3-Point Calvinism

[McCulloch]

…as far as Calvinism goes I am 3-point (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Perseverance of the Saints).

Can this be done consistently?
If humans are totally depraved then how can grace not be irresistible? Total depravity means that we cannot do anything good by our own will, if we have a choice between good and evil, we will choose evil. Therefore, if God wants us to do or choose good, He must compell us. Irresistible Grace.
If Jesus died for every sinner and salvation only comes by God's election, then all sinners should be saved. Therefore, if there are any not saved, then Jesus died only for the elect. Limited Atonement.

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 10 by 2timothy316]

Of course, absolutely (see my posts on Biblical Literalism for proof lol)

[Clownboat]

However, I chalk up the disparity to the divine nature of God and our inability to comprehend it. Pure Calvanism is very logical and legalistic, but it leaves out so much....I know this does not hold up to intense logical scrutiny, but the wisdom of God is foolishness to man.

I agree, that God's wisdom is way higher than man's. The Bible even says so. "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not my ways,� declares Jehovah." - Isaiah 55:8

But can we not understand God ever?
The Bible says, “If . . . you give forth your voice for discernment itself, if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God. For Jehovah himself gives wisdom.� (Proverbs 2:3-6)

I also agree that mankind, 'does not have the power to save ourselves'. God gave His Son Jesus to save all mankind. The Bible even supports this too. “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.� (Acts 4:12)

What can we say about Calvinism? Is the doctrine God's thoughts? Or man's, in this case, John Calvin's thoughts? Doesn't the name Calvinism kind of tell us who's thoughts these are? When you say you 'chalk up the inability to understand to the inability to understand', is what you are not able to understand Calvin's thoughts? I'm curious, when did people allow Calvin to substitute for God's thought's?

Personally I choose the Bible to explain God's thoughts. *My user handle is 2 Timothy 3:16 for a reason

So the question is there anything us humans can do to help save our lives? Yes. Though it is not our power but it is our choice that can help. The gift of life is still a gift. Jesus' giving his life is still a gift. Yet Jesus has the final judgement as to who he gives that gift to. All can attain it but not all will choose to accept it, thus Jesus will not give it to those that do not want it. Where does it say all of this in the Bible? Well, if anyone wants to know that feel free to ask and I'll continue.

I hear what you are saying, but let's keep this in perspective.
According to the story, Jesus only gave his life (if we can even call it that) for 3 days. After that he was back at the right hand side of god in paradise for eternity. A noble story, but let's not make it out to be more than what's claimed.

How do you justify that Jesus is up there deciding who is covered by this human sacrifice to a god and who is not? Can Jesus really step in and decide that his blood doesn't appease the god to whom he was sacrificed to? If so, where did he get said power to apparently overrule the god to whom he was a sacrifice to?

This doesn't seem logical to me.

Did a sacrificial lamb of old also have the power to decide if its blood was going to be acceptable to the god in question or do you only credit Jesus with this ability?

[2timothy316]

How do you justify that Jesus is up there deciding who is covered by this human sacrifice to a god and who is not? Can Jesus really step in and decide that his blood doesn't appease the god to whom he was sacrificed to? If so, where did he get said power to apparently overrule the god to whom he was a sacrifice to?

The Bible says of Jehovah, the invisible God, “The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice.�—Deut 32:4.

The Bible says of God' Son Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God". - Col 1:15

Jesus said, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth."�—Mat 28:18, 19.

The Bible says of Jesus as judge, "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son," - John 5:22

The Bible says of those saved, "They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,’ Jehovah has said.� - Isaiah 65:25


I am not worried about Jesus' judgments, they will be perfectly just. No one will die that is not supposed to die and no one will live that isn't supposed to live. The Bible says that it will be by the heart a person will be judged. In the heart sits all desire and it is those desires that are to be examined. "I well know, O my God, that you examine the heart." 1 Chronicles 29:17

[Clownboat]

How do you justify that Jesus is up there deciding who is covered by this human sacrifice to a god and who is not? Can Jesus really step in and decide that his blood doesn't appease the god to whom he was sacrificed to? If so, where did he get said power to apparently overrule the god to whom he was a sacrifice to?

The Bible says of Jehovah, the invisible God, “The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice.�—Deut 32:4.

That doesn't answer the question about how Jesus can remove the blood that was meant to appease the god in this story.

The Bible says of God' Son Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God". - Col 1:15

So being in the image means to you that he can remove a human blood sacrifice that was offered to a god? Doesn't really follow IMO.

Jesus said, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth."�—Mat 28:18, 19.

Human blood was spilled to appease a god according to the story. I'm not sure how authority would remove the blood sacrifice that was made.

The Bible says of Jesus as judge, "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son," - John 5:22

Judging in itself would not remove the blood that was spilled to appease the god. He could judge you as unworthy sure, but the human blood was spilled for this god to cover sin supposedly non the less.

The Bible says of those saved, "They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,’ Jehovah has said.� - Isaiah 65:25

What does it mean to be saved in your opinion? To not have Jesus remove blood, or does it mean something that has nothing to do with blood at all?

I am not worried about Jesus' judgments, they will be perfectly just.

I'm not worried either, but for different reasons.

No one will die that is not supposed to die and no one will live that isn't supposed to live.

What an odd statement. Reality shows me that all die and everyone that has ever lived... well... lived.

The Bible says that it will be by the heart a person will be judged.

My heart pumps blood. Perhaps is ancient times they thought it did things that it didn't, but that is hardly an excuse now that we know better.
I hear the Egyptians once thought that the brain made boogers. Again, we now know better.

In the heart sits all desire and it is those desires that are to be examined. "I well know, O my God, that you examine the heart." 1 Chronicles 29:17

If you are trying to argue that the ancients credited the heart for things that it doesn't do, I agree, but don't see how that is relevant to today.

Your source for information seems very outdated. I'm curious, do you credit the gods for rain, or do you acknowledge the Water Cycle?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 14 by Clownboat]

If you don't understand what I'm talking about, a daily study of the Bible and prayer will help. My posts alone will never give you the answers you seek. The simple fact that you don't understand what the Bible means by 'the heart' tells me that you're woefully under-educated when it comes to the Bible. So again, I'd recommend a daily study in the Bible and seek knowledge from God and not from a message board. Then perhaps you can discuss God more effectively? Have a good day!

[ttruscott]

…as far as Calvinism goes I am 3-point (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Perseverance of the Saints).

Can this be done consistently?
If humans are totally depraved then how can grace not be irresistible?

I agree. All sinners who are saved must have been saved by irresistible grace.

Total depravity means that we cannot do anything good by our own will, if we have a choice between good and evil, we will choose evil.

Not if this means that sinners can do no good at all or love at all which is denied by experience. The workable definition is that their minds and emotions are enslaved by the addiction to sin which clouds (subtly corrupts) their whole being and all desire. Just as an addict always has his addictive needs in the background of his thoughts and plans while he carries on with the best moral life he can, doing good as he can, loving as he can, behind it all he is an addict serving his addiction first. That is, no sinner can become the perfect moral person necessary to become the heavenly Bride of GOD.

The problem with the addiction to evil is the inevitability of the addiction growing and becoming harder to resist with less ability to do good or to love the more it is practiced. This is expressed in doctrine by the verse: 1 Corinthians 5:6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast / sin leavens / corrupts the whole batch of dough / character?

Therefore total depravity must be restricted to the elect sinner to mean that he cannot save himself from his enslavement to sin and to turn to GOD in any real acceptable manner can only be done by the gift of grace through faith, not that he can do nothing morally right nor love at all.

If Jesus died for every sinner and salvation only comes by God's election, then all sinners should be saved. Therefore, if there are any not saved, then Jesus died only for the elect. Limited Atonement.

Hell proves the inability of someone to save himself or he would, ie total depravity.
Salvation therefore proves Jesus only died for those saved.

IF we are seen as needing to accept his call then we must accept universal salvation as
HE is love,
Love is patient and kind and
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.

For HIM to NOT wait forever for HIS creation to finally repent and accept HIS righteous rules (ie, universal salvation), would be a failure of HIS patience and kindness and HIS love which can never happen. Therefore hell proves that HE CANNOT save them without being untrue to HIMself as love demands that HE should if HE could.

I start with HIS loving holiness and build my theology from there. Theologies which quibble about HIS love and holiness to shore up their sandy foundations are of no use to me.

[ttruscott]

Our total depravity allows us to reject the Gospel, God's grace alone allows us to accept it. I know this does not hold up to intense logical scrutiny, but the wisdom of God is foolishness to man.

How exactly does this fail to pass intense scrutiny? I am quite certain this is GOD's teaching and would address your issues if I may.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 2 by 2timothy316]

And to a point I agree with you. I think that rejecting Calvanism entirely is dangerous and borders on rejecting God's sovereignty, however I think both Calvanism and Arminianism both miss the mark. It has to be some combination of these and while it doesn't make much sense neither does the Trinity.

The commonalities of all Churchianity that I reject are all contradictions to HIS loving holiness.
GOD is loving and righteous with no wickedness in HIM at all so no wickedness can proceed from HIM. Therefore all wickedness (rejecting HIS character and values as the true definition of rightness in favor of other values) had to emanate from someone else leaving HIS creation as the creator of all evil.

GOD had no need for sin, suffering or evil in the least so HE did not create it.
Therefore HIS creation created evil against HIS needs and wants.
Evil therefore proves our free will.

This contradicts that we are created, ie, conceived and born into this world as sinners in Adam not by our own choice but by HIS supposed sovereignty. Not only does this defy HIS self revealed character of being pure Light in whom is no darkness nor shadow so no dark can emanate from HIM, but it flies in the face of all reason that HE would create HIS future Bride as evil and disgustingly corrupt in someone else's sin (which scripture denies can happen: Ezek 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent...), then save her from the evil HE gave her!

The upshot is that if we are born in sin, then it is by necessity our own self chosen sin by our free will that must have happened before were were conceived (traducianism) or born (creationism of the soul), before we were separated into the people of the kingdom and the people of the evil one and sown into the earth!

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

Your view is extra-Biblical, and therefore invalid. You can't use the Bible to support your viewpoints sometimes and then reject it when you don't think it fits. You have to believe all or none. And you can't add things that aren't there.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 8 by 2timothy316]

I don't subscribe to those definitions. More so I object to Unconditional Election.

I agree. IF it was truly unconditional then it was arbitrary and in that case HIS free choice resulted in hell for billions. IF HE (supposedly) knew before their creation who would choose hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY, then how can HE said to be the source of all light with not darkness in HIM?

It is our salvation that is unconditional as it is HIS promise to HIS elect but it certainly not our election that was unconditional as that makes HIM a monster indeed and must be rejected.