Trying to understand how "God is Sovereign" is an argument in itself

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I see the "God is Sovereign" as a fill in when scriptural or logical argument cannot be made.

The "God is Sovereign" argument seems to me to be that you cannot stand on various scriptural promises because you are viewed as putting God in a box out of selfish motives and God is Sovereign.

On one hand, God limits his own options (Sovereignty?) by His Word and His personal directives to each of us. On the other hand, the only way we know God's will is through His Word and His directives.

Frequently when God directs men to do something, it does not get done. For example, Jesus taught us to pray that "God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Under "God is Sovereign" it would be done - because it is God's will - Jesus would not command us to pray for something that was not His will.
 

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,876
USA
✟580,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see the "God is Sovereign" as a fill in when scriptural or logical argument cannot be made.

The "God is Sovereign" argument seems to me to be that you cannot stand on various scriptural promises because you are viewed as putting God in a box out of selfish motives and God is Sovereign.

On one hand, God limits his own options (Sovereignty?) by His Word and His personal directives to each of us. On the other hand, the only way we know God's will is through His Word and His directives.

Frequently when God directs men to do something, it does not get done. For example, Jesus taught us to pray that "God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Under "God is Sovereign" it would be done - because it is God's will - Jesus would not command us to pray for something that was not His will.
Things are just as God made them.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,285
Frankston
Visit site
✟750,130.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I see the "God is Sovereign" as a fill in when scriptural or logical argument cannot be made.

The "God is Sovereign" argument seems to me to be that you cannot stand on various scriptural promises because you are viewed as putting God in a box out of selfish motives and God is Sovereign.

On one hand, God limits his own options (Sovereignty?) by His Word and His personal directives to each of us. On the other hand, the only way we know God's will is through His Word and His directives.

Frequently when God directs men to do something, it does not get done. For example, Jesus taught us to pray that "God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Under "God is Sovereign" it would be done - because it is God's will - Jesus would not command us to pray for something that was not His will.
Good question. I agree with you that it can be a cop out. God's will shall be done, but the church is taking the long way around. God has given all authority to Christ and Christ is the head of the Church. The reason that we are told to pray "Your will be done" is because it is not automatic. God gave Adam authority over creation and Adam gave that authority to Satan. Lord Jesus wrested that authority back and gave it to His church. Now God is waiting for us to do our bit.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,876
USA
✟580,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good question. I agree with you that it can be a cop out. God's will shall be done, but the church is taking the long way around. God has given all authority to Christ and Christ is the head of the Church. The reason that we are told to pray "Your will be done" is because it is not automatic. God gave Adam authority over creation and Adam gave that authority to Satan. Lord Jesus wrested that authority back and gave it to His church. Now God is waiting for us to do our bit.
God waits and depends on us who cannot do anything apart from him?
 
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,678
69
Tolworth
✟392,179.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For example, Jesus taught us to pray that "God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven". Under "God is Sovereign" it would be done - because it is God's will - Jesus would not command us to pray for something that was not His will

And apparently you know God's will better than God does!

Ending a prayer with for the honour of your name, or that your will be done or any other variation is not a magic incantation that causes God to do what we have prayed.

All of us, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Methodist, CoE, Anglican etc etc etc we all should be seeking to do what God wants us to do and praying about the things he wants us to do.

Theology is seeking to explain what one understands the Bible teaches and like science laws often it is dealing with a wave function at the same time as a particle function and the explanation is not as clear as it could be.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,742
6,154
Massachusetts
✟588,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I see the "God is Sovereign" as a fill in when scriptural or logical argument cannot be made.
It can be a fill-in.

Or, a person who knows God and scripture very well knows it could be wise to answer in very simple terms. "God is sovereign" can be a helpful simple saying to help us understand various scriptures and situations. It can be a key comment, for unlocking our understanding.

But we do need various scriptures and perhaps experiences to help us better understand what it means that God is sovereign.

For example > "God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5. So, in any case, "the proud" are not sovereign!!
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,376
3,637
Canada
✟753,127.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
A multi-page response here:

Is "Calvinism" Biblical?

First post:

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:

The next group of blog posts were written for an online conversation about “Calvinism.” I visited a forum and found plenty of misunderstanding surrounding the subject of Reformed theology so I set out to engage the posters in conversation and debate to help add clarity to the situation. It was declared by more than one poster on the forum that “Calvinism was unbiblical,” that they were “Biblicists.” Ok, fine. I reworked the posts for this blog.

Here goes…

“What are the doctrines of grace?”

The Doctrines of Grace, also known as Calvinism, are summarized as:

  1. T is for total depravity and inability of man to effect his own salvation.
  2. U is for unconditional or unlimited choice of God in election.
  3. L is for limited atonement.
  4. I is for irresistible grace.
  5. P is for the perseverance of the saints.
These “five points” are often called the Five Points of Calvinism but that is actually a misnomer. John Calvin did not write them and they were written only in response to the raise of Arminianism.

Does the Bible teach “Calvinism?” Before we get to scripture a little background.

Both Reformed Christians and other non-Reformed or Arminian Christians love the word of God and seek to conform to the word in all matters of faith and practice. Both groups believe they are expressing biblical doctrine and faith. Often those who oppose what is called “Calvinism” will lay claim to being a “Biblicist.” In my experience this claim is made in the spirit of obstinacy, one that simply ignores the facts of profane history, and embraces a modernistic view of theology. The person holding to such views often does so with an air of superiority, as if the person making this claim has a completely biblical theology “untainted” by any theologian. Both the Calvinist and Arminian lay claim to the idea of Biblicism. Both systems of theology believe they are expressing the literal, historical, and grammatical meaning of scripture. It is a pejorative when someone fails to recognize their own theological leanings, and claim the Calvinist is not attempting to explain what the divine word teaches. You will notice that I use the term Arminian for Bible believing Christians that support ideas about free will and I often use both identifiers together (ex. Arminian free will, free will Arminianism, etc.). This is not a slight but a historical theological definition to the chagrin of the Post-Modernist mind. To help clear the air I’ve included some questions. Many of them are my own, some of them I worked on with friends and others I’ve picked up from forums when having discussions about such theological issues.

Do you believe that human nature was gravely affected by the fall of Adam, but that sinners have not been left powerlessness in spiritual matters and can choose to be saved?

Do you believe that God enables every sinner to repent and believe but does not override man’s freedom to do so?

Do you believe each sinner possesses a free will that they will use to decide their final destiny depending on how they uses it?
Do you believe the sinners free will enables them to choose good over evil in spiritual matters?

Do you believe the sinner has the power to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and be regenerated or refuse to accept God’s grace and perish?

Do you believe the lost sinner needs help from the Holy Spirit but does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit to believe? Or that faith is man’s act and precedes regeneration?

Do you believe that God’s choice in election is based on what He foresees?

Do you believe that some sinners would respond to the preaching of the Gospel and God therefore elects them unto salvation based on His knowledge of their choice? Or that God decided to elect only those who would believe the Gospel?

Do you believe election is ultimately determined by man’s faith foreseen by God from eternity past?

Do you believe that Christ’s saving work on the cross made it a possibility for everyone single person that has ever lived to be saved but did not really secure the salvation of anyone?

Do you believe that Christ died for all sinners but only those who believe on Him are saved?

Do you believe Christ’s death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe?

Do you believe that Christ’s death did not actually put away anyone’s sin but made salvation a possibility?

Do you believe that redemption becomes efficient only if man chooses to believe it?

If you have answered yes to any of the above questions you are probably closer to Arminianism than you first believed, even if you reject the name. The history of the free will movement among Protestants sits squarely within the Arminian framework. If you answer yes to most of the questions, face it, you are an Arminian.

Once it is understood that modern Evangelicalism has a tradition wedded to Arminianism the debate breaks down into monergism and synergism. The free will Arminian tradition is very similar to Roman Catholicism. In fact, Arminius like Philipp Melanchthon before him, softened the Protestant doctrine moving Lutherianism toward the Roman church. When I say Protestant I refer to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. All there Reformers held to what is now called “Calvinism.” This is a remarkable fact considering the Reformers lived in different geographical locations.

The Reformers and Bible believers before them were monergists. A monergist believes the Holy Spirit will act effectually bringing sinners to salvation by spiritual regeneration. This is done without the sinner acting as an accomplice or assisting God. From beginning to end the work belongs to God. A synergist on the other hand believes the sinner must cooperate (Christ + something, you fill in the blank, faith, sacraments, works, etc.) in the salvation process often inserting ideas like “prevenient grace” to help explain the inconsistencies. For the Arminian or Christian supporting libertarian free will, it is the act of the unregenerate sinner in believing that begins the process of salvation. One dictionary describe this view as, “two efficient agents [acting] in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate.” This is the definition of modern Evangelism and is the hinge on which the discussion swings.

Do you believe a sinner must be saved purely by an act of God? or, Do you believe a sinner is saved by cooperating with the Holy Spirit? That is where we are today folks. We are discussing this very issue. Does the Bible teach that we are saved by God alone without any contribution made by the sinner? Or Does the Bible teach that we cooperate in the regeneration process? As we move forward I pray you take time to look up the passages cited and pray over them. It is important to read scripture as it is written and not fall to peer pressure, setting aside the Arminian comprise with Rome and let the Gospel of God’s free and unmerited grace wash over you. Let’s set aside our prejudices or bias, our traditions including American Evangelicalism or Reformed Calvinism and consider what scriptures teach.

The scriptures will be examined in subsequent posts.

To keep reading see: Is "Calvinism" Biblical?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SashaMaria
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,285
Frankston
Visit site
✟750,130.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
God waits and depends on us who cannot do anything apart from him?
Yes and no. And God will not do anything apart from His people. He could if He so chose. He chooses otherwise. If God did everything and man was required to do nothing, there would be no preaching of the gospel - the creation is sufficient (Romans 1). There would be no need to study God's word - the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. There would be no need for the ministry gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. There would be no need even for the Bible, the Holy Spirit would be enough.

If Christians realised that there are two distinct salvations, many of our disputes would evaporate. I can only hope!
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,876
USA
✟580,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes and no. And God will not do anything apart from His people. He could if He so chose. He chooses otherwise. If God did everything and man was required to do nothing, there would be no preaching of the gospel - the creation is sufficient (Romans 1). There would be no need to study God's word - the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. There would be no need for the ministry gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. There would be no need even for the Bible, the Holy Spirit would be enough.

If Christians realised that there are two distinct salvations, many of our disputes would evaporate. I can only hope!
What Paul says is that God causes us to do good things. Nothing good originates in us.

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (NCPB)

“I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.” John 15:5 (NCPB)
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Things are just as God made them.
What Paul says is that God causes us to do good things. Nothing good originates in us.

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (NCPB)

“I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.” John 15:5 (NCPB)

Yes God works in us to will and to do his good pleasure. It is, however, up to us to "abide in Him". God will not do something He has directed us to do - although He can help us. We can see an example of what abiding entails in Jesus on earth where He operated as the "Son of Man" in John 5:30.

John 5:30: "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
And apparently you know God's will better than God does!

Ending a prayer with for the honour of your name, or that your will be done or any other variation is not a magic incantation that causes God to do what we have prayed.

All of us, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, Methodist, CoE, Anglican etc etc etc we all should be seeking to do what God wants us to do and praying about the things he wants us to do.

Theology is seeking to explain what one understands the Bible teaches and like science laws often it is dealing with a wave function at the same time as a particle function and the explanation is not as clear as it could be.

My point is:
1. The vanilla statement "God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" is itself God's Will because Jesus commanded us to pray that.
2. God's Will is not being done on Earth as it is in Heaven. So there are other factors besides God's Will in play.
3. The "God is Sovereign" argument is commonly used when prayers are not positively answered. This implies that God did not positively answer the prayer because it was not His Will. Whereas, other issues within men may be blocking the positive answer. For example: It was God's will for Peter to walk on water when Jesus directed him. He started well but then he lost it when he put his eyes on the storm. God's will did not change during that entire event - Peter partially failed. God certainly did not will for Peter to fail.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,876
USA
✟580,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes God works in us to will and to do his good pleasure. It is, however, up to us to "abide in Him". God will not do something He has directed us to do - although He can help us. We can see an example of what abiding entails in Jesus on earth where He operated as the "Son of Man" in John 5:30.

John 5:30: "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
"Up to us"?
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin: for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” 1 John 3:9 (NCPB)
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I think your point is that only if you are "born of God" will you "abide in Him", and further you will not sin.

My take on 1 John 3:9 is that "not commit sin" means "does not practice sin", "His seed" refers to the Word of God, and cannot sin means "cannot continue to practice sin". If I am wrong, I would love to be introduced to the living human being that has not sinned for several years since he was "born of God". Also what is the purpose of 1 John 1:9-10 and Matthew 6:12.

Nothing is automatic - even after being "born of God" - as Paul gives this warning:
1 Corinthians 9:27 "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
A multi-page response here:

Is "Calvinism" Biblical?

First post:

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:

The next group of blog posts were written for an online conversation about “Calvinism.” I visited a forum and found plenty of misunderstanding surrounding the subject of Reformed theology so I set out to engage the posters in conversation and debate to help add clarity to the situation. It was declared by more than one poster on the forum that “Calvinism was unbiblical,” that they were “Biblicists.” Ok, fine. I reworked the posts for this blog.

Here goes…

“What are the doctrines of grace?”

The Doctrines of Grace, also known as Calvinism, are summarized as:

  1. T is for total depravity and inability of man to effect his own salvation.
  2. U is for unconditional or unlimited choice of God in election.
  3. L is for limited atonement.
  4. I is for irresistible grace.
  5. P is for the perseverance of the saints.
These “five points” are often called the Five Points of Calvinism but that is actually a misnomer. John Calvin did not write them and they were written only in response to the raise of Arminianism.

Does the Bible teach “Calvinism?” Before we get to scripture a little background.

Both Reformed Christians and other non-Reformed or Arminian Christians love the word of God and seek to conform to the word in all matters of faith and practice. Both groups believe they are expressing biblical doctrine and faith. Often those who oppose what is called “Calvinism” will lay claim to being a “Biblicist.” In my experience this claim is made in the spirit of obstinacy, one that simply ignores the facts of profane history, and embraces a modernistic view of theology. The person holding to such views often does so with an air of superiority, as if the person making this claim has a completely biblical theology “untainted” by any theologian. Both the Calvinist and Arminian lay claim to the idea of Biblicism. Both systems of theology believe they are expressing the literal, historical, and grammatical meaning of scripture. It is a pejorative when someone fails to recognize their own theological leanings, and claim the Calvinist is not attempting to explain what the divine word teaches. You will notice that I use the term Arminian for Bible believing Christians that support ideas about free will and I often use both identifiers together (ex. Arminian free will, free will Arminianism, etc.). This is not a slight but a historical theological definition to the chagrin of the Post-Modernist mind. To help clear the air I’ve included some questions. Many of them are my own, some of them I worked on with friends and others I’ve picked up from forums when having discussions about such theological issues.

Do you believe that human nature was gravely affected by the fall of Adam, but that sinners have not been left powerlessness in spiritual matters and can choose to be saved?

Do you believe that God enables every sinner to repent and believe but does not override man’s freedom to do so?

Do you believe each sinner possesses a free will that they will use to decide their final destiny depending on how they uses it?
Do you believe the sinners free will enables them to choose good over evil in spiritual matters?

Do you believe the sinner has the power to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and be regenerated or refuse to accept God’s grace and perish?

Do you believe the lost sinner needs help from the Holy Spirit but does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit to believe? Or that faith is man’s act and precedes regeneration?

Do you believe that God’s choice in election is based on what He foresees?

Do you believe that some sinners would respond to the preaching of the Gospel and God therefore elects them unto salvation based on His knowledge of their choice? Or that God decided to elect only those who would believe the Gospel?

Do you believe election is ultimately determined by man’s faith foreseen by God from eternity past?

Do you believe that Christ’s saving work on the cross made it a possibility for everyone single person that has ever lived to be saved but did not really secure the salvation of anyone?

Do you believe that Christ died for all sinners but only those who believe on Him are saved?

Do you believe Christ’s death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe?

Do you believe that Christ’s death did not actually put away anyone’s sin but made salvation a possibility?

Do you believe that redemption becomes efficient only if man chooses to believe it?

If you have answered yes to any of the above questions you are probably closer to Arminianism than you first believed, even if you reject the name. The history of the free will movement among Protestants sits squarely within the Arminian framework. If you answer yes to most of the questions, face it, you are an Arminian.

Once it is understood that modern Evangelicalism has a tradition wedded to Arminianism the debate breaks down into monergism and synergism. The free will Arminian tradition is very similar to Roman Catholicism. In fact, Arminius like Philipp Melanchthon before him, softened the Protestant doctrine moving Lutherianism toward the Roman church. When I say Protestant I refer to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. All there Reformers held to what is now called “Calvinism.” This is a remarkable fact considering the Reformers lived in different geographical locations.

The Reformers and Bible believers before them were monergists. A monergist believes the Holy Spirit will act effectually bringing sinners to salvation by spiritual regeneration. This is done without the sinner acting as an accomplice or assisting God. From beginning to end the work belongs to God. A synergist on the other hand believes the sinner must cooperate (Christ + something, you fill in the blank, faith, sacraments, works, etc.) in the salvation process often inserting ideas like “prevenient grace” to help explain the inconsistencies. For the Arminian or Christian supporting libertarian free will, it is the act of the unregenerate sinner in believing that begins the process of salvation. One dictionary describe this view as, “two efficient agents [acting] in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate.” This is the definition of modern Evangelism and is the hinge on which the discussion swings.

Do you believe a sinner must be saved purely by an act of God? or, Do you believe a sinner is saved by cooperating with the Holy Spirit? That is where we are today folks. We are discussing this very issue. Does the Bible teach that we are saved by God alone without any contribution made by the sinner? Or Does the Bible teach that we cooperate in the regeneration process? As we move forward I pray you take time to look up the passages cited and pray over them. It is important to read scripture as it is written and not fall to peer pressure, setting aside the Arminian comprise with Rome and let the Gospel of God’s free and unmerited grace wash over you. Let’s set aside our prejudices or bias, our traditions including American Evangelicalism or Reformed Calvinism and consider what scriptures teach.

The scriptures will be examined in subsequent posts.

To keep reading see: Is "Calvinism" Biblical?
I guess this is an automatic post. But in case not:

Is there a practical application of the doctrine of "Calvanist Election"? Because if there is none, I will just stick to studying the Bible and making adjustments according to what I read.

Also how does "Calvinist Election" incorporate 1 Corinthian 9:27 "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Yes and no. And God will not do anything apart from His people. He could if He so chose. He chooses otherwise. If God did everything and man was required to do nothing, there would be no preaching of the gospel - the creation is sufficient (Romans 1). There would be no need to study God's word - the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. There would be no need for the ministry gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. There would be no need even for the Bible, the Holy Spirit would be enough.

If Christians realised that there are two distinct salvations, many of our disputes would evaporate. I can only hope!
test
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
My argument stated a better way:
1. The vanilla statement "God's Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" is itself God's Will because Jesus commanded us to pray that.
2. God's Will is in fact not being done on Earth as it is in Heaven - even after 2000 years. Extremely obvious. So there are other factors besides God's Will in play negatively affecting the result - QED.
3. The "God is Sovereign" argument is commonly used when prayers are not positively answered. This implies that God did not positively answer the prayer because it was not His Will. Whereas, other issues within men may be blocking the positive answer. See line #2. For example: It was God's will for Peter to walk on water when Jesus directed him. He started well but then he lost it when he put his eyes on the storm. God's will did not change during that entire event - Peter partially failed. God loved Peter and saved him. I highly esteem Peter - to the point of naming my son after him.
It can be a fill-in.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,376
3,637
Canada
✟753,127.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I guess this is an automatic post. But in case not:

Is there a practical application of the doctrine of "Calvanist Election"? Because if there is none, I will just stick to studying the Bible and making adjustments according to what I read.

Yes! Scripture is practical. The main issue is presuppositional, it's about how you approach scripture, rather than collecting different theological perspectives to form a patchwork theological foundation.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/The Practical Implications of Calvinism.pdf

Some Practical Implications of Calvinism

Also how does "Calvinist Election" incorporate 1 Corinthian 9:27 "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."

Very simple, the faith of Christ's elect has a practical outworking in our daily lives. We also read, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Yes! Scripture is practical. The main issue is presuppositional, it's about how you approach scripture, rather than collecting different theological perspectives to form a patchwork theological foundation.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/The Practical Implications of Calvinism.pdf

Some Practical Implications of Calvinism



Very simple, the faith of Christ's elect has a practical outworking in our daily lives. We also read, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13

Yours in the Lord,

jm
So the practical application of "Calvanist Election" is that the faith of Christ's elect has a practical outworking in our daily lives. In Paul's case (1 Corinithians 9:27) that outworking involved continuously bringing his body into subjection lest he should become part of the non-elect.

And your moniker "...in perils among false bretheren..." really says it all.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,376
3,637
Canada
✟753,127.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
So the practical application of "Calvanist Election" is that the faith of Christ's elect has a practical outworking in our daily lives. In Paul's case (1 Corinithians 9:27) that outworking involved continuously bringing his body into subjection lest he should become part of the non-elect.

The fact that Paul was working out his salvation is a sign that God was working in him.

And your moniker "...in perils among false bretheren..." really says it all.

Yes, yes it does. Especially when surrounded by strange fire.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,412
835
Califormia
✟136,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I am not going to watch the video clip. It looks to be another signature Calvanist hit job like "American Gospel" and the "Strange Fire" conference.

Mark 16:14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
 
Upvote 0