Im being attacked :'(

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Maglorius

Dave I have to say that you have a gross misunderstanding of what calvinism really is. Unfortunately you probably have had a bad experience with someone who did not espouse what the theology of calvinism really teaches. There is no way you could possibly listen to a preacher like John Piper and come away believing that calvinism supports a loveless God.

Now I know that this can turn into a long drawn out argument. I am not here to try and convince you of calvinism, but I would like to properly inform you of the teaching of Calvin and the like. These are secondary issues and we need not divide on them, but we do need to properly understand each other.

If a armenian like Greg Laurie and a calvinist like Mark Driscoll can get together on the same stage to preach the word of God, than we can also get together to discuss our theological differences.

At its heart, is it not the case, that Calvinism purports the belief that only a few people go to heaven. These people form what is called "the ellect" that is to say, those whom GOD has chosen from the begining of time to be with him forever.

It does not include everyone, and a person who becomes a member of the ellect is predestined to do so, and therefore is willed by GOD to accept his offer. Those who are not predestined, do not, and can not ever obtain Paradise. Their whole existance is a joke. They are created with the purpose of going to Hell. They have no Choice in this matter, for GOD, again, Wills it so.

There is thus NO love, for Love requires the open freedom to choose to accept GOD. Does that Acceptance save? Of course not, Only GOD saves, but he promises to save all who freely choose. His knowledge of the outcome does not mean he Wills, directly, an ellection of any kind.

Thus you have Robots, those who are preprogrammed to love GOD, and those who are not. Which negates the point of separation between Angels, who may love GOD in that way, and Humans, who must basically choose in the face of sin and death to do it out of choice. Does it harm GOD, not one bit. GOD forever puts off Judgement for later, so long as Judgement happens, and he also lays aside Majesty now and again, in order to do the most important things...often Salvation...like he did during the Incarnation, and during the Crucifixition, where he actively CHOOSES to not use the powers he is entitled to use momentarily.

How can you reconcile A GOD who wants love, but creates Robots? and what do you have to say to those who a Loving GOD deliberately made only for Hell...that is neither Justice Nor Love...and this is a salvation point...so it very much matters

Please let me know if Calvinists think other then the above on that issue. IMHO the Ellect are the promise to Israel, that a remenant of their number shall be saved. Most, if not all of these will be either 144 thousand from the Tribes, OR those few Biblical Greats prior to the Law who have been credited with Righteousness, due to the Crosses ressurectional power going backwards through time, as well as forwards from its date in chronology.

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

I bring my sister with me to church, she is getting married their next year, so at first she was putting in an appearence...but now, often she suggests that we should go. She travels all the way from leeds...40 mins away by car. Over the course of the last two years I have hoped that she would become a Christian.

But today was the first time I cried actually in church for a very long time...and it was because I fear that ive been hindered. By the church itself. It turns out that our Priest is raddically opposed to Calvanism (as am I) but he takes it to the extreme....for him...everyone goes to heaven no matter what they believe or who they are.

He ended his surmon by saying that the cross has been in vein if everything is not preserved...oh...that includes Lucifer.

I felt sick. My Sisters first words when she came out where "I've never heard a priest say that before, I thought I must have miss understood him"

but there is a more sinister aspect to this...which is why I feel it an attack, and not just an annoyance.

I used to be a Universalist myself. I spent a good three years believeing it, and preaching it myself in christian circles. I did it because I cant cope with the thought that someone I might know, and like, who is good, honnest, and moral, might not get to Heaven.

I only cope with it now, by not dwelling on it...and by trying my best not to do anything that might cause someone to reject GOD...and possibly end up in Hell. Its a sore subject for me...and the enemy knows it and the enemy used it.

I came down like a tonne of bricks on the priest afterwards...he's not at all repentant...and quite glad my sister found him contriversial enough to get her thinking.

Now I dont know what to do...my Sister wants to go again next week...she is so desperate to go that she cant make the morning, and wants to do the evening service instead...something we've never done. I dont really ever want to go or speak to that heretic of a priest again...but I will have to...she gets married in that church in about 9 months time...and besides...we're continuing our dialogue by email presently

The priest sounds like he is preaching the kind of liberal "gospel" H. Richard Niebuhr was describing when he wrote: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Yes it is. Read my Siggie...I think that Calvinism is nearly as bad as Universalism. One espouses that GOD doesnt want half of his creation, and one Espouses that GOD will have all his creation.

The Bible says niether. It says, to paraphrase, that those who Choose Life, those who Choose to believe in Christ, will have eternal life.

The mistake the Calvinists make is to think that because GODs omnipotence allows him to know who will make it in advance, that suddenly means its predetermined. That doesnt account for GODs love.

The mistake the Universalists make is to think that GOD couldnt possibly claim victory in the war, unless his entire creation is preserved. Therefore if the cross works, it has already saved everyone whether they accept Christ or not.

Armenianism...or at least thats what my Father tells me my view on this matter is....simply says Salvation is Possible for all, but not probable for all. It recongises that nothing we can do can save us...but in response to voluntarily choosing to accept Christ, which is an ability of ours due to free will, we can know, due to GODs promise, that we shall from that point on be predestined for Eternity, thanks to his enaction of a response. This response happened because GOD now owns, effectively, the lease on Hell...because Christ visited it, and thus, GOD being in a place where GOD isnt, instantly means that place can no longer exist, except by the will of GOD...which is in his nature...he would respect the wishes of a person who didnt want to be with him for eternity...and he respects the athiests also...for as Revelation shows...Hell itself is NOT eternal. It goes into the fire of Oblivion.

Hope that helps

Tyburn, I know you know this (I suspect you made a typing error and did not correct it), but for the benefit of people who do not know, it is Arminian or Arminianism (after the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius), rather than Armenian, which describes a church based in the country of Armenia.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Play The Man

Tyburn, I know you know this (I suspect you made a typing error and did not correct it), but for the benefit of people who do not know, it is Arminian or Arminianism (after the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius), rather than Armenian, which describes a church based in the country of Armenia.

oooops...finger slip

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

At its heart, is it not the case, that Calvinism purports the belief that only a few people go to heaven. These people form what is called "the ellect" that is to say, those whom GOD has chosen from the begining of time to be with him forever.

It does not include everyone, and a person who becomes a member of the ellect is predestined to do so, and therefore is willed by GOD to accept his offer. Those who are not predestined, do not, and can not ever obtain Paradise. Their whole existance is a joke. They are created with the purpose of going to Hell. They have no Choice in this matter, for GOD, again, Wills it so.

There is thus NO love, for Love requires the open freedom to choose to accept GOD. Does that Acceptance save? Of course not, Only GOD saves, but he promises to save all who freely choose. His knowledge of the outcome does not mean he Wills, directly, an ellection of any kind.

Thus you have Robots, those who are preprogrammed to love GOD, and those who are not. Which negates the point of separation between Angels, who may love GOD in that way, and Humans, who must basically choose in the face of sin and death to do it out of choice. Does it harm GOD, not one bit. GOD forever puts off Judgement for later, so long as Judgement happens, and he also lays aside Majesty now and again, in order to do the most important things...often Salvation...like he did during the Incarnation, and during the Crucifixition, where he actively CHOOSES to not use the powers he is entitled to use momentarily.

How can you reconcile A GOD who wants love, but creates Robots? and what do you have to say to those who a Loving GOD deliberately made only for Hell...that is neither Justice Nor Love...and this is a salvation point...so it very much matters

Please let me know if Calvinists think other then the above on that issue. IMHO the Ellect are the promise to Israel, that a remenant of their number shall be saved. Most, if not all of these will be either 144 thousand from the Tribes, OR those few Biblical Greats prior to the Law who have been credited with Righteousness, due to the Crosses ressurectional power going backwards through time, as well as forwards from its date in chronology.

Tyburn, it is apparent to me from reading your posts and your signature that you have not actually read Calvin's Institutes of The Christian Religion. You should be intellectually honest and admit this before you make a general authoritative pronouncement, such as you did in your signature. C.S. Lewis wrote an introduction to an edition of On The Incarnation by Athanasius. The essay is sometimes called "On The Reading Of Old Books". The following quote is the opening paragraph of that essay:

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire. (PTM - Tyburn, you should substitute Calvin for Plato, the Institutes for the Symposium, and Calvinism for Platonism)

Your caricature of Calvinism owes more to Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger than Calvin's Institutes. If you want to make pronouncements on a subject, please take the advice of Lewis and read the original "old book" rather than a modern criticism. If you do read the Institutes, you may not accept Calvin's theology, but you will at least be awestruck by how thoroughly and carefully he wrestled with Scripture as well as the writings of the Church Fathers, pagan philosophers and the theologians of his day.
At a minimum, I would suggest reading J. I. Packer's (an English Anglican theologian residing in Canada) introduction to Owen's The Death of Death. I have linked it. http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/othe...thofdeath.html

Packer summarizes the position of the Remonstrants:

The theology which it contained (known to history as Arminianism) stemmed from two philosophical principles: first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal. Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions: (1.) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor (2.) is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it. (3.) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe. (4.) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. (5.) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost. Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his own, not God’s in him.

To the contrary, the Synod of Dort stated that:

The Synod of Dort was convened in 1618 to pronounce on this theology, and the “five points of Calvinism” represent its counter-affirmations. They stem from a very different principle—the biblical principle that “salvation is of the Lord”; and they may be summarized thus: (1.) Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him. (2.) God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith and brought to glory. (3.) The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect. (4.) The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object. (5.) Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory. These five points are conveniently denoted by the mnemonic TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Preservation of the saints.

Tyburn, are you sure of your definition of the "elect"? I don't think even Arminians define the "elect" as you have. Here is how Packer describes the division:

God’s act of election was defined by the Arminians as a resolve to receive sonship and glory a duly qualified class of people: believers in Christ. This becomes a resolve to receive individual persons only in virtue of God’s foreseeing the contingent fact that they will of their own accord believe. There is nothing in the decree of election to ensure that the class of believers will ever have any members; God does not determine to make any man believe. But Calvinists define election as a choice of particular undeserving persons to be saved from sin and brought to glory, and to that end to be redeemed by the death of Christ and given faith by the Spirit’s effectual calling. Where the Arminian says: “I owe my election to my faith,” the Calvinist says: “I owe my faith to my election.” Clearly, these two concepts of election are very far apart.

Additionally, Tyburn, did love exist before the creation? Did the Holy Spirit have "an open freedom to choose" to love The Son? Did The Father have "an open freedom to choose" to love The Son? It is my understanding that Christianity is unique in that the doctrine of The Trinity allows for love to be eternal in that because The Trinity is eternal and each person of The Trinity loves the other persons of The Trinity, love has always existed, even before the Creation (and hence creatures).

[Tyburn]

Love inside and outside of the Trinity is different. Just like Self Love and Love of another is different

Look, I know that I dont like Extreme Calvinism, because what I said, is whats at its core.

But as everyone seems to be upset about the siggie...do we have some closet calvinists I shall remove the siggie presently

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Love inside and outside of the Trinity is different. Just like Self Love and Love of another is different

Look, I know that I dont like Extreme Calvinism, because what I said, is whats at its core.

But as everyone seems to be upset about the siggie...do we have some closet calvinists I shall remove the siggie presently

Thank you, Tyburn. I was serious about reading The Institutes. It is quite long and the footnotes are mind boggling in their detail;however, it will get you to contemplate the sovereignty of God. You may not believe every statement in the book, but it will expand your knowledge and help you clarify your beliefs (it could make you even more of an Arminian).

[flo]

Well, I have no opinion and know next to nothing about Calvinism.

However, I'm glad to see PTM is back.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by flo

Well, I have no opinion and know next to nothing about Calvinism.

However, I'm glad to see PTM is back.

yes...its nice to see a friendly face return isnt it...and still on fine form we see

I have been trying to put together a informative response to Dave and am glad to see what PTM has put up. Anything that I was trying to put together probably would have only confused more than helped. I am now just reading the essay done by JI Packard. Just as a note. I was an arminian for most of my christian life until about 3 years ago, when I started to ask the question. Why do I love and believe in Jesus? Free will to me is a simple answer that only defines the how, but not the why. I began to read a lot of reformed theology books by RC Sproul and JI Packard(Knowing God) and thus came to the conclusion that God saved me. Calvinism does get alot of bad press, partly because know one tries to understand it and partly because there are some people that give it a bad name. ie hyper calvinists, which isn't calvinism at all.

I am not sure who said this quote, I think maybe John Piper. It is just something to think about. Is it, "I believe, so I am born again or Am I born again, so I Believe."