1 Corinthians

Bocco

Active member
No Arminian states God has to look into the future to know a man's heart
Okay, anti-Calvinist instead. Arminianism is simply looked a as the opposite of Calvinism, even though there are Pelagians and others. We just use it as a catch phrase for anti-Calvinist.

I am going to a Restorationist Christian Church, and the pastor has interpreted Ephesians 1:4 as "God looks into the future to see who will believe, and that is how He chooses." It is not uncommon in non-Calvinist Churches.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Okay, anti-Calvinist instead. Arminianism is simply looked a as the opposite of Calvinism, even though there are Pelagians and others. We just use it as a catch phrase for anti-Calvinist.

I am going to a Restorationist Christian Church, and the pastor has interpreted Ephesians 1:4 as "God looks into the future to see who will believe, and that is how He chooses." It is not uncommon in non-Calvinist Churches.
Perhaps that pastor is an Open Theist...
 

Bocco

Active member
Perhaps that pastor is an Open Theist...
These restorationists don't believe in creeds (but that is kind of stupid isn't it, cause creed comes from the Latin Credo and means "I believe.") or confessions of faith, and thus would not read anything that isn't from their non-denomination denomination, so I doubt he has even heard of Open Theism.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
More like you are.

From Paul.

Everything is permisable, but not all thngs are beneficial.

Some of you guys are going, even beyond Paul, for man to never live.

Perpetual not living is a misnomer.
If you believe God determines some things. Your a fatalist as Tom defines it.

The context of that particular passage is what?
 

fltom

Well-known member
Okay, anti-Calvinist instead. Arminianism is simply looked a as the opposite of Calvinism, even though there are Pelagians and others. We just use it as a catch phrase for anti-Calvinist.

I am going to a Restorationist Christian Church, and the pastor has interpreted Ephesians 1:4 as "God looks into the future to see who will believe, and that is how He chooses." It is not uncommon in non-Calvinist Churches.
Well neither Aminians or Provisionists hold God has to look into the future and learn
 

Bocco

Active member
Well neither Aminians or Provisionists hold God has to look into the future and learn
I just looked at Matt Slicks article ""What is Calvinism" written on Jan 12, 2009.
Here is the whole paragraph on Arminianism:

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him, and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples’ sins who have ever lived and ever will live–not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some Arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

So tell Matt Slick he don't know what he is talking about. Maybe he has changed his mind in 12 years.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
I just looked at Matt Slicks article ""What is Calvinism" written on Jan 12, 2009.
Here is the whole paragraph on Arminianism:

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him, and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples’ sins who have ever lived and ever will live–not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some Arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

So tell Matt Slick he don't know what he is talking about. Maybe he has changed his mind in 12 years.

What happened to foreknew?

As in known before?
 

fltom

Well-known member
I just looked at Matt Slicks article ""What is Calvinism" written on Jan 12, 2009.
Here is the whole paragraph on Arminianism:

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him, and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples’ sins who have ever lived and ever will live–not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some Arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

So tell Matt Slick he don't know what he is talking about. Maybe he has changed his mind in 12 years.
To know what an Arminian teaches you should go to an Arminian source not a Calvinist one

Matt has a lot of good information but some inaccuracies as well

No learned Arminian believes God has to look into the future to know and learn
 

fltom

Well-known member
I just looked at Matt Slicks article ""What is Calvinism" written on Jan 12, 2009.
Here is the whole paragraph on Arminianism:

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him, and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples’ sins who have ever lived and ever will live–not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some Arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

So tell Matt Slick he don't know what he is talking about. Maybe he has changed his mind in 12 years.
Matt slick is not the repository of all knowledge

That is an error

God knows everything he does not need to look into the future to learn. He knows the beginning to end before it happens

Again if you want to know what an Arminian believes you need to go a learned Arminian

Short of an open theist no learned Arminian would claim that
 

Manfred

Well-known member
I speak the truth in love like Jesus
Equating yourself and your obvious hate and lies, with Jesus is the most hypocritical thing I have read on this forums.

It will be pointed out every time you are untruthful and hateful, and you can try and explain how your behavior is equal to that of Jesus.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Matthew 22:14: "For many are called, but few chosen."

If you look at the previous verse (Matt 22:13), you will see that figurative language about hades/hell is applied. So not all called are chosen. The Preservation of Saints doctrine cannot stand in light of 1 Cor and Matt 22.

Mat 22:11 And the king coming in to look over the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
Mat 22:12 And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few chosen.

Why do you ASSUME that the man in 22:11 was one of the elect?
That seems rather self-serving and arbitrary to me.
 

Synergy

Well-known member
Why do you ASSUME that the man in 22:11 was one of the elect?
That seems rather self-serving and arbitrary to me.
Here you go again with your misrepresenting of me. What I do see there is someone who did not uphold his salvation but neglected it and therefore lost it. And was cast into outer darkness because of his neglect.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Here you go again with your misrepresenting of me. What I do see there is someone who did not uphold his salvation but neglected it and therefore lost it. And was cast into outer darkness because of his neglect.

Again, why do you ASSUME the man had a "salvation" to "uphold" in the first place?
 

Synergy

Well-known member
You seem confused.

The term translated "called" is "kaleo", which has 4 main definitions, and 9 sub-definitions.

Are you REALLY so naïve as to think that the word "kaleo" has the EXACT same meaning every time it's used, even in different books, with different authors, different speakers, and different contexts?

Why does the word have 9 different meanings, if it (allegedly) means the EXACT same thing every time it's used?
You sound desperate.

Notice the following verses are related to the same Greek root word for call as does Matthew 22:14:

1Cor. 1:1 Paul, called (κλητος) by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,
1Cor. 1:2 ... to those ... called (κλητοις) to be saints ...
1Cor. 1:24 but to those who are called (κλητοις), both Jews and Greeks,

Matthew 22:14: "For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι)."

In whatever way God calls people, it is an awesome occasion that cannot be dismissed away.

The fact remains that many are called (κλητοι) by God but few elected. So how does Calvinism align itself with this fact of the Bible, especially its Preservation of Saints theory?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
You sound desperate.

Notice the following verses are related to the same Greek root word for call as does Matthew 22:14:

1Cor. 1:1 Paul, called (κλητος) by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,
1Cor. 1:2 ... to those ... called (κλητοις) to be saints ...
1Cor. 1:24 but to those who are called (κλητοις), both Jews and Greeks,

Matthew 22:14: "For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι)."

In whatever way God calls people, it is an awesome occasion that cannot be dismissed away.

The fact remains that many are called (κλητοι) by God but few elected. So how does Calvinism align itself with this fact of the Bible, especially its Preservation of Saints theory?

Priority paperwork.

Not a new thing.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
The fact remains that many are called (κλητοι) by God but few elected. So how does Calvinism align itself with this fact of the Bible, especially its Preservation of Saints theory?
Are you saying you believe this?

Well Amen!
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
You sound desperate.

Thank you for the personal attack.
But I'm confused as to why simply stating an objective FACT, that you apparently find uncomfortable, that the word has many different meanings and connotations, and so it doesn't mean the same thing every time it's used.

Notice the following verses are related to the same Greek root word for call as does Matthew 22:14:

1Cor. 1:1 Paul, called (κλητος) by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,
1Cor. 1:2 ... to those ... called (κλητοις) to be saints ...
1Cor. 1:24 but to those who are called (κλητοις), both Jews and Greeks,

Matthew 22:14: "For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι)."

In whatever way God calls people, it is an awesome occasion that cannot be dismissed away.

I'm not "dismissing" anything.
Maybe you should try harder at being charitable?

Matt. 22:14 refers to the outward gospel call.
"Chosen" in that verse refers to the elect, whom God regenerates.

The fact remains that many are called (κλητοι) by God but few elected.

Few WERE elected.
God elected them.
But I'm glad you agree that "chosen" in this verse is synonymous with "elected".

So how does Calvinism align itself with this fact of the Bible, especially its Preservation of Saints theory?

You haven't really given an argument that shows them "unaligned".
PotS addresses the elect, not all who hear the gospel call.
 

Synergy

Well-known member
But I'm confused as to why simply stating an objective FACT, that you apparently find uncomfortable, that the word has many different meanings and connotations, and so it doesn't mean the same thing every time it's used.
Tell us how these words (κλητος, κλητοις, κλητοι) are used differently in the verses I quoted.
Matt. 22:14 refers to the outward gospel call.
Read Matt 22:13. Hell is figuratively mentioned there and their souls are lying in the balance so it's a bit more than an "outward" call. The "inward" convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit makes sure about that.
"Chosen" in that verse refers to the elect, whom God regenerates.
Where do you see that all regenerated are elected?
Few WERE elected.
The word "were" is not in the English nor Greek text so it's dismissed.
Matthew 22:14: "For many are called (κλητοι), but few chosen (εκλεκτοι)."
God elected them.
But I'm glad you agree that "chosen" in this verse is synonymous with "elected".
I see the word elect (εκλεκτοι) in the Greek text of Matt 22:14.
You haven't really given an argument that shows them "unaligned".
PotS addresses the elect, not all who hear the gospel call.
There are actually 2 problems for Calvinism:
1) Irresistible Grace can be resisted by those called because of the reduced number of those who are elected.
2) Preservation of Saints (I don't see Elect) takes a hit when you consider that there is a reduction from those called by God to the few who are elected.
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
There are actually 2 problems for Calvinism:
1) Irresistible Grace can be resisted by those called because of the reduced number of those who are elected.
2) Preservation of Saints takes a hit when you consider that there is a reduction from those called by God to the few who are elected.

You clearly don't understand TULIP.
1) Those who aren't elected WEREN'T given "irresistible grace".
2) Those who weren't elected were never "saints", to have to be "preserved".
 
Top