Verse by verse

[mandolin]

Though in the other room, "Grace...an unearned gift", this same thing is hopefully going to occur...I feel like opening another room in which calvinists/arminianists/anyone else can just rip apart verses.

I would like to start with Revelation 22:17 (as I did in the other room)

Could a calvinist give me an exegesis of this verse, and show me how it could possibly fit in with the tulip position.

It seems to me that the verse symbolizes the water of life (salvation) that is talked about elsewhere by christ.

Therefore...
this grace is offered to ALL
WE choose to accept or deny it

grace=free gift
faith=acceptance
grace+faith=salvation

This seems to be the un-calvinistic teaching of this particular verse.

Now would a calvinist please give an exegesis of Revelation 22:17?
How can this verse realistically fit within the realm of TULIP when it so blatantly seems to preach unlimited atonement, resistable grace, and conditional election?

[SPIRIT]

GRACE is UNMERITED Pardon.

God forgives us , not because we are perfect but because

He is Gracious toward us and wants us to do the same to others.

God wants us to be just like Him in Character and Thought .

[mandolin]

I understand exactly what you are trying to say. I'm not sure how it pertains to the topic..but I still say rock on! :smile:

He wants us to be like him.

But more importantly he wants us to WANT to be more like him

and he wants us ALL to want to be more like him.

His grace is there to accept. It is calling us all to accept it.
He now wants us to accept it.

God forgives us because he is a radical God who lovingly gives us the opportunity to repent and surrender to his grace.

God is radical
AMEN!
:yipee:

Now back to the topic...Revelation 22:17
it seems to denounce tulip
could a calvinist give me an exegesis of this verse?

:gim::whip:

[mandolin]

Ok... there are possible scenarios which could hinder someone from writing replies on theology web. I understand.

But of the hundreds of calvinists that always judge me for going against scripture...where are you now?? Why won't you answer me?

But why does nobody give me a calvinist exegesis of Revelation 22:17?? :shrug:

Dare I say that this verse finally pulled the tulip by the roots? :eek:

[Apollos]

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.

And he that heareth, let him say, Come.

And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely.

The Spirit and the Bride say "Come" only to those that have been preselected by God to be called in this manner.

Those that "hear" are those that can hear - those that God preselected to "hear" - those that God enabled to "hear" the call to come and partake.

"He that will" take of the water of life are only those that God enabled to "will" such (by His preselection) to partake of the water of life.

[mandolin]

hmm... let's view the verse again.

You are telling me that he who is thirsty...isn't referring to everyone who is thirsty?? (or in need of salvation)

Whether or not we are preselected...you must believe that all are in need of salvation. Therefore, all are thirsty. Therefore all may come. The verse is radically obvious. It's almost comical how clear the verse is. How could one possibly try to allow calvinism to co-exist with such an un-calvinistic verse??

You see...all are in need of salvation..or, all are thirsty...
It's ridiculous to state that when Christ said let all who are thirsty come to me, he only meant some who are thirsty. It's absurd to say that when it says "Anyone who is thirsty" it means anyone who is thirsty and preselected. It is ludicrous to say that when it says "whoever wishes", it is only referring to the foreordained.

Also..it's not saying he that heareth come...it's saying he that heareth repeat, so that ALL who are thirsty may come.


Your presupposed limitation on the blatant verses honestly make me chuckle. I urge you to read the verse BEFORE applying presuposition.

we'll even go with the NASB...it is probably the clearest and most accurate interpretation:

"The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."

So the bible says whoever has an ear let him hear...

So firstly it is we who choose to hear...(or else it's blatantly preaching universalism)

Second..if we do hear, it now tells us to also say "Come"...or to preach unto the world. This repeating of the word come on our parts is so that the thirsty may come.

Third, it says, All are thirsty...all may come...but it still says that we have to wish to take the water of life.

I'm sorry. Though I expected your calvinistic exegesis, I cannot believe that someone would reinterpret the verse so drastically to fit with presupposed theology.

Let me remind everyone...if theology doesn't fit with scripture...we change theology...not scripture!

Don't alter teachings just because you love the idea of the hate-filled calvinistic God.

When the bible blatantly claims LET ANYONE who is thirsty drink FREELY of the water of life...it means ANYONE...and FREELY.

Grace+Faith=salvation
grace=free gift
faith=accepting the gift

Nobody has been able to tell me how that is scripturally incorrect.

According to the many verses like Rev. 22:17, my thinking seems to be dead on.

So...again...if someone wants to show me how I'm wrong, I beg you to try. But don't alter the obvious reading of clear verses such as Rev. 22:17.

Also Apollos, I might point out that you might want to read a couple verses after 22:17 to see what it says will happen to any man who takes away from the words of the book. I'm not by any means judging you...I'm just pointing out that ANYONE means ANYONE, not "the preselected", and saying it means something other than what it says (it says anyone) would in fact be "(taking) away from the words of the book of this prophecy."

Verse 19 doesn't sound too promising for folks who do stuff like that.

Please read the verse a couple more times...and this time, try to let go of assumption, and just read the verse (in context) for what it actually says.

[mandolin]

ok...honestly...

Calvinists...I know you're in here. Of the loads of Calvinists on T-Web would at least one of you please give me a decent hypothesis as to why Rev. 22:17 is not preaching of a free will? :shrug:

It's not like I'm asking you to map the human genome...just give me a calvinistic exegesis of Rev. 22:17

Also...please refrain from presupposition until after you read the verse. Base theology around the bible...don't base the bible around theology.

And if you are a calvinist, and feel you cannot fit this verse in with calvinism...then don't just ignore the verse. This isn't about being right or wrong, looking stupid, or feeling embarassed. This is about finding the truth of God through his word.

:cheers:

Also..I'm not necessarily saying this totally denounces calvinism, but I am saying that it does arise many questions. Why the heck does this gift seem to be so freely accepted amongst all who wish to accept?? quite strange...quite uncalvinistic.

[Solly]

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

This is heaven. Nuf sed.


Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

This is a marker. You either do or don't.


Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

This is obvious


Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

This is also a marker. The time is at hand, and will take us as it finds us; this is a warning to those who thought the Lord was not coming for them, would rather leave them, and that it didn't matter.


Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Can you get away from this? Is this not divisive of humanity, as Paul also instructs us in Romans 2?


Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Again, there is a separation to be made.


Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

You might have missed this point, so I bolded it. Jesus is speaking to the churches, not humanity at large - it is rather audacious of you to go through the whole book of Revelation, written to encourage churches and christians, and then believe that right at the end there is some general gospel address to the whole world, even though we have just had the visions of the world being judged, and the church saved. He is encouraging the Christians not to give up, though all seems against them. If your doctrinal view rests upon taking a single verse out of context, just because it sounds nice, then so be it.
Secondly, do all the world hear the voice of Christ? No.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.


Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say,

Did you also miss this bit? The Bride says come. Not the world. But the one chosen to marry the groom. She has already been set apart, already prepared, she awaits the coming of the groom (in Middle Eastern fashion, Matt 25.1-13.).


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.

Why would the world say, Come Lord Jesus? The world despises Jesus, knows him not and refuses him as Lord, and certainly does not say come.

You said: How can this verse realistically fit within the realm of TULIP when it so blatantly seems to preach unlimited atonement, resistable grace, and conditional election?

You have failed to show where the unlimited atonement is in this, or the resistable grace, or the conditional election, since Jesus is addressing those who have been elected as the Bride, his people, and in their affliction; they are those who have already been made willing in the day of his power - and the offer is not to come as such, but not to hold back, not to become dispirited, not to think that Christ has left them in the lurch, but rather that, in spite of events, he will come quickly to refresh their souls. And there is nothing at all that speaks of unlimited atonement, since this group have already been designated as the bride.

[Thomas2003]

Let me remind everyone...if theology doesn't fit with scripture...we change theology...not scripture!

Calvinism is the result of this very concept - the development of our understanding of God's Scripture so that we don't change Scripture through a limited understanding or a misunderstanding; or even worse a heresy or intended perversion.

For example, you are attempting to take one verse and build a whole theology on it. Calvinism is based upon the whole Bible - it's entire theology, not just one verse here or there.

Calvinism is impossible to understand separated from the Chalcedon Creed, one can only understand John Calvin in concert with his fidelity to the doctrine of the Trinity and the economic appropriation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

To deny Calvinism is to deny the incarnation is to deny the Godhead - and you are apparently going to overthrow several hundred years of the Holy Spirit's leading and teaching for a developed and detailed theological understanding of Scripture in one verse? LOL

There is no poin in exegeting a Scripture for you based upon a "Cavinistic interpretation" when you self evidently don't understand the foundation of Calvinism.

You will need to first go back and learn the doctrine of the Trinity and have a thorough understanding of the incarnation - before the issue can even be discussed. As it now is you are playing games with an atomic bomb - having apparently no understanding of the explosive nature or ramifications of the doctrines you are tinkering with.

You motivation seems to be your understanding - when Scripture admonishes us to lean not to our own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

You will need to go back to the foundations of the Christian Faith and first unlearn so you can relearn.

Cordially,

Thomas

[mandolin]

well tommy,

Thanks for the reply...though your point is highly awkward.

You say calvinism is based on the whole bible...show me!

Show me how God froced Moses to free the israelites...Show me how it wasn't up to Abraham to have the faith that saved him. Please show me these things.

I am condmened for proof-texting by putting too many verses at once, so now I'm going one verse at a time, and am condemned for basing my theology on one verse???

Does this mean you ignore one verse just because it doesn't fit in with your ideas??

You, thomas, are held captive by the deception of Tulip. You presume that an atonement is limited because it is necessary for the flower to live. You assume that the grace is irresistable just because it would have to be in order to make the theory work.

Tulip is not based on any biblical theology. It is solely based on scriptural exegeses lacking context, and presumed theories building up others.

I'm not in any way sure how the trinity fits in with anything I've said...that part really lost me.

Can you please either answer my question...or tone down the ridiculous comments. I base my theology on one verse?? I have previously listed over 50...IN CONTEXT!

So let me ask...is it worse to base theology around one verse (as you claim that I have done...though I have not) or to base theology around no verses. You see...calvinism is deterministic. It's not in the bible...it is merely assumed.

You tell me to not lean on my own understanding...let me paraphrase a typical calvinist statement, "You are depraved..therefore you cannot possibly choose God unless he forces you too." Hmmmm....who is the one leaning on their own understanding??

Now someone please answer my question. Or shall I continue listing hundreds of verses so that people like thomas will quit being verse-nazis judging me for only citing one verse.

I'm looking for an exegesis of this verse!! Others will come.

My theology is not based on this one verse...but your's can very well shatter with this one verse.

So someone explain how this verse can fit in with calvinism.
Rev. 22:17

[mandolin]

Thomas...my motivation is not my own understanding...it is the bible.

When it says WHOEVER WISHES...it means WHOEVER WISHES
WHOSOEVER WILL means WHOSOEVER WILL
THE WHOLE WORLD means THE WHOLE WORLD

I think it is a disgusting bastardization of scripture to limit these blatant Unlimited atonement teachings to the confines of an unbiblical theology.

When it says the whole world...it means the whole world...not the whole preselected world.

When this verse says Whoever wishes can take of the free gift of the water of life...it means that whoever wishes (of ANYONE who is thirsty...i.e. all, because all are thirsty) can accept the gift.

Hmm... weird... that's not calvinistic.

[Thomas2003]

Dear Sir,

You stated,


You say calvinism is based on the whole bible...show me!

Show me how God froced Moses to free the israelites...Show me how it wasn't up to Abraham to have the faith that saved him. Please show me these things.

It's difficult to discuss it with a man that appears hostile in the approach. I can try to discuss it with you, but I'm not going to get engaged in railing and the like.


I am condmened for proof-texting by putting too many verses at once, so now I'm going one verse at a time, and am condemned for basing my theology on one verse???

Well, my comment was intended to address that with one verse could destroy the entirety of Calvinism, thus it was a logical conclusion that you must be basing your theology on one verse to make the claim. But I will admit it didn't come across the way I intended it - so I apologize for the negative demeanor.

What I meant it to say was more in line with the next paragraph.


You, thomas, are held captive by the deception of Tulip. You presume that an atonement is limited because it is necessary for the flower to live. You assume that the grace is irresistable just because it would have to be in order to make the theory work.

Actually, no - I believe it is limited because election is Judicial and there is only one mediator between man and God, Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5


Tulip is not based on any biblical theology. It is solely based on scriptural exegeses lacking context, and presumed theories building up others.

No, Calvinism is simply Trinitarianism expressed soteriologically - that is all it is.


I'm not in any way sure how the trinity fits in with anything I've said...that part really lost me.

I understand, that is why you don't understand Calvinism.


You see...calvinism is deterministic. It's not in the bible...it is merely assumed.

Well, I disagree with your conclusion because I believe the Trinity is absolutely truth and drived from Scripture. I'll agree it is not easy to understand and that it does build hedges eliminating our pretensions, but it's Scriptural none the less. Can you please explain what you mean by "Calvinism being deterministic."


You tell me to not lean on my own understanding...let me paraphrase a typical calvinist statement, "You are depraved..therefore you cannot possibly choose God unless he forces you too." Hmmmm....who is the one leaning on their own understanding??

Well, I don't know who said this, I surely wouldn't say it that way.

I do believe predestination is what establishes free will and without it the will is bound to sin and the claimed deity of man; but I wouldn't say God "forces" salvation - it is not coercive. I believe God bears His children - they are "born", thus created by God. There is no force involved.


I'm looking for an exegesis of this verse!! Others will come.

My theology is not based on this one verse...but your's can very well shatter with this one verse.

So someone explain how this verse can fit in with calvinism.
Rev. 22:17

I thought someone already explained this to you. This is before the Throne of God - it is the economic appropriation of God the Son in the final reward of all the saints. Like most of Scripture it only has the elect in viewWhat is so difficult about it for you?

For example, in your next post you make a claim of "unlimited atonement" apparently based upon a logical conclusion of the words "whosoever." But that premise must be based upon salvation as being an executive act of God the Son. For this to be true then the door is swung wide open for Nestorianism on one hand or Pelagianism on the other. This has already been dealt with by Christianity about 1500 years ago - it's over, it's been settled, the heresies were put down.

In contrast, Calvinists believe election is a Judical act of God the Father, predestination is His creative act in the double procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father through the Son. Thus, one is "born again" after the image of Jesus Christ. When one is born it is a creative act of God, it's really very simple - you didn't decide to be created when your parents became pregnant. You just came into existence, Christianity is the same exact thing through spiritually.

Well, anyway, I'll try to discuss the issues with you if you want, but I'm not going to get sucked into railing or straw men arguments.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Arminian]

Solly,


Did you also miss this bit? The Bride says come. Not the world. But the one chosen to marry the groom. She has already been set apart, already prepared, she awaits the coming of the groom (in Middle Eastern fashion, Matt 25.1-13.)...Why would the world say, Come Lord Jesus? The world despises Jesus, knows him not and refuses him as Lord, and certainly does not say come.
.

It isn't the world making the invitation, nor is the invitation to Jesus. The bride is the church, who is making the invitation to those who are not of the church. Jesus doesn't need to take "freely of the water of life." Besides, the pronouns don't fit.

[mandolin]

I do not understand your connection between trinitarianism and calvinsim. This I just do not follow.

As a trinitarianist of some sort myself, I do no see how is is one in the same with calvinistic theology.

Also...arminian...thank you! I didn't even see that post by solly.

the spirit (pneua..meaning spirit/heart/mind; holy spirit) and the bride (the church...as seen in 19:7) say "Come!" They are saying "come" to whoever is thirsty. Whoever is thirty may come and whoever wishes to come may take the free gift of the water of life.

Therefore..the church is saying come to the thirsty(everyone)...and those who hear are told to also say "come" to the thirsty (everyone)

It's clearly not the foreordained who are told to come...because the church is the one who is calling. And they aren't calling Jesus to come, because it says they are calling whoever is thirsty.

To say that only the elect are told to come would be absurd..because it is the elect who are saying "come".

We that will...whoever wishes...let him take of the free gift of the water of life. Why must we assume that whoever wishes refers to the foreordained? This is clear scriptural addition.

[mandolin]

My thoughts on salvation are quite simple...it is not of myself.

It is by grace you are saved through faith...this salvation is a gift from God...not of yourself lest any man should boast.

so

grace= a free gift

faith= accepting this gift

salvation= grace+faith

It is predestined that those who accept this grace through faith will be conformed to the image of the son....that's predestination.

It is God's will that each man freely choose or deny him...that keeps God's plan from being thwarted.

If I end up in hell...I can only blame my faithlessness...not the lack of God's grace.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 09:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141926#post141926)
Thomas2003:
Calvinism is the result of this very concept - the development of our understanding of God's Scripture so that we don't change Scripture through a limited understanding or a misunderstanding; or even worse a heresy or intended perversion.

Ok.


For example, you are attempting to take one verse and build a whole theology on it. Calvinism is based upon the whole Bible - it's entire theology, not just one verse here or there.

The problem is that if one verse does not fit Calvinism, then Calvinism needs to change, which I believe was said earlier by Solly, a Calvinist.


Calvinism is impossible to understand separated from the Chalcedon Creed, one can only understand John Calvin in concert with his fidelity to the doctrine of the Trinity and the economic appropriation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Totally false. Calvinism cannot be separated from things like the Westminster confession and other documents. You might as well say the Remonstrance cannot be separated from Chalcedon, which would be as equally valid, since neither Calvinism nor Arminianism has a lot to do with Chalcedon. You are confusing Calvin with Calvinism, showing that you do not realize that the true "founder" (more appropriately, propigator) of current Calvinism would be Abraham Kypers.


To deny Calvinism is to deny the incarnation is to deny the Godhead - and you are apparently going to overthrow several hundred years of the Holy Spirit's leading and teaching for a developed and detailed theological understanding of Scripture in one verse? LOL

Totally and 100% false. I deny Calvinism and in fact totally rely on the truth of the incarnation. Maybe you do not know what Calvinism is? Calvinism DOES NOT equal the incarnation. In fact, many heresies hold to the incarnation as well. The fact is, Calvinism does not directly relate to the Trinity, it just assumes it and moves past it, much as many other specific belief systems do.


There is no poin in exegeting a Scripture for you based upon a "Cavinistic interpretation" when you self evidently don't understand the foundation of Calvinism.

I find this ironic.


You will need to first go back and learn the doctrine of the Trinity and have a thorough understanding of the incarnation - before the issue can even be discussed. As it now is you are playing games with an atomic bomb - having apparently no understanding of the explosive nature or ramifications of the doctrines you are tinkering with.

You motivation seems to be your understanding - when Scripture admonishes us to lean not to our own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

Good point, the last part there.


You will need to go back to the foundations of the Christian Faith and first unlearn so you can relearn.

Cordially,

Thomas

Of course, the problem you have, Thomas, is that you equate Christian with Calvinist, which shows how little YOU understand the historic church. The first "real Calvinist" would have been Augustine, meaning that, according to you, the first 400 years of the church was full of non-Christians, something I find to be highly problematic. The Ante-Nicean ECFs were essentially unanimously Arminian in their stated beliefs, not Calvinistic. They denied specific sovereignty, irresistable grace, and many denied perserverance of the saints (depending upon how one phrases that).

In other words, I think your view of theology is quite limited. I recommend sticking around TWeb. My guess is that you will learn a lot, just as we all do.

[mandolin]

Amen Jaltus... :jaltus:

You are my hero. :teeth:

[Thomas2003]

“


Calvinism is impossible to understand separated from the Chalcedon Creed, one can only understand John Calvin in concert with his fidelity to the doctrine of the Trinity and the economic appropriation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

”





Totally false. Calvinism cannot be separated from things like the Westminster confession and other documents. You might as well say the Remonstrance cannot be separated from Chalcedon, which would be as equally valid, since neither Calvinism nor Arminianism has a lot to do with Chalcedon. You are confusing Calvin with Calvinism, showing that you do not realize that the true "founder" (more appropriately, propigator) of current Calvinism would be Abraham Kypers.

Dear Sir,

Calvinism has everything to do with Chalcedon, you are correct in that it cannot be separated from it. I think you might be confusing "sphere sovereignty" with the Soteriology. Mandolin is ranting against the TULIP, the 5 points against Arminiainism - without any apparent real substance - just what seems to be anger and hostility repeated over and over.

He established a challenge, it may have been in another thread, to exegete a Scripture concerning the Saints in heaven standing before the Throne of God to prove his point of "free will", I presume. Of course, there is not one non-believer standing there - so it's a straw man argument that is pointless.

I just haven't determined yet if the gentlemen is a Christian or not, I get the impression he is not.


Totally and 100% false. I deny Calvinism and in fact totally rely on the truth of the incarnation. Maybe you do not know what Calvinism is? Calvinism DOES NOT equal the incarnation. In fact, many heresies hold to the incarnation as well. The fact is, Calvinism does not directly relate to the Trinity, it just assumes it and moves past it, much as many other specific belief systems do.

I believe it is impossible to rely upon the incarnation of Jesus Christ and spritually deny the doctrines of Grace, one certainly can intellectually. However, Calvinism is implicity derived from orthodox Trinitarianism. It is impossible to understand John Calvin without grasping his fidelty to Chalcedon.

If you take Mandolin's expression above, as an example (the formula is post 15), it totally deny's Christ as mediator - in direct contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5. This is implicit, not explicit - to say that does not claim he is not a born again believer. I don't know if he is a believer or not, I presume not by the behavior and the purpose of his posts.

In contrast, however, the economic appropriation of God's foreknowledge is in God the Son, election is judicial - not an executive function of Jesus Christ. One cannot begin to understand this basis of Calvinism without a firm grasp on Trinitarianism.

This Scriptural principle seems to lead the common Arminian to a misunderstanding because he doesn't have a proper grasp upon the incarnation, and generally the Trinity. I know when I was a Baptist I really had no comprehension of the Trinity - I just knew that God was "triune" from sermons, but it was never explained - essentially I was a modalist. I fought against Calvinism for years, with the same canned stuff Mandolin is using, but without the hostility. Finally, someone took me to the side and explained the Trinity to me and it becomes obvious. To deny Calvinism is simply a soteriological expression of a confusion of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Either God the Father elects man in God the Son, or He doesn't, if man elects himself - then there is no hope, for how much faith does it take to earn grace? Is it a mustard seed, the faith so small, yet so powerful it can move mountains? I've never met anyone with even a mustard seeds quantity of faith.

Election to the Arminian is an executive function of the Godhead, it's not judicial, and adjudication of the matter is left up to an administrative function in man! Each man judges Christ for himself - each man is his own god.

Mandolin expresses the concept in his mathmatical formula, which is the whole problem - the woman tried to approach God's word in similar fashion in Genesis and it resulted in the fall. Ye shall be as gods is a lie, we do not have the ability to determine good and evil for ourselves, no matter how much knowlege we can attain.

Arminianism is simply the lie in the Garden, "Ye shall be as gods", attacking the permissive nature of the Gospel instead of it's restrictive force. That is to say that instead of the serpent saying "ye shall not die" in regards to God's restrictive command, he says it in regards to the permissive force of the Gospel. It robs Christians of their rewards and empowers evil in the present realm.

In my belief I think there is something inherit in man that God tried to protect him from in witholding knowledge of good and evil, thus I accept the bounderies of Scripture as they are plainly laid out in Trinitarianism and expressed soteriologically in Calvinism.

In Arminianism man administrates Grace, through a work of faith - it leaves one with a dialetical premise between free will and predestination - leaving one with a premise that they cannot both be simultaneously true. Thus, they are redefined into meaninglessness - such as the concept that predestination means that everyone saved is predestinated to be resurrected, and many other like expressions. So you end up with an argument that isn't based upon reality - either God is a Creator God or He isn't, either reality is based upon the Creator and His Creative Act in salvation, or it isn't and man is his own god, creating himself.

Either salvation is being born again or it's not.

That is the whole problem, Arminianism recreates God in man's image and then proceeds to recreate creation as well. It's result is alarmingly similar to paganism.

When I said there is no point in exegeting the verse the gentlemen questioned, there isn't - you cannot discuss anything with a railer, and Scripture advises us not too. He self-evidently holds that salvation is an executive act of Christ. It's impossible to discuss the subject in hostility, because it challenges his self-deification.

As long as he dogmatically holds that salvation is his judicial decision, he judges his own sin in Jesus Christ - and God will give him "grace" if he judges his sin in faith, and not works - then it is impossible to discuss.

I believe that to understand Scripture one must approach it as a creature, not as the Creator. Because I'm a sinner I stand judged and death is the wages of my sin - I have no standing to judge Christ for myself, nor would it matter if I could.

I would agree that Calvinism is Scripture properly interpreted, hence Christian, but that is not to deny the salvation of those who don't properly interpret it.

Scripture does not require that each individual understand or exegete the Scriptures for themselves into a theology, in fact it is opposed to that concept. Not everyone is a hand, a foot, a mouth or a head - everyone is fitted where God wants them. I believe the Holy Spirit builds upon the foundation of Jesus Christ as he see's fit in history, there is a lot of that building that I have a personal distaste for - but I accept it nevertheless.


Thank you for the admonishment, I hope to learn a lot from fellow believers.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Solly]

Rev 22:17 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.

Why would the world say, Come Lord Jesus? The world despises Jesus, knows him not and refuses him as Lord, and certainly does not say come.


Arminian: It isn't the world making the invitation, nor is the invitation to Jesus. The bride is the church, who is making the invitation to those who are not of the church. Jesus doesn't need to take "freely of the water of life." Besides, the pronouns don't fit.

It wasn't my intention to imply that the Lord needs to take. The Spirit which speaks to the churches, and the church pictured as the Bride, call on the Lord to come. The response is for them to come. Revelation addresses churches struggling, and is written to encourage them, and enable them to hold on - despite the fact that the Lord seems to have deserted them. they call, and he calls in return.


JFB say:

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; Joh_10:16. Let him that hears and obeys Jesus' voice (Rev_22:16; Rev_1:3) join in praying "Come." Compare Rev_6:1, Rev_6:10; 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.

As can be seen, they turn it to a gospel call, but I am not sure there is the requirement or direction to do so; rather it is a call to troubled Christians.

Perhaps you could coment on the Greek for us.

[mandolin]

Mandolin is ranting against the TULIP, the 5 points against Arminiainism - without any apparent real substance - just what seems to be anger and hostility repeated over and over.

love you to...bro


He established a challenge, it may have been in another thread, to exegete a Scripture concerning the Saints in heaven standing before the Throne of God to prove his point of "free will", I presume. Of course, there is not one non-believer standing there - so it's a straw man argument that is pointless.
hey...please don't be a wanker.


I just haven't determined yet if the gentlemen is a Christian or not, I get the impression he is not.

If by christian you mean legalistic moron...then no I am not. If by christian you mean follower of christ...then yes I am

Again...love you too


If you take Mandolin's expression above, as an example (the formula is post 15), it totally deny's Christ as mediator - in direct contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5. This is implicit, not explicit - to say that does not claim he is not a born again believer. I don't know if he is a believer or not, I presume not by the behavior and the purpose of his posts.

If by christian you mean calvinist...I most surely am not. If by christian you mean follower of christ...yes I am.

And how in the world do I deny christ as mediator?

I'm merely making simple claims so that people like you will read them. If I used big words..you'd just skip over it.


I believe it is impossible to rely upon the incarnation of Jesus Christ and spritually deny the doctrines of Grace
Who is denying the doctrines of grace. We deny YOUR doctirnes of grace. We do not deny grace.


Mandolin expresses the concept in his mathmatical formula, which is the whole problem

I'm just trying to make it easy to understand. I'm trying to put it as simple as possible. Jesus evplained all of heaven with drastically simple parables. I think it is ridiculous to purposely complicate theology by trying to use big words. I think that basic salvation can easily be understood in very simple terms. I'm just attempting to show what I think the bible says.

It is by grace you have been saved through faith. The grace calls us the faith accepts the calling of the grace.

Look bro...if you read nothing more of what I say...read this:

The grace of God is a FREE gift. This free gift is ACCEPTED (not earned) by the faith of each man

The grace of christ is abundant to ALL!
Becuase the death of christ was the atoning sacrifice for ALL!
You still following me??
Find any heresy in my statements yet??

IMHO...Calvinism only works if it leads one to universalism. God wants every man to come to repentance...if he foreordains repentance, then he foreordains ALL to repentance. So if you're gonna go with calvinism..at least go with universalism too.
If he only died for the elect...and it says he died for all...then ALL must be the elect. So calvinism only works if it is universalistic.

But all gifts must be accepted:
If my parents give me a car...it is a free gift. But I still must accept those keys by reaching over and grabbing them.

If my god gives me grace...it is a free gift. But I still must accept that grace by faith.

Do you follow me? God any more insults to make about me? Seriously...lay all your insultive comments down right now. I merely asked for an exegesis of a verse...not a commentary on how I'm not a christian by your standards.

If you, thomas, wish me to put on my suit and tie and initiate in a boring look at the teachings of TULIP, then I'm more than willing.

My view on theology is that it should not be based one iota on creeds and doctrines. It should be based on good old fashioned sola scriptura. So..if you're going to debate me...leave your church claims out of it. Let us engage in a nice debate with the bible. Shall we??

And please stop commenting on how I am not a christian...I don't think I ever did anything like that to you. Questioning ones theology through seemingly insultive ways is one thing..but insulting one's very nature is just not cool.

I would love to debate this issue with you..but please hear out my opinion before you judge it.

Here...let me state my claim:

Christ died for ALL.

Every man in the whole of creation has the opportunity to go to heaven. Everyone!!

The grace of God calls each man to come to repentence.

The faith of each man either accepts this grace or denies it.

please note..this is not pelagianism. The grace of christ is still the most important factor. I just feel there is no reason why god's grace is limited if the bible claims he wants to save the whole world...and claims he died for the whole world

I think there is no reaqson to believe in U,L, or I of TULIP
Starting with L...it is terribly unbiblical. It is only there because it has to be to make it all make sense. I also seems to have no backing..and seems to have evidence against it. U...therefore..could even stand in the first place...not to mention it is not in scripture either.

Christ died for ALL (1 john 2:2 among many others)
ALL who believe in him will not perish
ALL who accept his grace with have eternal life (john 3:16 among many others)
It is predestined that all who accept him will be sanctified. (note the biblical usage of the term predestine...romans 8:29)

That is why I do not believe in your dainty little flower. :smile:

Feel free to give me a rebuttal...but please use the bible this time.

rock on :rockon:

[Thomas2003]

You know what, I woke up early this morning and probably spent an hour responding to this thing. I previewed it and then closed the window! LOL I guess I was thinking I posted it - oh well, if I get time I'll redo it later.

Thanks,

Thomas

[Solly]

Mandolin, I edited some of your language on another thread, please cut it out.

[mandolin]

language??
what thread?

i'm totally lost.

I don't remember using a bad word

[mandolin]

You know what, I woke up early this morning and probably spent an hour responding to this thing. I previewed it and then closed the window! LOL I guess I was thinking I posted it - oh well, if I get time I'll redo it later.

Thanks,

Thomas

argg...I've done that so many times. I feel for you man.

I think people in these theology rooms seem to hear each other very wrong. I don't know if I come off sounding mean or something, but it is not intended.

I mean no offense by anything I say. Often I joke around a bit too much, and I guess it's hard to convey sarcasm very well.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, and if I do, I'm terribly sorry.

I have strong convictions against calvinism, because it used to entangle me as well.

I began my life always believing in free will...but then people showed me all these calvinist verses...and I had no choice but to believe it. But now I see that even the "calvinist verses" do not deny free will.
I do not believe in the foreordination of salvation.
I do not believe in predamnation or reprobation.
(that's a neat little rhyme :smile:)

Anyways...we all are brothers in christ. Debating theology is not about mocking the other person, its about finding the truth. I have recently been "warned" for using foul language, and I swear, I never did it.

Point is this...let's debate theology without the personal attacks. It's cool to attack a belief structure...but not a person.

Let's talk about scripture..using scripture...and using scriptural guidelines. No personal attacks. No insultive comments. I want to find the truth about the bible. So far..that truth is not 5 point calvinism...and so therefore, I will fight against calvinism. Show me, with scripture, why I should be calvinist, then you have a convert. As I hope that if I can prove my thinking with scripture, you will denounce tulip.

I used to believe tulip. I thought it was illogical...but was shown that it was biblical.
After a while...I found that it was not biblical either.
Something illogical and unbiblical should not be taught...and this is why I despise TULIP.

Anyways...brothers in christ...
Rock on...God bless...

sorry for calling you a wanker :smile: ...I just don't like when people lay personal attacks on me as a human being.
Attack my thoughts all you want (with evidence)...attack the group of arminianists all you want...but just don't lay out personal attacks... I think it is very wankerish.

Let's just get past all this and start a good solid scriptural debate.

You in???

(shoot...i just realized i back to back posted again. Sorry mods :frown:)

[5Pointer]

My thoughts on salvation are quite simple...it is not of myself.

It is by grace you are saved through faith...this salvation is a gift from God...not of yourself lest any man should boast.

so

grace= a free gift

faith= accepting this gift

salvation= grace+faith

It is predestined that those who accept this grace through faith will be conformed to the image of the son....that's predestination.

It is God's will that each man freely choose or deny him...that keeps God's plan from being thwarted.

If I end up in hell...I can only blame my faithlessness...not the lack of God's grace.

I agree with your thoughts on salvation. Noone is getting saved apart from faith or grace. However my question is where did your faith come from. Ephesians 2:8 says it's the gift of God. So if the grace comes from God and the faith or ability to believe comes from God, then I see no contradiction. As for the Revelation 22 verse. I see it speaking to the elect. The Spirit and the Bride. Sometimes all is all and sometimes all is a certain group of people. This is how I understand it. Sola Deo Gloria.

[auggybendoggy]

mandolin,
I agree with the calvees here that you are making a rather large mistake and taking one verse and running with it.

Yes there are many verses pointing people in a amrinian "free will" direction. But they could easily pull verses out and call you out to define how ONE WHO IS BORN OF GOD CANNOE (not will not) CONTINUE TO SIN.

Calvinism is based on a sum of scripture and not a single verse. Arm. is based on a sum of scriptures and not one verse.

for you to take one verse and say explain it is pointless. You need to learn the position and then systematically dismantle it. But with that you will struggle as you will find yourself torn (I believe you should be torn if your honest).

As stated above the deterministic position (calvinism) would hold that ALL WHOM GOD ELECTED will come and those whome he did not will not come. The calling is out there for the elect who are still in their sins. Those whom are thirsty are those whom God has elected before time to be conformed to the image of his Son.

So this verse does not prove free will at all. It simply states that whome ever is thirtsy (who is that is the question)
let them come (that group may come and drink).

Aug

[auggybendoggy]

Can you mandolin prove how it is in opposition with the logic of calvinism first?

Aug