What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

Examining the Five Points of Calvinism

I’m glad that this worked out!

Hopefully your church can win them over. It’s funny how some people who claim they are Calvinists have no idea what they are talking about. Pastor Andy Woods is doing a series exposing Calvinism, and he used to think of himself as a Calvinist.
Mike and I decided to start watching this together last night!

My pastor also just called to talk and told me they only just found out within the last year. He shared that he still holds against Calvinism and made it clear with the husband that he has to uphold our beliefs in the group. This family is considering moving to Maine soon so it may no longer be an issue soon enough. They are still a lovely family and I made it clear I don’t hate them or anything but that we are disappointed that they hold to their false beliefs.
 
Andy Woods’ series is very good, but if I may I’ll recommend one resource that provided me the info I needed to resist my first Christian mentor who is Calvinist. If you haven’t read it, the book What Love is This? by Dave Hunt is a fast read. Most Calvinists have no clue who John Calvin was.
 
Andy Woods’ series is very good, but if I may I’ll recommend one resource that provided me the info I needed to resist my first Christian mentor who is Calvinist. If you haven’t read it, the book What Love is This? by Dave Hunt is a fast read. Most Calvinists have no clue who John Calvin was.
I believe it. I love Dave Hunt. I follow the Bearean Call and get their newsletter. Thank you, I’ll have to check the book out.
 
I believe it. I love Dave Hunt. I follow the Bearean Call and get their newsletter. Thank you, I’ll have to check the book out.
Cheeky I have that book and love it, although it's decades since I read it. FWIW if you have a kindle, the books on kindle are a lot cheaper than paper form- but the tradeoff is that you don't "own" the book and can't pass it on or loan it out.
 
Mike and I decided to start watching this together last night!

My pastor also just called to talk and told me they only just found out within the last year. He shared that he still holds against Calvinism and made it clear with the husband that he has to uphold our beliefs in the group. This family is considering moving to Maine soon so it may no longer be an issue soon enough. They are still a lovely family and I made it clear I don’t hate them or anything but that we are disappointed that they hold to their false beliefs.
From my experience, I was raised in Calvinism but did not know it for years. After many years in it, I came across things online that mentioned Calvinsim is of the devil. My view at that time was that it was the gospel. And it made me curious as to why people would say that. But those who said such things gave rants and not much substance. So my first year of investigation was a bit fuzzy. The deepest I could discover on the surface was that Spergeon had the same bad argument as my then Calvinist pastor. That we either believe that all of humanity is saved or we believe in limited atonement. Which I came to realize is a logical fallacy about atonement.

The next discovery was Charles Ryrie. An excellent study bible in the way it is laid out. But he wasn't fully Calvinistic. He believed in predestination doctrine as Calvinists do. But he did not believe in limited atonement. And he certainly did not believe in universal atonement -- that all of humanity is saved. So I found a thinking person...lol. That was my first year of research. After that I uncovered an avalanche. With Dr. Leighton Flowers, then with Kevin Thompson of Beyond the Fundamentals. Both of those have extensive work on YouTube. Of the two, the more exacting was Flowers. Thompson was more rugged though (and has started to delve into other topics of late).

The breakthrough moment for me years into research was Leighton Flowers 45 minute overview of Romans 9. For me back then, there would be no way Leighton could surpass Romans 9, I thought. But I gave it a try. What I discovered in listening to it was how richly the book of Romans was literred with Old Testament references. To such the extent now that I not only see Romans 9 in an entirely different light (to my huge surprise), but that Romans is actually a treatise of sorts on the testimony of God explaining how He could abandon the Jewish Old Testament covenant and give it to the gentiles. Which is somewhat ironic. Because it would seem that Romans, to me, was the reference guide explaining the meaning of 70 AD (Romans being a document coming within a few short 15 years prior to the destruction of the temple). In that historic context, Romans 9 shines like a chiselled gem transcending way beyond how Calvin saw it. I found that what Hebrews was in an attempt to pull Jews off of a feight train about to hit a brick wall (70 AD), Romans was its legal documenting treatise. Romans, a book the Calvinist worldview would primarily see as Paul to the gentiles ministry, became for me a divine explanation of the great divide about to historically take place. 70 AD. And in this way, would see Romans like an accompanying official document to be time capsuled with the siege of their temple in 70 AD. Amazing how brilliant that diamond glimmers in contrast to it just being seen in the reformed world as Paul's ministry to the gentiles in Rome. Amazing!!!.

. . . . .

I've been out of the Reformed perspective for about 7 years now. Ironically this came to full fruition around the time I was starting to notice end time things. 2017. During 2016 I did notice the Gotthard Tunnel celebration seemed to imply quite an evil age we were entering. But I did not get full steam into looking into end times till 2017. I have a lot of love for the reformed camp because I know it so well and deeply. And realize that Calvin made a great impact on the West. Part of our history in Western Christianity being a thing does have some significant roots via Calvin. This is kind of why we would find so many churches not reforemed but having no idea of what the doctrine of predistination actually is. And most American believers seeing Ephesians 1 as believers being elected in eternity past. I would say that is a pretty predominant view in most evangelical circles.

My best friend is actually a Calvinist...lol. You can imagine we have some pretty intense conversations. But he is very open to concerns with his reformed camp. At one point, he came dangerously close to being kicked out of his church because of his full throttled moment of clarity. An episode in his life where he saw the bilbe beyond Calvinisism. And became livid. As much as we had spoken over the years, this awening of his had nothing really to do with me. Even though we would hold no punches in discussion, because he worked at the church and finding work outside of it might be quite the challenge for his situation, I always encouraged him to be respectful to his elders and not cause a ruckus. Which sometimes he seemed to need to be reminded.

What I also discovered over time was that Calvinisim has hold of the internet. They are very tech savvy. And very groomed in their approaches of transforming churches into Calvinism. This would explain why it was so hard for me to get answers my first year researching. Plus I had limited time. But I have a great heart for the American Reformed camp because they are a part of my heritage. And just as I was saved being a Calvinist without realizing, I could see how it does not have to be a salvation issue. But it can, of course. I remember one time taking a long walk at night years ago crying to God hoping I was chosen. Then that night it dawned on me, "If I received Christ why am I so in doubt about being chosen from eternity past?" That conundrum was a sobering moment years before I would eventually navigate my way out of the Reformed laberynth.

. . . . .

I believe that the ONE THING God really wanted me to notice in my days in Calvinism was not so much the concern with bad doctrine. But all the more how real God is actively alive for me His creation providentially. As I look back, there would have been no way I could have been sharp enough theologically to climb out of what to me now just seems like a paperbag. But what God often reminds me of today is how sovereign He is over the whole thing (bad doctrine and all). Not in a reformed sense. Where they would believe every moment is inspired to occur as it does by God. But in the sense that God (nor His creation in Him), in His acting with us day-to-day, is actually all that touched all that much by bad doctrine. This may sound like heresy...lol..a bit. But I lived it though. And I am being completely honest.

What I mean by this is that if God knows we are stuck in some bad doctrine (which we never completely do no have), then really the most important thing (while we work our way in discipleship toward deeper and clearler crystal clear yearnings from His true heart in scripture) is realizing the transcendance of God always is in our moment. How He is available to us regardless. Because of who He is. What happened to me was that I was fighting bad doctrine back then with attitude. Thinking that when I arrive at better doctrine I will be more complete. Fighting for that with that Calvinist church. But to my shock as I look back now, what God has helped me to see is that what was far more important that how fast I get good doctrine is how robustly I might rise in the midst of confusion because of who my heavenly Father is. And as Hallmark Card like as that may sound, I saw God work in this way constantly. But at the time I was too thick to actually benefit fully from it. Always leaning back to undue bad doctrine.

In this I do not mean we should not strive for purity in doctrine. But this takes time. And all along the way people and circumstances are provided us in God's Providence. As God has provided good works in advance (per Eph 2) I think those are the things. Not "the works." But the understanding that God has provided for us a treasure trove of experience by which to better take hold of Him personally regardless of our state of maturity doctrinally. And it is that space that transcends bad or good doctrine. Had I that mature skill set 20 years ago, I believe I would be living in far more a plethora of those good work intentions God had as surprise packages awaiting me. To me, this is synomous in spiritual species with "the foolishness of the gospel." Like the sillyness of God just serving up 24/7 good works template for each of us by which to reap great reward in walking in Him now, and even more at His coming.

. . . . .

I would like to conclude this overview with something in the Calvnist vs non-Calvinist tension in evangelicalism today as it results to the day and age we live in end times like. It my surprise you, Cheeky, to understand that the greatest help in recent years I received a long the lines of dispensationalism (something typically Calvinisits are known for not being about or endorse) is from a channel on YouTube called: Theocast.

This channel over the years as I looked into how they parse a verse or section of scripture fascinated me greatly. There is a bit of irony here. Theocast provided for me (coming out of a long standing counterpart often to Calvinism--Lordship Savlation) the most robust understanding of Jesus discourses to the Jews in His day, and how that is best to be understood as per the old covenant as well as the context of what Christ was exactly addressing in His day. AND...how all of that blossomed into a very rich and deep profound sense upon the accuracy and soberness in the views of dispensationalism. So actually, Theocast, for me, had the most profound use of scripture to peel away Lordhsip Salvation confusion = a far deeper appreciate even toward dispensationalism. More than I had noticed anywhere else. And I have been at this a very long time. The irony is that Theocast is not only Calvnist, but Covenantalists. A very deep form of Calvinsim. Yet, clear enough to dispose of Lordship Salvation biblical. And attest to dispensationalism that other churches have not captured the sense of because perhaps of the lack of contrast they had not been exposed to Lordship Salvation. So in that sense, God, in my life, has used Calvinists to undo Calvinism. Because if we are looking for profound scriptural differences, even Calvninism cannot hold a candle to how God transcends.

How does that relate to end times? Well, I just mean that in the sense that just as God transcends bad doctrine in providing us always with good works prepared for us before hand to walk in (that transcends good, bad, and indifferent doctrine), so in like fashion might God also transcend how we might tend to make a template of eschatology we might be tempted to see has to be the way end times is going. The contrast? That we see God in His Providence TODAY define what He meant. Beyond our settled convictions on exactly how that might look today. Not that we should not have convictions. Not that we should not have referent end time templates. Just that part of how they are fulfilled probably involve God's personal providential living touch in the midst of it we might want to make "some" room for. What I noticed typically occuring in Evangelicalism regarding excatology is perhaps running at end times with too much of a template in mind to perhaps make best sense of how God in His living moment with us (His church) might in His deepest profound sense mean toward us and the rest of His creation also sharing this moment with Him, today. If that might make sense in how I am hopefully connecting what I see to be the importance of the living faith in Him. Hope this has some measure of edifying effect :) Blessings dear sister.
 
From my experience, I was raised in Calvinism but did not know it for years. After many years in it, I came across things online that mentioned Calvinsim is of the devil. My view at that time was that it was the gospel. And it made me curious as to why people would say that. But those who said such things gave rants and not much substance. So my first year of investigation was a bit fuzzy. The deepest I could discover on the surface was that Spergeon had the same bad argument as my then Calvinist pastor. That we either believe that all of humanity is saved or we believe in limited atonement. Which I came to realize is a logical fallacy about atonement.

The next discovery was Charles Ryrie. An excellent study bible in the way it is laid out. But he wasn't fully Calvinistic. He believed in predestination doctrine as Calvinists do. But he did not believe in limited atonement. And he certainly did not believe in universal atonement -- that all of humanity is saved. So I found a thinking person...lol. That was my first year of research. After that I uncovered an avalanche. With Dr. Leighton Flowers, then with Kevin Thompson of Beyond the Fundamentals. Both of those have extensive work on YouTube. Of the two, the more exacting was Flowers. Thompson was more rugged though (and has started to delve into other topics of late).

The breakthrough moment for me years into research was Leighton Flowers 45 minute overview of Romans 9. For me back then, there would be no way Leighton could surpass Romans 9, I thought. But I gave it a try. What I discovered in listening to it was how richly the book of Romans was literred with Old Testament references. To such the extent now that I not only see Romans 9 in an entirely different light (to my huge surprise), but that Romans is actually a treatise of sorts on the testimony of God explaining how He could abandon the Jewish Old Testament covenant and give it to the gentiles. Which is somewhat ironic. Because it would seem that Romans, to me, was the reference guide explaining the meaning of 70 AD (Romans being a document coming within a few short 15 years prior to the destruction of the temple). In that historic context, Romans 9 shines like a chiselled gem transcending way beyond how Calvin saw it. I found that what Hebrews was in an attempt to pull Jews off of a feight train about to hit a brick wall (70 AD), Romans was its legal documenting treatise. Romans, a book the Calvinist worldview would primarily see as Paul to the gentiles ministry, became for me a divine explanation of the great divide about to historically take place. 70 AD. And in this way, would see Romans like an accompanying official document to be time capsuled with the siege of their temple in 70 AD. Amazing how brilliant that diamond glimmers in contrast to it just being seen in the reformed world as Paul's ministry to the gentiles in Rome. Amazing!!!.

. . . . .

I've been out of the Reformed perspective for about 7 years now. Ironically this came to full fruition around the time I was starting to notice end time things. 2017. During 2016 I did notice the Gotthard Tunnel celebration seemed to imply quite an evil age we were entering. But I did not get full steam into looking into end times till 2017. I have a lot of love for the reformed camp because I know it so well and deeply. And realize that Calvin made a great impact on the West. Part of our history in Western Christianity being a thing does have some significant roots via Calvin. This is kind of why we would find so many churches not reforemed but having no idea of what the doctrine of predistination actually is. And most American believers seeing Ephesians 1 as believers being elected in eternity past. I would say that is a pretty predominant view in most evangelical circles.

My best friend is actually a Calvinist...lol. You can imagine we have some pretty intense conversations. But he is very open to concerns with his reformed camp. At one point, he came dangerously close to being kicked out of his church because of his full throttled moment of clarity. An episode in his life where he saw the bilbe beyond Calvinisism. And became livid. As much as we had spoken over the years, this awening of his had nothing really to do with me. Even though we would hold no punches in discussion, because he worked at the church and finding work outside of it might be quite the challenge for his situation, I always encouraged him to be respectful to his elders and not cause a ruckus. Which sometimes he seemed to need to be reminded.

What I also discovered over time was that Calvinisim has hold of the internet. They are very tech savvy. And very groomed in their approaches of transforming churches into Calvinism. This would explain why it was so hard for me to get answers my first year researching. Plus I had limited time. But I have a great heart for the American Reformed camp because they are a part of my heritage. And just as I was saved being a Calvinist without realizing, I could see how it does not have to be a salvation issue. But it can, of course. I remember one time taking a long walk at night years ago crying to God hoping I was chosen. Then that night it dawned on me, "If I received Christ why am I so in doubt about being chosen from eternity past?" That conundrum was a sobering moment years before I would eventually navigate my way out of the Reformed laberynth.

. . . . .

I believe that the ONE THING God really wanted me to notice in my days in Calvinism was not so much the concern with bad doctrine. But all the more how real God is actively alive for me His creation providentially. As I look back, there would have been no way I could have been sharp enough theologically to climb out of what to me now just seems like a paperbag. But what God often reminds me of today is how sovereign He is over the whole thing (bad doctrine and all). Not in a reformed sense. Where they would believe every moment is inspired to occur as it does by God. But in the sense that God (nor His creation in Him), in His acting with us day-to-day, is actually all that touched all that much by bad doctrine. This may sound like heresy...lol..a bit. But I lived it though. And I am being completely honest.

What I mean by this is that if God knows we are stuck in some bad doctrine (which we never completely do no have), then really the most important thing (while we work our way in discipleship toward deeper and clearler crystal clear yearnings from His true heart in scripture) is realizing the transcendance of God always is in our moment. How He is available to us regardless. Because of who He is. What happened to me was that I was fighting bad doctrine back then with attitude. Thinking that when I arrive at better doctrine I will be more complete. Fighting for that with that Calvinist church. But to my shock as I look back now, what God has helped me to see is that what was far more important that how fast I get good doctrine is how robustly I might rise in the midst of confusion because of who my heavenly Father is. And as Hallmark Card like as that may sound, I saw God work in this way constantly. But at the time I was too thick to actually benefit fully from it. Always leaning back to undue bad doctrine.

In this I do not mean we should not strive for purity in doctrine. But this takes time. And all along the way people and circumstances are provided us in God's Providence. As God has provided good works in advance (per Eph 2) I think those are the things. Not "the works." But the understanding that God has provided for us a treasure trove of experience by which to better take hold of Him personally regardless of our state of maturity doctrinally. And it is that space that transcends bad or good doctrine. Had I that mature skill set 20 years ago, I believe I would be living in far more a plethora of those good work intentions God had as surprise packages awaiting me. To me, this is synomous in spiritual species with "the foolishness of the gospel." Like the sillyness of God just serving up 24/7 good works template for each of us by which to reap great reward in walking in Him now, and even more at His coming.

. . . . .

I would like to conclude this overview with something in the Calvnist vs non-Calvinist tension in evangelicalism today as it results to the day and age we live in end times like. It my surprise you, Cheeky, to understand that the greatest help in recent years I received a long the lines of dispensationalism (something typically Calvinisits are known for not being about or endorse) is from a channel on YouTube called: Theocast.

This channel over the years as I looked into how they parse a verse or section of scripture fascinated me greatly. There is a bit of irony here. Theocast provided for me (coming out of a long standing counterpart often to Calvinism--Lordship Savlation) the most robust understanding of Jesus discourses to the Jews in His day, and how that is best to be understood as per the old covenant as well as the context of what Christ was exactly addressing in His day. AND...how all of that blossomed into a very rich and deep profound sense upon the accuracy and soberness in the views of dispensationalism. So actually, Theocast, for me, had the most profound use of scripture to peel away Lordhsip Salvation confusion = a far deeper appreciate even toward dispensationalism. More than I had noticed anywhere else. And I have been at this a very long time. The irony is that Theocast is not only Calvnist, but Covenantalists. A very deep form of Calvinsim. Yet, clear enough to dispose of Lordship Salvation biblical. And attest to dispensationalism that other churches have not captured the sense of because perhaps of the lack of contrast they had not been exposed to Lordship Salvation. So in that sense, God, in my life, has used Calvinists to undo Calvinism. Because if we are looking for profound scriptural differences, even Calvninism cannot hold a candle to how God transcends.

How does that relate to end times? Well, I just mean that in the sense that just as God transcends bad doctrine in providing us always with good works prepared for us before hand to walk in (that transcends good, bad, and indifferent doctrine), so in like fashion might God also transcend how we might tend to make a template of eschatology we might be tempted to see has to be the way end times is going. The contrast? That we see God in His Providence TODAY define what He meant. Beyond our settled convictions on exactly how that might look today. Not that we should not have convictions. Not that we should not have referent end time templates. Just that part of how they are fulfilled probably involve God's personal providential living touch in the midst of it we might want to make "some" room for. What I noticed typically occuring in Evangelicalism regarding excatology is perhaps running at end times with too much of a template in mind to perhaps make best sense of how God in His living moment with us (His church) might in His deepest profound sense mean toward us and the rest of His creation also sharing this moment with Him, today. If that might make sense in how I am hopefully connecting what I see to be the importance of the living faith in Him. Hope this has some measure of edifying effect :) Blessings dear sister.
I struggled to read all of this but I enjoyed reading the beginning about your journey out of Calvinism. The large blocks of text make my eyes struggle to follow.

I did skip around a bit but I appreciate your testimony thoroughly. Andy Woods does a great job of breaking apart this false doctrine in his current videos on Neo Calvinism. I highly recommend it.
 
Romans 9 shines like a chiselled gem transcending way beyond how Calvin saw it. I found that what Hebrews was in an attempt to pull Jews off of a feight train about to hit a brick wall (70 AD), Romans was its legal documenting treatise. Romans, a book the Calvinist worldview would primarily see as Paul to the gentiles ministry, became for me a divine explanation of the great divide about to historically take place. 70 AD. And in this way, would see Romans like an accompanying official document to be time capsuled with the siege of their temple in 70 AD. Amazing how brilliant that diamond glimmers in contrast to it just being seen in the reformed world as Paul's ministry to the gentiles in Rome. Amazing!!!.
Really well written. I often skip over the longer posts anyone takes time to write, but I wanted to thank you for this.

Yes, Leighton Flowers does a great job tearing Calvinism apart while keeping them as brothers.

Andy Woods is good too.

@TCC I love your description of the Holy Spirit teaching us :amen:
 
I struggled to read all of this but I enjoyed reading the beginning about your journey out of Calvinism. The large blocks of text make my eyes struggle to follow.

I did skip around a bit but I appreciate your testimony thoroughly. Andy Woods does a great job of breaking apart this false doctrine in his current videos on Neo Calvinism. I highly recommend it.

Thanks for trying. And thanks for reading Cheecky. I agree. I have benefited a lot from Andy Woods takes on that. What I was sharing might be helpful to check out some other time. What you have in all of that is 25 years of really identifying with your concerns. And what we see as concern in the church today. Much blessings dear sister. :) And again, yes Andy holds no punches. Very good videos. I think as I recall it is a set of 6? One thing I found helpful too, that I got traffic citation in one time at JDF (Farag's former forum)...lol. Literally pulled over for error, is his series on the Partial Rapture Theory. I believe there are six of those too. Not related to Calvinism exactly. But the man's hermeneutics there totally schooled me well. In front of the whole forum no less...lol. By the grace of God go I :) Blessings.
 
Really well written. I often skip over the longer posts anyone takes time to write, but I wanted to thank you for this.

Yes, Leighton Flowers does a great job tearing Calvinism apart while keeping them as brothers.

Andy Woods is good too.

@TCC I love your description of the Holy Spirit teaching us :amen:
Wow. Thanks so much for that Hol. I am so glad it resonates. I know sometimes I am not the easiest to follow. Always working on that. When I went to Jr. College, I tested out as needing English as a Second Language. Even though it is my first. Putting sentences together. Then on to the paragraphs class, English 101, 102, +. Its been a struggle all my life. I am light years away from where I was. But have still much room to improve.

Aside from the writing and reading though, I am really glad that the contrast I was painting between theology and knowing God personally came across. :) Blessings.
 
Its been a struggle all my life.
Hey brother, I’m a firm believer that our language during the Millennium will be Hebrew. I’ve taken 6-months training and still barely know my aleph-bet (ABCs).

I’m not multilingual, but many languages are much more reasonable than English. For an example, in English we may say, ‘The tea is on the table,’ and in Russian, ‘Tea on table.’ English language rules are ridiculous.

Anyhow, Hebrew is a language of meaning, context and poetry. English is ideal for attorneys and Calvinists. Before I got saved in 2008 I had to read, edit, and write lots of legal proposals, arguments, discussions, and depositions; even budgets for Fed appropriations. Once I was saved I was quickly drawn to ligioners (sp) logical theological word worm holes. Deeply intellectual?, deeply logical?, yes. Having never heard of Calvinism it was clear after a few months that it appealed to my arrogance and expertise in English.

You’ll love Hebrew and I think your expressions through words will be meaningful poetry.
 
The townsfolk of that story are a lot like the Calvinists. They see one person with the father’s gift and believe that shows his love for that son. And they see the other son without a gift and presume that is because the father has not chosen to bless that son. But the simple fact is the father had given the same gift to both sons. One chose to accept it; the other chose to reject it. End of story. The views of the townfolk were in error.

Great story.
 
That is how Calvinists often operate. Instead of hanging with their own, instead of converting the lost and creating their own church, they infiltrate our fellowships by stealth, draw people into their error and split congregations- often taking over a congregation.
That's what they did to my church. I no longer go to any of them because I cannot abide with their teachings or their rules and regulations required to attend.
 
That's what they did to my church. I no longer go to any of them because I cannot abide with their teachings or their rules and regulations required to attend.
Mary can I just say what a JOY it is to see you again. I just came on, to this! You made my day dear heart, I am so glad to see your smile again! I will go see if we've done a welcome thread for you and if it's already there, properly welcome you but oh my, what a joy!

Love
Margery
 
This thread is very enlightening and profitable for teaching! Adrian's study at the beginning is a rightly divided Word of God interpretation for sure. I never had the word for what I believed my whole life... "proportional theology" in the context of Calvinism. I had quite a discussion a month ago with a dear "TULIP" based friend, this teaching gives me a fresh approach to use when the time is right with him.
 
I do not like to start arguments. However, I am ordained to share the truth of God's Word with believers and non-believers alike. I receive lots of questions and one often concerns Calvinism. It is one that I struggled long and hard with as a young Christian ... until I subjected it to the light of God's Word. And by that I mean not just a few verses taken as proof-texts, but the entirety of the Word. The result was this article which I wrote a few years ago in fulfilment of a promise to people to help them understand Calvinism—what is wrong and what, if anything, is right.

As most people know, Calvinism rests on five points. (If you didn't know that, you know it now. It is a fact.) These points are commonly known by the acronym TULIP. It stands for—
  • Total depravity
  • Unconditional election
  • Limited Atonement
  • Irresistible grace
  • Perseverance of the saints
I don’t have space here to present a deep theological study of these doctrines. But I suggest that such a deep study is not needed here. This is not a seminary. And, for the average Christian, I believe God’s teachings in this area are quite straight-forward—even though man seems able to make it appear complicated! So, let’s begin.


Total Depravity

The original meaning of Total Depravity was extensive, rather than intensive. In other words, as the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics puts it,

“The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being. The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called 'Total Inability.' The man without a knowledge of God will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ (Ephesians 2:1-5).”​

And to this degree, the Calvinists are correct. No person can come to Christ unless the Father draws him or her. That’s a gospel fact (John 6:44). But they go way beyond this simple meaning and suggest that the Father’s calling of those who become saved is limited to just those people alone and is based on some sovereign decision made by God within His secret eternal council and results solely from His sovereign will being toward some and not toward others.

But the Bible does not say this, as we shall see as we press on with this brief study. The context of the idea of Total Depravity sits in part upon two key passages of Scripture—

Isaiah 54:6 “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”​
Psalm 14:3; 53:3; Romans 3:12 “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”​

The problem for the Calvinist interpretation of these passages is that the context does not refer to an inability of man to seek God. If man could not seek God, then why would God repeatedly call on man to seek Him?

Amos 5:4 “For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: “Seek me and live.”​
Deuteronomy 4:29 “But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.”​
Isaiah 55:3 “"Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies shown to David.”​
Jeremiah 29:13 “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”​
Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”​

There are dozens of similar verses. None of them would make any sense unless God believed that man could seek Him. Of course, the seeker needs divine help. And God says plainly that He will come to whomever tries to find Him.

1 Chronicles 28:9a “If you seek Him, He will let you find Him.”​
Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.​


Unconditional Election

The Calvinists view this doctrine as teaching that:

“God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would ‘accept’ the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation.” (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics)​

And they use Romans 9:15,21 as their proof texts. These verses state,

“For He (God) says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’ … Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”​

But look at the context by reading all of Romans 9. If you read it carefully, seeking God’s illumination , you will see that the Holy Spirit here is not using Paul to teach the sovereign will of God but that God is not unjust in His decisions. The issue is without question the justice of God, not anything else.

We must never focus on one characteristic of God and allow that to trump other equally valid characteristics of His. God has said He IS love. Not love as humans practice it, but giving, self-sacrificing love that has as its focus not self but the other person. God’s love does not seek some return, but only operates in order to give.

As a result of that love, God tells us that He is not willing that any be lost but that ALL might find repentance (2 Peter 3:9). To attempt to draw a doctrine from Romans 9 that supports God making some cosmic eeny-meeny-miny-moe choice of souls whom He creates, the winners being given salvation, the rest of the people being sent to a destruction they have no choice either to choose or reject, is to contradict the fundamental doctrine of God’s love for ALL humankind, not just the Jews and not just a few specially chosen ones.

Further, the Calvinists’ belief that God has elected to save only a certain portion of the souls He has created and that this election is “not based upon his looking forward to discover who would ‘accept’ the offer of the gospel” runs utterly counter to God’s own Word! In Peter’s first epistle, the Holy Spirit tells us the following:

1 Peter 1:1-2 “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”​

A few years ago, as I was driving Dr. Thomas Ice somewhere, I asked him how he reconciled this verse with his Calvinist teaching. His answer was to tell me that “the foreknowledge of the Father” did not mean “the foreknowledge of the Father” as we would think of foreknowledge. He said the word “foreknowledge” here actually means “foreordination” and that God simply foreordained as elect the ones to whom Peter is writing.

I won’t get into the depth of the convoluted grammatical reasoning behind this view, but I will lay it out in broad strokes. The Calvinists draw their re-interpretation of the word “foreknowledge” (Greek prognosis) in this verse from the grammatical construction of Acts 2:23 where the words “determinate counsel” of God and “foreknowledge” of God appear in a form which, arguably (though not to them), makes both words possibly refer to the same act of God. From this the Calvinist says that since God’s “determinate counsel “ and His “foreknowledge” refer to the same thing then the word foreknowledge cannot simply refer to previous knowledge since “determinate counsel” refers to an act of mutual discussion and consideration of a matter. Therefore, after further reasoning from word meanings, the Calvinists say that foreknowledge must simply “refer to that counsel of God which after deliberative judgment certain from among mankind were designated to a certain position, that position being defined by the context.” (First Peter in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest, Erdman’s 1942, 1970.) That position and context here, of course, refers to salvation.

This is an argument worthy of a Jesuit! Note that it is entirely grammatical, not theological. Let me assure you that the simple fact of God's Word is that He does not hide His truths, to be discovered through convoluted thinking or reasoning. And certainly His truths in one place will never contradict His truths in another.

Based on an in-depth study of the Greek, I believe that in both occurrences of the noun prognosis in the NT and all five occurrences of the verb prognosko, we can confidently translate the meaning as to "foreknow" in the sense of "know beforehand". To doubt this meaning is to doubt or in some way limit the truth of God's omniscience.


Limited Atonement

The Center for Reformed theology and Apologetics says of this doctrine, in part:

“Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28).”​

I wish I could at least say that their interpretation of Scripture here is faulty but I can see where they think they have scriptural support for their view. Unfortunately, I can see no such place of scriptural support at all. John 17:9 does not dictate a limit, nor does Matthew 26:28. Not in the slightest. It is stretching scripture to the breaking point to find limited atonement in those verses. Or in any other verse of the Bible. But I can find many, many verses that tell me that salvation is intended for all and, were it not for the fact that God has given man free will to choose or reject Him, God would have ALL men to be saved:

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”​
1 Timothy 2:3-4 “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. “​
John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him..”​
Revelation 22:17 “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.”​
1 John 4:15 “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.”​
Revelation 3:20 “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”​

Further, Scripture is very clear that Christ’s atonement was not just for a select few but for ALL humankind.

John 2:2 “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”​
John 4:42 “They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world."​
1 John 2:2 “He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.”​
1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.”​

Now, there IS a limitation on the atonement; but not the kind of limit the Calvinist posits. And we find it clearly outlined in the most famous salvation verse in the Bible— John 3:16. “For God so loved the world…” There is the breadth of God’s love: “the world.” He loved the world (Greek kosmos, meaning ‘the entire created earth including all of its inhabitants’) to such an extent “that He gave His only begotten Son.” This describes the extent of God’s love (he gave His only begotten Son) and the focus of that love (for “the world”.) So there is no limit there, at all. But keep reading . “… that whosoever believes in Him ...” and there we have the limitation. Christ died for all mankind, but only those who believe in Him—only those who, by faith, genuinely accept that sacrifice for themselves—will “not perish but have everlasting life.”

So the limit on the atonement is that only those who accept it can benefit from it. Those who reject it have no benefit from it, even though it was made available to them.

I once described the universality and the limitation of the atonement through the following story:

A father had two sons from whom he was estranged. They had no interest at all in having anything to do with him. Without the wealth possessed by the father, the two sons lived humbly and walked everywhere, having no means of transportation. One day, in an attempt to reach out to them and bring them back into the family fold, the father purchased two beautiful cars and delivered them to the residence of each son. The first son was touched by the gift. He went and took the key, opened the vehicle, turned on the ignition, and began to drive everywhere he needed to go. The townsfolk shook their heads and said, “The father really loved that son., Look at the vehicle he bought him.” But the second son wanted absolutely nothing to do with his father. In his bitterness, he rejected the gift. He refused to use the key, leaving it lying where it had been placed. And even though the vehicle was at his disposal, he chose to continue walking everywhere, proud that he was leading his own life and was not beholden to the father. And as he walked the streets of the town, the townsfolk shook their heads and said, “That poor boy. The father does not love him like the other son for, see, he is still having to walk everywhere.”

The townsfolk of that story are a lot like the Calvinists. They see one person with the father’s gift and believe that shows his love for that son. And they see the other son without a gift and presume that is because the father has not chosen to bless that son. But the simple fact is the father had given the same gift to both sons. One chose to accept it; the other chose to reject it. End of story. The views of the townfolk were in error.

So too, God the Father has given the gift of salvation to the entire world; sadly, only some choose to accept it. This does not mean that God only intended his gift for those who accept it. He intended it for everybody. That many reject it in no way changes that fact. Salvation is for all. Only those who finally and utterly reject it cannot receive it and therefore die in their sins.


Irresistible Grace

The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics says that

“The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!”​

Certainly it is possible to see from the verses above how someone could view God’s grace as being imposed on the recipients. But this is demonstrably erroneous. A proper review of Scripture shows that irresistible grace is not—nor could it ever be—the case. God gave man free will. Under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, Moses said to the people of Israel:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live … (Deuteronomy 30:19).”​
Now, that would be a rather silly thing to say if the people had no choice. Further, under the same anointing Joshua said to the people of Israel:

“Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell (Joshua 24:15).”​

If they had no free will, it would have been equally silly for God to have had Joshua say that. And God never says anything foolish.

When He set blessings and curses before the people of Israel, He was giving them a very real choice. They were free to make their own choice and God accepted whatever choice they made, regardless of how foolish it may have been. Now that didn’t mean that He would sit back and not try to bring circumstances into their lives that would cause them to voluntarily turn back to Him; but He did not force or coerce them into repentance. He simply let them reap the results of their choice. Our God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He did not give Israel choices which He withholds from the rest of the world. Love that is compelled is not love.

Unfortunately, when Calvin developed his doctrines he lived in a world-wide culture that fully understood (and lived under) an absolute monarchy. A monarch was sovereign in every degree. No sovereign could truly be sovereign if members of his or her realm could refuse the sovereign’s commands and substitute their own. It was this view that colored the view of John Calvin (and many other reformers) regarding the sovereignty of God. They believed that if a man could refuse the will of God, then God could not be God. Hence, by their logic, man could not have free will if God was to have true sovereignty.

Again man painted God in his own image. The fact is that God’s sovereignty is shown to its uttermost in the fact that God can allow man to have his own free will and yet in no way weaken His sovereignty. In fact, God’s sovereignty is magnified by the fact that nothing man does can threaten or weaken it in any way. The simple fact is that God’s omnipotence is such that, regardless of what man or Satan does, He will work it all to His glory and the furtherance of His Kingdom. God’s will shall remain supreme despite allowing Satan and man to have their ways.


Perseverance of the Saints

This is the final point of Calvinism. It is a doctrine which states simply—

“… that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect. (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics)

Well, here is where—if this were the only point of Calvinism—I could be a Calvinist. Indeed, God WILL NOT LOSE one who comes to Him. ALL who accept Christ will be kept forever, because it is God who does both the initial work and the continuing work in the saint.

John 6:39 “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”​
1 Corinthians 1:8 “God will sustain you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”​
Colossians 1:22 “But now He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence.”​
Philippians 2:13 “God is the One working in you both to will and to work according to His good pleasure.”​
2 Timothy 1:12 “I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.”​
Philippians 1:6 “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”​

To support the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, the Calvinists have many of the right verses. But they impose on those verses the erroneous doctrine of limited atonement. And in so doing they further pervert the gospel of universal grace offered, man being free to choose it or reject it.

Before I leave this point, may I suggest that the idea of “the perseverance of the saints” is inextricably intertwined with the idea of “the preservation of the saints”? What do I mean? I mean that we persevere because God saves us, He indwells us, He works in us, He keeps us, and above all He guarantees to present us faultless before His throne in Glory (Jude 1:24). Glory to His Name!!!


Conclusion:

Calvinism as it is believed and practiced today does not—nor can it—stand on bare Scripture. It can only stand as man redefines the meanings of words and adds his own conditions to God’s statements. And ultimately it utterly fails, not just on the basis of Scripture alone but on the basis of the character of God as revealed in Scripture.

God gave us the ten commandments not simply as a set of rules to live by but as a revelation of His character. When He calls on us to live justly and with love, He says so because He is both just and love. If we are to be in communion with Him, we must be like Him. He is the pure and holy one who is perfect love and perfect justice. He gives with no thought of return in mind and has no respect for a person’s status or self-view but only looks at the heart; and He responds freely and willingly to all who seek Him. In no way would this God impose standards of selfless love for ALL mankind (remember the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan) but then choose to act toward many whom He created without that same love … simply because He is God and sovereign and can do what He wills.

God will not act contrary to His revealed character. He is the God of Perfect Love and Perfect Justice. The doctrine of the Calvinists denies this … regardless of their disclaimers and repudiation of the charge.

No, there is no truth in the idea of the total depravity of man. But there is truth in the idea of the depravity of man. However, we have seen in Scripture that it is not total. Man can still seek God, despite his depravity. Indeed, God expects him to do so.

No, there is no truth in the idea of unconditional election. There is, however, truth in the idea of election according to God’s foreknowledge. In other words, God by His omniscience foreknows who will accept Him and what it will take in their life to bring them to that point. And He determines to do all necessary to get them to that point where they can exercise their free will and accept Him once they realize who He is and what they are. Those whom He foreknows will NEVER accept Him regardless of what He does (short of compelling them to accept Him) He does not put the same effort into. And that is not unjust in the least. The injustice is purely on the part of the man or woman who rejects all that God has done for them.

No, there is no truth to the idea of limited atonement, in the sense that the atonement is limited only to God’s elect. But there is a limitation to the effectiveness of the atonement— it can only be effective for those who accept it. It is of absolutely of no value to the rebel who rejects it.

No, there is no truth whatsoever to the idea of irresistible grace. It is an erroneous doctrine that is predicated on the human concept of the absolute sovereignty of God combined with the idea of the total depravity of man.

Yes, there is great truth to the idea of the perseverance of the saints and, I like to add, to the truth of the preservation of the saints.

I think if you prayerfully consider this topic, leaving aside all preconceptions (either for or against), asking God to guide you, and then undertake a study of the character of God as revealed in Scripture along with the verses used by both sides, you will definitely come to the belief that the Calvinist gospel as proclaimed today is in sufficient error as to be rejected by necessity in order to preserve the faith once delivered. (Jude 1:3). Therefore, let us fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12).

I pray this all helps someone.
Amen, amen

Absolute perfect description and interpretations of a theological belief and truly why not to embrace.

Ironically my church still subscribes to such, though the weekly sermons do not exactly reflect the predestined belief as much as they used to?

As a brand new newbie here, I so appreciate your posting this.

Many blessings.
 
Thanks @Waiting for this post. I had visited this thread in the past, but had not slpent too much time on it. Mostly because I have had an extensive background with this issue. And have posted in ways related in different threads in this forum, so kind of wanted this to not have too many posts from me (whom would naturally be all over this). I just wanted to honor this sort of thread from its OP. So I appreciate this post. It actually provided an opportunity to revisit this thread and I know I read it before, but I think it would be good too for me to read it a bit more. So thanks for the encouragement to do so. Amen.

In just starting to revisit, there is mention of John 6:44 as implied as ongoing even unto today. I was surprised to learn years ago how much evangelicalism in general has been influenced in the West by reformed thought. It is in our evangelical bloodstream. At this brief interject, I would just say that I believe their is a way God has to be involved in moving hearts to notice Him. Because we are pretty thick in our unbelieving state. One helpful theme regarding John 6:44 that I picked up a long the way that I also found helpful was in notice of how transitional Christ's ministry was. A ministry of moving us from point A to point B. And in that transition there would be much profound theology to discover. But there is also aspects of its transitional effect theologically as well, I believe too, from what I can tell.

The way I would understand John 6:44, would be transitional, although in intent it would carry over till today as well. In John 12, there is a similar idea mirrored I believe: John 12:32 "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” With the "transitional" value perhaps being one of connected consistency. In the first century it would seem very important for such an overhaul of OT thought to become an entirely new covenant. Of course, only God Himself could pull that off. In part, John 6 seems to display the connection Jesus makes with the Father. That He is not something different. And that those who actually did follow the Father, would also follow the Son. A connection the pharisees missed. Yet, Christ would underscore the significance of. In other words, if the pharisees were really following the Father, they would have recognized Jesus as the Son kind of theme.

So when we get John 12, we see the world of the Father drawing being granted now to the Son. To me this demonstrates articulation in theological transition. That the Father drew, yes, but now the Son does the drawing. Well this is how I have come to understand John 6 in relation to John 12. @mattfivefour Pastor Adrain perhaps this might have a seat at the theological consideration table. But since you had been effected by Calvinism in your own walk, it would be of helpful import too to ask you if this might make exegetical sense from your perspective? For me, it has been helpful to glean insights from a number of sources in the evangelical world. So yeah it would be helpful to consider how this might come across for you dear brother as well. I might not be considering something in all of this, or perhaps it might make theological sense. So yeah just asking.

But I am interested to look a bit more into this thread because it has been quite a long and winding road for me out of the auspices of reformed thought. And again, thanks @Waiting for a renewed interest here. And that you find a blessed home here in your orientation to this very blessed family forum, amen.
 
Thanks @Waiting for this post. I had visited this thread in the past, but had not slpent too much time on it. Mostly because I have had an extensive background with this issue. And have posted in ways related in different threads in this forum, so kind of wanted this to not have too many posts from me (whom would naturally be all over this). I just wanted to honor this sort of thread from its OP. So I appreciate this post. It actually provided an opportunity to revisit this thread and I know I read it before, but I think it would be good too for me to read it a bit more. So thanks for the encouragement to do sonao. Amen.

In just starting to revisit, there is mention of John 6:44 as implied as ongoing even unto today. I was surprised to learn years ago how much evangelicalism in general has been influenced in the West by reformed thought. It is in our evangelical bloodstream. At this brief interject, I would just say that I believe their is a way God has to be involved in moving hearts to notice Him. Because we are pretty thick in our unbelieving state. One helpful theme regarding John 6:44 that I picked up a long the way that I also found helpful was in notice of how transitional Christ's ministry was. A ministry of moving us from point A to point B. And in that transition there would be much profound theology to discover. But there is also aspects of its transitional effect theologically as well, I believe too, from what I can tell.

The way I would understand John 6:44, would be transitional, although in intent it would carry over till today as well. In John 12, there is a similar idea mirrored I believe: John 12:32 "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” With the "transitional" value perhaps being one of connected consistency. In the first century it would seem very important for such an overhaul of OT thought to become an entirely new covenant. Of course, only God Himself could pull that off. In part, John 6 seems to display the connection Jesus makes with the Father. That He is not something different. And that those who actually did follow the Father, would also follow the Son. A connection the pharisees missed. Yet, Christ would underscore the significance of. In other words, if the pharisees were really following the Father, they would have recognized Jesus as the Son kind of theme.

So when we get John 12, we see the world of the Father drawing being granted now to the Son. To me this demonstrates articulation in theological transition. That the Father drew, yes, but now the Son does the drawing. Well this is how I have come to understand John 6 in relation to John 12. @mattfivefour Pastor Adrain perhaps this might have a seat at the theological consideration table. But since you had been effected by Calvinism in your own walk, it would be of helpful import too to ask you if this might make exegetical sense from your perspective? For me, it has been helpful to glean insights from a number of sources in the evangelical world. So yeah it would be helpful to consider how this might come across for you dear brother as well. I might not be considering something in all of this, or perhaps it might make theological sense. So yeah just asking.

But I am interested to look a bit more into this thread because it has been quite a long and winding road for me out of the auspices of reformed thought. And again, thanks @Waiting for a renewed interest here. And that you find a blessed home here in your orientation to this very blessed family forum, amen.
Thank you TCC.

There are two points of specific interest I seem to gravitate towards and actually have a thirst to learn all viewpoints. This is one of them and defending the Trinity is another. (Yes, there are others but these are the ones that I am pulled to.

I shall try my best not not stick my foot in my mouth too often.

I look forward to reading more from you.
 
The way I would understand John 6:44, would be transitional,
I can see that, yet in this chapter the Jewish leaders were bitterly rejecting Him.

John 6:26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?



41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

What I’ve learned is that in contrast to the Jewish leaders hardening their hearts in doubt to anyone who responds to being taught by God responds also to the Holy Spirit convicting us to trust that Jesus is who He says He is and brings us home to our Father.
 
I can see that, yet in this chapter the Jewish leaders were bitterly rejecting Him.

John 6:26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?



41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

What I’ve learned is that in contrast to the Jewish leaders hardening their hearts in doubt to anyone who responds to being taught by God responds also to the Holy Spirit convicting us to trust that Jesus is who He says He is and brings us home to our Father.
In this way Hollie, amen. Because of John 16:8, this is certainly how the spirit works upon the unbelieving. So I concur that the spirit does do much actively upon the human heart in our age. For the bible tells us so. Amen. I am not aware though that it says the spirit draws us. This may be a technical point. So if you find one, please let me know. I'd be interested. The one I am aware of in contrast to my statement here is: Romans 2:4. But this is God in general.

I bring that up for display of an interesting point. The Calvinistic claim that God has to make us a new creation first before we can receive Christ seems to have grand overtones of the gnostic view that all flesh (or all of the physical) = evil and only the spirit is good. Which is why Gnostics could not see Christ come in the flesh. We are fallen. But the way i see our ability to respond to Christ is based on God already making the first move. He provided us His Son & the completed canon...which is His spirit. That is sufficient to move the heart of His creation. When viewed this way it is understandable how Christ and the word is downplayed in order to fasten down a fleshy theology that does not see Christ and God's word to us as enough power to reach His creation. In that sense, all have been moved. We have different soils. Whoever rejects Christ does so on their own. This is why they are judged, I believe.

On John 6, this chapter was eye opening to me in ways unlike any other chapter. Because in John 6:66 it talks about disciples no longer walking with Him because He would not be their food genie. The Calvinist uses this to prove false conversion. Because of the term "disciples." But nowhere in this chapter do we see anything from this crowd resembling following Christ because He was messiah. So in what way are they false? In John 6:66, we see their true motive. They never believed. Early on Jesus knew they wanted to take him by force. The reason i bring that up is because these are not misled converts. These are fleshy Jews that just wanted what they wanted and saw Christ as their aim. In Evangelicalism, anyone who is led to Christ to save from their sins and give eternal life is not anywhere near what we see in John 6. Yet Calvinism would champion the food genie seekers as you and me hopeful to believe upon an eternal food Himself, Christ. They are not the same.

I agree Hollie that there are leaders that had issues with Christ in this area. But in this crowd, the issue of "Drink my blood, eat my flesh, crowd" i don't believe this was a leadership contrast issue. But those of the commons with bad faith. What I believe we are shown is that there were those that come to the Son Jesus only so if the Father brings Him" to be exclusive to the 1st century. I suppose we could say that any Israeli that breaks past the partial hardening today could in a sense be led by the Father in their understanding of the OT sense, or the Spirit in this way, to see that as it was with the Father it was also with Christ. But i believe the meaty portion of the reference to the Father drawing is more like this: "You people of the first century think my claims are outside of scripture. But I tell you, that the only way you can believe in Me is if you knew the Father to begin with. You don't see Me as scriptural, because you don't know My Father. If you knew My Father, it would be clear to you who I AM." That, to me, is the exegetical driving principle of that theological statement. Christ came to Israel. This was not a batch of confused believers in Zeus and gentiles. Because of this I would not so much see too ongoingly a case that the Father draws now necessarily. Because Christ "draws" all men to Himself because it would appear He has been given the work of the Father. Similar to Christ's stance regarding the Sabbath. That Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath because as the Father works, so does Christ. So it was an identificational orientation of Christ as of the Father, in my estimation.

This connection for us 2k years later seems to fall into a theological category. But in a period of time when we are moving from an OT to an entirely NT motif, that is super huge. That is massive and 10.0 earthquake on the massive historical events in world history Richter scale. To me, the link to the Father was to affirm the validity of Christ's ministry moving forward. My point i guess there is, that American Calvinism will seem to always overlay their systematic theology on top of what is organically otherwise happening. And using "the Father" as the one to draw to Son for today is one way they interlock a seamless soteriological theology of theirs suggesting more significant lean toward the Father (because of their view on sovereignty). But by doing that, it tends to omit Christ as the One who draws now. Christ will always take a back seat to Father in American Calvinism, as i understand it. In terms of the trinity, we as evangelicals know this is true in one or "a" sense (that Christ as Son is sub to the Father, amen). But John Macarthur for a time believed that Jesus was not the Son of God eternal prior to the incarnation. He could not see Jesus as Son submitting to the Father, because admittedly Jmac could not see God submitting to Himself because He is sovereign. Later Jmac did recant of this view. But just like being chosen in eternity past mitigates away from the gospel to believe on the "work" of Christ, I would see similarly that where Calvinists in America can override a focus on the Son to be instead on the Father, they will. And they do. With the exception of theocast on youtube (which even though they are covenantalists seem to see quite a bit more anchored on dispensational perspectives than even dispensationalist often do. A quagmire...lol. But would be lengthy to explain. Just saying in general what i would understand is the Father has wanted in His word for us to have "honor" on the Son and His true role in order to see the Father. In American Calvinism it is kind of the other way around. If that makes sense? I'm not trying to jam up this thread with lengthy posts of mine. I just wanted to clarify where i was coming from on that point. if that makes sense is all. Blessings :heart:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hol
Back
Top