Calvinism's Unconditional Election Vs. Old Testament Shadows (Answering TULIP)

by



Election is not a uniquely New Testament doctrine. Many in our day want to unhitch the Old Testament foundations from the New Testament teaching. By so doing, men like Augustine and Calvin twisted the New Testament to fit a deterministic mold.

IN this video we discus the foundation of corporate election in the old tesment and how it relates to corporate election in the new testament. If we do not understand the corporate nature of election, we will also misundersttand the passages that teach about individual election.
Calvinists under emphasize the corporate nature of election, and Open Theists deny the individual nature of election.
To be biblical we must retain both, and start with the Old Testament foundation.

Help support this channel:
https://givesendgo.com/G8DN1?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=G8DN1

Christopher’s Blog
https://gospelcommission.org/

Christopher’s Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Chris_C_Chapman

source

8 thoughts on “Calvinism's Unconditional Election Vs. Old Testament Shadows (Answering TULIP)”

  5. You are a moron sir' Election for salvation is not by a group of people or by a nation… Election for salvation is by individual, Israel as nation is chosen by God to teach other nations about the true God… but within the nation of Israel there are many that cannot be saved… Because personally they are evil people… to be more precise they are sons of the devil… Listen to watch Jesus said to some of Pharisees… John 8:44, ''Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.'' =>>> To understand more about Election and Predestination, please
    read The parable of 'Wheat and Tares' in Matthew 13:24-43… NOTE: Please don't delete my post for I am speaking the truth, You can refute me if you want and I'll answer you sir…

    Reply

  7. I honestly think Arminians are just talking past Calvinists and arguing semantics at times. The real question is: is your hope in your own abilities to obey the Law and maintain your own holiness or are you having faith that Christ has fulfilled the Law for you and you are fully covered in Christ's holiness despite your in ability to keep the Law and maintain holiness yourself. That's really the question. Are you relying on your own ability to hold onto Christ or are you trusting that Christ is holding you? The arminian would say that it's' because I'm the one holding on to Christ and striving for holiness. The Calvinist response is the Christ is holding on to me and I'm trusting that he has covered my sin in his holiness. The arminian position is more inline with the Catholic position while the Calvinist position is more in line with the Protestant position. Another way we can look at it is Paul's position being more in line with the calvinist position and James being more in line with the arminian position. One says faith ALONE saves us, the other says faith AND works saves us. Augustine would be in line with Paul, Luther, Calvin; While Pelagius would be more in line with Arminians and Roman Catholics. It should be noted that Pelagius was deemed a heretic on the account that he denied faith Alone. We must also remember that in Acts it describes this very debate in the church from the very beginning between Paul and James. And was settled at the Council of Jerusalem with Paul winning the debate and James conceding with making a plea for christians to at least abstain from sexual immorality and eating food sacrificed to idols. Of which Paul agreed. Peter seems to take a middle position but seems to ultimately side with Paul. Works righteousness is a subtle thing friends. The Law always likes to creep back in.

    Reply

Leave a Comment