Are Gods Elect ever the workers of iniquity ?

[7djengo7]

Just because a person self identifies, it does not follow that God has chosen them.
I believe John Calvin was an elect child of God. I expect he is in heaven before the throne of God. I also expect that there are many who self-identified and attended Reformed churches, but never knew God as their Redeemer. God never made them alive in Christ. Like many, they attempted to imitate what they never really knew. This explains the folks who grew up "calvinists" but end up atheists. People who attempt to "work" their way into heaven get exhausted and disillusioned. I see it all over TOL.

In your earlier post, you wrote, and I quote:

"While there are Calvinists who are elect, there are also Calvinists who are not."

You did not write:

"While there are "Calvinists" who are elect, there are also "Calvinists" who are not."

You can see the difference, right? You had not put quotes around the word Calvinists. And, when you, now, put quotes around the word Calvinists, you change your signification. By adding the quotes, you go from signifying Calvinists to signifying non-Calvinists. Needless to say, in doing so, you failed to respond to what I wrote in my previous post. I was asking you about your stance on Calvinists, not about your stance on "Calvinists."

Again, you claimed that there are Calvinists who are not elect. And that, indeed, is an astonishing claim, inasmuch as, according to Spurgeon, at least, Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else! Again, if Calvinism is the gospel, and a Calvinist is a believer of Calvinism, then a Calvinist is a believer of the gospel. Now, in light of the claim that Calvinism is the gospel, it is clear that when you affirmed that some Calvinists are not elect, you were affirming that some believers of the gospel are not elect! Does that not strike you as astonishing?

And, again, you claimed that someone named Gregory, contrary to what you say he claimed about himself, is not a Calvinist. And yet, this Gregory is the very person you put forward as proof that there are Calvinists who are not elect! How can a non-Calvinist be proof that there are Calvinists who are not elect?

Can you give an example of a Calvinist, then, who is not elect? Hint: Gregory is out of the question, here, because you deny he is/was a Calvinist. You'll have to pick someone who is a Calvinist, and not someone who is a non-Calvinist.

Oh, also, I noticed that, in what you wrote about Gregory, you were affirming that he is not elect, since you tried to put him forward as proof that there are Calvinists who are not elect.

That is, you wrote:

"While there are Calvinists who are elect, there are also Calvinists who are not. Proof of this is our TOL colleague, Gregory, who claims he was once a Calvinist, but shows no evidence of being elect."

How could Gregory be proof that there are Calvinists who are not elect unless,

1. Gregory is a Calvinist, AND
2. Gregory is not elect?

Now, of course, you accidentally shot down your attempted proof, that there are Calvinists who are not elect, by denying that he was ever a Calvinist. But, in trying to use him as proof that there are Calvinists who are not elect, you are also affirming that Gregory is not elect. And, note well, you're not merely saying that he "shows no evidence of being elect," but, you're actually affirming that he is not elect. And, of course, claiming that so-and-so is not elect is one and the same as claiming that he/she is what TULIP theology styles eternally reprobate. Now, to claim that so-and-so is eternally reprobate is a faux pas, is it not?

If you reread, carefully enough, what I wrote in my previous post--and, indeed, what you, yourself, wrote in your own post to which I was responding--you should be able to understand that my questions/objections to what you wrote have nothing whatsoever to do with how so-and-so self-identifies, or whether or not somebody went to a Reformed church, or John Calvin's life story, or people becoming atheists.

 

[MennoSota]

7djengo7 wrote:
(quote)
"While there are Calvinists who are elect, there are also Calvinists who are not."

You did not write:

"While there are "Calvinists" who are elect, there are also "Calvinists" who are not." (end quote)

I'm sorry... what's the difference. Just the quotes?

Calvinists is a term given to a group with a particular teaching they share in their churches. Not everyone who attends that church is saved. No one ever said they would be. You seem to be running down a rabbit hole.

 

[7djengo7]

Calvinists is a term given to a group with a particular teaching they share in their churches. Not everyone who attends that church is saved.

So, you disagree with Spurgeon? He says Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. What do you say? Is Calvinism the gospel, or is Calvinism not the gospel?

 

[MennoSota]

So, you disagree with Spurgeon? He says Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. What do you say? Is Calvinism the gospel, or is Calvinism not the gospel?

Are you incapable of differentiating a person who is going to a Reformed church from someone who is elect?
Not every person who self identifies as a Calvinist is saved. But, John Calvin's message about salvation is God's message in the Bible.
Where is the stumbling block in your understanding, 7djengo7? It seems you are struggling with God's Sovereignty, but I am not sure why.

 

[7djengo7]

Are you incapable of differentiating a person who is going to a Reformed church from someone who is elect?
Not every person who self identifies as a Calvinist is saved. But, John Calvin's message about salvation is God's message in the Bible.
Where is the stumbling block in your understanding, 7djengo7? It seems you are struggling with God's Sovereignty, but I am not sure why.

In other words, you are simply going to stonewall against every question that I have asked you. It seems you are struggling with answering even one simple question about your own ideology, and I am sure why. And, I see that you have a little set of prefab, meaningless responses to hand me whenever I ask a simple question. I asked a simple question: Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no? Spurgeon said it is. I assume you've heard of him.

So, again:

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

The only acceptable response from you to this question will be to say either

1. Yes (Calvinism is the gospel),

OR

2. No (Calvinism is not the gospel).

Is Calvinism the gospel?

 

[MennoSota]

In other words, you are simply going to stonewall against every question that I have asked you. It seems you are struggling with answering even one simple question about your own ideology, and I am sure why. And, I see that you have a little set of prefab, meaningless responses to hand me whenever I ask a simple question. I asked a simple question: Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no? Spurgeon said it is. I assume you've heard of him.

So, again:

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

The only acceptable response from you to this question will be to say either

1. Yes (Calvinism is the gospel),

OR

2. No (Calvinism is not the gospel).

Is Calvinism the gospel?

I have answered every question. You do not comprehend that I have answered.
What Calvin taught about salvation is what the Bible teaches. Calvin merely wrote what he observed in scripture.
Not everyone who self identifies as a Calvinist is saved. They may agree, academically, but God has not made them alive in Christ.
What does Ephesians 2:1-10 tell us?

 

[CherubRam]

Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[7djengo7]

I have answered every question. You do not comprehend that I have answered.
What Calvin taught about salvation is what the Bible teaches. Calvin merely wrote what he observed in scripture.
Not everyone who self identifies as a Calvinist is saved. They may agree, academically, but God has not made them alive in Christ.
What does Ephesians 2:1-10 tell us?

You lie. I just asked you a simple yes-or-no question: Is Calvinism the gospel?
You did not answer it, and instead, you straightaway lied and said "I have answered every question."

Why are you so opposed to answering the question? Why is it so dreadful for you to say either that Calvinism is the gospel, or that Calvinism is not the gospel? Why must you lie, saying that you've answered the question? Do you think you are fooling me?

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

 

[MennoSota]

So, you disagree with Spurgeon? He says Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. What do you say? Is Calvinism the gospel, or is Calvinism not the gospel?

God's word is God's word. Calvin correctly observes God's word.
Do you think Calvin incorrectly observed God's word? If so, show a passage in God's word that you think he incorrectly observed.

 

[MennoSota]

You lie. I just asked you a simple yes-or-no question: Is Calvinism the gospel?
You did not answer it, and instead, you straightaway lied and said "I have answered every question."

Why are you so opposed to answering the question? Why is it so dreadful for you to say either that Calvinism is the gospel, or that Calvinism is not the gospel? Why must you lie, saying that you've answered the question? Do you think you are fooling me?

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

The gospel is the gospel. Calvin correctly observed the gospel as stated in God's word.
You are asking an ignorant question, 7djengo7. I cannot change your ignorance.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

Let's see:

Spoiler

I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. - Spurgeon The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856

Yes, these are vital aspects of the Gospel, unless, of course, you think the Gospel is some mere incantation:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Y-ONE-GOSPEL&p=5076158&viewfull=1#post5076158

If we analyze the kerygma (proclamation) found in the book of Acts, we see the message Jesus was born of woman, of the seed of David, according to the Scriptures. He lived a sinless life, made a sacrificial atonement on the cross, was raised by God from the dead for our justification, and ascended into heaven to the right hand of God, where He is crowned Lord of lords and King of kings, from where He will return and judge the world. The benefits of this is reconciliation, forgiveness of sins, and justification, from which we get peace with God, which is received by faith alone. That is the gospel in brief. Now as the link above illustrates, understanding what terms like justification, atonement, reconciliation, Jesus, and so on mean is not not the gospel. Rather they (and more) are part and parcel of the Good News, else some are believing in some intellectual idol of their own making at their peril.

So when you cherry pick Spurgeon quotes, be certain you understand his full corpus wherein he treats all these important components of the gospel. The quote you are alluding to speaks to the fact that unless one preaches the things that are the warp and woof of the gospel, the gospel is simply not being preached. If the gospel is simply a passage lifted from Scripture, then Sunday sermons should be about five minutes long.

Calvinism affirms all those things stated just above. Immediately preceding the quote in the spoiler above, Spurgeon winsomely says it is his opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. (op cit)

If you think Calvinism is just TULIP (an acrostic that only appeared in the 19th century as a memory aid), then I can understand your consternation. No, Calvinism is much more than five points describing the doctrines of grace. Or, if you think Calvinism means John Calvin is the Calvinist's regula fidei, you are just adopting the usual canards found on discussion sites like this one. Oddly, however, you won't find most Calvinists claiming Arminians look to Arminius as their rule of faith, or open theists worship at the feet of the openist trinity of Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders. Yet many non-Calvinists seem to take some pleasure in trafficking that sort of vitriolic currency.

Accordingly, when all this is taken into consideration—not just looking at a naked quote absent context and demanding an answer—I have no problem agreeing with Spurgeon. Why shouldn't Spurgeon say so? After all, Paul was a rabid Calvinist, too.


AMR

 

[7djengo7]

The gospel is the gospel. Calvin correctly observed the gospel as stated in God's word.
You are asking an ignorant question, 7djengo7. I cannot change your ignorance.

I am, indeed, ignorant as to how you would answer the question I've asked you repeatedly: "Is Calvinism the gospel?"

By saying "I cannot change your ignorance," you are admitting to me that you cannot answer the question, "Is Calvinism the gospel." And now, one thing I am not ignorant of is the fact that you cannot answer the question.

You have persistently refused to answer the question, while earlier lying to me by saying that you have answered it.

So, for the sake of argument, pretend it be true that you have answered it (though you never have); now look at what you're saying about that same question you pretend you have answered: you are calling it "an ignorant question." You are saying you have answered what you now call "an ignorant question." Why any self-respecting person would answer a question they consider to be, as you term it, "an ignorant question," is beyond me. But, again, the fact remains: you've not answered the question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?"

I never asked you, "Is the gospel the gospel?" But, clearly, had I asked you that, you are able to answer it. You have not answered a single question I have asked you, but you have answered one I did not ask when you said "The gospel is the gospel." I give you kudos for being truthful with me, there, as you've not been thus far. But, then, it's impossible to go wrong when you're doing nothing but affirming a tautology, and your affirming it served no purpose, whatsoever.

Why do you voluntarily come out and affirm, "The gospel is the gospel," but you absolutely refuse to affirm, "Calvinism is the gospel?"

Why is it so easy for you to say, "The gospel is the gospel," but so impossible for you to say either, "Calvinism is the gospel," or "Calvinism is not the gospel?"

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

 

[MennoSota]

I am, indeed, ignorant as to how you would answer the question I've asked you repeatedly: "Is Calvinism the gospel?"

By saying "I cannot change your ignorance," you are admitting to me that you cannot answer the question, "Is Calvinism the gospel." And now, one thing I am not ignorant of is the fact that you cannot answer the question.

You have persistently refused to answer the question, while earlier lying to me by saying that you have answered it.

So, for the sake of argument, pretend it be true that you have answered it (though you never have); now look at what you're saying about that same question you pretend you have answered: you are calling it "an ignorant question." You are saying you have answered what you now call "an ignorant question." Why any self-respecting person would answer a question they consider to be, as you term it, "an ignorant question," is beyond me. But, again, the fact remains: you've not answered the question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?"

I never asked you, "Is the gospel the gospel?" But, clearly, had I asked you that, you are able to answer it. You have not answered a single question I have asked you, but you have answered one I did not ask when you said "The gospel is the gospel." I give you kudos for being truthful with me, there, as you've not been thus far. But, then, it's impossible to go wrong when you're doing nothing but affirming a tautology, and your affirming it served no purpose, whatsoever.

Why do you voluntarily come out and affirm, "The gospel is the gospel," but you absolutely refuse to affirm, "Calvinism is the gospel?"

Why is it so easy for you to say, "The gospel is the gospel," but so impossible for you to say either, "Calvinism is the gospel," or "Calvinism is not the gospel?"

Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes or no?

I answered your question. If you cannot grasp the answer, it shows you are blind and deaf. I cannot help you. May God have mercy on your ignorance.

 

[john w]

I answered your question. If you cannot grasp the answer, it shows you are blind and deaf. I cannot help you. May God have mercy on your ignorance.

Prove that you are not "blind and deaf," and thus that you are one of "the elect." How does a Calvinist/Clavinist know that he/she is one of "the elect?" How do we, the TOL audience, know that you are one of "the elect? " How does a Calvinist know that their "little ones" are not consigned to hell, i.e., that they are not one of "the elect?"


Unpack it for us. And keep your answer(s) simple, for some of us country bumpkins.

 

[7djengo7]

I answered your question. If you cannot grasp the answer, it shows you are blind and deaf. I cannot help you. May God have mercy on your ignorance.

Oh, you're right! I missed it! These threads, you know, they get a little busy and cluttered. Easy to overlook when someone honestly answers a simple question, since few people honestly answer simple questions, you know? Silly me! Now I see it. I now see where you, indeed, forthrightly affirmed: "Calvinism is NOT the gospel! Spurgeon was wrong!" Sorry to have missed that.


Since you're a Calvinist, I never expected to find you DENYING that Calvinism is the gospel. So, I suppose you can understand my surprise to find you denying that Calvinism is the gospel.

So, now progress can be made. Why do you affirm that Calvinism is NOT the gospel? Why do you contradict what Spurgeon said?

Why do you deny that Calvinism is the gospel?

 

[MennoSota]

Oh, you're right! I missed it! These threads, you know, they get a little busy and cluttered. Easy to overlook when someone honestly answers a simple question, since few people honestly answer simple questions, you know? Silly me! Now I see it. I now see where you, indeed, forthrightly affirmed: "Calvinism is NOT the gospel! Spurgeon was wrong!" Sorry to have missed that.


Since you're a Calvinist, I never expected to find you DENYING that Calvinism is the gospel. So, I suppose you can understand my surprise to find you denying that Calvinism is the gospel.

So, now progress can be made. Why do you affirm that Calvinism is NOT the gospel? Why do you contradict what Spurgeon said?

Why do you deny that Calvinism is the gospel?

You are twisted like a pretzel. You know exactly what I have stated. Since you cannot understand, I will leave you to play on your own. You will have to stand before God and have him explain your error.

 

[7djengo7]

You are twisted like a pretzel. You know exactly what I have stated. Since you cannot understand, I will leave you to play on your own. You will have to stand before God and have him explain your error.

Amazing! You're so cultish and evasive in your dealings with objections to your ideology that, not only will you persistently stonewall against my question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?", never to answer it, but, even after I tried to lead you to specifically declare that you never stated "Calvinism is NOT the gospel!" you don't even come out and specifically deny saying "Calvinism is NOT the gospel!"

Here are two things I know:

1. You have not stated "Calvinism IS NOT the gospel,"

AND

2. You have not stated "Calvinism IS the gospel."

Having stated neither, you have not answered my question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?"
Thus, when you said that you answered it, you were lying.

The reason you refuse to answer my question is, because, for you to say that Calvinism is the gospel would necessarily be for you to damn your own statement, "While there are Calvinists who are elect, there are also Calvinists who are not."

Why must affirming that Calvinism is the gospel be damning to your statement that "there are also Calvinists who are not [elect]?" It's really very, very simple to understand.

1. To be a Calvinist is to believe Calvinism,
2. Calvinism is the gospel,
3. To be a Calvinist is to believe the gospel,
4. Only the elect can believe the gospel,
5. The gospel is Calvinism,
6. Only the elect can believe Calvinism,
7. Only the elect can be Calvinists.

Since ONLY the elect can believe the gospel, ONLY the elect can be Calvinists, and so, if you hold that ONLY the elect can believe the gospel, then you contradict yourself by saying (and I quote) "there are also Calvinists who are not [elect]."

To say "there are also Calvinists who are not [elect]" is nothing other than to say "there are believers of the gospel who are not elect!" But, according to TULIP theology, it is impossible for a person who is not elect to believe the gospel, because regeneration is necessary to belief of the gospel, and none but the elect are regenerated.

So, my advice to you is to reject at least one of the two following propositions:

1. There are Calvinists who are not elect,
2. Only the elect can believe the gospel.

When you say that there are Calvinists who are not elect, you are saying that there are Calvinists who do not believe Calvinism, which is a manifestly stupid thing to say.

Bringing out meaningless references to John Calvin, self-identifying, agreeing academically, going to a Reformed church, etc. does not amount to a hill of beans for you, here, other than, perhaps as an attempt at distraction from the fact that there is stark incoherence between your TULIP theology propositions. I realize, now, that you don't care about theological coherence, anyway.

On a side note, you wrote to me: "You will have to stand before God and have him explain your error."

Correct me if I'm mistaken, here, but it sure looks like you are declaring me to be one of the non-elect--the eternally reprobate!

Or, do you (a voice of TULIP theology) say that the elect will also have to stand before God and have Him explain their error?

One of the fun things about Calvinists is that they delight in the thought that they, the elect, will, in heaven, somehow get to observe the non-elect suffering endless, fiery torment, and they will cheer on at the spectacle, and be glad at the reprobates' inexorable calamity. Just ask President Edwards.

 

[MennoSota]

Amazing! You're so cultish and evasive in your dealings with objections to your ideology that, not only will you persistently stonewall against my question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?", never to answer it, but, even after I tried to lead you to specifically declare that you never stated "Calvinism is NOT the gospel!" you don't even come out and specifically deny saying "Calvinism is NOT the gospel!"

Here are two things I know:

1. You have not stated "Calvinism IS NOT the gospel,"

AND

2. You have not stated "Calvinism IS the gospel."

Having stated neither, you have not answered my question, "Is Calvinism the gospel?"
Thus, when you said that you answered it, you were lying.

The reason you refuse to answer my question is, because, for you to say that Calvinism is the gospel would necessarily be for you to damn your own statement, "While there are Calvinists who are elect, there are also Calvinists who are not."

Why must affirming that Calvinism is the gospel be damning to your statement that "there are also Calvinists who are not [elect]?" It's really very, very simple to understand.

1. To be a Calvinist is to believe Calvinism,
2. Calvinism is the gospel,
3. To be a Calvinist is to believe the gospel,
4. Only the elect can believe the gospel,
5. The gospel is Calvinism,
6. Only the elect can believe Calvinism,
7. Only the elect can be Calvinists.

Since ONLY the elect can believe the gospel, ONLY the elect can be Calvinists, and so, if you hold that ONLY the elect can believe the gospel, then you contradict yourself by saying (and I quote) "there are also Calvinists who are not [elect]."

To say "there are also Calvinists who are not [elect]" is nothing other than to say "there are believers of the gospel who are not elect!" But, according to TULIP theology, it is impossible for a person who is not elect to believe the gospel, because regeneration is necessary to belief of the gospel, and none but the elect are regenerated.

So, my advice to you is to reject at least one of the two following propositions:

1. There are Calvinists who are not elect,
2. Only the elect can believe the gospel.

When you say that there are Calvinists who are not elect, you are saying that there are Calvinists who do not believe Calvinism, which is a manifestly stupid thing to say.

Bringing out meaningless references to John Calvin, self-identifying, agreeing academically, going to a Reformed church, etc. does not amount to a hill of beans for you, here, other than, perhaps as an attempt at distraction from the fact that there is stark incoherence between your TULIP theology propositions. I realize, now, that you don't care about theological coherence, anyway.

On a side note, you wrote to me: "You will have to stand before God and have him explain your error."

Correct me if I'm mistaken, here, but it sure looks like you are declaring me to be one of the non-elect--the eternally reprobate!

Or, do you (a voice of TULIP theology) say that the elect will also have to stand before God and have Him explain their error?

One of the fun things about Calvinists is that they delight in the thought that they, the elect, will, in heaven, somehow get to observe the non-elect suffering endless, fiery torment, and they will cheer on at the spectacle, and be glad at the reprobates' inexorable calamity. Just ask President Edwards.

LOL, a Reformed Christian being called cultish by a Pelagian.

 

[beloved57]

So the answer is absolutely NO the Elect can never be the workers of iniquity spoken of in Ps 5:5 because God doesn't hate the elect but Loves them, even while they're enemies and sinners, Read Rom 5:8

8 [FONT=&quot]But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.[/FONT]

 

[FineLinen]

So the answer is absolutely NO the Elect can never be the workers of iniquity spoken of in Ps 5:5 because God doesn't hate the elect but Loves them, even while they're enemies and sinners, Read Rom 5:8

8 [FONT="]But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.[/FONT]

Dear Mr. elect: Do you know that the entire Romans 5 has lovely declarations?

The mass of mankind are "made sinners">>>>>

The mass of mankind are "made righteous."

Yes, beloved 57, the same mass (the polus) made sinners, is the polus made righteous! Every last one.