I asked a question on another thread and was told is was silly and irrelevant. The question was : Is it likely that a man on a deserted island with only a Bible would come up with Calvinism, Tulip, The Doctrines of Grace, Reformation Theology (all the same thing).
I think it is a totally relevant question and not silly at all. Here is why: If a person cannot read the Bible alone and come to Calvinism on their own then 'logically' Calvinism must come from a source outside the Bible.
"He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and TEACHERS."
Your a funny guy James...Teachers...Yes! very Important...but what does that verse have to do with what is being discussed ?...Nothing...We all understand How Important it is to You about the Great Teachers and Theologians and anyone that Authors anything that Aligns with Your Doctrinal Beliefs in Calvinism and Puritins...BUT...The Greatest Teacher that Lives...is GOD / Jesus and the HOLY Spirit...and of course the Pastor of the Church I attend...ya..ima a lil Partial to him...hes the person that Lead me Scripturaly to Christ Jesus...xo
James wrote - "Oh I certainly believe that! You spent all your years skimming the happy sentimental verses you liked and ignored everything else. I am glad that you have found a place that challenges you to learn more about the Bible."
What I have learned more than anything else in conversing with you James, is that you are a perfect example of the reason people see and come to the conclusion that Calvinists are rude, full of themselves [arrogant/prideful], and for whatever reason, feel the need to smack people with false accusations, belittling remarks, or anything to fatten their ego. Don't patronize me, James.
James wrote - "The first verse you give is Jesus talking about the Jews in Jerusalem, but that does NOT show that fallen man has free will or the ability. All it shows is how WICKED fallen man is!"
Look at the verse again- O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! -Matthew 23:37
First, it shows the love Jesus has for Jerusalem [Jews]. He longed to gather them to Himself. But they wouldn't have it. They turned their backs to their Messiah. It was their decision. You are so wound up in your Calvinistic doctrine that you can't see that that verse shows Jerusalem [Jews] had a choice to accept Jesus as their Messiah, but they would not. What part of "would not" do you not understand when it comes the human will and choice? I noticed you did not address the other two verses I listed. Let me remind you what they were-
Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose [that] wherein I delighted not. -Isaiah 65:12
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it]. - Isaiah 1:18-20
I suppose you're going to tell me that ALL those verses show "is how WICKED fallen man is!" God called. Israel didn't answer. God spoke. Israel turned a deaf ear. Choice. Not God's choice. Israel's choice. They chose to do those things that God did not delight in instead of heeding His call. The next verse even speaks of being WILLING on the part of a person. Even shows man can REFUSE and rebel against the call of God. But of course your doctrine has you blinded to words like willing because God has stripped us of the ability to choose or not choose. And really? I could care less how many verses you present to support your doctrine. They don't. So numbers mean nothing. The simple and plain reading of God's Word carries more weight than your 45 verses you think support the points of Calvinism. No need to read 'into' anything.
James wrote - "If they ALWAYS resist then that gives evidence to total depravity and a will enslaved to sin."
Here's the verse again - Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye. - Acts 7:51
First... it shows that your "irresistible grace" is a crock. The Holy spirit can speak to any and every person on this planet, but it's the choice of man to either resist or take heed. That verse is not "evidence to total depravity and a will enslaved to sin." It is evidence that man can and does resist the call of the Lord. It's a choice.
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. - 1 Timothy 4:10
James wrote - "This is the correct interpretation. It is found by making a thorough study of the term "Saviour" (in both its noun and verb forms1) in the context of the chapter, the epistle, the New Testament and the Old Testament.2 The final phrase "specially of those that believe" clearly Indicates that the term is here given a twofold application. Of all men God is the Saviour, but of some men, namely, believers, He is the Saviour in a deeper, more glorious sense than He is of others."
The correct interpretation? Another article supporting your view by twisting Scripture, even redefining Saviour, as shown below, in whatever means necessary in order to make it say what you want it to say so that it can support your doctrine.
James wrote - "This clearly implies that when He Is called the Saviour of all men, this cannot mean that He imparts to all everlasting life, as He does to believers. The term "Saviour," then, must have a meaning which we today generally do not immediately attach to it. And that is exactly the cause of the difficulty. Often In the Old Testament, the term meant "to deliver � (verbal form) or deliverer (nominal form)" � both with reference to men and God (cf. Judg. 3:9; II Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27; Ps. 25:5; 106:21). Also, in the New Testament, reference is made to the Old Testament where God delivered Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh for He had been the Saviour of all, but specially those who believed. With the latter, and with them alone, He was "well pleased" (I Cor. 10:5). All leave Egypt; not all enter Canaan." POINT: In both the Old and New Testaments the term "Saviour" is often used to speak of God's providential preservation or deliverance which extends to all men without exception. (Cf. Ps. 36:6; 145:9; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35; Acts 17:25, 28.) Moreover, God also causes His gospel of salvation to be earnestly proclaimed to all men without distinction; that is, to men from every race and nation (Matt. 28:19). Truly the kindness (providence or common grace) of God extends to all. But even the circle of those to whom the message of salvation is proclaimed is wider than those who receive it by a true saving faith."
So many times in order to support Calvinist view, one must make a false argument in order to show how correct they are, and dang! if that's what we believe [the false accusation/argument presented by Calvin's supporters], then Calvin must be right. I see it from you James and in many articles you paste. First, there is not one person here that will say Jesus "imparts to all everlasting life". That's your false argument. Many of your arguments are based on lies. It's a lie to say that those who don't believe like Calvin believed, must believe that all will have everlasting life because they believe God is the Saviour of all man. All men can be saved if they turn to Christ, because Christ is the Saviour of all men and His death on the Cross is proof.
James wrote - "B. Conclusion. A paraphrase of what Paul is teaching in I Timothy 4:10 is this: "We have our hope set on the living God, and in this hope we shall not be disappointed, for not only is He a kind God, hence the Saviour (i.e., preserver or deliverer in a providential, non-soteriological sense) of all men, showering blessings upon them, but He is, in a very special sense, the Saviour (in a soteriological sense) of those who by faith embrace Him and His promise, for to them He imparts salvation, everlasting life in all its fulness."
I think the most interesting thing about these two sides is the effect it has on the world. Jesus said that if He was lifted up He would draw all men to Himself, but what I usually see/hear in the world is how much people dislike "God" because they believe He's a tyrant that only chooses certain people to magically save and then burns the rest for eternity. Evangelistically speaking...that isn't a very convincing message, and while they probably do get some of it out of context, that isn't very far from what some Christians believe.
I think the message that God is unselfish/self-sacrificing, and that salvation is available to anyone that believes and repents, and to me, that sounds more like the message that would draw the whole world to see Jesus's/God's beautiful character and love, even though I know some people consider that to involve "legalism" or "works".
It depends on what you're trying to imply. If you're implying that what I'm saying means that people can do whatever they want with no consequences because God is all lovey-dovey, then no, I didn't mean that.
I just think the message that would draw the whole world to God is the one that is full of the hope/freedom/love/justice/impartiality/mercy/peace that people hunger for, that would inspire a real change in their hearts/lives to love/obey/trust God, and that is offered to all men everywhere. In my mind, anything less couldn't be from the loving, just, merciful, unselfish God that Jesus came to show us.
That doesn't mean we get to lay around and get loved on by a mushy God. We're called to believe, and obey, and love, and convert from our degraded/selfish/prideful state into Christ's likeness, or be put to death because we choose to perpetuate our selfishness at the expense and pain of others and against the will of God. That part of the message is still pretty unpopular with people that love themselves more than anything. Even a lot of "Christians" have a huge problem with that kind of stuff.(Matt. 5:38-48)
I even think that Calvinism is a more "likable" message, because people that aren't really converted can just superficially "say" they are and continue to live horribly selfish lives. I'm not saying all people that believe in Calvinism aren't converted, it just seems like some of that belief system promotes apathy/stagnation and misrepresents God's character to others. I'm not really even saying any other belief system is better either...I'm still learning here...I just think that love/unselfishness is the main point that God is trying to get across because He wants us to be like Him...and a good, unselfish, fair, pure, just, merciful, loving God doesn't play duck duck goose with people's salvation. So personally, I can't believe in predestination....as it is commonly defined anyway.
