Examining the Five Points of Calvinism

[Waiting]

Yes. "For God so loved the world..."
“Whosoever will, may come." Just a couple of examples.


Yes, this does we do have free will. As to the idea "we decide whether or not God will draw us to Him", it is poorly expressed. (In fact, so poorly that I'm not sure I can agree with it.) A better way to state the point might be: God's effectual drawing of a person is dependent upon whether there exists in that person a willingness to consider God. And that willingness --that openness to God-- comes from us, not Him.


Respectfully, you are misreading the verse. The foreknowledge of God referred to here is only in regard to whether a specific will ever accept His offer of salvation. It does not mean that God only foreknows some people: He foreknows everyone's existence and, therefore, fire knows who will accept salvation.


Absolutely! You've got it.


Yes, but only in this sense-- that He ensured that none of those whom He foreknew would be willing to be saved would be lost. In other words, He made sure that each willing person would be guaranteed an eternity in Heaven and, as Mary Cole correctly stated above, He predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.


I don't think John 6:37 (or anywhere else in Scripture) necessarily teaches your first conclusion. Or your second. As I responded earlier, I believe Scripture reveals God offers salvation to ALL people. But, for the reasons I have already given, He cannot predestine for Heaven those whom He knows will never accept salvation. (Remember: God's knowledge is 100% absolutely perfect. There is no guesswork with Him. What He knows is irrefutably true, without any possibility of error.)


If you have felt a draw in your heart and have desired to be saved, you ARE called. Whether God uses your church's (or any organization's) teachings or a tract or something from your Bible or a thought from a movie or song or book or something on social media or an idea that just comes into your head (there are innumerable ways in which God draws someone), regardless of how you came to the point where you decided to ask Christ to save you, you are saved. The means of the calling to salvation is irrelevant. All that matters is that you came to Christ.

I pray this helps. If you have further questions, please ask them here ... or reach out to me via direct message.

-------
As to your final question regarding font size, we would prefer that a member stick to the default typeface and font size. However, we realize that due to vision issues some members may need to use a larger size font. In such cases it is perfectly acceptable to routinely use a larger font size. And when writing to an individual member with vision issues, we encourage the use of a larger size in order to help facilitate communication.

Thank you so much Pastor. I am perfectly clear in my thoughts now.

And I shall keep with the default font size .... I just move the laptop a little closer when I need to.

 

[Mary Cole]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

For some reason every time I see that "P" word I cringe and sign remembering all the debates and then if I see something that is not clear to me
I kind of hold my breath.

Thank you again and if your avatar pic is indicative of you being in service.... I humbly thank you for your service.

Yes, that was me during my Air Force days. I'm much older now, but still proud I served.

 

[TCC]

He foreknew everyone who would accept Him. He did not predestine to save some and predestine some for the lake of fire. What he did predestine was that everyone who accepts Him would be conformed to the likeness of His Son.

Amen. What helped me here was that God knew intimately those who believe upon Him. That is because they believed, they were intimately now known by God. 1 Cor 8:3...

"But whoever loves God is known by God."

 

[Hol]

Excellent@ Hol

Thank you sis

I had to stop and think about the post. I remembered that I’d prayed lots before posting.

 

[TCC]

From Jack:

Who Does The Father Draw

Question: John 6:44 says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Are there people who are eternally lost because the Father has not drawn them to himself?

Answer: First of all, God doesn’t want any to be lost, but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). In 1 Tim. 2:3-4 Paul confirmed that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Therefore the door to salvation stands open to every person for the duration of his or her lifetime.

We know this because Jesus said God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). From this and other passages, it’s clear that we decide whether or not God will draw us to Him. Everyone who asks, receives (Matt. 7:7). Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13).

Romans 8:29-30 explains how the process works.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Knowing the end from the beginning, God knew the name of everyone who would accept the remedy He would provide for their sins before the first man was created. (He foreknew.) He made a reservation for each one of them in His Kingdom. (He predestined.) At some point in their lives He calls them and He keeps calling until they respond. (He called.) When they respond, and they all do, He applies His blood as payment in full for their sins rendering them clean. ( He Justified.) At the Rapture / Resurrection He will give them glorified bodies to dwell in His presence for eternity. (He Glorified.)

In John 6:44, Jesus was referring to the fact that the Father only calls those He already knows will come, having seen them do so. He doesn’t call any who won’t come (John 6:37) and He doesn’t lose any who have come (John 6:39).

Who Does The Father Draw? – Grace thru faith

gracethrufaith.com

First off I want to say that I am often very encouraged and blessed by many excerpts you share from Jack, brother. Because of the intense indoctrination, and significant years it took to unpeal the layers of the Reformed theological onion, I would likely fall into the camp of a marginal few. I say this noticing over the years how pervasive reformed thought had trickled down into Western Evangelical culture. And although there are blessings in having to deal with such a range of theology over the years, I respectfully wish to honor that we are are we are in culture. And it is often of good nature to sometimes not say things because it is often not a salvation issue. My reply here is not because it is a salvation issue. My reply here is really just meant in helpful keeping with OP thread intent. I have purposeflly for the most part not posted here much because this thread, I believe, should reflect more along the lines of the OP sentiment, than perhaps my orientations in regards to it over the decades journey I have had with all of this. So I humbly am not desiring to throw any monkey wrenches in the mix here. But just hopful to be marginally helpful on certain perspectives, just in keeping to a degree of orthodoxy and context.

I had always used a Ryrie Study bible throughout my time in the reformed camp. I had no idea Ryrie had major issues with some reformed positions. I just loved his study bible layout. Ryrie though apparently was 4 point Calvinist. He did not believe in limited atonement. And his reasons for that were kind of my foot in the door to know why there might be problems with reformed perspectives. In this way, for the record, Jack would have the same view shared here as Ryrie (the one you are sharing with us in your post here). It is likely because our culture came out of reformed construction of America historically. And from what I have noticed, what is known as the Free Grace side of evengelicalism tends to be steeped in believing scritpure (which is a huge compliment to the body) more than argue for theological positions (which reformed are kind of experts in because that is the lane they totally traffick in--at least in the USA from what I have seen). So I say all that to say that Jack and Ryrie would explain things from their affections toward scripture, amen. Whereas, in the reformed perspective, I was kind of parachuted down into a terriotry filled with land minds. So it was far more hugely bumpy for me.

. . . . .

I say all the above brother because in what I share here I don't mean for it to come across as challenging. Or corrective. This is just an observation that can occur with thankfully the minority of believers who might have been pushed heavily to extreme edges like myself...to come to notice certain attributes about how reformed theology has fallen upon our land. What reformed thought, from what I have been able to tell over the years, has done is the sophisticated philosophical orchestration and positioning of what the argument looks like. An either or premise. The reformed camp has successfully been able to qualify Calvinism vs Arminianism as the argument point and counter point. But Arminias was a Calvinist. And fought within the reformed context. What we have ended up in in our culture is Calvinism vs Arminiansism as though those were the only two choices. And even though we may not call ourselves Arminian, the argument Jack put forth (as well as the same arguement well respected Charles Ryrie also put forth) is Arminian by default. I don't think Ryrie nor Jack would consider themselves Arminian. But the arguement put forth by Jack is an Arminian Reformed position. And most evangelicals won't consider themselves Arminian but would likely believe in some ways as Jack in general because these are very subtle nuances theologically Free Gracer's don't typically get all up in.

The difference with how Calvinism and Arminianism differ is typically how they see predestination. For the Calvinist that means that God decided in etertinty past who would be saved. In Arminianism it is that God looked through the cooridors of time and saw who would choose Him, and by this predestined those for salvation. The common denominator is that both Calvinism and Arminianism is looking at predestination as a concept of God selecting those to be saved from etertinity past. I have an excel spread sheet I can email if helpful (put together by YT Beyond the Fundamentals--during that channels main focus against reformed perspectives). And it is quite comprehensive. Demonstrating all verse in old and new testament references to "chosen." In observing this approach, the understanding of "chosen" biblically is overwhelmingly to service. Not to salvation. Ultimately for believers Christ is "the chosen" we are received through. Not that we ourselves were chosen. But that we become "the chosen" in Him.

Outside of the Reformed paradigm of viewing the concept of predestination as God choosing from eternity past, instead, the Free Grace proper perspective in contrast is: That presentation of predestination has to do with a concept looking at God choosing us from the point of receiving salvation forward. Our believing activating God's choosing us forward. Not from eternity past. This would be the main significant difference that removes the argument from the reformed camp as either/or. Either Calvnist or Arminian. Both argue from seeing predeistiaition as from eternity past. Whereas evangelicalism outside the reformed paradigm would view predestination from the time starting at salvation...unto adoption future and unto conforming to the image of Christ, also future. So the difference with the starting point of predestination in non-reformed perspective is not related to who God would choose or who would choose Him, but rather, what happens to believers once they believe moving forward. Because then, believers would be chosen in Him. If that makes sense?

This is not a very well understood difference in Christian culture. The only reason I know it is because of how difficult things become fore me under the Calvinist system. And it was something I took a fairly deep dives into over the years. The non-reform perspective I have noted above is not "unkown" in Christian circles, generally. To the extent it is unknown though there are even very good expositors that detail this generally not to "being aware of" distinction of how "chosen" and predestination fits as to what happens to believers after they receive salvation. But its not mainstream at all from what I have seen. There is a sense, like in Ephesians 1, where it also sounds like there that God chose us from eternity past. But the way the Free Grace proper view would be on that is: What was chosen in eternity past = that God would have Christ His Son be who is the Chosen we would be in, and that also that we would be holy and blameless in Him. That plan and reality for any who believe was predeistine in eternity past. But commonly the way it reads in English sounds like we individually might have been spoken of as being chosen ourselves. This example is one of the more challenging arenas most of Christianity only see a particular way.

It would seem how even Jack and Ryrie not considering this view might be a testimony of how non-mainstream viewing predestination as meant for choice in service as well as time forward (rather than backward to eternity past), would provide a random sample (even among the very learned) who might not be too familiwiar with prestination outside the context they view it through. However there are non-reformed scholars who see this distinction. It is just that it has not been a very widely shared difference of perspective. I still refer to Ryrie for many things. His book on "So Great a Salvation" for example is a great expose of Free Grace perspective outside the reformed camp...even though...Ryrie might still also somewhat lean into argument style paradigms of reformed thought. In any event, just hopeful this consideration might be a generic compliment to this thread. Amen. Blessings