few questions regarding your articles on Calvinism

[email]

I have a few questions that I would like to ask you. Like most of the people who do come to your website I desire to know the truth. I stumbled upon your page where it talks about Calvinism. I don't think that you may be 100% correct.

I have a few questions about what you have written though:

Whenever repentance is preached, the alternative is typically taught as well. The warnings of sure punishment upon the unrepentant is found throughout the Bible. In fact, Jesus used the phrase "hell fire" more than any other preacher in the Bible.

Are you sure this is what we are to preach today. I know that John the Baptist taught to repent for the kingdom is at hand. I don't think that we can truly teach this concept anymore because, this kingdom that he spoke about is different than the Kingdom of God's people in the fact that Jesus offered the literal kingdom... soooo... How much does repentance play in our job in evangelism. If you were to look at the ministry of Jesus, I do not think that telling people about a fire hell was exactly what he did. When Jesus would heal people or forgive sins it was through faith because they knew that he was their savior, not because they feared a fire hell. The problem with trying to scare someone into salvation is that Jesus wants a relationship with us, and if we merely believe just because we don't want to go to hell, then I doubt we will produce good fruit. The reason I believe this is because if you are doing something in fear, there is absolutely no trace of love, just like Jesus called out the Pharisees for their worship was not from the honest heart.

Where does repentance fall when it comes to salvation?... My guess is that repentance happens at salvation. The changes that happens to us after we believe Christ is conforming to his image (Since this article is against Calvinist doctrine then I will leave out the part in the Bible where it says that we are predestined to be conformed to his image)

Next question:

Regardless of its noble intentions, Calvinism seems to have necessarily indited God with characteristics that He would condemn, even in His creation.

Why do you want to limit the power of God? Why shouldn't God condemn us all?
God has full authority to condemn everything that he has created because it has turned against him. In Ecclesiastics, Psalms (which the verse is used in Romans) tell us how that we all sin. Ok, well what is sin.... disobeying God. God gave the law in the Old Testament that says for this we deserve death. To deny this is denying the need for Jesus
Your page says this too "Calvinism teaches that God unfairly condemned the human race for sins that He prearranged and predetermined." How is this unfair? Romans 9 takes care of this answer. How much freedom does the pot over the potter? The Bible does also say that some clay is for noble use and some are well... not. Does this make unjust or unfair. Is there unrighteousness with not. Certainly not!

Next Question: Where is Calvinism does this occur? "Calvinism blames God for man's mistakes"

Total Depravity basically tells us differently. Need I say more?

Next Question: "It teaches that the guilt for the original sin was unfairly passed down through all generations, condemning children for sins they did not commit. This is also unfair. How can we use the words "equity", "fair", "right", and "just" to describe God's judgment according to Calvin? Compare Calvin's vision of God's judgment with the Bible's description:"

Okay, maybe it is just where I am a history student, but if you are going to make such a claim to this, you might want to cite your sources, it gives validaty to your arguement.

Moving on: "How can He arbitrarily choose who will go to heaven or hell regardless of their actions".... This is not biblical at all. What do our actions have to with salvation? Our actions are a work. If grace is through faith, not by works, then our actions have nothing to do with salvation at all. There is a wonderful story in the bible about two men. Jacob and Esau. There lives were planned out by God, why? Because he knew the situation in which he would most be glorified. Was it a choice of Esau to be born first, but have his younger brother run over him. No it was part of a sovereign plan of God did not arbitrarily chose, but decided in his infinite foreknowledge. Why? According to the good pleasure of his will.

There are so many more things that I could correct on this essay about "Why I am not a Calvinist" but I doubt you would be open to them so I want to leave you with this observation.

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you" John 15:16... Yes I know Jesus is talking to the disciples in this context.

The reason I point this out is that because of the word usage there. The word chose in Greek is "eklegomai" which means to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one's self.

It is very clear that Jesus hand picked his disciples and they had no say in being his disciples, they just dropped their nets and went. Why would I bring this word up? Because the disciples are no different than the church itself (when it comes to the calling). Don't believe me, then believe Paul. He used the same word in Ephesians 1:4 ( remember this is a letter written to a body of believes... yeah they were already saved) Here is the verse:

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love (NIV)

[email]

I sent you guys a responce a little over a week ago about your web page on calvinism and have not heard anything since. I know that you guys probably get Reform thinkers like me all the time trying to argue your page. Ok yeah, that's what theology students do. Well I have a few new questions few you guys that have nothing to do with... well theology... surprising I know, maybe it is because fall semester is over.

Ok, the first question that I have for you guys is... Even though we have almost completely different doctorine of how we got saved... we are both saved. I believe in Christ alone for salvation (right now it doesnt matter how) Well, if you do too, then.... WE ARE BROTHERS IN CHRIST, therefore... How can two people who have completely different doctorine unite for the cause of Christ. Honestly, what is more important, trying to argue things that have been argued for the past ummm? 500 years? really? Yeah, I know I am very guilty of this too... I just think that there has to be something else out there. Lately, I have been studying the Mormon Church and I see how much they have unity..... Does this make their theology correct... FAR FROM IT... , but this made me think, how can a religion that is basically ran by Satan, (and Paul even said "but even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8) be kind of successful with how they run their "ministries" Yeah, I do know that there are even division in that faith... but still.....

Look how divided the body of Christ is!!!!

Let me tell you what is going on in my church right now and you will proabably know why I am upset. One thing that I believe that God hates is divorce. I believe that there is a lack of good Christian counseling out there. People like you and me devote so much time in the Word of God that we can help... but what do I do? I get only and read arugments about how to defend my faith to Muslims, which is good in its own sence because I do love apologetics, but when is the last time that I had to deal with this situations compared to what is going on in my church that is on the brink of not having a pulse. There were 2 different couples that got a divorce at the sametime, well a man and a woman started dating the day the were finalized from two seperate divorces. The lady, our choir director. The man, drives a bus with the van ministry. This has been going on for 2 months now. What has happened. Everyone is afraid in the church to act. Since then, I went from having 7 to 10 kids in my middle school youth to zero (because some buddy doesn't drive the bus any more because he is with his new girlfriend) and our choir direct has not been to practice in 2 weeks (not because she has been helping her new man drive the bus either)

One of our girls in the youth group who is in the middle of all of this trying to kill herself. So what is our pastor doing... preaching messages every Sunday that are evanglical.... period. Yeah, I would like to say that he has been a vegitarian pastor as of late... no meat...!!! So what do I do about this? Should I look for another church? Should I just give up going to Churchs period and just spend time with God on sunday morning by myself? I ask myself questions like this all the time.

I think I have good answer to this question: 1 John 2:19... this is the way that God cleans house in the Church. ( My guess is that you probably don't have John Calvin's commentary on 1 John, but it gives a good treatment on this...haha)

I think it is time for Christians to unite and clean house. I am also a student at a university where I am history student and I can tell you that among my generation there is very little search for God.... many people are searching for truth, but they are not finding it, they are left with humanism that only lead to a selfish nature. Then this people leak into the church *much like the ones of 1 John 2:19.... This is why God cleans house....

Does God want a Theology or a Servent.......
I believe he wants both in one.... Remember we are serving God with our mind... but also our strength...

[m273p15c]

Typically we deal with inquiries on a "first come, first serve" basis, although we make exceptions based on difficulty and complexity. As you already surmised, we get a lot of inquiries on Calvinism, and they take some time in discussing.

You were "next" in my queue, but may I skip over the Calvinism part to discuss the more recent note? Maybe we can get back to Calvinism afterwards?

As a side note, the essay you found is a conclusion on an article series about Calvinism. Many of the questions you asked, included requests for historical references, are included in those. I would encourage you to read those carefully, while you are awaiting a response to your original questions. Here's the index to those articles:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... #calvinism

Do you mind if I skip over the Calvinism stuff for now, so I can address your more recent questions?

[email]

Yeah, I really don't care if we discuss calvinism or not, we are both kind of planted into our theology and I doubt that anyone will budget therefore there will be no profit in agruing it because it will just be usless emails....

[m273p15c]

I share many of your global concerns. Some times, it seems like God's kingdom is not winning the war - divisions, apostates, apathy... It is all very discouraging. However, you have to remember the theme of Revelation: Some victories are not apparent until the end. "Be thou faithful unto death" (Revelation 2:10; 12:11). ... Remember, Jesus destroyed the evil one by "losing", which caused the sheep to be scattered. Even today, this unorthodox victory disturbs many potential converts (I Corinthians 1:18-31). It is often when things look their bleakest, that they are in reality, their brightest (Zechariah 14:6-9). Just stick to the Shepherd, and it will work out for good, but you may have to be ready to pay the highest price.

I sent you guys a responce a little over a week ago about your web page on calvinism and have not heard anything since. I know that you guys probably get Reform thinkers like me all the time trying to argue your page. Ok yeah, that's what theology students do. Well I have a few new questions few you guys that have nothing to do with... well theology... surprising I know, maybe it is because fall semester is over. (Yeah, I go to Tri-State Bible College in South Point, Ohio.... tsbc.edu)

We do get a lot of discussions about Calvinism, and they tend to come in bursts, thanks to Google's page ranking methods. Anyway, I am in the process of finishing up two other similar discussions. Sorry it has taken so long to get to your questions, which I am glad to receive and consider with you.

Ok, the first question that I have for you guys is... Even though we have almost completely different doctorine of how we got saved... we are both saved. I believe in Christ alone for salvation (right now it doesnt matter how) Well, if you do too, then.... WE ARE BROTHERS IN CHRIST, therefore... How can two people who have completely different doctorine unite for the cause of Christ. Honestly, what is more important, trying to argue things that have been argued for the past ummm? 500 years? really? Yeah, I know I am very guilty of this too...

In some sense, we may be brothers. We do both claim Jesus Christ as Lord, but sadly, our "theological" differences are far more divisive than it first appears. Let's say you and I attended the same church, and we shared the pulpit. Now, a stranger walks in and asks, "What must I do to be saved?" We might both talk about Jesus coming to earth, living a perfect life, dying on the cross, resurrecting the third day, and finally ascending to sit at the Father's right hand - but, what next? I would turn to passages like: Acts 2:37-38, where people asked similar questions and Paul instructed them to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins". I would turn to Romans 10:9-10 to instruct them to confess the Lord's name. What would you say, after you picked your jaw up off the floor? How could we work together when we adhere, advise, and defend two wildly different gospels, where one is based on unconditional election, while the other has conditional requirements?

You see, the theological differences drive vastly different practical differences. Without prejudicing either side, the Scriptures tell us that true doctrine leads to godliness and purity, while false doctrine leads to immorality (I Timothy 1:3-7; II Timothy 2:16-18). Even though we may not perceive the long range effects, we should not deny the Scriptures warning of permitting false doctrine to run free.

Beside the practical differences, we are not permitted to just "agree to disagree". In regards to contentions and divisions, we must first be "pure", then "peaceable" (James 3:15-18). Peace is desirable, but we cannot compromise God's Word. I cannot and would not ask you to compromise your convictions for the sake of unity. Instead, we must try to teach each other! The gospel can tear down the barriers that separate and unite us, if we put our faith in God and love truth supremely (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; II Corinthians 10:3-5).

I just think that there has to be something else out there. Lately, I have been studying the Mormon Church and I see how much they have unity..... Does this make their theology correct... FAR FROM IT... , but this made me think, how can a religion that is basically ran by Satan, (and Paul even said "but even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8) be kind of successful with how they run their "ministries" Yeah, I do know that there are even division in that faith... but still.....

Yikes! Close call -- yes, I would agree with your conclusion. Just keep in mind that numbers don't mean anything with God (I Samuel 14:6; Luke 13:23-24; I Peter 3:20). God has generally worked with a "remnant" ...

Look how divided the body of Christ is!!!!

Yes, division is a shame, but on some level, the true body of Christ is not divided (Matthew 16:18)! But, back to your concern, yes the division we see is horrible, and we must do all that we can to fix it. This is one of the primary driving forces of this web-site - to promote unity:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... html#unity

Let me tell you what is going on in my church right now and you will proabably know why I am upset. One thing that I believe that God hates is divorce.

Agreed (Malachi 2:16; Matthew 19:1-9).

I believe that there is a lack of good Christian counseling out there. People like you and me devote so much time in the Word of God that we can help... but what do I do? I get only and read arugments about how to defend my faith to Muslims, which is good in its own sence because I do love apologetics, but when is the last time that I had to deal with this situations compared to what is going on in my church that is on the brink of not having a pulse. There were 2 different couples that got a divorce at the sametime, well a man and a woman started dating the day the were finalized from two seperate divorces. The lady, our choir director. The man, drives a bus with the van ministry. This has been going on for 2 months now. What has happened. Everyone is afraid in the church to act. Since then, I went from having 7 to 10 kids in my middle school youth to zero (because some buddy doesn't drive the bus any more because he is with his new girlfriend) and our choir direct has not been to practice in 2 weeks (not because she has been helping her new man drive the bus either)
One of our girls in the youth group who is in the middle of all of this trying to kill herself. So what is our pastor doing... preaching messages every Sunday that are evanglical.... period. Yeah, I would like to say that he has been a vegitarian pastor as of late... no meat...!!! So what do I do about this? Should I look for another church? Should I just give up going to Churchs period and just spend time with God on sunday morning by myself? I ask myself questions like this all the time.

Ugh, this sounds like a terrible situation! I would look for a better church, one that taught the "whole gospel" and did not tolerate egregious sins (Acts 20:26-27; I Corinthians 5).

In regards to the "whole gospel", I believe that Calvinism ultimately provides a license to sin. The good-hearted soul, such as yourself, may not work it through to see that conclusion. But, the fleshly minded individual will eventually say to himself, "Hey, if I'm elect it doesn't matter what I do, and if I'm reprobate, it doesn't matter either, so why don't I just go ahead this one time and ... God doesn't really care about me. He's just seeking His own glory, and either way, I'll add to His glory by committing this sin, so ...". The true gospel provides motivation for both people: carnal and spiritual, through the fear/reward and love. Anyway, I think we must ultimately discuss Calvinism, because it drives so many practical points on my advice, I would be failing to speak "the whole counsel of God" to even temporarily advise you with my eyes closed to this.

No, we must not meet in our homes. Although it may be good for us temporarily, it is not what our Lord wants of us -- What about that girl who is trying to kill herself? What will you be able to do for her, if you start "assembling" in your home by yourself? One of the primary motivations for assembly is to "provoke one another to love and good works" (Hebrews 10:24-25). ... Difficulties make us all wonder some time, but love drives us back to make a difference for the sake of others.

I think I have good answer to this question: 1 John 2:19... this is the way that God cleans house in the Church. ( My guess is that you probably don't have John Calvin's commentary on 1 John, but it gives a good treatment on this...haha)

Yes, I agree with your assessment as stated. There are definitely "tares" among the "wheat", which God separates on occasion, even before the great Judgment. In fact, I would use this verse as proof-text to that point!

I think it is time for Christians to unite and clean house. I am also a student at Marshall University where I am history student and I can tell you that among my generation there is very little search for God.... many people are searching for truth, but they are not finding it, they are left with humanism that only lead to a selfish nature. Then this people leak into the church *much like the ones of 1 John 2:19.... This is why God cleans house....

Here! Here!! I got one other "source" for you. How about all the people who "grow up in the church"? They go through the motions, doing what their parents do, and pretty much for that reason alone. Peer pressure keeps them in, but they are never truly converted. They are ripe for the wind, unless something changes their mind (Ephesians 4:14-15). When the wind comes, the chaff leave...

Now, how do you propose we clean house? I am all for unity. Please read the three articles I provided earlier. They are brief, and easy reading I think, but then again, I'm a little prejudiced on them. But, where do we go from here? "How can two walk together unless they agree?" (Amos 3:3).

For you and me, I think we need to work through our differences. I am confident that if our hearts are the same, if we both love God and truth supremely, then we can understand God's Word (Ephesians 3:3-5). However, the price may be high - for both of us, but the reward is higher still (Matthew 10:34-39; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12-13).

For you and the church you attend, I would say, get in there and "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 1:3). Try to make a difference!! God can save by many or by few (I Samuel 14:6). The story of David and Goliath is not just meant to be a good bed-time story. Obviously, I believe you should ultimately attend another local church for many reasons, including theological, but you cannot operate based on my conscience (Romans 14:20-23). Until I can persuade you otherwise, you have an obligation to the flock in which you have thrown in your lot (Galatians 6:1-2; James 5:19-20; I John 3:11-18). You should leave only if you are convinced the "candlestick has been removed" (Revelation 2:5), your spiritual health cannot take the desert any longer (your spiritual health first - Matthew 10:34-39), you are forced to fellowship/support sin by staying (II John 9-11), or the spiritual health of others comes into play (I Corinthians 8, 10; Romans 14). Even then, in exit, you must be sure to help those remaining few or innocent ones, "who have not defiled their garments" (Revelation 3:4).

Does God want a Theology or a Servent.......
I believe he wants both in one.... Remember we are serving God with our mind... but also our strength...

I couldn't have said it better myself (Matthew 22:37-39; Romans 12:1-2). In the end, pure religion produces good works in the true believer - not just good "words" (James 1:26-27; 2:14-26; Titus 2:11-14). We have to get the inside right as well as the outside right (Matthew 23:23 - "These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone").

[m273p15c]

Yeah, I really don't care if we discuss calvinism or not, we are both kind of planted into our theology and I doubt that anyone will budget therefore there will be no profit in agruing it because it will just be usless emails....

Well, that kind of throws a wet blanket on the email I just sent. Oh well, I value our unity tremendously. I want to discuss Calvinism, but only if you can promise me you will come with an open mind.

I wrestle with each individual email, argument, and Bible passage I receive. Consequently, it takes me a while to respond to emails, while most everybody else skims my stuff, never reading the Bible references, and answers back in a few minutes... Alas! But, my point is that I deliberately open my mind to everything I read! I can promise you that I will be open-minded, although I cannot promise you will agree that I am. Also, I can promise you that I will be kind, although I will hold your feet to the fire, as I expect would you to do the same for me (Proverbs 27:17).

However, if you are not going to approach it with an open mind, we would be wasting your time, and I should just direct you to the articles now, allowing you to politely ignore me, and leave it at that.

It's your call. The articles are there. They are relatively brief. I wrote them, so they represent my thoughts well. What do you think? Would you read my response to your questions? I'm not so thrilled at the prospect now, but I would cherish the opportunity, if you were open to earnest Bible study.

[email]

Yes, I guess you are right that we would definitely not be able to share the same pulpit because of reasoning over Baptism. My jaw may be on the floor, not because I am surprised because I didn’t know that, but surprised that someone could believe the fact that Jesus death “finish” work on the cross is not enough for salvation. If you are to look at the passage of when Jesus is on the cross, he says "It is accomplished" this is an accounting term that means that the debt had been paid. Ephesians 2:8-9" For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast." My favorite part of this verse is... this is not from yourselves. To me this basically shows us that we don't really have much to do with our salvation, or I would even go as far as saying nothing to do with it at all. If you are going to tell me that you think you need to be baptized in order to be saved, you are basically telling me that Christ death on the cross saved no one. Yes, I have seen Act 2:38-39, and I know the language that is translated there, but if you go back to the Greek you will see that the word "for" can be translated to "with view to" so basically baptism is a declaration of what Christ had done for us. It is a command from God, but not a command for salvation. Someone who is saved and has not been baptized is living outside the will of God.

I think that this same problem we see here with baptism was going on in the time Paul wrote the first epistle to the church at Corinth. He said " For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless” 1:17 ... The issue was not the baptism that separated them, but names such as Apollo’s or Paul though, but baptism seem to be a problem. I love the fact that Paul said to preach the gospel because it shows that it is a bigger concern than baptism. Like I said early if you want to add to the finish work of Christ, then you are trying to forfeit the end of this verse... making the cross of Christ useless. And this is probably one of the reasons that I am a Calvinist, even though St. Augustine did talk about it before him, but even before him was Paul who did talk about election. I just use the term Calvinist because most people do know what Calvinist believe. I am happy to say that yes I do believe in unconditional election instead of requirements for salvation because I do not want to depend on myself for salvation. If you look at Matthew 9 “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven." This paralytic had nothing to do with this situation at all. The faith of their friends is what Jesus saw here, but he told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? How can this be, he did not make a choice, nor was there any water involve. Nope, you know what was involved, an All-Knowing Savior who was there before the foundation of the earth. "For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love" Ephesians 1:4 Therefore, since only God could forgive sin and Christ was God on earth in the form of a human, he did have the ability to do this, but how did he know this specific person? This paralytic like I said, did nothing to choose Christ. The reason why he could forgive this person's sins is because He knew him. How? He chose him before the foundation of the world. (Look back at the Ephesians verse) therefore God knows whom he has chosen. And the best part is the last part of the verse... he did it "in love", even though some see this has a horrible and egotistical thing to do, you have to remember, this is God who is doing this and not a person. He did it in love because He knew it was best.

I agree with this...the fleshly minded individual will eventually say to himself, "Hey, if I'm elect it doesn't matter what I do, and if I'm reprobate, it doesn't matter either, so why don't I just go ahead this one time and ... God doesn't really care about me. He's just seeking His own glory, and either way, I'll add to His glory by committing this sin, so ...".

Yeah, and 1 Corth 3 has a great treatment on this... The ones who are on the spiritual milk really do not understand their true purpose, doctrine, or have much of a clue what the Bible is really all about. If you are talking about unregenerate people, then I still agree with this comment for this reason... How many people seek God... zero... Romans 3:13... Those who are not born again do not seek God. This is later talked about in Romans 3, and continuing in the passage of 1 Corth 3 those who are not born again do not understand things of God because they do not have the Holy Spirit. This is why no one seeks after God because it does not make any sense to the carnal mind. If no one seeks God because of this carnal mind, then how would God anyone choice salvation if it made not sense to them???? This is how salvation comes forth….

So what do you say to a person who believes that "hey I am saved, therefore I can continue in my sin so you will add his glory... Instead of me answer it in my words, I will let Paul do the talking "Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more, so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? " Romans 5 and 6...

Even though I am predestined to heaven this does not give me any licence to sin. Jude also talks about this... "For certain men have secretly slipped in among you– men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil" Jude 4. By no means am I going to turn my back on God because I believe I am going to heaven no matter what. For those people who believe they can do whatever they want because they are an elect, do they truly love God? Jesus said "if you love me, then you will keep my commandments".... Why do we keep Jesus commands... out of love... not because we are afraid that we will fall from grace, but because we are so in love with Christ that we want to serve Him? Serving Christ is out of love, not in fear of losing our salvation. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. 45 The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love. “Therefore, Calvinism does not give you a license to since, it give you an obligation to love. This of this for a moment, God has hand picked you and wants to basically had you a gift that you do not desire nor deserve, not because of something you did, because he decided to give you this even before you were born, because he loves you and He will be glorified.... You would love God because He first loved you.

Yes, I guess you are right that we would definitely not be able to share the same pulpit because of reasoning over Baptism. My jaw may be on the floor, not because I am surprised because I didn’t know that, but surprised that someone could believe the fact that Jesus death “finish” work on the cross is not enough for salvation. If you are to look at the passage of when Jesus is on the cross, he says "It is accomplished" this is an accounting term that means that the debt had been paid. Ephesians 2:8-9" For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast." My favorite part of this verse is... this is not from yourselves. To me this basically shows us that we don't really have much to do with our salvation, or I would even go as far as saying nothing to do with it at all. If you are going to tell me that you think you need to be baptized in order to be saved, you are basically telling me that Christ death on the cross saved no one. Yes, I have seen Act 2:38-39, and I know the language that is translated there, but if you go back to the Greek you will see that the word "for" can be translated to "with view to" so basically baptism is a declaration of what Christ had done for us. It is a command from God, but not a command for salvation. Someone who is saved and has not been baptized is living outside the will of God.

I think that this same problem we see here with baptism was going on in the time Paul wrote the first epistle to the church at Corinth. He said " For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless” 1:17 ... The issue was not the baptism that separated them, but names such as Apollo’s or Paul though, but baptism seem to be a problem. I love the fact that Paul said to preach the gospel because it shows that it is a bigger concern than baptism. Like I said early if you want to add to the finish work of Christ, then you are trying to forfeit the end of this verse... making the cross of Christ useless. And this is probably one of the reasons that I am a Calvinist, even though St. Augustine did talk about it before him, but even before him was Paul who did talk about election. I just use the term Calvinist because most people do know what Calvinist believe. I am happy to say that yes I do believe in unconditional election instead of requirements for salvation because I do not want to depend on myself for salvation. If you look at Matthew 9 “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven." This paralytic had nothing to do with this situation at all. The faith of their friends is what Jesus saw here, but he told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? How can this be, he did not make a choice, nor was there any water involve. Nope, you know what was involved, an All-Knowing Savior who was there before the foundation of the earth. "For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love" Ephesians 1:4 Therefore, since only God could forgive sin and Christ was God on earth in the form of a human, he did have the ability to do this, but how did he know this specific person? This paralytic like I said, did nothing to choose Christ. The reason why he could forgive this person's sins is because He knew him. How? He chose him before the foundation of the world. (Look back at the Ephesians verse) therefore God knows whom he has chosen. And the best part is the last part of the verse... he did it "in love", even though some see this has a horrible and egotistical thing to do, you have to remember, this is God who is doing this and not a person. He did it in love because He knew it was best.
I agree with this...the fleshly minded individual will eventually say to himself, "Hey, if I'm elect it doesn't matter what I do, and if I'm reprobate, it doesn't matter either, so why don't I just go ahead this one time and ... God doesn't really care about me. He's just seeking His own glory, and either way, I'll add to His glory by committing this sin, so ...".

Yeah, and 1 Corth 3 has a great treatment on this... The ones who are on the spiritual milk really do not understand their true purpose, doctrine, or have much of a clue what the Bible is really all about. If you are talking about unregenerate people, then I still agree with this comment for this reason... How many people seek God... zero... Romans 3:13... Those who are not born again do not seek God. This is later talked about in Romans 3, and continuing in the passage of 1 Corth 3 those who are not born again do not understand things of God because they do not have the Holy Spirit. This is why no one seeks after God because it does not make any sense to the carnal mind. If no one seeks God because of this carnal mind, then how would God anyone choice salvation if it made not sense to them???? This is how salvation comes forth…

So what do you say to a person who believes that "hey I am saved, therefore I can continue in my sin so you will add his glory... Instead of me answer it in my words, I will let Paul do the talking "Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more, so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? " Romans 5 and 6...

Even though I am predestined to heaven this does not give me any licence to sin. Jude also talks about this... "For certain men have secretly slipped in among you– men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil" Jude 4. By no means am I going to turn my back on God because I believe I am going to heaven no matter what. For those people who believe they can do whatever they want because they are an elect, do they truly love God? Jesus said "if you love me, then you will keep my commandments".... Why do we keep Jesus commands... out of love... not because we are afraid that we will fall from grace, but because we are so in love with Christ that we want to serve Him? Serving Christ is out of love, not in fear of losing our salvation. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love. “Therefore, Calvinism does not give you a license to since, it give you an obligation to love. This of this for a moment, God has hand picked you and wants to basically had you a gift that you do not desire nor deserve, not because of something you did, because he decided to give you this even before you were born, because he loves you and He will be glorified.... You would love God because He first loved you.

[m273p15c]

I hope you had an enjoyable break. Before you get back to school, I wanted to offer you a few thoughts and questions, plus I wanted to address the questions you sent a while back.

Since you provided so much, and because I did not want to overlook anything, I will address your essential questions, point by point. I am not trying to dodge the "barb" on any of your questions, so if you feel that I do, please bring that to my attention, and I will be happy to address them specifically and directly.

We have both raised many points and questions; however, if we keep going at this rate, we will never get anywhere. Please allow me to suggest that we focus on reduced set of points, maybe just one or two. Although these sweeping overviews may be useful for orientation, they are not ultimately helpful for resolving anything. If you agree, please pick a point or question for the next discussion, so we can focus on that. Maybe you can pick a text, and I'll pick a text? So, that we can have a fair, but focused two-way discussion? I pray that this discussion will prove spiritually profitable, bringing us closer to Christ and thereby each other!

Independent of future discussions, here are my brief answers to your questions, plus a few observations.

May God help us to love truth supremely, no matter the cost.

... surprised that someone could believe the fact that Jesus death "finish" work on the cross is not enough for salvation. If you are to look at the passage of when Jesus is on the cross, he says "It is accomplished" this is an accounting term that means that the debt had been paid. Ephesians 2:8-9" For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast." My favorite part of this verse is... this is not from yourselves. To me this basically shows us that we don't really have much to do with our salvation, or I would even go as far as saying nothing to do with it at all.

I believe this interpretation assumes too much. It is reading too much into the word "finished". Or, more to the point, it is assuming too much meaning for the word "it". What was finished? You have assumed "it" was the payment for sins, which directly resulted in our salvation. Admittedly, this is one possible interpretation, but does the Scriptures indicate that the scheme of redemption was finished on the cross? What if Jesus was not resurrected? Would we have been saved if everything stopped after the cross?

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty . ... And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins ! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. ( I Corinthians 15:14-19)

If the thing finished was the payment of our debt, and there was nothing left to be done, then how could our sins still hinge on Christ's resurrection as Paul clearly states in the above passage? Yes, Christ's suffering, life, and satisfaction of Old Testament prophecy were all finished at the cross, but the Scriptures clearly show that something more was still required for us to be saved. Therefore, it is a Scripturally contradictory assumption to state that Christ finished everything related to our redemption upon the cross.

If you are going to tell me that you think you need to be baptized in order to be saved, you are basically telling me that Christ death on the cross saved no one.

Yes, Jesus' sacrifice was one link in a chain of many required events. If you are choking on that idea, go back to the resurrection. Furthermore, what about Jesus living a perfect life - was that required? What about the preaching of the gospel - does God require that? Do people have to hear the gospel? Do they have to believe? There are many pieces, or "links" in the chain of salvation. If you believe that God foreordained all these things, then the cross is insignificant too! If God made all these decisions, then we were saved before time began, when God made the decision. Are you comfortable with that reduction of the cross' significance? I do not see how you can logically avoid it.

This single point is not a question about the limit of God's power, but it is a question about choice - God's choice . I am not saying that God was powerless to save without our submission, but I am saying that the Scriptures reveal that persuasion of our free-will is part of the scheme God has chosen; therefore, we must follow it. Just because God could have saved us another way, we should not reject the gift given to us as revealed by Scripture.

One more caveat: Now, not all "links" are equal in this mighty chain. In fact our "link" in the chain is insignificant when compared with the many mighty "links" of God's doing, but nonetheless, I believe the Scriptures teach that God required at least one thing from us, if we desire to serve and please God (I Corinthians 4:1-2; Hebrews 11:6). However, for the sake of getting somewhere in this discussion, I would like to leave the number and identity of things generic for the moment. I just brought up baptism as one example to explain why we cannot be united in our present state.

Yes, I have seen Act 2:38-39, and I know the language that is translated there, but if you go back to the Greek you will see that the word "for" can be translated to "with view to" so basically baptism is a declaration of what Christ had done for us. It is a command from God, but not a command for salvation. Someone who is saved and has not been baptized is living outside the will of God.

I would like to avoid a general defense of baptism for the simple hope that we might first resolve the more fundamental source of division. Therefore, I will not press baptism, until we can resolve our differences regarding election. What is the point in discussing a particular condition for election, if we cannot agree if there are any conditions for election? ... However, I am conscience bound to answer the points you raise:

Even if the Greek can be translated "with a view to forgiveness of sins", it does not necessarily have to be translated that way. We must first look at the context! For example, the Greek in Acts 2:38 is identical to that found in Matthew 26:28 , and it reads:

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)

Now, did Jesus have to shed His blood because our sins had already been forgiven, or because the shedding of His blood was unto , towards, or for the remission of sins?

Looking back at the context of Acts 2, does the passage read like those Jews were already saved?

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, " Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. ... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
(Acts 2:36-41, 47b)

I believe the following contextually based questions demonstrate that these Jews were not saved preceding the command to be baptized, which proves that baptism was required for their salvation:

1. Peter's preceding statement (v.36) indited the Jews of profound guilt, the murder of God's Messiah! Yet, it offered no hope of forgiveness. If Peter was telling them they were already saved, why did they ask what they could do to escape this tremendous guilt (v.37)?
2. Does repentance precede their forgiveness? If repentance comes before forgiveness, then how could their sins have already been forgiven, when Peter was commanding them to repent?
3. Please notice that these Jews would not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit until after they had repented and were baptized ("you shall receive" - future tense). Can the Calvinist be forgiven of sins before He has received the Holy Spirit?
4. How could Peter exhort them to "be saved", a command which they were to perform, if they were already saved? Furthermore, how could they do anything to "save themselves", if they were all saved at the cross, or earlier?
5. What action do we see these Jews doing in response to Peter's command to "be saved" (NKJ, NAS, NAU, RWB, YLT) or "save yourselves" (KJV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NRS)?
6. Finally, if the Calvinist interpretation is correct, then "every one" of those Jews were already saved and forgiven of sins, because the command was given to every one ("let every one of you be baptized"). If Peter's command was based upon the eternal election and preceding forgiveness of sins, then everyone there must have necessarily been one of the elect and already saved! Yet, v.41 indicates that only some received the word of Peter and were baptized (reception limited to "those who gladly received his word "). How could some of the elect reject the gospel, if they were unconditionally elected and God's grace is irresistible?! Why did God's grace work on some of the elect and not others of the elect?
7. How were people "being saved", if they were already saved? How did the Lord add people to the universal church, if they were already part of the spiritual body from the beginning of time?

Everything in the context indicates that they were guilty of sin (lost), realized their sinful predicament, and were instructed how they could escape condemnation and receive forgiveness of sins, which command they obeyed and were then saved. I do not see anything in the context that indicates they were already saved, much less, independent of any action upon their part. Since the context shows that these Jews were not yet saved and in need of remission of sins, it would do great violence to the context to interpret eis as "with a view to". Rather, we should translate it according to the more common and more natural rendering, "for the purpose of", "unto", or "towards", or simply "for" as do the vast majority of reputable translations (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, NAU, NIV, NIB, NRS, WEB, RWB). What are the ground contextual grounds for translating eis as "with a view to", indicating they were already saved, except to maintain the integrity of Calvinism?

I think that this same problem we see here with baptism was going on in the time Paul wrote the first epistle to the church at Corinth. He said " For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless" 1:17 ... The issue was not the baptism that separated them, but names such as Apollo's or Paul though, but baptism seem to be a problem. I love the fact that Paul said to preach the gospel because it shows that it is a bigger concern than baptism. Like I said early if you want to add to the finish work of Christ, then you are trying to forfeit the end of this verse... making the cross of Christ useless.

Yes, I agree that baptism is not the ultimate aim, nor is it the central concern of the gospel, but it is not fair to argue that something is unessential just because it is not primary. For example, please consider other similar elliptical "not ... but" expressions:

"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." (John 6:27)

Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me . (John 12:44)

Is Jesus saying that we should not work to gain daily bread!? Or, is He saying that we should not believe in Him!? Obviously, no! These elliptical expressions set a precedence, priority, and emphasis. However, they do not necessarily eliminate the lesser in their effort to emphasize the greater. Likewise, baptism is not the essence of the gospel, but it would be grave mistake to assume it is unessential. If baptism is not part of the gospel, then why did the Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized only after Phillip "preached Jesus to him" (Acts 8:35-38)? Why does baptism appear in just as many Scriptural conversion stories as does belief, if not more? Furthermore, why did Paul baptize anybody, if Jesus sent him not to baptize? Did Paul disobey Jesus, when he baptized a few (I Corinthians 1:14-16 )? ... Any literal interpretation of I Corinthians 1:17 that ignores the clear elliptical nature of this language does great violence to both the immediate context and the greater context of Scripture!

And this is probably one of the reasons that I am a Calvinist, even though St. Augustine did talk about it before him, but even before him was Paul who did talk about election.

This is too brief to be a full defense, but just to make sure we are on the same page: I do agree that there is an election, because I agree that Paul taught about election, forordination, and predestination (Ephesians 1:3-11; Romans 8:28-30). However, I do not agree that Paul taught the election was unconditional or that the predestination was independent of our character and choices. I believe he elected us corporately in Christ, "in Him", as expressed in Ephesians 1:3-11 so many times. Our election is not individual, but corporate. The gospel calls to a certain type of individual, who has some measure of humility, honesty, and desire for things noble among other characteristics (I Peter 5:5-7; Luke 8:4-11; Acts 10:1-3; Matthew 4:23-5:9; I Thessalonians 2:9-12). Logically, when God defined the means ("in Him" ) and type of persons (humble, honest, open-minded, etc.), He foreordained us corporately and categorically. In as much as He foresaw and foreknew the consequences of those choices, He naturally foreknew us individually, as a logical consequence of both of our choices! ... I believe you are assuming that the election is unconditional and the predestination independent of our actions, just because you see the keywords "election" and "predestine" in 2-3 passages. Naturally, you will not agree with this statement, but hopefully it can give you some pause for thought and provide a springboard for further, more detailed dialog, explanation, and expounding.

I just use the term Calvinist because most people do know what Calvinist believe.

Sure, I understand that. That's the reason the article series is title "Calvinism" and not "Augustinism".

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... #calvinism

I am happy to say that yes I do believe in unconditional election instead of requirements for salvation because I do not want to depend on myself for salvation.

Not all alternatives to Calvinism put so much weight on us mortals, like the Jewish system of works and perfect law-keeping (Romans 4:4-5 ). I believe the required "works" are conditional, not meritorious (James 2:14-26). They perfect our faith, making it complete, which necessarily implies they require grace to be effective; otherwise, they would not make faith complete -- they would eliminate it! But, yet we see that our works make faith complete; therefore, the required works are not the meritorious works as defined in Romans 4:4-5, but are merely conditional for the justification of our faith.

If you look at Matthew 9 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven." This paralytic had nothing to do with this situation at all. The faith of their friends is what Jesus saw here, but he told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? How can this be, he did not make a choice, nor was there any water involve. Nope, you know what was involved, an All-Knowing Savior who was there before the foundation of the earth. "For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love" Ephesians 1:4 Therefore, since only God could forgive sin and Christ was God on earth in the form of a human, he did have the ability to do this, but how did he know this specific person? This paralytic like I said, did nothing to choose Christ. The reason why he could forgive this person's sins is because He knew him. How? He chose him before the foundation of the world.

So, you are saying that the paralytic did not believe that Jesus could heal him? Do you believe that his friends brought him kicking and screaming? Obviously, the man believed; otherwise, he would not have been there. The more amazing part is that the man had friends who were willing to go that far for him, so that is the part emphasized by Scripture. Even if I grant that the paralytic was not included as part of the antecedent in "their faith" (Who is antecedent? "they and ... paralytic"), the text implies the man believed too and wanted to be there; otherwise, he would not have been there. Or, we would read some reference to his refusal, because that would have been truly noteworthy - a man dragged to a healing against his will. You go too far in assuming the paralytic did not have faith, just because Jesus focused on the faith of his friends.

No, the paralytic must have had faith; otherwise, his acceptance by Jesus and forgiveness of sins would flatly contradict this clear passage on faith and salvation:

"But 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 diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Incidentally, I would agree that here Jesus exercised His prerogative as Judge to forgive the paralytic of his sins apart from the man's compliance with the terms for atonement under Old Testament law; however, that was and is Jesus' right as Lawgiver and Judge (James 4:11-12). However, we do not have that right! We can only speak where God has spoken (I Peter 4:11). Since Jesus did not reveal His complete basis for judgment under these exceptions, who are we to determine that basis and preach our conclusion instead of what God has clearly revealed?

These passages indeed show the possibility that Jesus can and may offer mercy beyond the terms promised, but since those terms are not revealed, we cannot presume to preach those terms. Furthermore, we cannot even operate on faith under those terms, because faith only comes from the Word of God (Romans 10:17), and since God has not revealed those terms, we cannot have faith in them! We would be operating in presumption in conflict with other clear teaching.

More here on a similar case, notorious for this line of reasoning: http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/thief.html

(Look back at the Ephesians verse) therefore God knows whom he has chosen. And the best part is the last part of the verse... he did it "in love", even though some see this has a horrible and egotistical thing to do, you have to remember, this is God who is doing this and not a person. He did it in love because He knew it was best.

No, he does not do it in "love", because "love seeks not its own" (I Corinthians 13:4-7). And, the god of Calvinism seeks only his own glory, and his "love" is intended only to magnify his own glory. It is a self-seeking "love", if we can even say such a thing! How can it be "best" for the reprobate to send them to hell without them having even a chance, much less a fair chance, to do anything else? In Calvinism, god only makes choices that are "best" for his own glory - nothing more. Is that not what you believe? That God chose the elect according to his pleasure and what would glorify him? Therefore, he only cares about you in as much as you bring glory to him - nothing more, assuming you are one of the elect.

If you disagree, they why did he deny the non-elect even an opportunity? They did not even have a chance! If that is not being a "respecter of persons", then what is partiality ( Acts 10:34-35 )!? God has no special people that get special favor, just because of who they are, but His acceptances is freely open to " whoever fears Him and works righteousness" (Acts 10:34-35). How does Calvinism not make God a "respecter of persons", "showing partiality"?

I agree with this...the fleshly minded individual will eventually say to himself, "Hey, if I'm elect it doesn't matter what I do, and if I'm reprobate, it doesn't matter either, so why don't I just go ahead this one time and ... God doesn't really care about me. He's just seeking His own glory, and either way, I'll add to His glory by committing this sin, so ..." .
Yeah, and 1 Corth 3 has a great treatment on this... The ones who are on the spiritual milk really do not understand their true purpose, doctrine, or have much of a clue what the Bible is really all about. If you are talking about unregenerate people, then I still agree with this comment for this reason... How many people seek God... zero... Romans 3:13... Those who are not born again do not seek God. This is later talked about in Romans 3, and continuing in the passage of 1 Corth 3 those who are not born again do not understand things of God because they do not have the Holy Spirit. This is why no one seeks after God because it does not make any sense to the carnal mind. If no one seeks God because of this carnal mind, then how would God anyone choice salvation if it made not sense to them???? This is how salvation comes forth….

Do you think the Corinthians were saved? Paul said that he still had to feed them with spiritual milk because they were still carnal. Therefore, the possibility for this thinking exists among the elect! And, Calvinism is powerless to stop it, because it's god is not a god of love. So, your reasoning about resisting this downhill slide because of God's love is not applicable to the Calvinist ... Plus, it also suggests that people exist along a spectrum of both spiritual growth and consciousness, because among the elect, we see that some people are still carnal, yet the gospel still speaks to them. This also suggests that carnality does not necessarily imply impenetrability of the gospel.

Look, my original point is that the some of the actions you are seeing are unavoidable, simply because people will eventually follow a system of thought through to its logical conclusions. For example, that's the reason why liberal thinking leads to more liberalism, generation after generation. Only tradition constrains the parents, but children will take the next logical step, because they are less tightly bound by traditions and memories of their forefathers. ... Anyway, that does not prove anything. More on this latter point below...

So what do you say to a person who believes that "hey I am saved, therefore I can continue in my sin so you will add his glory... Instead of me answer it in my words, I will let Paul do the talking "Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more, so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? " Romans 5 and 6...

Would you like to quote the next few verses of Romans 6 to see how we can become dead to sin?

Even though I am predestined to heaven this does not give me any licence to sin. Jude also talks about this... "For certain men have secretly slipped in among you– men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil" Jude 4. By no means am I going to turn my back on God because I believe I am going to heaven no matter what. For those people who believe they can do whatever they want because they are an elect, do they truly love God? Jesus said "if you love me, then you will keep my commandments".... Why do we keep Jesus commands... out of love... not because we are afraid that we will fall from grace, but because we are so in love with Christ that we want to serve Him? Serving Christ is out of love, not in fear of losing our salvation. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love.

I agree that the mature Christian is driven by love, not fear of hell. In fact, I would use all the verses you quoted from John and I John to prove that very point. However, as you noted, we do not start out life as mature spiritual Christians; therefore, this language will not motivate us very well (I Corinthians 3:1-3). Furthermore, when we relapse into carnal thinking, these more nobler forces will again be less influential upon us. In both cases, the carnally minded man is moved more strongly by carnal motivations - fear of punishment and the promise of reward, which we see Jesus and others using frequently. Remember, just because men are carnally minded, it does not mean that God does not have a message for them. Was not the entire book of I Corinthians written to "carnally minded" and "carnal" men (I Corinthians 3:1-3)? Therefore, the gospel does contain both extreme themes - love and fear of punishment. It appeals to men, no matter what their frame of thought. We have many Scriptural examples and commands of both extremes (examples of warning through threat of punishment: I Corinthians 10:1-12; Hebrews 3:7-4:1; II Peter 2:20-3:1-2, 15-18), so if we choose to only preach the motivation that appeals to us and coincides with our theology, then we will become guilty of failing to preach the whole counsel of God, and we will become responsible for losing the group of people who would have been reached by the sections we omit (Acts 20:26-27; Ezekiel 3:17-21)!

If a preacher, church, or theology fails to preach on fundamentals regarding hell, avoiding it, repentance, etc., then we would expect to see a loss among among the babes in Christ, such as children, new Christians, and the morally weak, who require spiritual milk until they can digest spiritual meat... At the most, what you see in your personal circumstances could only be regarded as anecdotal evidence, correct? It does not prove my case, but it should give us both pause for thought...

"Therefore, Calvinism does not give you a license to since, it give you an obligation to love. This of this for a moment, God has hand picked you and wants to basically had you a gift that you do not desire nor deserve, not because of something you did, because he decided to give you this even before you were born, because he loves you and He will be glorified.... You would love God because He first loved you.

No, in Calvinism, god does not love you. He loves himself, and everybody else is used by him. The elect just got lucky and ended up on the better end of the stick than the non-elect. But, such a god doesn't love either one. He just loves himself. I am open to recanting this, but you must prove how you can avoid this logical conclusion.

The true God loves everyone, and does not want anyone to perish (John 3:16; II Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:20-32). The gospel invitation is open to all, and as many as voluntarily answer that call, God has promised to save them ( Acts 10:34-35; 17:26-27; Psalm 110:3). God's grace, love, and justice are clearly demonstrated in His willingness and requirement that Jesus suffer for our sins in our place (Romans 3:25-26; 5:6-8; I John 4:8-10). The true God is willing to give up His glory such that we might be saved, and in that, He is due and ultimately receives all the more glory ( John 13:1-6; Philippians 2:3-11 )!

...

Not only do we have very different and incompatible views of God, I think it is important to highlight that we have very different view of mankind. Whereas you see men as being born totally depraved, incapable of anything good, I understand that our conscience can exist along a spectrum - not just at two extremes (absolutely depraved or saved). Certainly, we can become hardened and unreceptive to the gospel call ( I Timothy 4:1-2; Ephesians 4:17-19). However, this is a process that occurs over time (Romans 1:18-32). In fact, we each begin life morally innocent ( Deuteronomy 1:39), just as Adam and Eve were created (Genesis 3:5, 22). With each sin, its power over us grows stronger (Romans 7:14-24 ), but it is only by exposure to truth and rejecting it that our conscience becomes hardened. A sin committed in ignorance has no effect on our conscience (Acts 2:36-37), but any deed committed against our conscience hardens it (I Corinthians 8:7-12)! Every time we sin in such a way, our conscience gets a little more hardened. However, until we reach the hardened point, "where there is no remedy", we are still open to the gospel invitation - to be like Cornelius, or that "noble and good heart" upon which the seed of the kingdom fell.

I believe it may be your belief in our inherited total depravity that eliminates the possibility of accepting many of these other truths. I can see your conundrum, if you believe in only two possible extremes. Maybe we should focus on total hereditary depravity before unconditional election? I currently think this may be the root of our division, whereas our different views of God is only the ultimate logical outcome, which proves useful for highlighting the magnitude and ramifications differences, but maybe little more.

...

Although we have covered some of these already, I wanted to also provide answers to your original questions too:

Whenever repentance is preached, the alternative is typically taught as well. The warnings of sure punishment upon the unrepentant is found throughout the Bible. In fact, Jesus used the phrase "hell fire" more than any other preacher in the Bible.

Are you sure this is what we are to preach today. I know that John the Baptist taught to repent for the kingdom is at hand. I don't think that we can truly teach this concept anymore because, this kingdom that he spoke about is different than the Kingdom of God's people in the fact that Jesus offered the literal kingdom... soooo... How much does repentance play in our job in evangelism. If you were to look at the ministry of Jesus, I do not think that telling people about a fire hell was exactly what he did. When Jesus would heal people or forgive sins it was through faith because they knew that he was their savior, not because they feared a fire hell. The problem with trying to scare someone into salvation is that Jesus wants a relationship with us, and if we merely believe just because we don't want to go to hell, then I doubt we will produce good fruit. The reason I believe this is because if you are doing something in fear, there is absolutely no trace of love, just like Jesus called out the Pharisees for their worship was not from the honest heart.
Where does repentance fall when it comes to salvation?... My guess is that repentance happens at salvation. The changes that happens to us after we believe Christ is conforming to his image (Since this article is against Calvinist doctrine then I will leave out the part in the Bible where it says that we are predestined to be conformed to his image)

Whoa! Are you saying that we are not living in the kingdom of God? Maybe we should not let ourselves get derailed here, but I believe the church is the kingdom of God (Mark 9:1; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:3-8; 2:1-4; Colossians 1:13)! Therefore, Jesus' preaching concerning the kingdom of God is just as applicable today as it was back then, except it is now much closer than just "at hand". Christ's kingdom was never intended to be physical, but it was to be spiritual (Luke 17:20-21). Anyway, Jesus' technique is just as applicable today, and should be emulated, lest we fail to preach "the whole counsel of God".

Next question:

Regardless of its noble intentions, Calvinism seems to have necessarily indited God with characteristics that He would condemn, even in His creation.

Why do you want to limit the power of God? Why shouldn't God condemn us all?

Because, with the exception of Adam and Eve, nobody deserves their condemnation according to the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. The reprobate are condemned because of Adam's sin, not their own. Even what sins they committed are a result of their degenerate nature, inherited because of Adam's fall and through his seed. Would it be fair to condemn someone of a sin that they did not commit, or because of sins, which they could not help but commit because God ordained it that way!?!!!

Regarding the specific accusation of "limiting God's power": Is God's power limited because He does not sin? Cannot tell a lie? No, because these are weaknesses in and of themselves, whereas truth and purity are intrinsic in His nature. He could not lie or sin without violating His own nature and without exhibiting lack of power. Similarly, God's adherence to justice rises not out of a limitation or obedience to a transcendent code, but it comes from His own nature. He cannot be but just because He is justice (Genesis 18:25; Psalm 98:9). He cannot but love, because He is love (I John 4:7-8, 16). More on this below...

God has full authority to condemn everything that he has created because it has turned against him. In Ecclesiastics, Psalms (which the verse is used in Romans) tell us how that we all sin. Ok, well what is sin.... disobeying God. God gave the law in the Old Testament that says for this we deserve death. To deny this is denying the need for Jesus

But, why do we sin? Because we chose to sin, or because Adam chose to sin?

Your page says this too "Calvinism teaches that God unfairly condemned the human race for sins that He prearranged and predetermined." How is this unfair? Romans 9 takes care of this answer. How much freedom does the pot over the potter? The Bible does also say that some clay is for noble use and some are well... not. Does this make unjust or unfair. Is there unrighteousness with not. Certainly not!

The problem with Calvin's infamous dodge is that God deliberately chose to set up the scheme of redemption as a model and testament to his fairness, justice, righteousness, and love (Romans 3:25-25; 5:6-8)! Any doctrine that flatly and clearly demonstrates god to be unfair and unjust and unloving in the very plan which He planned to demonstrate those things must be swiftly dismissed with prejudice!

In this matter, God determined that we could see His justice and fairness and love. If we cannot see it, who failed? God or Calvin?

Next Question: Where is Calvinism does this occur? "Calvinism blames God for man's mistakes"

Total Depravity basically tells us differently. Need I say more?

In Calvinism, according to the doctrine of total hereditary depravity, God ordained Adam's sin, correct? Furthermore, God ordained the laws which transmit spiritual guilt from father to son, correct? Therefore, who is responsible for our sin? Us, Adam, or God?

Next Question: "It teaches that the guilt for the original sin was unfairly passed down through all generations, condemning children for sins they did not commit. This is also unfair. How can we use the words "equity", "fair", "right", and "just" to describe God's judgment according to Calvin? Compare Calvin's vision of God's judgment with the Bible's description:"

Okay, maybe it is just where I am a history student, but if you are going to make such a claim to this, you might want to cite your sources, it gives validaty to your arguement.

This is how I knew you had not read the entire article series and were unaware that you were only reading the conclusion. Obviously, this statement contains something of a conclusion, but the foundational quotes are provided in the preceding articles. I provided those references to provide the very validity you are desiring.

Moving on: "How can He arbitrarily choose who will go to heaven or hell regardless of their actions".... This is not biblical at all. What do our actions have to with salvation? Our actions are a work. If grace is through faith, not by works, then our actions have nothing to do with salvation at all.

Again, I believe the fallacy here is a failure to distinguish between meritorious and conditional works. Meritorious works earn salvation. They place God in the works debt (Romans 4:4-5). They eliminate faith, because they earn salvation through perfect law keeping ( Galatians 3:10-12). However, conditional works complete faith. They justify it (James 2:20-24).

There is a wonderful story in the bible about two men. Jacob and Esau. There lives were planned out by God, why? Because he knew the situation in which he would most be glorified. Was it a choice of Esau to be born first, but have his younger brother run over him. No it was part of a sovereign plan of God did not arbitrarily chose, but decided in his infinite foreknowledge. Why? According to the good pleasure of his will.

Yes, but Jacob's election was not unto his individual salvation. His election was only unto the supremacy of the two nations. Much more could be said, and I would be willing, but this should suffice for now, until a counterargument is raised.

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you" John 15:16... Yes I know Jesus is talking to the disciples in this context.

The reason I point this out is that because of the word usage there. The word chose in Greek is "eklegomai" which means to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one's self.

It is very clear that Jesus hand picked his disciples and they had no say in being his disciples, they just dropped their nets and went. Why would I bring this word up? Because the disciples are no different than the church itself (when it comes to the calling). Don't believe me, then believe Paul. He used the same word in Ephesians 1:4 ( remember this is a letter written to a body of believes... yeah they were already saved) Here is the verse:
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love (NIV)

Again, I agree with this choosing, but please notice that He chose us "in Him ". The election is corporate, not individual apart from anything else. ... Furthermore, did Jesus not also choose Judas (John 6:70-71)? Maybe this "choosing" is neither irresistible nor immutable? Also, keep in mind that when Jesus chose the twelve, that was not their first experience with Him. They had already been disciples of Jesus for some time. He did not choose any apostle that was not already a disciple; therefore, Christ's choosing of the twelve was not independent of their actions, was it? And, it is the same word used in Ephesians 1:4, so... Maybe you are injecting more meaning into this word than the Scriptures will bear?

May God help us both to have a sincere love of truth above all else.