Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 960 | ||
I'm having problems seeing the Calvinist viewpoint on Election. I've read the verses and studied documents and have found too many problems with the interpretations. I'll discuss these verses again if requested but a couple things that I don't see how they fit are: 1) If God pre-chose only some individuals that were to be saved, why did he destroy them in the flood? I guess you could always say the Noah and family were the only ones he chose but why then go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood? 2) If God had his "Elect" already in mind and knew they were going to be saved because the could not resist God, why then did Jesus have to die? 3) Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kindgom of Heaven? My view on this is that God wants us all to be saved and has provided (initiated, given us, predestined, etc...) the way to salvation through his son. 1) In the time of Noah, the people "went away" from God and the only way at that time to get them back on track was to "start over". 2) In Jesus' time, the people were getting too lost in all their laws and was losing the true meaning of God (Love) and sent Jesus, as a final statement, to show us the path. 3) Because God wants us to chose to worship him and believe in his son and to not follow the "ways of the world", then it would be harder for a rich man because there is greater temptations to sway him away. Although I do believe we have "Free Will" to choose, I also believe that our Will can be overriden by God, if necessary, for his plan to be fulfilled. I also believe that there could not have been anything we could have done to enter Heaven, but fortunately, he invited everyone free of charge with only one string attached -- you must believe. |
||||||
2 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 994 | ||
. . . P.S. . . . Regarding your submission, "Problems with Election Theory," I sincerely thank you for the background info. Now I see that for you Calvinism is neither a mere intellectual issue nor a matter for debate for the sake of debate. Rather it is a practical issue. However, I remind you that to my knowledge, I have never once in any of my answers used the word "Calvinism". For the record, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I suppose I'm somewhere in between strict Calvinism and strict Arminianism. I'm not saying either group is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. I never even used either of those terms (Calvinism or Arminianism, except perhaps to distinguish between the two or to reply to your comments and questions regarding Calvinsim, but not to defend strict, absolute, undiluted Calvinism). . . . In the same submission, I agree with you: you have to research it and determine for yourself whether you believe election is true and what your understanding of election is. . . . I also agree with your statement that ANYONE who ... believes in God's Son and turns to him for salvation SHALL BE SAVED. This is consistent with every statement in the Bible regarding salvation. Whosoever will may come. However, Scripture also plainly teaches that we neither chose nor sought out Christ; instead he did the choosing and the seeking of us (John 15:19). He came to seek and to save that which was lost. For an unregenrate man to say that he is seeking Christ is like the mice saying they are seeking the cat. If they are seeking his location, it is only for the purose of avoiding the cat. . . . I fear that to give detailed answers to your question "Problems with Election Theory" would take hours. Also that to answer in detail might stir up more emotion and hostility, which certainly is not my intention. I sincerely wish to give you helpful answers. Even if you don't agree with the answers (which is your right and privilege), my intention is to be helpful. Whether I have been helpful remains to be seen. My prayer for you is that the Lord will show you in His Word that which you are seeking to know and understand. Whatever your decision, I pray that it will be the right one for you. . . . Take care. Thank you for your interest and input. Disclaimer: I am not infallible. Calvin (there -- I used the word) is not infallible. No study Bible footnotes are infallible. Only the Scriptures are WITHOUT error and INCAPABLE of error and ONLY in the original manuscripts . . . . I apologize for not thoroughly proofreading this answer. If I tried to proof it, I'm afraid I would spend another hour thinking of one more thing after another that I would want to add. Because of Dry Eye Syndrome, if I don't stop reading and typing now, I will go temporarily blind. It will have to stand as is, typos and all. . . . I thank you for your time and patience. Take care. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
3 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 1019 | ||
Thank you for your answers. I do appreciate them. You said that "I also agree with your statement that ANYONE who ... believes in God's Son and turns to him for salvation SHALL BE SAVED" Do you believe that EVERYONE has the opportunity to believe or are you agreeing because ONLY THE ELECT have the opportunity to believe? I was told by an elder that only the only the elect have the opportunity to believe and the un-elect have no chance for salavation. This is my biggest problem with election. Not because I don't think it's fair but because I don't think that is what the bible teaches. |
||||||
4 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1026 | ||
There is significant disagreement about this secondary issue between fully orthodox branches of Christianity. If, after examining the creed and explanations of your church, you can not be reconciled to their beliefs on this issue, it may or may not be cause for concern. Most congregations do not require and/or pressure for individualized adherence to every secondary doctrine. If you have come to respect and trust your leadership, there is probably no reason to leave over such a disagreement. However, if you are (or plan to be) teaching, I would expect most evangelical congregations to desire teaching that did not contradict their doctrine. You need to take this into consideration -- in your responsibility to honor and represent your leadership, as well as in any decisions about what leadership to put yourself under. In certain cases, secondary doctrines may well be important for your choice of denomination or congregation with which you choose to affiliate (and thus place yourself under their authority). However, I believe they should not be used to judge the salvation of a believer or the orthodoxy of a denomination or congregation; the Scriptures leave room for disagreement. Is there someone on the list who assumes/expects that either John Calvin or John Wesley will not be in heaven when you get there because of his views on this doctrine? These are probably the most well-known proponents of the 2 most common opposing views. |
||||||
5 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 1032 | ||
I don't think of it as a "Salvation" issue but more of an error in interpretation - similar to how the Jehovah Witness's have interpreted the Bible. (Basing a religion on parts of the bible and using that basis to fit the rest of the bible to those beliefs and ignoring, or changing, the parts that don't fit) I guess the scariest part to Election (to me) is that it would seem too easy for a person to assume that they must not be an "Elect" because of all the horrible things they've done and miss out on the love of Jesus. The same holds true for a person that believes in Jesus but then back slides and begins to wonder if they are an "Elect". |
||||||
6 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1846 | ||
Either view taken to an extreme conclusion -- hyper-Calvinism or Repetitive-Loss-of-Salvation Holiness (for lack of a better name that I know) -- becomes dangerous. However, I use Calvin and Wesley because they are both orthodox doctrinally (along with denominations that follow their doctrine carefully). Otherwise, they and those denominations following their lead are heretical and dangerous. Even most extreme extensions beyond Calvin and Wesley's original teaching are dealing in the realms of secondary doctrines, and I would not think of calling these affiliated denominations non-Christian -- despite the difficulties and even harm that some of their teachings may produce for some people. Comparison of Calvin and Calvinism to Russell (founder of the Witnesses) and the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, is problematic and potentially antagonistic. I am confidetn that it would be offensive (with good reason) to those who lean toward Calvin's theology rather than Wesley's. The Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) is heretical in its basic understanding of the nature of God -- particularly Jesus Christ, whose worship they remove and whom they equate with Michael the Archangel rather than God the Son. This deals with a basic belief core to any orthodox Christianity and disqualifies them as a Christian Church. Members may or may not be believers that have been misled or confused, but those who developed and promulgated these doctrines were and are false teachers. Any believer within such a church will be greatly hindered (at the very least) by fellowship and receptivity toward such heretical teaching. |
||||||