If none would have faith?

[1over137]

Quoting Philip from http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 11#p162922

Geisler would say that God's drawing and wooing us, His providing us the ABILITY and UNDERSTANDING to believe (that makes faith POSSIBLE) and His making salvation POSSIBLE (through the cross), are ALL God-given. But the FAITH we must have is OUR own faith. We are the ones that must believe and have it. And so while belief and faith in what Jesus made possible are most certainly God-given, and our faith would be possible without these things, we, nonetheless, are the ones that must exercise believing faith. Else you are right back to Five-Point Land: God gives faith to His precious few but denies it for the masses that will not be saved (because Calvinism says they were never meant to be saved and never even had the ability to believe to begin with - and that these things were decided and denied them before the heathens' very births - all false and unScriptural, of course).

Ok. Here is the question: If noobody would have his faith then Jesus' death would be in vain? Or God knew some would have their faith?

[PaulSacramento]

God KNEW ( of course) that the death AND resurrection would bring many people to Him and He also knew that for some, it won't make any difference either.
Christ's sacrifice is for those that want it, those that choose to believe.
God denies NOTHING to those that seek Him, to those that choose Him.
You will never see God deny a believer or even a honest non-believer ( one that doesn't believe for no fault of their own).
God rejects only those that reject Him, He says to them: Thy will be done.

What draws us to God though? is it the death or the resurrection of Christ?

IMO, at least for me, it is the resurrection and that is why Christ said that when He would be raised, He would draw the world ( all men) to Him.
See, the resurrection is the biggest stumbling block for some YET it is also THE defining event of salvation for those that believe in it.

As Paul said, If Christ had not died and was not respected, we preach a false gospel.

God KNEW that there would be believers and doubters, how could He not know?

[1over137]

Ok, thanks.

Gonna ask now some tulip believer some questions.

[B. W.]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcSlcNfThUA[/youtube]


Probably not the tulips you had in mind....

Forgive me - the flesh made me do it...

On a more serious note, don't let me get off topic on TULIP just thought it best to lighten it up a bit as preordained ... before folks start it out...

Here is what TULIP stands for

T -- total depravity.

U -- unconditional election.

L -- limited atonement.

I -- irresistible grace.

P -- perseverence of the saints.




-
-
-

[B. W.]

Did tiny Tim frighten away everyone?

To open this let me post a link and quote from wiki to start and another from Matt Slick...

Variants of Calvinism's TULIP
wikipedia Calvinism

Amyraldism

Amyraldism (or sometimes Amyraldianism, also known as the School of Saumur, hypothetical universalism,[113] post redemptionism,[114] moderate Calvinism,[115] or four-point Calvinism) is the belief that God, prior to his decree of election, decreed Christ's atonement for all alike if they believe, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. The efficacy of the atonement remains limited to those who believe.

Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the atonement. However, detractors like B. B. Warfield have termed it "an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism."[116]

Hyper-Calvinism

Hyper-Calvinism first referred to a view that appeared among the early English Particular Baptists in the 18th century. Their system denied that the call of the gospel to "repent and believe" is directed to every single person and that it is the duty of every person to trust in Christ for salvation. The term also occasionally appears in both theological and secular controversial contexts, where it usually connotes a negative opinion about some variety of theological determinism, predestination, or a version of Evangelical Christianity or Calvinism that is deemed by the critic to be unenlightened, harsh, or extreme.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says that the gospel is to be freely offered to sinners, and the Larger Catechism makes clear that the gospel is offered to the non-elect.[117][118]

Neo-Calvinism

Neo-Calvinism, a form of Dutch Calvinism, is the movement initiated by the theologian and former Dutch prime minister Abraham Kuyper. James Bratt has identified a number of different types of Dutch Calvinism: The Seceders—split into the Reformed Church "West" and the Confessionalists; and the Neo-Calvinists—the Positives and the Antithetical Calvinists. The Seceders were largely infralapsarian and the Neo-Calvinists usually supralapsarian.[119]

Kuyper wanted to awaken the church from what he viewed as its pietistic slumber. He declared:

No single piece of our mental world is to be sealed off from the rest and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'[120]

This refrain has become something of a rallying call for Neo-Calvinists.

Christian Reconstructionism

Christian Reconstructionism is a fundamentalist[121] Calvinist theonomic movement that has remained rather obscure.[122] Founded by R. J. Rushdoony, the movement has had an important influence on the Christian Right in the United States.[123][124] The movement declined in the 1990s and was declared dead in a 2008 Church History journal article.[125] Christian Reconstructionists are usually postmillennialists and followers of the presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. They tend to support a decentralized political order resulting in laissez-faire capitalism.[126]

New Calvinism

The New Calvinism is a growing perspective within conservative Evangelicalism that embraces the fundamentals of 16th century Calvinism while also trying to be relevant in the present day world.[127] In March 2009, TIME magazine described the New Calvinism as one of the "10 ideas changing the world".[128] Some of the major figures in this area are John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler,[128] Mark Dever,[129] C. J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris,[127] and Tim Keller.[130] New Calvinists have been criticized for blending Calvinist soteriology with popular Evangelical positions on the sacraments and continuationism.

When dealing with TULIP please note the variants in Calvinism and never paint with a broad brush all Calvinist belief as the same, it is not. Most error comes by equating all Calvinist as Hyper Calvinist and much useless time is wasted with folks hitting each other.

Matt Slick post as good and concise summery on TULIP that is to the point and mixes a hint of New Calvinist - reformed - ideas into TULIP message found on his main page...

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/index.html

So please read for a better understanding

Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace are what most folks contend with in these types of discussion.A word of warning, such discussions has caused the best of friends, co-workers for Christ, to separate and divide and fight each other. It can divide families and create havoc and has done these things on this very website forum.

A tree is known by its fruit. We are called to be followers of Jesus Christ not followers of Calvin or Arminius. So enter with caution and please note this: who do you follow. I hate to see good people bash each other again all over a flower...
-
-
-

[1over137]

You know B.W., I hate that in the past on this forum many friends splitted. Many people left.
I feel like there is hidden prohibition to even start such threads.
Maybe I will only discuss with you privately.

You know, when folks start to blame each other for preaching a false gospel and being in danger of hell, things get out of control. Folks love God and they are hitted in disrespectful and proud discussions. Their spirits get suffocated and they are forced to abandon the talk.

It's a pitty.

I have friends who incline more to Arminianism and also friends who incline more to Calvinism. Our talks never turned bad (except one when we did not talk about tulip and such but about my love for God which was being questioned - kind of little bit legalist type of person).

[PaulSacramento]

To me I simply disagree with the core of Calvinism, I simply can't reconcile a God that predestines some people to eternal torment.
If someone choose to believe that way, that's fine for them.
I simply can't.

[1over137]

To me I simply disagree with the core of Calvinism, I simply can't reconcile a God that predestines some people to eternal torment.
If someone choose to believe that way, that's fine for them.
I simply can't.

I have a friend who when reading in the Bible 'calvinistic' verses, threw the Bible into the corner.
But with the time, with observing the world, etc he came to his tulip position.

So I do believe that tulip folks had their hard emotional periods. I do believe they are not emotionaly cold people.

[Lonewolf]

IMO, from the moment that the first parents sinned, they ceased to have faith in God. How else can you account for their disobedience? God sent His Son to redeem all back to Him, and it is up to the individual to reject His atonement. It is not as if you believe and be saved, it is because He has saved you already, but you lose yourself when you don't adhere to His work. In other words, we're all already saved, unless of course you reject His sacrifice and consciously reject Him.

[RickD]

IMO, from the moment that the first parents sinned, they ceased to have faith in God. How else can you account for their disobedience? God sent His Son to redeem all back to Him, and it is up to the individual to reject His atonement. It is not as if you believe and be saved, it is because He has saved you already, but you lose yourself when you don't adhere to His work. In other words, we're all already saved, unless of course you reject His sacrifice and consciously reject Him.

And there's that pesky universalism raising its ugly head again.

[crochet1949]

What bothers Me about the Calvin/ Armenianism discussion is that they were simply two men who read Scripture and came with their various opinions. Pretty much opposed positions. But who are we to be following Men's concepts of Scripture ? or be reading and studying on our own and then sharing with others.
But -- yes, mankind Is totally depraved. Because 'for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
and, yes, Because God is omniscient -- He has All knowledge of who will or will Not accept His gift of salvation.
But -- the rest of it -- God's grace is sufficient. Absolutely. Jesus Christs' bodily resurrection Proved His deity. Without That there is no salvation.

Is there the danger that we get so caught up with Debating that we neglect getting out and Sharing? We Don't shove down throats but we Do use openings in conversations when possible to share in a Positive way.

But -- we're Also told to go to all people / nations and present Gospel unto salvation. Because We don't know who God may or may not have chosen. Some will listen and some Won't. Our responsibility is to Share the Gospel -- the Holy Spirit will do the rest. The Holy Spirit will convict of sinfulness and it's the decision of the person as to how they respond To that.
The Romans Road -- with the heart man believes and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. It's a natural reaction -- that which we believe in our heart is important enough to us to share with someone else.
There are times when we hear of someone doing something so horrific that we Want them to spend eternity in hell. And then we hear that while in prison -- they actually Do listen to someone presenting salvation to them and they Do accept Jesus Christ as personal savior. On the one hand, Great, on the Other hand ... well......do they really Deserve heaven? Well --do We really deserve heaven? We might not have butchered people -- but have we told lies that have had bad consequences for other people? or have we lost our credibility with others. Ruined reputations. Caused a nasty divorce? Inadvertently turned people Away from God by/ through our actions?