My response to this post on my status is at the bottom.
The post on my Status:
As i have watched and listened to discussions like this i wish to only say one thing and leave it. From what i continue to see Ryan... this keeps coming back to Calvinism and if it doesn't then please pretend i never even spoke.
Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, Tozer, Ravenhill, Billy Graham and of course Ron Luce... from what i have heard... never even made a thought on Calvanism or Armenianism. Yes of Course Christ, paul, and peter wouldn't but look at history. These men of God changed the world through the Gospel alone. They were too busy preaching to the hearts of men that they didn't have time for such petty arguments and discussions... and indeed it is a waste of time.
Yes this view can help in your theology, but leave it to yourself. This is why though i have read and understand both views, i will not make a voiced opinion on one or the other simply because in this day and age too many of my brothers and sisters in the faith will close their ears to such opinions. So i simply fight the one's that i consider life and death in the spiritual sense.
Beyond this please go back to the very place where Paul spoke on predestination and consider the context all of you. Paul's words were for ENCOURAGMENT, not for argument and mind games. He was explaining to believers why they should be thankful and rejoice in God because they were chosen. He didn't mean for us to use his words as weapons on to one another and i'm sure if he saw this done today he would cry out to God in sorrow. So if you are a Calvanist then go and preach the gospel to others... i find it quite a bit interesting to see how many more people become "Elect" when they are presented the Gospel.
Please hear my words in light of my concern and no personal opinion. I love you guys.
My Response:
In truth it has nothing to do with Calvinism. it has to do with the Gospel it has to do with our preconceived notion that if God is love he is absent of wrath or that a loving God could never send people to hell a loving God would never through people into an eternity without his love and only his wrath (Revelation 20:15, Mark 9:47; Matthew 13:41-42) it has to do with the fact that we refuse and reject the God of the Bible. It has to do with our depravity. It has to do with human nature, our nature is to sin against a perfect, holy, righteous, loving, just, and wrathful God (Romans 3:10-18).
Let me give you an example. if God were to say... I don't know...bring a flood to wipe out all of mankind except for one man and his family, God would not only be perfect, holy, righteous, loving , and wrathful but he would be absolutely just in doing so(Genesis 6:1-8:22). Why? You might ask. I would say because god is sovereign. What does that mean? Well it mean that God does whatever he wants to do, whenever he wants to do it, and He is perfect, holy, righteous, loving, and just for doing it, because he is God (Ps. 115:3, Ps. 135:6, Rom. 11:36).
In regards to keeping “opinions” to myself I am afraid I cannot do that. If I have the truth and I do not speak it, it would be as if I did not care that people were being thrown into hell. I am no lukewarm man, I do not intend to compromise the truth of the Gospel because it makes some uncomfortable, and I will not be on the fence waiting to “see how things go”. Jesus commanded and prefers that we either be hot or cold not in the middle (Revelation 3:15-16).
You are right that the Gospel brings about repentance to those who hear and are elect. But you cannot “become” elect. You either are or you are not, you are a sheep or a goat, you are wheat or weeds, God willed this before anything was ever created. On this point I will not bend Scripture is clear you do not choose God he chooses you. (John 6:65, Jonah 2:9, John 8:47, Ephesians 1:4-5,11, Romans 8:28-30, Matthew 11:27, 13:24-30, 13:36-43, 15:12-15, 22:12-14, 24:22-24, 25:31-46 etc.)
You see it is not about Calvinism, it’s about Scripture and ultimately God. Scripture is complete it is not faulty, God breathed it into existence. Scripture is our only absolute truth it is the thing we know will never contradict God because every bit of it represents God. So it is not about Calvinism it is about accurately representing Scripture and Truth, whether we like what is true or not. The fact that we have distain toward an idea does not negate the fact that it is true. (2 Peter 1:16,20-21, Luke 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17)
So I encourage everyone, take a stance, do not be lukewarm, represent truth to the best of your finite ability, and be willing to submit your pride to what scripture says because you more you read the more you mindset will conform to God and the more you realize on some level you were wrong.
For more on Elect read this
What does Piper mean when he says he's a seven-point Calvinist?
What does Piper mean when he says he's a seven-point Calvinist?
By DG Staff
January 23, 2006
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1418_What_does_Piper_mean_when_he_says_hes_a_sevenpoint_Calvinist/
When John Piper says he is a "seven point Calvinist," he does so half jokingly and half seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn't seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional "Calvinistic" truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.
The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
So just as God doesn't choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
The "seventh" point, the best-of-all-possible worlds, means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God's plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds.
By DG Staff
January 23, 2006
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1418_What_does_Piper_mean_when_he_says_hes_a_sevenpoint_Calvinist/
When John Piper says he is a "seven point Calvinist," he does so half jokingly and half seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn't seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional "Calvinistic" truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.
The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
So just as God doesn't choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
The "seventh" point, the best-of-all-possible worlds, means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God's plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds.
The Inerrancy of Scripture
Sorry everyone it has been forever.
My heart breaks when I hear people speak of God as if he were limited by human rules and constraints. Recently I have heard things like “You know how the Bible says that God created the universe in seven days? Well then where do the dinosaurs come in? How did God create everything in seven days if the dinosaurs were around for millions of years?” First, of all that statement is illogical to me because of Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning GOD” that’s it that’s all I need to know. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Second, whether or not dinosaurs existed is irrelevant to the fact that the Bible says God Created the Universe in seven days.
The Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God (2 Timothy 3:14-17), we are fallible creatures that make mistakes too often for us to count (Romans 3:10-18,23). We all make mistakes it is human nature. Romans 3: 12 “All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." Not one of us is perfect not even ONE. My point is not that to discourage my friend or call anyone out (and I hope that is not how you take it). My point is there has been a lack of teaching to our generation about proper reading of scripture.
Knowing what your Bible says is of second importance to knowing how to read your Bible. I do not care if you have memorized every book in the bible it does not matter unless you have a proper understanding of what the author is saying. I have not memorized many verses in scripture but I have a decent knowledge of how to understand what those verses are saying.
I would simply be complaining if these three paragraphs were all I said. Context is the major thing that needs to be taken into consideration when reading our Bibles. Whenever I hear a verse quoted in a sermon, book, or just in conversation I ask three questions. Does this verse seem to contradict another scripture? (example: Psalms 5:5 and John 3:16) Who was this book written to? (usually at the start the book the author tells you exactly who he is writing to) What does this verse say in context of the chapter? (to go back to Psalm 5:5 and John 3:16 when you read to verse 18 it doesn’t contradict Psalm 5:5 any more) Scripture can not contradict itself so if it seems that way it is probably out of context. The last thing I make certain of when reading my Bible is all scripture has to glorify God, and actually the chief end of all things is to glorify God (Romans 11:36).
When we question one part of the word of God, the Bible, we leave the door open to question other things the Bible says. When we allow ourselves to think that Gods word is fallible and errant we allow Religious Relativism (all roads lead to God) and Philosophical Pluralism (There is no Absolute Truth, what’s true for you is true for you and what’s true for me is true for me) in to our lives. If this happens you would have to ask yourself what part of my bible will I cut out this week , where will my new boundaries be, and what is even sin anymore.
My heart breaks when I hear people speak of God as if he were limited by human rules and constraints. Recently I have heard things like “You know how the Bible says that God created the universe in seven days? Well then where do the dinosaurs come in? How did God create everything in seven days if the dinosaurs were around for millions of years?” First, of all that statement is illogical to me because of Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning GOD” that’s it that’s all I need to know. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Second, whether or not dinosaurs existed is irrelevant to the fact that the Bible says God Created the Universe in seven days.
The Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God (2 Timothy 3:14-17), we are fallible creatures that make mistakes too often for us to count (Romans 3:10-18,23). We all make mistakes it is human nature. Romans 3: 12 “All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." Not one of us is perfect not even ONE. My point is not that to discourage my friend or call anyone out (and I hope that is not how you take it). My point is there has been a lack of teaching to our generation about proper reading of scripture.
Knowing what your Bible says is of second importance to knowing how to read your Bible. I do not care if you have memorized every book in the bible it does not matter unless you have a proper understanding of what the author is saying. I have not memorized many verses in scripture but I have a decent knowledge of how to understand what those verses are saying.
I would simply be complaining if these three paragraphs were all I said. Context is the major thing that needs to be taken into consideration when reading our Bibles. Whenever I hear a verse quoted in a sermon, book, or just in conversation I ask three questions. Does this verse seem to contradict another scripture? (example: Psalms 5:5 and John 3:16) Who was this book written to? (usually at the start the book the author tells you exactly who he is writing to) What does this verse say in context of the chapter? (to go back to Psalm 5:5 and John 3:16 when you read to verse 18 it doesn’t contradict Psalm 5:5 any more) Scripture can not contradict itself so if it seems that way it is probably out of context. The last thing I make certain of when reading my Bible is all scripture has to glorify God, and actually the chief end of all things is to glorify God (Romans 11:36).
When we question one part of the word of God, the Bible, we leave the door open to question other things the Bible says. When we allow ourselves to think that Gods word is fallible and errant we allow Religious Relativism (all roads lead to God) and Philosophical Pluralism (There is no Absolute Truth, what’s true for you is true for you and what’s true for me is true for me) in to our lives. If this happens you would have to ask yourself what part of my bible will I cut out this week , where will my new boundaries be, and what is even sin anymore.
Be a Kinder Calvinist
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/934_be_a_kinder_calvinist/
My wife and I were fighting—the kind where after 30 seconds you forget what you're fighting about and you just end up being mean. It doesn't take long in an argument like this to feel hopeless.
I wanted to call someone to come over and mediate. Actually, I didn't want to, but I knew I needed to do something. Our close friends who live near by and our small group leaders were all out of town, so I called a pastor who lives in the neighborhood and asked him to come over right then. I think he could tell by the tone of my voice and the unusual request that we really did need help immediately. He cancelled his Saturday plans and came over.
Sitting at our kitchen table, he helped us figure each other out. Soon we were getting to the heart of the matter. Molly turned to me and said, "You never treat me like you appreciate me."
I looked at her. I looked at our pastor. And then I listed three ways that I'd shown appreciation for her that morning. As far as I was concerned, things were taken care of. She thought I didn't act appreciatively, but I just showed her (definitively, I might add) that I did.
As you can imagine, things were not taken care of. As a matter of fact, my list, for all its accuracy, was completely irrelevant to Molly. This was when our pastor pointed something out to me that has forever changed the way I interact with my wife, and with everybody, for that matter.
He told me that, sure, it may be wrong to say that I never show appreciation, but clearly she feels that way, and right now that's what needs to be dealt with. And not just dealt with but acknowledged, understood, respected. Her words may have included a factual error, but what she was saying was completely true.
There is a letter on Scot McKnight's blog from a pastor who is very frustrated with certain Calvinists in his church. It would be easy enough to disregard it, pointing out that not all Calvinists are like that or that his use of the word "hyper-Calvinist" doesn't match correct theological jargon. But that would be missing the point. And, ironically, that reaction would only lend credence to the frustration that motivated the letter in the first place.
So how should we read this letter in a way that acknowledges, understands, and respects the discouragement of its author?
First, we should note that it is simply indisputable that some people are exactly the way he describes. When you see mean extremists in another circle, it reminds you why you don't run with that crowd. But when you see mean extremists in your own circle, it's just plain embarrassing. Unfortunately, until we are perfected there will always be mean people of every theological strain. But fortunately, we are a part of the church not merely for the company, but for Christ.
The second way to understand the letter is to see it (along with the numerous comments that follow) as abundant evidence that, to many, Calvinists come across as self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, argumentative, and even stingy. The fact that we're not all that way is irrelevant in the same way that it didn't matter to Molly that I had done three things to show I appreciate her—she still felt unappreciated. Her frustration was true because, whether or not I was grateful to my wife, I was perceived as an ingrate. Similarly, the frustration in the letter is true because, whether or not the Calvinists in the letter-writer's church are good folks, they come off as proud and divisive jerks. Those Calvinists, as church members, and I, as a husband, should change based on this information, regardless of how "inaccurately" the frustration may be worded.
In my marriage, it doesn't matter whether I'm thankful if I don't seem like it. And in the church, it doesn't matter whether we have the fruits of the Spirit if no one can tell.
It won't be easy to change the pejorative stereotype that clings to Calvinism, but we can start by admitting that it is accurate far too often. Then we can make sure we are manifestly not self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, or argumentative. Also, you can count on us to buy dinner or coffee sometimes.
Paying attention to those who disagree with us and taking them seriously, even if we're pretty sure we'll still disagree, is part of what it means to be in the body of Christ. It's humbling; it sanctifies. It will make us better husbands and wives. It will make us better Christians, and maybe even better Calvinists.
My wife and I were fighting—the kind where after 30 seconds you forget what you're fighting about and you just end up being mean. It doesn't take long in an argument like this to feel hopeless.
I wanted to call someone to come over and mediate. Actually, I didn't want to, but I knew I needed to do something. Our close friends who live near by and our small group leaders were all out of town, so I called a pastor who lives in the neighborhood and asked him to come over right then. I think he could tell by the tone of my voice and the unusual request that we really did need help immediately. He cancelled his Saturday plans and came over.
Sitting at our kitchen table, he helped us figure each other out. Soon we were getting to the heart of the matter. Molly turned to me and said, "You never treat me like you appreciate me."
I looked at her. I looked at our pastor. And then I listed three ways that I'd shown appreciation for her that morning. As far as I was concerned, things were taken care of. She thought I didn't act appreciatively, but I just showed her (definitively, I might add) that I did.
As you can imagine, things were not taken care of. As a matter of fact, my list, for all its accuracy, was completely irrelevant to Molly. This was when our pastor pointed something out to me that has forever changed the way I interact with my wife, and with everybody, for that matter.
He told me that, sure, it may be wrong to say that I never show appreciation, but clearly she feels that way, and right now that's what needs to be dealt with. And not just dealt with but acknowledged, understood, respected. Her words may have included a factual error, but what she was saying was completely true.
There is a letter on Scot McKnight's blog from a pastor who is very frustrated with certain Calvinists in his church. It would be easy enough to disregard it, pointing out that not all Calvinists are like that or that his use of the word "hyper-Calvinist" doesn't match correct theological jargon. But that would be missing the point. And, ironically, that reaction would only lend credence to the frustration that motivated the letter in the first place.
So how should we read this letter in a way that acknowledges, understands, and respects the discouragement of its author?
First, we should note that it is simply indisputable that some people are exactly the way he describes. When you see mean extremists in another circle, it reminds you why you don't run with that crowd. But when you see mean extremists in your own circle, it's just plain embarrassing. Unfortunately, until we are perfected there will always be mean people of every theological strain. But fortunately, we are a part of the church not merely for the company, but for Christ.
The second way to understand the letter is to see it (along with the numerous comments that follow) as abundant evidence that, to many, Calvinists come across as self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, argumentative, and even stingy. The fact that we're not all that way is irrelevant in the same way that it didn't matter to Molly that I had done three things to show I appreciate her—she still felt unappreciated. Her frustration was true because, whether or not I was grateful to my wife, I was perceived as an ingrate. Similarly, the frustration in the letter is true because, whether or not the Calvinists in the letter-writer's church are good folks, they come off as proud and divisive jerks. Those Calvinists, as church members, and I, as a husband, should change based on this information, regardless of how "inaccurately" the frustration may be worded.
In my marriage, it doesn't matter whether I'm thankful if I don't seem like it. And in the church, it doesn't matter whether we have the fruits of the Spirit if no one can tell.
It won't be easy to change the pejorative stereotype that clings to Calvinism, but we can start by admitting that it is accurate far too often. Then we can make sure we are manifestly not self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, or argumentative. Also, you can count on us to buy dinner or coffee sometimes.
Paying attention to those who disagree with us and taking them seriously, even if we're pretty sure we'll still disagree, is part of what it means to be in the body of Christ. It's humbling; it sanctifies. It will make us better husbands and wives. It will make us better Christians, and maybe even better Calvinists.
Perseverance of the Saints
http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/PerseveranceOfTheSaints.htm
Will the saints endure to the end? Can we know if we are going to endure?
Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin are not changed and saved by grace. They are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation. God motions the heart to good work, and continues that good work to the end.
John 6:37-39, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."
Phil. 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"
1 Thess. 5:23-24, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."
2 Tim. 4:18, "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
1 Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Will the saints endure to the end? Can we know if we are going to endure?
Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin are not changed and saved by grace. They are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation. God motions the heart to good work, and continues that good work to the end.
John 6:37-39, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."
Phil. 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"
1 Thess. 5:23-24, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."
2 Tim. 4:18, "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
1 Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
