Is Calvinism Wrong?

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Rosenritter]

A simple compare and contrast:

http://www.faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm

Understanding the dispensationalist:

https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/

AMR

Have you finished reading the contents of the second link yet? I just glanced at it and it seems promising.

Numerous books have been written in an attempt to show that dispensationalism is either right or wrong. Those books have their place. The Bibliography has a sampling of them. In this book, however, I take a different approach , exploring ways that can be found to have profitable dialogue and to advance our understanding. I believe dialogue is possible in principle even between “hardline” representatives of dispensational theology and equally “hardline” representatives of its principal rival, covenantal theology. Until now, “hardline” representatives have been tempted to regard people in the opposite camp as unenlightened. The opposing views seem so absurd that it is easy to make fun of them or become angry and cease even to talk with people in the opposite camp. If you, dear reader, consider the opposite position absurd, let me assure you that people within that position consider your position equally absurd. In this book we attempt to shed light on this conflict.

 

[Rosenritter]

MS, I noticed that your 'rep-power' is still at ZERO, and hasn't gone any lower, yet.

Thanks for the reminder. I'll start giving him a few thumbs up now and then to make it positive, just so you don't have something to complain about.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God has always saved by grace. Dispensationalism is a new, US based, theory held by Arminians.
God has always saved by grace.

No one denied that. But you are ignorant of what dispensation or stewardship was given to Paul. Here are three quotes from the him where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

It was not until Acts 13:46-48 when the gospel of grace was first preached and it was preached to the Gentiles. So that is the dispensation of grace began.

 

[MennoSota]

No one denied that. But you are ignorant of what dispensation or stewardship was given to Paul. Here are three quotes from the him where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

It was not until Acts 13:46-48 when the gospel of grace was first preached and it was preached to the Gentiles. So that is the dispensation of grace began.

Jerry, your ignorance of God's grace does not surprise me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The comparison chart is interesting. I would argue that the so-called "modified Calvinist" is just a muddled synergist who refuses logic.

This speaks to the likes of John MacArthur's "leaky dispensationalism," future for the nation of Israel, premill/pretrib.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

No one denied that. But you are ignorant of what dispensation or stewardship was given to Paul. Here are three quotes from the him where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).​

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).​

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

It was not until Acts 13:46-48 when the gospel of grace was first preached and it was preached to the Gentiles. So that is the dispensation of grace began.

John 1:17 KJV
(17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

While Paul may have brought the gospel of grace to the Gentiles, I think it would be inaccurate to say that that same gospel of grace was not also preached through Jesus Christ. Grace is an undeserved favor.

Luke 23:40-43 KJV
(40) But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
(41) And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
(42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
(43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

They suffered justly on the cross, but the thief that looked to Jesus as he was lifted up was bestowed undeserved favor. That sounds like grace to me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Have you finished reading the contents of the second link yet? I just glanced at it and it seems promising.

I have and it is.

See also:
https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Poythress_Revelation-study-guide_color.pdf

https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/

In general:
https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/

AMR

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, your ignorance of God's grace does not surprise me.

You are a big talker but when it comes to proving it you offer nothing.

 

[MennoSota]

You are a big talker but when it comes to proving it you offer nothing.

Jerry, I prefer not to toss you pearls. [emoji41]

 

[Jerry Shugart]

While Paul may have brought the gospel of grace to the Gentiles, I think it would be inaccurate to say that that same gospel of grace was not also preached through Jesus Christ. Grace is an undeserved favor.

When did the Lord Jesus ever preach that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Jn.5:24).

Those closest to Him didn't even know that He was going to die (Lk.18:33-34) until shortly before the Cross.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, I prefer not to toss you pearls. [emoji41]

You prefer to believe your little handbook on Calvinism instead of the Bible.

 

[MennoSota]

You prefer to believe your little handbook on Calvinism instead of the Bible.

The Bible is the handbook and Calvin read it correctly.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Bible is the handbook and Calvin read it correctly.

No, you believe Calvinism and not the Bible which states the following:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

 

[MennoSota]

No, you believe Calvinism and not the Bible which states the following:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

Jerry, multiple people have fully explained this verse to you. You're just being stubborn and refusing to accept what others have shown you. Again, no more pearls...

 

[Rosenritter]

When did the Lord Jesus ever preach that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Jn.5:24).

Those closest to Him didn't even know that He was going to die (Lk.18:33-34) until shortly before the Cross.

Matthew 9:2 KJV
(2) And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

That's one example. The man showed faith in being brought to Jesus by his friends, and he was shown grace and forgiveness of sins. Ah, you may say, but was that preached? Yes, it was, as evidenced by His words in verse 6:

Matthew 9:6 KJV
(6) But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

It was said so that they might know that he had the power to forgive sins. The forgiveness of sins is grace is action. I am sure I could come up with more examples, but that's what first popped up in the first six seconds. Christ's preaching is inundated with preaching for grace for those that will believe on Him.

Spoiler

Whether Jesus had yet died on the cross is irrelevant... our grace comes from God, which is just as valid and redeeming whether he is in heaven above, manifest in the flesh among us, or risen from the tomb. Isn't Jesus the same I AM that spoke to Moses, declaring himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Jesus hadn't died on the cross at that point, but what does it say concerning Moses and Christ?

Hebrews 11:24-26 KJV
(24) By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
(25) Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
(26) Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jerry, multiple people have fully explained this verse to you. You're just being stubborn and refusing to accept what others have shown you. Again, no more pearls...

It has been explained to Jerry often indeed.

First, "all" always means "all," only the context determines the referent: the 'who' the "all" refers to.
Once the referent has been determined, "all" of the referent is being referred to.

The "all" or "every man" of Heb. 2:9 is explained in the next verse, Heb. 2:10. The "all" is restricted to "many sons."

Christ tasted death for "all" men. When "men" is properly understood in context to mean "sons of glory," then we must understand the "all" as referring to each and every one of the Son of glory. Our Lord's brethren, the elect.

Q.E.D.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

Common sense tells us that God doesn't give impossible commands. If he bids us to come out and walk on the water, we can therefore walk on water. If he commands us to take up our bed and walk, we can take up our bed and walk. And if he commands us to love one another and to love our enemies, we are capable of loving one another and loving our enemies.

John 15:12-14 KJV
(12) This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
(13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
(14) Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

So now we are still back to why have you been arguing so hard against the commandment to love one another?....... I have been presuming that this conversation is between those that are members in the body of Christ, called his children and also his friends.

Here it starts....Falsely accusing me of arguing against the commandment to love one another. I was explaining to you why the law was given. And then to top it off, you presume John is speaking to members of the body of Christ...to which I responded you presume too much. From which you lament I'm saying I'm not a member of the body of Christ.

We aren't capable of walking on water unless God performs a miracle. Same with a lame man being healed. Nor are we capable of loving our enemies, until we are empowered to do so through the Spirit within.

Spoiler

Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

You presume that because you aren't looking at the PURPOSE of the Law. The PURPOSE of a commandment. You need to look to Paul. You won't hear it from John.

Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.​

Spoiler

The Ten Commandments can be kept without love for your neighbor. "Thou shalt not steal" is simply a negative that can be kept in the carnal sense., and "love thy neighbor as thyself" wasn't one of those ten commandments.

No, he taught the spiritual law that came before those commandments, that those commandments were based upon. That's why Jesus had a different definition of murder and adultery than what had been defined by those commandments.

While I might agree that we are not under the Law of Moses (including Ten Commandments) it disturbs me that you say that "Love God" and "Love thy neighbor" aren't applicable to you in the sense of a greater eternal law. You've bristled at the idea that God commands us to love one another, and as such I cannot say that I see your understanding as having a positive effect.

I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. Nor did I bristle....that, too, is a false accusation. I also think it is an attempt to deceive those who are reading this thread.

Spoiler

"The Law of Love" is a term that I introduced for the sake of conversation. I admit that that is not a wording found in scripture, and as such I provided the definition for the term. That meaning was "the eternal law of God that existed before the law of Moses and which shall always exist...." in contrast to the Law of Moses which was given to Israel at Mount Sinai. So NO, by definition (my definition, since no one else defined the term) the Law of Love is NOT the Law of Moses.

I just said that I presumed that this conversation is between members of the body of Christ, and those called his children, and also his friends. I presumed that you were among these. Before stating that my presumption was incorrect, would you like to think carefully before excluding yourself from any of these categories?

It additionally concerns me is that you are now tossing aside Jesus and John as if Paul somehow 1) says something contradictory and 2) as if there is a superior doctrine to that preached by our LORD. The purpose of those commandments are direct and not hidden. Jesus states the purpose directly:

Spoiler

Matthew 5:44-45 KJV
(44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
(45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

I'm going to cut through this to the end. I have omitted terms and phrases for which you might object, so please answer directly:

1. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love God" and does this change manifest itself in your life?
2. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and does this change manifest itself in your life?
3. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love thy enemies" and does this change manifest itself in your life?
4. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love one another" and does this change manifest itself in your life?

Spoiler

Of course it was. Try the second reading you'll find in Deut. 5 and 6 where there is an elaboration. And think about it, all the last six commandments speak of loving your neighbor.

No, the Lord did not have a different definition than that of the commandments. He had a different definition than what the scribes and pharisees were claiming. "You have heard it said..."

Matt. 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:​

I haven't "bristled" at any such thing. I'm trying to show you that love cannot be commanded, any more than "Be perfect" can be. Those commands are purposed to bring us to our knees in acknowledgement that we need God's grace. The PURPOSE of the law is to show men their sin and need for a Saviour. Which I have said since we started having this conversation.

It's the Law of God. The question is what is it's PURPOSE?

Does it give us ability to do what is commanded?

Yes, you presume way too much and all too often. :chuckle:

John was sent to the Jews, as were Peter and James. John was addressing the Jews. You fail to bear that in mind as you read Scripture.

Spoiler

Gal. 2:7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: ) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. ​

This is where I refer to your presumption that John was speaking to the body of Christ. Nothing to do with my being a child of God.

I've never tossed anything Jesus or John have said. I simply understand what is being said and to whom it is addressed. There is no IF about it. Paul preached what the RISEN AND ASCENDED LORD JESUS CHRIST REVEALED to him. Of course it's superior. It's Mercy and Grace trumping the Law. It's salvation by Grace through faith without the works of the Law.

ANOTHER FALSE ACCUSATION....THAT I TOSS OUT JESUS AND JOHN'S WORDS.

Considering you told me multiple times it was wrong for me to presume that you were a brother/sister in Christ and a child of God, I guess it was silly to ask.

Here it is. I've gotten two warnings because of your ignorance. I'll call it ignorance because to call it what I think it is has become off limits. I understand those limits, and I will follow the letter of the law.

I believe you are attempting to deceive, since I did not ever say it was wrong of you to presume I was a brother or sister in Christ and a child of God. I won't bow to your ignorance, Rosenritter, so stop misstating what I say. If you can't get it right, don't say it at all.

 

[Rosenritter]

It has been explained to Jerry often indeed.

First, "all" always means "all," only the context determines the referent: the 'who' the "all" refers to.
Once the referent has been determined, "all" of the referent is being referred to.

The "all" or "every man" of Heb. 2:9 is explained in the next verse, Heb. 2:10. The "all" is restricted to "many sons."

Christ tasted death for "all" men. When "men" is properly understood in context to mean "sons of glory," then we must understand the "all" as referring to each and every one of the Son of glory. Our Lord's brethren, the elect.

Q.E.D.

AMR

Hebrews 2:9-10 KJV
(9) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
(10) For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

That passage reads well when "all" is allowed to be interpreted in the normal sense of "all" as in "every man." That would be the more natural reading. Given that "all" and "every man" are normally understood in widest sense of a literal "all" and "every" the conclusion of verse 10 is that the the "tasting death" does not guarantee that this son will be led to glory.

That the sacrifice ("tasting death") was for every man is also confirmed in Hebrews 10:29, that the sacrifice and the blood of the covenant whereby one is sanctified can be trodden underfoot. Clearly death was tasted for this individual, but afterwards there is no more sacrifice for sins (verse 26) and this is not a son led to glory.

Hebrews 10:26 KJV
(26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

There was a sacrifice for sins, and then there is no longer a sacrifice for sins. That would be consistent with Christ tasting death for every man, and yet it speaks of "many" (not all or every man) sons led to glory.

 

[glorydaz]

He was forbidding it as a religious rite. Many western cultures circumcise their baby boys but it isn't a religious ritual performed by a rabbi or preast, it's something a doctor does so that the kid won't look different than all the other boys in junior high gym class. That isn't what Paul is talking about at all. He is talking about the law. His whole entire ministry is all about salvation by grace through faith APART FROM THE LAW and that is what the entire book of Galatians (likely the earliest Pauline epistle in the New Testament) is about from beginning to end.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That's what I meant. :chuckle:

Thanks, Clete.