T.U.L..I.P. and why I disagree with it

The term "Calvinism" is used by some people who do not hold Calvin's teaching on predestination and do not understand exactly what Calvin taught.

Dr. Loraine Boettner in his book, 'The reformed Doctrine of Predestination', says, "The Calvinistic system especially emphasized five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism.' And they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests."

Dr. Boettner further says, "The five points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P

T - Total Inability; U - Unconditional Election; L - Limited Atonement; I - Irresistible (efficacious) Grace; and P - Perseverance of the Saints." These are the five points of Calvinism.

I have heard people say, "I am a one-point Calvinist, a two-point Calvinist" and so on. Look at each one of these views as taught by Calvin and then see what the Bible has to say on each point. As with any Doctrine, it is no stronger than the foundation upon which it is built and it'll either be built upon sand or the Rock!

By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner could not repent and come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ.

The Bible teaches total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it no where teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was (John 5:40),

"You will not come to me, that you might have life." Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you CAN come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you WILL come to Him.

Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, AND YE WOULD NOT!" (Matt 23:37).

Here again notice, He did not say, "How often I would have gathered you together, but you COULD not." No. He said, "Ye WOULD not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would.

Rev. 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, COME. And let him that hearth say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me?" Why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me"?

Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him. . ." But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw ALL men unto me."

All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Savior. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. (Jn 1:9) Rom. 1:19, 20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the gospel.

So in the final analysis, men GO to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Him - "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Savior is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural. The foundation of this doctrine is very shaky when looked at in light of what the Scriptures say and not what some men have said.

By unconditional election Calvin meant that some are elected to go to Heaven, while others are elected to go to Hell, and that this election is unconditional. It is wholly on God's part and without condition. By unconditional election Calvin meant that God has already decided who will be saved and who will be lost, and the individual has absolutely nothing to do with it. He can only hope that God has elected him for Heaven and not for Hell.

This teaching so obviously disagrees with the oft-repeated invitations in the Bible to sinners to come to Christ and be saved that some readers will think that I have overstated the doctrine. So I will quote John Calvin in his "Institutes, Book III, chapter 23,"

"...Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or to death."

So Calvinism teaches that it is God's own choice that some people are to be damned forever. He never intended to save them. He foreordained them to go to Hell. And when He offers salvation in the Bible, He does not offer it to those who were foreordained to be damned. It is offered only to those who were foreordained to be saved.

This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ.

There is the Bible doctrine of God's foreknowledge, predestination and election. Most knowledgeable Christians agree that God has His controlling hand on the affairs of men. They agree that according to the Bible, He selects individuals like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David as instruments to do certain things He has planned. Most Christians agree that God may choose a nation - particularly that He did choose Israel, through which He gave the law, the prophets, and eventually through whom the Savior Himself would come - and that there is a Bible doctrine that God foreknows all things.

God in His foreknowledge knows who will trust Jesus Christ as Savior, and He has predestined to see that they are justified and glorified. He will keep all those who trust Him and see that they are glorified. But the doctrine that God elected some men to Hell, that they were born to be damned by God's own choice, is a radical heresy not taught anywhere in the Bible.

In the booklet entitled TULIP by Vic Lockman, Lockman attempts to prove the five points of Calvinism. Under the point, Unconditional Election, he quotes Ephesians 1:4, but he only quotes the first part of the verse: "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:

"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Under the same point, Unconditional Election, Mr. Lockman quotes John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen to go and bring forth fruit, which simply means that every Christian is chosen to be a witness for Him and to practice soul winning. Proverbs 11:30 says,

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that wins souls is wise." Nowhere does the Bible teach that God wills for some to go to Heaven and wills for others to go to Hell. NO. The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is

"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. "I Tim. 2:4 says, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Those who teach that God would only have some to be saved, while He would have others to be lost are misrepresenting God and the Bible. Does God really predestinate some people to be saved and predestinate others to go to Hell, so that they have no free choice?

Absolutely not! Nobody is predestined to be saved, except as He chooses of his own free will to come to Christ and trust Him for salvation. And no one is predestined to go to Hell, except as he chooses of his own free will to reject Christ and refuses to trust Him as Savior. John 3:36 says, "He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on Him."

Nothing could be plainer. The man who goes to Heaven goes because he comes to Jesus Christ and trusts Him as Savior. And the man who goes to Hell does so because he refuses to come to Jesus Christ and will not trust Him as Savior.

By limited atonement, Calvin meant that Christ died only for the elect, for those He planned and ordained to go to Heaven: He did not die for those He planned and ordained to go to Hell. Again I say, such language is not in the Bible, and the doctrine wholly contradicts many, many plain Scriptures.

For instance, the Bible says in I John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

The teaching of Calvinism on Limited Atonement contradicts the express statement of Scripture. First Timothy 2:5-6 says, "The man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all. . . ." The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Savior of the world. Jn 4:42 says, "and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

Again, I John 4:14, "and we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." The Scriptures make it plain that Jesus came to save the world. John 3:17 says, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."

No man will ever look at Jesus and say, "You didn't want to be my Savior." No! No! Jesus wants to be the Savior of all men. As a matter of fact, I Timothy 4:10 says, "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe."

The Bible teaches that Christ bore the sins of all people. Is. 53:6 says, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.: There are two "ALLS" in this verse. The first "ALL" speaks of the universal fact of sin -

"All we like sheep have gone astray." And the second "ALL" speaks of universal atonement - "and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." The "ALL" in the first part of Isaiah 53:6 covers the same crowd that the "ALL" in the last part of that verse covers. If we all went astray, then the iniquities of all were laid on Christ.

Not only did He bear the sins of us all, but the Bible plainly teaches that He died for the whole world. Look at I John 2:2,

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

If that isn't plain enough, the Bible says His death was for every man; (Hebrews 2:9)

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN" .

Nothing could be plainer than the fact that Jesus Christ died for every man. First Timothy 2:5-6 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all. . . ."

Romans 8:32 states, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

Look at the statements - statement after statement: "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man"; "Who gave himself a ransom for all"; "delivered him up for us all." John 3:16 has been called "the heart of the Bible." It has been called "the Bible in miniature." "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jesus died for the whole world. He suffered Hell for every man who has ever lived or ever will live. And no man will look out of Hell and say, "I wanted to be saved, but Jesus did not die for me.

Some argue that if Jesus died for the whole world, the whole world would be saved. No. The death of Christ on the cross was sufficient for all, but it is efficient only to those who believe. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross made it possible for every man everywhere to be saved. but only those who believe that He died to pay their sin debt and who trust Him completely fro salvation will be saved.

Again I quote John 3:36, "He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life. . . ." Everybody is potentially saved, but everybody is not actually saved until he recognizes that he is a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt, rose from the grave on the third day, and trust Him completely for salvation.

The atonement is not limited. It is as universal as sin. Romans 5:20 says, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Isaiah 53:6 states, "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

The fourth point of Calvinism is irresistible grace. By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved. God elected some to be saved, and He let Jesus die for that elect group.

And now by irresistible grace, He forces those He elected, and those Jesus Christ died for to be saved.

The truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as irresistible grace. Nowhere in the Bible does the word "irresistible" appear before the word "grace." That terminology is simply not in the Bible. It is the philosophy of John Calvin, not a Bible doctrine. The word "irresistible" doesn't even sound right in front of the word "grace."

Grace means "God's unmerited favor." Grace is an attitude, not a power. If Calvin had talked about the irresistible drawing power of God, it would have made more sense. But instead, he represents grace as the irresistible act of God compelling a man to be saved who does not want to be saved, so that a man has no choice in the matter at all, except as God forcibly puts a choice in his mind. Calvinism teaches that man has no part in salvation, and cannot possibly cooperate with God in the matter. In no sense of the word and at no stage of the work does salvation depend upon the will or work of man or wait for the determination of his will.

Does the Bible say anything about irresistible grace? Absolutely not! The Scriptures show that men do resist and reject God. Prov.29:1 states, "He, that being often reproved hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Notice the word "OFTEN" in this verse. If God only gave one opportunity to be saved, then man could not complain. But here the Bible says, "He, that being often reproved. . . ." This means the man was reproved over and over again. Not only was he reproved many times, but he was reproved often.

But the Bible says he "hardens his neck" and "shall suddenly be destroyed, and without remedy." That certainly doesn't sound like irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that a man can be reproved over and over again, and he can harden his neck against God, and as a result will be destroyed without remedy.

Again Proverbs 1:24-26 says, "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes."

Here the Bible plainly says, "I have called, and ye have refused. . .but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof." That doesn't sound like irresistible grace. God calls, and men refuse. Is that irresistible? God stretches out His hand and no man regards it?

Is that irresistible grace? No. The Bible makes it plain that some men do reject Christ, and they refuse His call. John 5:40 says, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." That verse plainly teaches that men can and do resist God and refuse to come to Him.

In Acts 7, we find Stephen preaching. He says in verse 51, "Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." To these Jewish leaders, Stephen said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." So here were people; some of whom had seen Jesus and heard Him preach; others who had heard Peter at Pentecost; others who had heard Stephen and other Spirit-filled men preaching with great power. And what had they done? They were stiff necked and uncircumcised in their heart and ears. That is, they were stubborn and rebellious against God. The Bible plainly says, "They resisted the holy Ghost."

Notice the words of Stephen in verse 51, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Here the Bible teaches that not only were these Jewish leaders resisting the Holy ghost, but that their fathers before them had also resisted the Holy Spirit. Stephen says that all the way from Abraham, through the history of the Jewish nation, down to the time of Christ, unconverted Jews had resisted the Holy Spirit.

God offers salvation to all men. Titus 1:11 says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation hath appeared to all men." But man must make his own choice. He must either receive or reject Christ. John 1:12 says, "But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." When Jesus wept over Jerusalem, he said, "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 gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Here again the Bible clearly indicates that God would have gathered them together as a hen gathers her brood, but they would not. That certainly shows that they could reject and resist Christ. "I would, but ye would not" does not fit the teaching of irresistible grace. So people do resist the Holy Spirit. They do refuse to come to Christ. They do harden their necks. They do refuse when God calls.

That means that those who are not saved could have been saved. Those who rejected Christ could have accepted Him. God offers salvation to those who will have it, but does not force it upon anyone who doesn't want it.

The Bible teaches, and I believe in, the eternal security of the born-again believer. The man who has trusted Jesus Christ has ever- lasting life and will never perish. But the eternal security of the believer does not depend upon his perseverance.

I do not know a single Bible verse that says anything about the saints' persevering, but there are several Bible verses that mention the fact that the saints have been preserved. Perseverance is one thing. Preservation is another. No. The saints do not persevere; they are preserved.

The Bible states in Jude 1, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. . . ."

First Thessalonians 5:23 says, "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."

The Bible makes it plain that the believer is kept. He does not keep himself. First Peter 1:4-5 states: "To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

The Bible says in John 10:27-29: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Now that doesn't sound like the PERSEVERANCE of the sheep or the saints. Here the sheep are in the Father's hand, and they are safe - not because they persevere, but because they are in the Father's hand.

Charles Spurgeon once said, "I do not believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the saints. I believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the Savior." To be sure, the Bible teaches the eternal security of the believer. But the believer's security has nothing to do with his persevering. We are secure because we are kept by God. We are held in the Father's hand. And according to Ephesians 4:30, we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

There is a belief that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. In his book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Dr. Loraine Boettner says on page 47, "There are really only three systems which claim to set forth the way of salvation through Christ [And he names them]: "(1) Universalism, that all will be saved. (2) Arminianism, which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual. . ., that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but those who are loved of God, ransomed by by God, and born of the Holy Spirit may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally; and, (3) Calvinism." He continues, "Only two are held by Christians." That is Calvin's position and Arminius' position."

Calvinists would like to make people believe that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. And since the Arminian position does such violence to the grace of God, many preferred to call themselves Calvinists. But a person doesn't have to take either position.

I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and I believe what the Bible says,

"That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. In conclusion, let me say that Calvin and those who followed him claimed to believe and follow the Bible. They claimed to find at least a germ of the Calvinist doctrine in the Scriptures. But a careful student will find that again and again they go beyond the Scripture, and that Calvinism is a philosophy developed by man and depending on fallible logic and frail, human reasoning, with the perversion of some Scriptures, the misuse of others, and the total ignoring of many clear Scriptures. Calvin did teach many wonderful, true doctrines of Scripture.

It is true that God foreknows everything that will happen in the world. It is true that God definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time and selected some individuals for His purposes.

It is certain that people are saved by grace, and are kept by the power of God. That far Calvinists may well prove their doctrines by Scriptures. but beyond that, Calvinism goes into a realm of human philosophy.

It is not a Bible doctrine, but a system of human philosophy, especially appealing to the scholarly intellect, the self-sufficient and proud mind. Brilliant, philosophical, scholarly preachers are apt to be misled on this matter more than the humble-hearted, Bible-believing Christian.

"Sir," replied Ignorance, "I was born in the country that lies over there, a little to the left, and I'm going to Celestial City."

"But how do you think you'll get in at the gate?" inquired Christian. "For you may find some difficulty there."

"As other people do," said Ignorance.

"But what do you have to show at that gate in order for it to be opened to you?" asked Christian

"I know my Lord's will," said Ignornace, "and I've lived a good life. I pay every man what I owe him; I pray, fast, pay tithes, and give offerings; and I've left my country to go where I'm now going."

Then Christian answered, "But you didn't come in at the Narrow Gate that is at the beginning of this path. You came in there, through that crooked lane. I fear, therefore, that whatever you may think of yourself, when the day of reckoning comes you will be charged with being a thief and a robber instead of getting admittance into the City."

"Gentlemen," replied Ignorance, "you are absolute strangers to me. I don't know you. Be content to follow the religion of your country, and I will follow that of mine. I hope all will be well...."

When Christian saw that the man was wise in his own eyes, he said to Hopeful in a whisper, "'There is more hope for a fool than for him.'" He continued and said, "'Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is.'"

I have refrained from calling you a liar despite the fact that you are repeatedly making false accusations (and the fact that you have been duly warned that you don't grasp what we are saying and what we are not saying). You can't seem to face the discussional issues honestly. So, I say that there are demonic implications in this. I will not shirk to say so, even if I am being pretty gentle in urging you to better things.

I have asked you to refrain from posting to me. I will ask that you stop pinging me as well.

Everything you say above is beneath contempt and you pretend to distance yourself from it with petty linguistic Clintonisms.

You have been bitter, divisive, hateful, accusatory, demeaning, and unchristian. I believe that is in some circles THE definition of demonic.

Personally, I think you have a screw loose. I repeat: do not post to me; do not ping to me. I will do the same with you.

No, 1 Corinthians 2:14 "supports" Wesley's theory of God's prevenient grace only if you read his theory into the verse and say "Eureka."

I have a better way to read the verse. It's really simple. It says that the natural man--obviously referring to the unregenerate sinner--cannot receive the things of God. If God grants prevenient grace to everyone, as Wesley speculated, the verse is necessarily banal, brother. (I'm trying to avoid saying that your reading is trite [grin]!)

Think about what I just said. I'm afraid that I'm correct.

Now, if my reading (it's not even an interpretation, brother) of 1 Corinthians 2:14 is correct, then we suddenly have explanations of John 3:5, John 6:37, John 6:44, John 8, John 10, John 17, Acts 13:48, Romans 9, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5--and a zillion other verses which don't make any sense under your system.

Now, I think that's significant. God is obviously saying that He is utterly sovereign in determining who will receive the favor of saving faith.

You need to trust Him in this, not call Him an unfair monster. He is the Potter, you are the clay. You deserve nothing from Him anyway.

"Lengthy post, Jean. Necessitated by a lengthy post from me.
Let's shorten it.
Those he foreknew he predestined = God knew those who ENDOWED WITH FREE CHOICE would choose him. Those who would choose him he predestined. Universal opportunity was an operant principle in God's mind AS HE FOREKNEW"

X, thats really nice, BUT, that is not what these texts say. These texts say nothing to the effect that the foreknowledge of God means he knew man would choose him. It simply is not there. You are making it up out of thin air. Your adding this to the text. There isn't even the hint in these passages that we choose him. There is no scripture which speaks of God's foreknowledge and uses these words. You have shown again, that you are changing the definitions of these words to fit your theology.

I understand the need for you to do this, X. For if God's foreknowledge doesn't mean what you say it means, then indeed predestination is Biblical. You need it to mean this or your whole theology crumbles. But the fact is, X, "foreknowledge" in no way implies God knowing what we would do and then predestinating that decision. That doesn't even make any sense! Listen to yourself. "God new that we would someday choose him, so he chose us" That's akin to having your cake and eating it too.

What I attempted to show you in my last post, X, is that "foreknowledge" when used in other places in the New Testament makes no sense if we apply your definition to this word. To illustrate this absurdity, I quoted 1 Peter 1:20 which uses the very same word! I then tried to apply your definition to this word. Did God's foreknowing Christ's work mean, as your logic would require, that God knew Christ would choose him so He chose Christ. That is so rediculous even you admitted that is not the proper meaning. Well, X, if it is not the proper meaning there, how can it be the proper meaning in Romans 8:29,30?

Hint...do a study on the root word of "foreknow": know; ginosko (Strong's 1097)-many definitions, but which one applies. Obvious, in Romans 8 is God's relationship with the believer. You and I can agree on this, I think. I would think, then, to resolve what this means, we would go to Scripture and look to see if there are any other uses of "foreknow" (proginosko) or it's root "know" (ginosko). Not suprisingly, we can find such verses:

1 Corinthians 8:3 "But if man love God, the same is known of him" Awkward reading so I will quote my greek interlinear "but if anyone love God, he is known by him". This is not saying here, "but if anyone love God, God knew man would love him". It simply says, "he is known by God".

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." Again, a bit awkward, so I will again quote from my greek interlinear, "I am the shepherd good; and I know those that [are] mine, and am known of those that [are] mine.". Is Christ claiming he "knows the choices of his sheep"? Choice isn't even an issue here. He simply knows them. But this, as the previous text I cited is ambiguous? What does it mean to "know". Well, all we need to do is go only one verse more in John 10: John 10:15 "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father..." (emphasis mine). Here we have the key. To "know" means and implies a deep personal understanding and relationship. Christ "knows" us. He has a deep understanding, knowledge and relationship with us just as Christ "knows" the Father and the Father "knows" Christ. They have a mutual deep understanding, knowledge and relationship of each other. So, we can now easily see what pro (before) ginosko (know) means in this description of the relationship of God to the believer. He before the foundation of the world had a deep understanding, knowledge and relationship to us before we were even created and necessarily BEFORE we knew him. The rest flows easily from here:

Those he deeply and intimately knew as his sheep, he predestined, those he predestined, he called, those he called he justified, and those he justified he also glorified.

So wonderful is this message, God knew me personally before the foundations of the world. I was considered his sheep, his possession before the world was created. How wonderfully humbling and exhilerating this message is that I need do nothing to earn my salvation. It is sealed by him. I am his.

Glory to God in the Highest!

Jean

spent many years in an AOG church FtD, it was an "easy grace " church..It was name it claim it..The Pastor would stand up every so often and ask if anyone wanted to ask Christ into their heart..just raise your hand...that's it all done ,all saved..If you are poor God must not love you...just ask

Well, Paul sure deceived that jailor when he said 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' He made it too easy

I have been there FtD.. You may not believe it is a problem in the church (even the one I attend now) but it is.

The problem is no absolute authority (the Holy Bible, AV1611) and Pastors who will not tell the truth to their people, and people who will not listen because it might offend them. How different from the days of Jonathen Edwards and his 'the sinner in the hands of an Angry God' when people were fainting in their seats. We are a people who are soft and effeminate

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of truth (2Tim.3:7)

Read Jonah and see what God feels about His creation. Jonah was a good Calvinist, waiting for the people to be destroyed(you get them God, you show them who is Sovereign!) And all the people had to do was REPENT, now how about that! Interesting selection of OT events ...I think it proves that God is sovereign and His plan HIS way will be accomplished ..There is none of this thing where God keeps a back up plan if you (in your free will) refuse...God showed Jonah who was Sovereign..no back up plan needed

Well, it does show that God is sovereign God and as a Sovereign God He wanted those people saved! Now, the Calvinists can sulk all they want about that fact, but it is God who wants to save man, despite the philosphical speculations of Augustine and Calvin. What saith the Scritures!

Your #587 to doc: I have asked you to refrain from posting to me. I will ask that you stop pinging me as well. Everything you say above is beneath contempt and you pretend to distance yourself from it with petty linguistic Clintonisms. You have been bitter, divisive, hateful, accusatory, demeaning, and unchristian. I believe that is in some circles THE definition of demonic. Personally, I think you have a screw loose. I repeat: do not post to me; do not ping to me. I will do the same with you.

I have told doc myself that often it is the medical professionals that are the last to realize when they themselves are in need of professional help.

doc is such a hypocrite in his reply to you, #592. He says do not judge and cast out the beam from your own eye first, yet he does not hesitate to insinuate with every new poster who disagrees with him that they are unregenerate, hateful toward God, and under demonic influence.

I have had my eye on doc for the last 20 months, and he gives every indication that he will continue this abusive and even predatory behavior until he is banned again.

How long shall we let this go on without inviting Jim Robinson to do whatever he thinks is best?

Ummm, perhaps the Baptism that really counts has nothing to do with water. Perhaps the water is symbolic as Peter points out.

Once again, another bible verse doesn't mean what it says. You can argue with the bible all you like. I will take the bible. If Peter was talking about a wholly spiritual thing, there would be no reason to mention dirt, which is removed by water.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

This isn't even referring to Baptism at all. This is talking about regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which must happen before one believes. You have fallen in the same error about which Jesus chides Nicodemus.

And again! Jesus mentions the Spirit, and water. To say Jesus didn't mean water when He said it is no less silly than saying He didn't mean the Spirit when He said it. Nicodemus missed both entirely because he got hung up on "born."

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Considering your other errors, I don't expect you to understand what this is saying.

And again! It seems my greatest "error" is believing the bible.

The bible is full of symbols and symbolic acts. The entire Law of Moses was a symbol to teach people about Christ, and people were executed for breaking it.

Just because an act is symbolic of a greater truth does not free you from doing it. The council of Jerusalem in Acts forbade the eating of blood. That is a prohibition based on symbolism. So is the prohibition against eating food sacrificed to idols. Paul deals with this error when he tells the Corinthians that even though they know an idol is nothing, they are not to eat meat they know was sacrificed to idols.

Peter just points out that baptism is not simply taking a bath. Paul tells us of one consequence of baptism in Galatians 3:27 : "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. "

Paul explains the rich symbolism of baptism in Romans 6:4: "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

How long shall we let this go on without inviting Jim Robinson to do whatever he thinks is best?

White, you are correct. Doc is abusive. My work with abusive families/spouses suggests that REALLY the only thing an abuser understands is authority. As long as they get away with abuse, they will keep abusing.

Such abuse typically is the sign of a personality disorder of some order/degree.

To fix an abuser, the threat of greater power exerted by a greater authority, and then the application of that power of a greater authority is normally what is required.

Did I understand you to say that Jim Robinson HAS ALREADY banned Doc in the past? Jim doesn't do that easily. So, it isn't just me. Ward Smythe, yesterday, was of the same mind. So was another who freepmailed me. Jim makes the decision more easily the second time.

What were the circumstances of the previous banning? We will look for the same pattern. Thanks for the information. Abusers must be confronted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.