Is Calvinism a Heresy?

[Jac3510]

That will be a fun reply to read. All of those verses are very easy to handle, PL. While Sean and I disagree on several things, he seems to do a good job with exegesis. *sits back to enjoy the show*

Now, I assume you are just going to refuse to deal with my original arguments, which doesn't surprise me. Let me take this debate away from Calvinism, per se, for just one second. I want to actually demonstrate the EXTREME danger in the doctrine, since you so ardently hold to it.

Puritan Lad, on what basis are you going to heaven? Tell me about your conversion.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but after having read the mass of your posts, I have genuine doubts as to your salvation. Please note that these doubts are NOT based on any perceived behavior or attitudes that I think you may have, but they are based on what you profess to believe. I am perfectly open to discussing my own conversion, but I would be remiss if I were having this debate simply to debate with no concern for your soul.

Matt. 7:21-23

God bless

[puritan lad]

Now, I assume you are just going to refuse to deal with my original arguments, which doesn't surprise me. Let me take this debate away from Calvinism, per se, for just one second. I want to actually demonstrate the EXTREME danger in the doctrine, since you so ardently hold to it.

I dealt with your argument Jac. I have proven, with scripture, that those who end up in Hell do so because of sin. That little fact blows up your entire argument. The burden of proof is on you to show that those who go to hell have had their sins forgiven. Good Luck with that one.

Puritan Lad, on what basis are you going to heaven? Tell me about your conversion.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but after having read the mass of your posts, I have genuine doubts as to your salvation. Please note that these doubts are NOT based on any perceived behavior or attitudes that I think you may have, but they are based on what you profess to believe. I am perfectly open to discussing my own conversion, but I would be remiss if I were having this debate simply to debate with no concern for your soul.

I appreciate the concern that you have for my soul. Fortunately for me, my salvation is not in your hands, but in the hands of Him who is able to save to the uttermost. I'm saved because God chose to save me, not of my works, but so that His purpose according to election might stand. He took away my heart of stone, and gave me a heart of flesh, a heart which in turn was able to love Him. He chose me to be holy and blameless in Him from the foundation of the world. He wrote His law on my heart, and enabled me to believe and see the things of His kingdom. I cannot say to Him, "Look at my faith. I made better use of your offer of salvation then the non-believer. Praise be to me". For my salvation, He alone gets the glory. There is nothing that I can lay claim to, nothing that I can boast of.

Hopefully that answers your question.

God Bless,

PL

[Jac3510]

I dealt with your argument Jac. I have proven, with scripture, that those who end up in Hell do so because of sin. That little fact blows up your entire argument. The burden of proof is on you to show that those who go to hell have had their sins forgiven. Good Luck with that one.

No, you offered a flawed exegesis of one passage of Scriptures (Rev. 20) and totally ignored the rest of Scripture to both back the position and prove the opposite view false. But, as I said at the beginning, I've no interest in consensus--only clarity. The positions have been pretty well defined.

appreciate the concern that you have for my soul. Fortunately for me, my salvation is not in your hands, but in the hands of Him who is able to save to the uttermost. I'm saved because God chose to save me, not of my works, but so that His purpose according to election might stand. He took away my heart of stone, and gave me a heart of flesh, a heart which in turn was able to love Him. He chose me to be holy and blameless in Him from the foundation of the world. He wrote His law on my heart, and enabled me to believe and see the things of His kingdom. I cannot say to Him, "Look at my faith. I made better use of your offer of salvation then the non-believer. Praise be to me". For my salvation, He alone gets the glory. There is nothing that I can lay claim to, nothing that I can boast of.

You see, this is what scares me, PL. The words "Jesus," "resurrection," "promise", or "eternal life" were never used in this . . . not once. You use the word "believe" only once, to say, "he enabled me to believe," and yet you don't define what you believed. For you, belief is a side note. It's a mere property of salvation. It is the result of salvation.

That's heresy, PL. That's NOT salvation. Until you trust Christ alone for your salvation, apart from your repentance, your commitment to His lordship, or even apart from God's election (!), you are lost in your sins. There is no "sinners prayer" for salvation. On that, we should be able to agree. There is only the prayer of thanks for Christ's saving us because we took Him at His word. But you have denied that word. You've denied that promise. That scares me, PL.

Look, please note that you didn't tell me of a conversion . . .

[countrypreacher84]

PL stated

I'm saved because God chose to save me, not of my works, but so that His purpose according to election might stand.

According to this admission, I have constructed the following syllogism

1.All those who are saved are saved because they were included in God's elective plan
2.No person can know God's elective plan.
3. No person can know if they are saved.

Unless someone can dispute the validity or accuracy of the above syllogism, then PL 's form of Calvinism (which i belive to be in line with traditional Calvinism) offers no security for salvation.

In Christ
The country preacher
no creed but the bible (stealing it back from JAC, although i stole it from someone else originally)

[Fortigurn]

PL stated

I'm saved because God chose to save me, not of my works, but so that His purpose according to election might stand.

According to this admission, I have constructed the following syllogism

1.All those who are saved are saved because they were included in God's elective plan
2.No person can know God's elective plan.
3. No person can know if they are saved.

Unless someone can dispute the validity or accuracy of the above syllogism, then PL 's form of Calvinism (which i belive to be in line with traditional Calvinism) offers no security for salvation.

That does seem to be the logical conclusion of Calvinism.

[David Hewitt]

It would seem that there is something lacking with this set of responses.

appreciate the concern that you have for my soul. Fortunately for me, my salvation is not in your hands, but in the hands of Him who is able to save to the uttermost. I'm saved because God chose to save me, not of my works, but so that His purpose according to election might stand. He took away my heart of stone, and gave me a heart of flesh, a heart which in turn was able to love Him. He chose me to be holy and blameless in Him from the foundation of the world. He wrote His law on my heart, and enabled me to believe and see the things of His kingdom. I cannot say to Him, "Look at my faith. I made better use of your offer of salvation then the non-believer. Praise be to me". For my salvation, He alone gets the glory. There is nothing that I can lay claim to, nothing that I can boast of.

You see, this is what scares me, PL. The words "Jesus," "resurrection," "promise", or "eternal life" were never used in this . . . not once. You use the word "believe" only once, to say, "he enabled me to believe," and yet you don't define what you believed. For you, belief is a side note. It's a mere property of salvation. It is the result of salvation.

That's heresy, PL. That's NOT salvation. Until you trust Christ alone for your salvation, apart from your repentance, your commitment to His lordship, or even apart from God's election (!), you are lost in your sins. There is no "sinners prayer" for salvation. On that, we should be able to agree. There is only the prayer of thanks for Christ's saving us because we took Him at His word. But you have denied that word. You've denied that promise. That scares me, PL.

Come on, Jac, are you going there that fast? What PL said on its own it not incorrect; it is INCOMPLETE, but it's not incorrect. What he mentioned is part of salvation, though not its entirety. Please note my previous post on the elements that exist in salvation, from election all the way to glorification. Now, if PL meant that because salvation is of God from beginning to end that we don't need to repent of sins or place faith in Christ, THAT would indeed be heresy (known as hyper-calvinism). A good, short explanation to part of the differences can be found <a href="http://www.founders.org/FJ24/sidebar2.html" target=NEW title="Comparison of Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism">here</a>, with Dr. Tom Ascol explaining. This is probably the most common link to something on http://www.founders.org that I use; hope they don't start charging.

I can solidly say that, in addition to what PL said, I wsa saved by the Grace of God, that I placed my faith in Christ alone, was justified by that faith alone, which was by grace alone, and is for the glory of God alone. I count on Him and ONLY Him for my salvation, in His sinless sacrifice which proptiated my sins, that I would have eternal life in Him. I have received Him (John 1:12), and have confessed him as Lord, believing that God has raised Jesus from the dead. (Romans 10:9)Oh, what a glorious thought! Praise be to God!

I'm pretty confident that PL would say the same thing.

[David Hewitt]

PL stated

I'm saved because God chose to save me, not of my works, but so that His purpose according to election might stand.

According to this admission, I have constructed the following syllogism

1.All those who are saved are saved because they were included in God's elective plan
2.No person can know God's elective plan.
3. No person can know if they are saved.

Unless someone can dispute the validity or accuracy of the above syllogism, then PL 's form of Calvinism (which i belive to be in line with traditional Calvinism) offers no security for salvation.

In Christ
The country preacher
no creed but the bible (stealing it back from JAC, although i stole it from someone else originally)

OK, I'll dispute it. The reason is that there is a step inbetween 2 and 3 in your syllogism. Instead, it works like this:

1.) All who are saved get saved because of God's elective plan.
2.) No person can know God's elective plan.
3.) When someone IS saved, they CAN understand that they were one of the elect.
4.) When someone is saved, they experience a spiritual transformation, which serves as evidence of salvation.
5.) Therefore, before someone is saved, one cannot know if they are elect or not. Afterwards, when someone is saved, that saved person can know that they are a child of God.

When someone is saved, they are made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). That person now has the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). That person/we now want the things of God and hate evil (1 Peter 2:1-3). We take delight in God gladly (Psalm 37:4). And there are others. We know that we are saved; God has promised it; we have the Son. (1 John 5:11-13).

Hope that helps!

SDG,
Dave

[puritan lad]

YLTYLT,

You claim that "Only after many requests to let his people go did God harden his (Pharoah's) heart." This is both presumptuous and irrelevant. The fact is that God did harden it, and He did so in order that He could judge Egypt with great judgments.

Exodus 7:2-4
"You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments."

The issue here isn't when God hardened Pharoah's heart. The issue here is whether or not Pharoah could have overcome God's hardening of His heart and repented. How could he?

Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes."

The Bible is clear. Pharoah's heart was in the hands of a sovereign God. Pharoah's life was "Purpose Driven". God's purpose for raising up Pharoah was to destroy Him, that He might receive the glory for delivering His people.
Romans 9:17-18
"For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

Sobering thought...

So Pharoah's hardening of the heart was not prior to his disobedience, it was as of a result of persistently not believing the word of God.
This verse also indicates that not receiving the love of truth (belief) is what sends a person to hell.

The Bible disagrees. The hardening of Pharoah's heart was the cause, not the result, of his disobedience (See Exodus 7:3-4 again).

One specific Greek translation I have heard is from Romans 9:22

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

This phrase fitted to destruction is in the middle voice in the Greek, meaning that unsaved men (vessels of wrath) fit themselves for destruction.

Says Who? Where does it say that men fit themselves for destruction?

Romans 9:21
"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

Who is the potter YLTYLT? Try again.

God does not elect some people to go to heaven and others to go to hell. Men decide that for themselves.

Says Who?

...God chooses his own heritage. (Psalm 33:12)
...God creates the wicked for destruction. (Proverbs 16:4)
...Many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)
...As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
...He foreknew, predestined ,called; justified; and glorified His elect. (Romans 8:28-30)
...God chose Jacob over Esau “not of works” but “that the purpose of God according to election might stand”. (Romans 9:10-13)
...God creates “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” and “vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory”. (Romans 9:22-23)
...God did not appoint His elect to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)
...The Pharisees were appointed to be disobedient to the Word (1 Peter 2:8,9) (and thank God they were).
...He chose His elect in Him before the foundation of the world, predestined them to adoption as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will. (Ephesians 1:4,5)
...We were predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will. (Ephesian 1:11)
...He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. (2 Timothy 1:9)
...God from the beginning chose us for salvation. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)
...Those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful. (Revelation 17:14)
...We are born again not by man's will, but God's (John 1:12-13)
...The Son quickens whom he will (John 5:21)
...All the Father gives shall come (John 6:37)
...God's word accomplishes what he pleases (Isaiah 55:11)
...God gives eternal life to “as many as thou hast given” (John 17:2)
...It is not of him that willeth or runneth (Romans 9:16)
...Who has resisted His will? (Romans 9:19)
...God works in you both to will and to do (Philippians 2:12-13)

Man's will does not rule supreme. Man cannot thrwart God's immutable decree, frustrate God's purpose, and tell God, "My council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure". He is the potter, and He does what He wants to with the clay.

[Fortigurn]

The reason is that there is a step inbetween 2 and 3 in your syllogism. Instead, it works like this:

1.) All who are saved get saved because of God's elective plan.
2.) No person can know God's elective plan.
3.) When someone IS saved, they CAN understand that they were one of the elect.
4.) When someone is saved, they experience a spiritual transformation, which serves as evidence of salvation.
5.) Therefore, before someone is saved, one cannot know if they are elect or not. Afterwards, when someone is saved, that saved person can know that they are a child of God.

When someone is saved, they are made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). That person now has the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). That person/we now want the things of God and hate evil (1 Peter 2:1-3). We take delight in God gladly (Psalm 37:4). And there are others. We know that we are saved; God has promised it; we have the Son. (1 John 5:11-13).

That sounds great on paper. In reality, it works as the syllogism was presented previously.

You see a Calvinist who was 100% convicted of their salvation, who lived a worth life, and who was recognised to be one of the chosen few.

Then at some point they backslide, and renounce the faith.

Calvinists simply explain 'Oh, they were never saved to start with'.

[Fortigurn]

One specific Greek translation I have heard is from Romans 9:22

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

This phrase fitted to destruction is in the middle voice in the Greek, meaning that unsaved men (vessels of wrath) fit themselves for destruction.

Says Who? Where does it say that men fit themselves for destruction?

He's right actually, the middle voice is reflexive. Even the New English Translation (which is decidedly Reformed in its theology), has to acknowledge this:

44tn Or possibly “objects of wrath that have fit themselves for destruction.”

The form of the participle could be taken either as a passive or middle (reflexive). ExSyn 417-18 argues strongly for the passive sense (which is followed in the translation), stating that “the middle view has little to commend it.”

First, katartivzw (katartizw) is nowhere else used in the NT as a direct or reflexive middle (a usage which, in any event, is quite rare in the NT).

Second, the lexical force of this verb, coupled with the perfect tense, suggests something of a “done deal” (against some commentaries that see these vessels as ready for destruction yet still able to avert disaster).

Third, the potter-clay motif seems to have one point: The potter prepares the clay.

It's not a good idea to try and rest your theology on texts with disputed meanings due to such fine shades of grammatical sense.

[Fortigurn]

Oh yes, and PL your appeal to Romans 9 would have some worth if only Romans 9 said anything of predestinating people to eschatological salvation or condemnation.

You really need to use a Bible other than the KJV, but I can understand your preference for it (the language lends itself to your doctrine).

[puritan lad]

Regeneration is conditional

.
Wrong Jac,

We are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is not of him who wills, not of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Now if you want my personal testimony, here it is.

I was raised in a Christian home. I was born again as a teenager (at an Arminian Youth meeting of all places, so yes, I do believe Arminians are Christians despite their bad doctrine). There was a video shown, I believe it was called The Final Count, or something to that effect. I was faced with my own mortality and came to the realization that my parent's faith was useless to me in the light of eternity, and that, just because I was young, I had no guarantee of tomorrow. At that point, I was born again. God changed took away my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh. As a result, I repented and turned from my wickedness, growing to love His word and desiring to learn more about Him. As I grew doctrinally, adhering to the faith once delivered to the saints, I eventually had to leave that church for the Reformed Faith, though I still keep in contact with some of those saints. (I left on good terms).

Do I still scare you Jac? You scare me with your "no lordship easy believism", which ironically I've been accused of in this thread. I forgot who it was, but it surely shows an ignorance of Calvinism in general and Puritanism in particular.

God Bless,

PL

[puritan lad]

You see a Calvinist who was 100% convicted of their salvation, who lived a worth life, and who was recognised to be one of the chosen few.

Then at some point they backslide, and renounce the faith.

Calvinists simply explain 'Oh, they were never saved to start with'. :roll:

So does Jesus (Matthew 7:23) and John (1 John 2:19). Pretty good company I'd say.

[puritan lad]

Third, the potter-clay motif seems to have one point: The potter prepares the clay.

The "mode" is irrelevant. No where does this passage bring man's will into the equation (In fact, it does just the opposite - Romans 9:16). The potter makes vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. Pretty clear to me. This is why Arminians tend to accuse God of unrighteousness (Romans 9:14) and not being fair (Romans 9:19). (This certainly would not be the case if man "fitted himself for destruction". There is nothing in this entire chapter to even hint at such an interpretation. This is pure theological desperation, not sound bible exegesis. This is an attempt to deny what this passage plainly teaches. Paul's reply is a sobering rebuke to anyone who would do such, but you can read that for yourself.

By the way Jac, I'm still interested in your view of Romans 9:10-23.

[Fortigurn]

You see a Calvinist who was 100% convicted of their salvation, who lived a worth life, and who was recognised to be one of the chosen few.

Then at some point they backslide, and renounce the faith.

Calvinists simply explain 'Oh, they were never saved to start with'.

So does Jesus (Matthew 7:23) and John (1 John 2:19). Pretty good company I'd say.

Well you're only proving my point - people can deceive themselves about whether or not they are saved. Your Calvinist friend above said that people can and do know for certain when they are saved.