Calvinists' Dilemma

[Samie]

There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:

ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

It appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached call people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:

ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

It appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

It's good to see you appear to be seeking truth rather than merely accepting your churches indoctrination. I wish you well.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

Your attempt to turn your dogmas into another gospel only prove that you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
You should stop trying to claim that your dogma is the gospel, or you will just be another beloved57 bot.

There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:

ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

Will any Calvinist please explain?

I am not a Calvinist, but have read enough of their statements to know that the Elect Calvinists believe that only they are able to repent.

You seem to have forgotten that many are called, but few are chosen (elect).

All people everywhere are called to repentance, but the Calvinists believe that few are chosen (elect) to respond to that call.

Of course, that belief is just a distortion of the real Gospel.

 

[jamie]

You seem to have forgotten that many are called, but few are chosen (elect).

Few are chosen for the first resurrection. The rest are called at the second resurrection.

 

[Samie]

Your attempt to turn your dogmas into another gospel only prove that you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
You should stop trying to claim that your dogma is the gospel, or you will just be another beloved57 bot.

What dogma are you referring to, brother? Do you know of even one of what you said are my dogmas? If Yes, then please specify. Because if you can't specify even one, then you will appear as just an accuser of a brother. And that would cause THE accuser of the brethren to rejoice.

I am not a Calvinist, but have read enough of their statements to know that the Elect Calvinists believe that only they are able to repent.

You seem to have forgotten that many are called, but few are chosen (elect).

All people everywhere are called to repentance, but the Calvinists believe that few are chosen (elect) to respond to that call.

Of course, that belief is just a distortion of the real Gospel.

And what is the real gospel that you know? That UNLESS people first ACCEPT by faith the gift of salvation, they can NOT possibly be in Christ? If it is, then squarely address the OP in the other thread, instead of pretending no Arminian dilemma exists.

 

[Samie]

I bubbled this thread up lest Calvinists forget their dilemma.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And what is the real gospel that you know?

Revelation 14:6-7 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.​

 

[Samie]

It appears the Calvinists' dilemma is here to stay. It's been 5 days and counting.

 

[Samie]

It appears the Calvinists' dilemma is here to stay. It's been 5 days and counting.

It's been 8 days. Still no Calvinist in sight.

 

[Samie]

Your attempt to turn your dogmas into another gospel only prove that you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
You should stop trying to claim that your dogma is the gospel, or you will just be another beloved57 bot.

What dogma are you referring to, brother? Do you know of even one of what you said are my dogmas? If Yes, then please specify. Because if you can't specify even one, then you will appear as just an accuser of a brother. And that would cause THE accuser of the brethren to rejoice.

Unanswered. 10th day since asked.

 

[Samie]

It's been 8 days. Still no Calvinist in sight.

Not 8. It's 9. Still no Calvinist in sight including the tulipbee who claimed he/she had been here.

 

[Lon]

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Yep. Only the elect will repent. Calling you to repent, only the unrepentant will be held accountable for his/her unrepentance and unbelief. Do they have a choice? They are acting according to that nature. Question: Does God only find sinner who are 'willing' to repent? See, that's the Arminian answer and the OV answer. The Calvinist answer goes further: God is not only satisfied with those who 'would/might' come, but compels men and women to come. God even struck Saul blind, such is the Loving tenacity of God. Not only does He 'offer' He 'seeks' and 'saves' that which is lost. In the end, you are arguing over how Sovereign God is and how tenacious His love. You realize that Calvinists believe God's Love more particular (that He called you by name) and more tenacious than a general "come all ye who are heavy laden." While I am not opposed to the general call, I know and He knows who and who will not come and then, He chases after a few stubborn who He knows such effort will save as well. It is a particular and effectual love as such. While you may not agree, do you have a particular problem with incredibly tenacious and specific love that saved a wretch like you (and like me as the song goes)?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

:idunno: Why? (Sometimes you say the darndest most prejudice things, Samie)

 

[Epoisses]

Peter said he was elect by the foreknowledge of God. Peter was an apostle who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was a leader in the early church. For us to say we are elect today is usually presumption and ignores Christ's admonition that those who are faithful until death will receive a crown of life. Calvinists who boldly proclaim they are elect are ignorant idiots destitute of grace. Those who truly have received grace never brag about it.

 

[Lon]

Peter said he was elect by the foreknowledge of God. Peter was an apostle who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was a leader in the early church. For us to say we are elect today is usually presumption and ignores Christ's admonition that those who are faithful until death will receive a crown of life. Calvinists who boldly proclaim they are elect are ignorant idiots destitute of grace. Those who truly have received grace never brag about it.

"Idiot?" "Moron?" :doh: Jeremiah 9:24 1 Corinthians 1:31 2 Corinthians 10:16-18 Nice try I suppose, Epo, but no dice. Nobody is paying attention to who you think is a moron or idiot nor that those are particularly 'mature Christian' sentiments. You are cutting your proverbial credibility throat by mindless banter that is unnecessary.
2 Timothy 2:25

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yep. Only the elect will repent. Calling you to repent, only the unrepentant will be held accountable for his/her unrepentance and unbelief. Do they have a choice? They are acting according to that nature. Question: Does God only find sinner who are 'willing' to repent? See, that's the Arminian answer and the OV answer. The Calvinist answer goes further: God is not only satisfied with those who 'would/might' come, but compels men and women to come. God even struck Saul blind, such is the Loving tenacity of God. Not only does He 'offer' He 'seeks' and 'saves' that which is lost. In the end, you are arguing over how Sovereign God is and how tenacious His love. You realize that Calvinists believe God's Love more particular (that He called you by name) and more tenacious than a general "come all ye who are heavy laden." While I am not opposed to the general call, I know and He knows who and who will not come and then, He chases after a few stubborn who He knows such effort will save as well. It is a particular and effectual love as such. While you may not agree, do you have a particular problem with incredibly tenacious and specific love that saved a wretch like you (and like me as the song goes)?


:idunno: Why? (Sometimes you say the darndest most prejudice things, Samie)

Couldn't God strike everyone with an epiphany along the likes of Saul? Seems like you're saying (though not meaning to perhaps) that the 'elect' are more 'moral' as to heed a call.

 

[Lon]

Couldn't God strike everyone with an epiphany along the likes of Saul?

That seems logical.

Seems like you're saying (though not meaning to perhaps) that the 'elect' are more 'moral' as to heed a call.

Well, you are correct and sharp, because that is indeed implied. I am not sure how the Arminian thinks of the call, but to me, it does seem to imply that 'only the moral' will heed a call in that case to me as well. I think in this sense, you are asking good questions. Somewhere between Calvinism and others is the answer, but it does seem to me, that the Calvinists were wise to leave this entirely in the counsel and mercies of a Loving God who is effectual, loving, tenacious, just, and right. What then is the answer? For the Calvinist, a mystery and explaining that to others, an unsatisfactory one, especially if they cannot articulate it well. For the Arminian and others like them? A call that morality alone responds to, I think. At least, this is what I understood when I was there. To me, it seem Freewill must/necessarily amount to prepossession of morality and value else the person is lost. In that case, it also becomes a 'limited atonement.' Open Theists will say "God doesn't know who they are, or will be" yet it rewards only them and is particular all the same. In the end, we both are trying to get away from 'favoritism' and express and effectual love. In this respect I like leaving the 'mystery' of it in the hands of one I know is loving, right, good, just, and tenacious. Genesis 18:25 It however leaves the mystery a mystery and some people are 1) bothered by unknowns even with strong knowns like love and trustworthy and 2) are bothered more by the "limited" implications than the actual of being loved. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved!" It is something only the elect will bank on OR it is something that the one who banks on it will be called 'elect.' To me, that verse is a great equalizer and a great hope for those who are perishing, yet want hope. You strike me as one who seeks that hope. The cart/horse fight of threads like this are inconsequential in comparison, to me.

 

[Epoisses]

"Idiot?" "Moron?" :doh: Jeremiah 9:24 1 Corinthians 1:31 2 Corinthians 10:16-18 Nice try I suppose, Epo, but no dice. Nobody is paying attention to who you think is a moron or idiot nor that those are particularly 'mature Christian' sentiments. You are cutting your proverbial credibility throat by mindless banter that is unnecessary.
2 Timothy 2:25

Like anyone pays attention to your intellectual idiocracy.

 

[Samie]

Yep. Only the elect will repent. Calling you to repent, only the unrepentant will be held accountable for his/her unrepentance and unbelief. . . .

You're not a full-blooded Calvinist, are you Lon?

Jesus said that unless people repent they perish. To whom does Jesus' statement apply?

1. If it applies to the elect, then, the elect shall perish unless they repent.
2. If it applies to the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent.

Nice try, Lon. Sadly, the Calvinists remain mired in their dilemma. You may try again.

 

[Lon]

Jesus said that unless people repent they perish. To whom does Jesus' statement apply?

1. If it applies to the elect, then, the elect shall perish unless they repent.
2. If it applies to the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent.

Nice try, Lon. Sadly, the Calvinists remain mired in their dilemma. You may try again.

:nono: You are making an assumption mistake. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born-again. Fact.

The problem is that Nicodemus could not, in fact, 'born-again' himself. Fact.

Inadvertently, you are making the assumption that 'repent' is an ability that man 'can' do. If he/she could, there would have been absolutely no need for the Cross. I believe and preach the cross. It makes no difference, whatsoever, whether you 'think' you were able to repent or enabled to repent. What matters is that it happened. Learn where we agree and pay attention to specifics and details that make the difference in our theologies. It was eureka moment like "I cannot born-again myself" that have lead me to a Calvinist stance. I am not caught up on terms, I'm not trying to follow Apollos as and Apollosite or Paul as a Paulist, or Calvin as a Calvinist. I would also tend to acquiesce I may or may not be full-blooded Calvinist. I do believe Christ isn't desirous of any to perish, for instance. I'd suggest I am Calvinist, but don't always explain things as other Calvinists. I think, for instance, atonement is indeed limited, if even by the sense that only those made-right, are atoned for, because specifically that is what it means definition-wise. It was always the only real beef I had with Calvinism before I acceded. I'd likely have been seen as Amyraldian prior.

 

[Samie]

You are making an assumption mistake.

I did not assume, Lon. I quoted Christ.

He told His hearers that unless they repent they perish. Was He addressing only the elect in His audience, or only the non-elect, or both?

If only the elect, then the elect perish if they don't repent, and that's against Calvinism.
If only the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent, and that's also against Calvinism.
If both, then Elect or non-Elect, both perish if they don't repent, and that's against Calvinism as well.