use of the most common refreshments; as freely as he drinks of the running stream.
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Revelation 22". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible". <http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/wen/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=022>. 1765.

I guess it's not plagiarism anymore...since I cited it :smile:

Read the above quote...and especially focus on the last part.

In conclusion...let whoever wishes take freely of the free gift of the water of life. This is why I think calvinism can't coexist with scripture (and this verse in particular).

"Whoever Wishes" sure doesn't imply foreordination. :shrug:

[Jaltus]

Guys, becareful of posting back to back as that is against the rules of TWeb. Please read the statement of decorum here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/view.php?pg=decorum#postlength).

Specifically it says:

Multiple posts back-to-back responses to a single poster is not allowed.

[Theolog]

Yesterday @ 10:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142867#post142867)
mandolin:



Whoah, bro... unlimited grace?? salvation to all who desire?? you're sounding more like me now. Less like a tulip.

The church is the bride...right??
So the &quot;elect&quot; is saying come. They are not saying come TO the elect...because this would be absurd. The elect would not call the elect.

So your position is that they are saying Come to Jesus...right??
You are saying that they are calling Jesus to come...right??
This makes sense...being that jesus says he would come..and they are merely answering it. But that still doesn't explain away the second part of the verse.

Though you are probably very accurate to an extent (because of 22:12)...I beg you to read it again.

Focus now on the second part...

This is why I believe it is a call for evangelism amongst the nations. It is a plea to the churches that the book is too...calling them (as the bride) to saddle up with the spirit, and preach the gospel unto all the world.

That way whoever wishes may take the free gift of the water of life. Remember...more people are thirsty than just the elect

In conclusion...though the first plea of the church to Come may be and probably is directly related to verse 12, the second part distinctly preaches a free will amongst the world. It is this second part of the verse that I think we should focus on.

Here...let me plagiarize something from John Wesley :teeth:



I guess it's not plagiarism anymore...since I cited it :smile:

Read the above quote...and especially focus on the last part.

In conclusion...let whoever wishes take freely of the free gift of the water of life. This is why I think calvinism can't coexist with scripture (and this verse in particular).

&quot;Whoever Wishes&quot; sure doesn't imply foreordination. :shrug:

17. Reply of the spiritual Church and John to Christ’s words (Rev 22:7, 12, 16).
the Spirit—in the churches and in the prophets.

the bride—not here called “wife,” as that title applies to her only when the full number constituting the Church shall have been completed. The invitation, “Come,” only holds good while the Church is still but an affianced Bride, and not the actually wedded wife. However, “Come” may rather be the prayer of the Spirit in the Church and in believers in reply to Christ’s “I come quickly,” crying, Even so, “Come” (Rev 22:7, 12); Rev 22:20 confirms this view. The whole question of your salvation hinges on this, that you be able to hear with joy Christ’s announcement, “I come,” and to reply, “Come” . Come to fully glorify Thy Bride.

let him that heareth—that is, let him that heareth the Spirit and Bride saying to the Lord Jesus, “Come,” join the Bride as a true believer, become part of her, and so say with her to Jesus, “Come.” On “heareth” means “obeyeth”; for until one has obeyed the Gospel call, he cannot pray to Jesus “Come”; so “hear” is used, Rev 1:3; Jn 10:16. Let him that hears and obeys Jesus’ voice (Rev 22:16; Rev 1:3) join in praying “Come.” Compare Rev 6:1, 10; see on Rev 6:1. In the other view, which makes “Come” an invitation to sinners, this clause urges those who themselves hear savingly the invitation to address the same to others, as did Andrew and Philip after they themselves had heard and obeyed Jesus’ invitation, “Come.”

let him that is athirst come—As the Bride, the Church, prays to Jesus, “Come,” so she urges all whosoever thirst for participation in the full manifestation of redemption-glory at His coming to us, to COME in the meantime and drink of the living waters, which are the earnest of “the water of life pure as crystal … out of the throne of God of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1) in the regenerated heaven and earth.

And—so Syriac. But A, B, Vulgate, and Coptic omit “and.”

whosoever will—that is, is willing and desirous. There is a descending climax; Let him that heareth effectually and savingly Christ’s voice, pray individually, as the Bride, the Church, does collectively, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20). Let him who, though not yet having actually heard unto salvation, and so not yet able to join in the prayer, “Lord Jesus, come, “still thirsts for it, come to Christ. Whosoever is even willing, though his desires do not yet amount to positive thirsting, let him take the water of life freely, that is, gratuitously.


I suspect your understanding of Calvinism is superficial and incomplete.

Many of us Calvinists believe that God calls all to repentance so there is no excuse. [b]]Romans 1:16-20

Although it is God desire that none should perish, all men with their free will freely choose the desires of their heart and turn away from God and become totally corrupt. Romans 1:21-32

Paul then deals with the now defunct exclusivity of the Jews and Gods acceptance of the gentiles and quotes the OT with this startling statement dealing with man’s depravity.

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.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Paul then builds his case for Gods sovereignty in election that He accomplishes with His Grace and mercy by choosing some men for the FREE GIFT OF FAITH BY GRACE TO ALL THAT HE CHOOSES.. thus giving rise to the doctrine of predestination that is taught in Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1—

Of course Christians are to evangelize as that is how collects those He elects so if God has made you thirsty for Him you know the drill.

Here is a look at election through Gods eyes;

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

29 so that no one may boast before him.

30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

Of course we are still to evangelize as we are instructed to do as it is Gods way of calling the elect that He has selected. The Ship-O-Fools.

[mandolin]

I suspect your understanding of Calvinism is superficial and incomplete.

Thank you...that's very sweet of you to notice.



Many of us Calvinists believe that God calls all to repentance so there is no excuse. ]Romans 1:16-20

Although it is God desire that none should perish, all men with their free will freely choose the desires of their heart and turn away from God and become totally corrupt. Romans 1:21-32

Paul then deals with the now defunct exclusivity of the Jews and Gods acceptance of the gentiles and quotes the OT with this startling statement dealing with man’s depravity.

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.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes

Amen bro...oh except how you are leaning on your own understanding by assuming that just because the bible says we are depraved means we can't accept the grace of god.

You think that just because mankind does not seek God means that we aren't given the opportunity to freely accept (or deny) God when his grace abounds to us. This would be your own understanding.

I refer you to Proverbs 3:5 :teeth:



Paul then builds his case for Gods sovereignty in election that He accomplishes with His Grace and mercy by choosing some men for the FREE GIFT OF FAITH BY GRACE TO ALL THAT HE CHOOSES.. thus giving rise to the doctrine of predestination that is taught in Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1—

Now this he just does not do. Context is a beautiful thing...unless you're a tulip.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son." Romans 8:29

What were they predestined to?? Conformity! They were predestined to be sanctified upon being known by God through their acceptance.

But let us get a theologians opinion. My favorite...Wesley

Verse 29. Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated conformable to the image of his Son - Here the apostle declares who those are whom he foreknew and predestinated to glory; namely, those who are conformable to the image of his Son. This is the mark of those who are foreknown and will be glorified, 2 Timothy 2:19. Philippians 3:10,21. Verse 30. Them he - In due time. Called - By his gospel and his Spirit. And whom he called - When obedient to the heavenly calling, Acts 26:19. He also justified - Forgave and accepted. And whom he justified -Provided they "continued in his goodness," Romans 11:22, he in the end glorified - St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings. that precisely the same number of men are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Romans 11:22. Neither does he deny that many are called who never are justified.
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Romans 8". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible". <http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/wen/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=008>. 1765.

Dude...read that again. I bet people skipped it. It's good stuff.

"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:4-6

I'm sorta tired of thinking...I haven't gotten breakfast yet...so here...let us view good ol' Wesley again. (he's the greatest)


Verse 4
"As he hath chosen us - Both Jews and gentiles, whom he foreknew as believing in Christ, 1 Peter 1:2.

Verse 5
Having predestinated us to the adoption of sons - Having foreordained that all who afterwards believed should enjoy the dignity of being sons of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. According to the good pleasure of his will - According to his free, fixed, unalterable purpose to confer this blessing on all those who should believe in Christ, and those only.

Verse 6
To the praise of the glory of his grace - His glorious, free love without any desert on our part."
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Ephesians 1". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible". <http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/wen/view.cgi?book=eph&chapter=001>. 1765.

So you see...these verses do nothing more for the tulip theory than any other verses. That is...if you bring in contextual references, and other scripture verses. (not to mention my man John Wesley :smile:.

I'll admit...these verses are quite tough to fight against. At least for my knowledge depraved teenager musician brain. But by the basic rules of hermaneutics, we should decypher these complex verses with the simple verses. The simple verses say christ died for all...the simple verses say we are saved by grace through our faith.

Think of simple verses...such as John 3:16...He loved the world...whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

The verse says...
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

The verse does not say...
For God so loved the elect that he gave his one and only Son that whoever is forced by irresistbale grace to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

29 so that no one may boast before him.

30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

Look, bro... I do not disagree with the bible. I disagree with your reprobative interpretation of it. Just because God uses the words "choose", "foreordain", "predestined", "elect", etc. does not push your theory one iota. Yes...this verse claims God chose many things. Does it ever claim that God foreordained one unto salvation?? nope. Then it is totally irrelevant to the conversation.



30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.


Amen.

It is because of God's grace that we are in christ Jesus, it is because of God's grace that we all could be in Christ Jesus. Yes...ALL of the world could be in Jesus if all the world accepted his awesome grace.
This grace is a free gift. But even free gifts must be accepted.

Does the bible ever limit God's grace to just the elect??
No.
Then why do calvinists??

I beg you to read through your calvinist proof texts without the assumption that there is a limited atonement. It all takes new meaning. Just try it.


And sorry Jaltus for previously posting back to back...I have a problem with that. :no:

[mandolin]

First off...I beg you all to read my last post. I'm proud of that one :teeth:

Anyways...let's have a little fun...

Calvinists...please give me all of your prooftexts for your theology that don't rely on a presupposition that there is a limited atonement (for L is unbiblical)

Every calvinistic "proof text" i've ever read is only calvinistic if you assume there is a limited atonement. I'd be interested to see verses that weren't like this.