|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 4:10:20 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: McFatty
Exactly where did the Holy Spirit label it a work? Anything we "do" is a work. Loving is a work, gentleness is a work...joy....and faith are works. That is what fruit is - work - something which is "brought forth"(Mat 3:10; Phil 1:22).
quote:
The Bible doesn't say that none seek Him. In fact, the Bible indicates in more than one place that people DO seek Him. Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
quote:
God has directed the steps of people, but He doesn't control everyone at all times. The Bible is clear about this as well. People have gone against His will and incited His wrath before. God has changed His mind because people have pleaded with Him before. This is all in the Bible. Do you really think God was unaware that ALL the people of Ninevah would repent? No, this account is given for our benefit. God gives the command to all mankind to repent and believe with the possibility that God will save them. We see this in the following verses.
Jonah 3:8-10 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
quote:
God doesn't send men to eternal condemnation. Men send themselves. In fact, God doesn't desire that anyone should perish. The Bible says this as well. Men go to hell because they sin; but it is God who pronounced that judgment of death upon all sinners.
Genesis 2:17 .....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 4:13:41 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3889
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
O:
even by allowing us to have free will God's will still is done.
I dont think it has to be or one or the other. Neither do i think giving people FW makes God less sovereign.
Kelman:
I think you're avoiding the example of God's determination of the Cross yet still holding man responsible. There was no way these men were not going to kill Christ - God ordained that they would. God determined, He ordained, yet, these men still by their own freewill killed Christ. That's how it worked then, that's how it works now.
Elaborate what you mean by freewill here, plz. I dont disagree, but i presumed your position was that people have no freewill... You mean they had a choice, it was up to them to do or not do it, they made the choice, influences and circumstances did not absolutely determine it? See THIS POST to FG where he asked the same question. In the meantime, they had a choice; but, it was definitely not free from influences.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Yes, man once had freewill to choose other than his nature(Adam); but, that was lost in the Fall..."for in the day that you eat of it you shall SURELY die..." Man's spirit is dead, he has lost the connection to God that Adam had. There is nothing in this world unregenerated man can do to please God - nothing...and that includes whatever faith man can muster up. When man today decides he does as he pleases with regard to believing, there is a denial of the declaration of God where He says He elects, He chooses, He predestinates, He foreknows
well, this is what i am not convinced about-i think Him giving us fw doesnt negate that he predestines and foreknows , etc. I dont see yet how FW negates Gods sovereighnty. For man to have the free will to choose for God aside from the determination, predestination and foreknowledge of God, this would negate all three...how could it not?
Scripture says God ordains us to salvation(Act 13:48). It says we are predestined unto salvation(Eph 1:5,11). We are foreknown by God(Rom 8:29). These are the same word God uses concerning His intent of Christ at the cross.
There is no room in these verses and in God's actions which allow for man to exercise a free will apart from God's influence.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 4:33:44 AM
|
|
|
doublecross
Posts: 121
Joined: 6/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Remember Pharaoh. Even though God hardened his heart so that he would not let the people go God still asked him to let the people go knowing good and well what would happen. And even then when Pharaoh had his "free will" violated and his heart hardened God did not excuse him. Therefore God does reserve the right to command men to repent knowing they are not able. But I can relate to having feelings of what I think is fair and just and it does not always line up with the actions of God. However since my mind is terribly feeble compared to Gods I assume that accounts for the discrepancy. And I simply put my trust in God that he knows what he is doing. That is a good example, Contend4Christ. One that I have tried to drive to our Pelagian friends.
Here is the problem which they will try to dismiss or avoid all together. That God hardened Pharoah's heart. The notion that God does this goes against all their understanding of free will. In this verse the law of free will is violated by God! They will protest that God does not force anybody's heart to do anything and yet as soon as you present this verse, all kinds of accusations will come out of the woodwork.
Here we see God knowing what He is doing. He did use Pharoah to make His purposes to come to pass.
They will not even acknowledge that God in all His wisdom used Romans, Pharisees and Jews to sacrifice the Lamb. Did God really planned it and executed it? They will protest "But ah, that is heresy to say that God is the author of evil is heresy!"
Of course as soon as they say this, you are immediately belittled and labelled a heretic, and they expect you to speak no more.
I was even called a Hyper, of which, they have little or no understanding at all. To shush you up is all that matters. You should learn to speak of no such heresy again!
However the truth never fails, so we continue on pressing that the God who never needed a cause to make us, also needed not to have one to save us as well. The word "decree" is taboo.
As soon as you present this another difficulty opens us for them. A notion of God choosing without man causing it makes God unfair, cruel and outright evil. Then it is time for you to stand in the corner for being a bad boy! 
First God can not use evil to make His purposes to come to pass, then God cannot just make choices without man first initiating it.
Was there an apparent reason for God to form you or me in the bellies of our mothers? Was it a baby's fault for being born with infirmities whose future is confined in a bed to live the rest of his life screaming and yelling in pain then eventually dying? Is there a reason for a child being born with mental problems, growing old then dying as if without a purpose? How does God choose which one should be a man or a woman, tall or short, strong or weak? What did people do to deserve the gift of athleticism or intellectual prowess? What did people do to be born in riches? What did people do to be born in poverty? What did people do to be born in prosperous nations? What did people do to be born in horror and war? What did people do to be born in honor? What did I do to be born in shame? In everything in life, including our salvation it was never about our choice but God's?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 4:36:00 AM
|
|
|
doublecross
Posts: 121
Joined: 6/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The "principle" falls flat since there are many "examples" where the result is not the same. Kelman,
I've been lazy reading about the Cornelius arguement. Can you educate me as to what this is all about?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:00:49 AM
|
|
|
McFatty
Posts: 1084
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
I'm not arguing any of this. My position is that a man without understanding of his path to freedom from the bondage of slavery may still flee by that road, only to be shown its wonders. The men who were coming to Jesus for the wrong reasons, that is, not to ask Him for freedom, were there for selfish reasons, and Jesus' rebuke touched on this, I believe. I understand now, McFatty. But our bondage is doubly not as simple as being in chains. We are also blind to see any wonders. We are even called dead in sin. All of these are against us to know and understand the writing on the wall. Even if we read it, by our own marred abilities, we could never understand them.
What I am arguing about is our very ability to appraise spiritual things which is clearly explained in 1 Cor. 2:14, John 6:65, Romans 3 - are under the power of sin
Fair enough. The main part of my argument is that even though the wicked cannot understand how Jesus could possibly lead them to freedom, some may choose the path anyway, after witnessing profound change in Christians or the simple goodness a life of Christ brings to His followers. It is a dramatic difference. My belief is that the wicked are all miserable, and they realize they are miserable. Sometimes people take the illogical (to them) way out.
_____________________________
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” – Philippians 4:8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:34:56 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
God merely "picked and chose" without any obvious reason from among the creatures He created... That is the simplest for of Sovereign grace theology. It is not up to the creature but up to God. Pelagian theology requires God to have an "obvious reason". Pelagian Theology could not stand a reason-less God. A God that does not satisfy man's logical leanings.
By this the Pelagian believer reduces the religion of free grace to a religion of human initiated salvation.
Since the Bible is so clear that salvation comes from God, your statement is meaningless.
btw, do you think that grace is NOT free? What is the "religion of free grace" anyway? If you disagree that grace is free, how much do you think it costs?
You call yourself Freegrace and yet you believe that it was YOUR WILL that made you fit to receive the gift of life.
I do NOT believe that "my will" made me fit to receive anything. No man has anything that makes him "fit" for whatever God gives him.
Do you understand what grace means? It means that God gives to man who is NOT "fit" for it, such as eternal life.
You also seem to confuse one's will with choosing between options. When the divine Truth of the gospel was presented to me, I faced a choice: to either beileve it or reject it.
quote:
I believe that I owe everything to God.
As do I.
quote:
Even my faith, even the will to break from sin, even the will to believe in Jesus. Because I did not have that will, I was a slave of sin and I hated the Light. My faith was wrought to me by God and not conjured by my own will. I was a rejecter of God. Not an iota in me accepted Him. I was in rebellion but I received mercy. He enabled me. I believe that everything that I have is by grace. Not merited by MY OWN WILL everything is by grace.
Since absolutely nothing is merited by one's will, your last statement is irrelevant. That's why the Bible speaks of grace, which is offered freely to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:39:03 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
Oh no. There's that entitlement mentality again that everyone deserves heaven just because he was born. You couldn't be further from the truth. It's the exact opposite. None of us deserves heaven. It's a gift from God to those to whom he is pleased to give it as Matthew 11:25-27 explains perfectly. It's God who does the choosing as He tells us all over the bible. "You did not choose me. I chose you.'
John 15: "If you belonged to the world the world would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world for I have chosen you out of the world. And that's why the world hates you."
Notice that Jesus did not say; "I have chosen the world" as you claim he did.
Once again, God is the one who makes the decisions of the universe, not man because only God is sovereign. So all you are doing is showing man's wisdom which says; "I choose who gets to go into God's kingdom." God says; "Oh no. Only I have the right to make that choice" as Jesus illustrates in the parable of the worker.
So reformists don't make up our own bible to suit our itching ears. When God said; "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated," He meant; "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated."
Good Job, Carico.
Why do you think that Carico did a "good job"? Just look at the first sentence. That is a total misrepresentation of anyone's view on this thread. iow, it is inaccurate. Neither you nor Carico can show even one post where any non-reformist ever even suggested that "everyone deserves heaven just because he was born". That is simply ludicrous to think that any of the non-reformists believe that. Yet, Carico continues to make these wild claims about the views of others.
Let me be clear: NO ONE deserves heaven, period. Now, can you accept that statement from a non-reformist?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:40:48 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
Question, If I am not mistaken don't Calvinist believe people are born again then they accept Christ? If that is the case how did people in the old testament chose God? They were not born again. People could not be born again until after the death/resurrection of Christ. So if that is the case how could the old testament saints please God? There sins were not forgiven only postponed until Christ, hence why they didn't go to heaven when they died, but paradise (Abraham's Bosom)(They are in heaven now because Jesus took captivity captive and now when Christians die they go to heave because their sins are forgiving). So they had the free will to chose God. They were not born again and then chose God. They chose by their own freewill. Look at this verse. Deut 35:29 The children of Israel brought a freewill offering to the LORD, all the men and women whose hearts were willing to bring material for all kinds of work which the LORD, by the hand of Moses, had commanded to be done I know we cannot please God until we become Christians, but to say that you are changed then you accept God doesn't line up with the bible. AIHG,
The word you would like to dig into is Regeneration which Calvinists believe as being Born Again.
How do you explain being born again before you believe, since the Word repeatedly bases our salvation upon faith? And, please be clear, with Scriptural support.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:43:48 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
To reject something it has to be offered. To chose something it has to be offered with the option to reject it. To reject something that is as good as eternal life means that the mind is unable to process.
This may be your opinion, but I know many unbelievers who clearly understand the gospel message, yet reject it. So, your opinion is not accurate.
If God makes Himself evident to everyone concerning His existence, power, nature, and attributes, per Romans 1, why would you think that when He presents the gospel to people that they wouldn't be able to "process" it?
Are you unfamiliar with the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment? All of this is involved in anyone coming to faith in Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:46:26 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
I am saying it is unfair to hold people responsible for something they can not do. Yes! Aren't we able to reject that is why we are responsible for it?
The only reason we are able to reject is because we are just as able to accept it. That is the reason we are responsble.
Seems you would have it that man is able to reject, but not able to accept. Is that it? If so, please explain why you see it as "one way only".
The ability to reject demands the ability to accept. They go together. Whether you artificially separate them or not, in reality, they are NOT separated. Only in your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:51:00 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
The question is answered in Romans 1. When God makes evident His existence, power, nature and attributes to man, the fool (atheist) simply rejects the Truth of His existence. It's called "suppression of the Truth". Suppression of truth is from the flesh. Acceptance of it is the work of the Spirit. The natural man cannot understand spiritual things. He calls them foolishness. 1 Cor 2:14.
1 Cor 2:14 is speaking of the "deep things of God", of which the gospel is NOT that. So you are using a verse out of context to support your notion.
Just as God makes evident Himself to everyone, per Romans 1, so that men will seek Him, why wouldyou think He would "cloud" the gospel so that the unregenerate wouldn't be able to understand the gospel?
The very fact that there are many unbelievers who cldarly understand the gospel and yet don't believe it disproves your notion that the "natural man" cannot understand the gospel.
Concerning the deep things of God, however, the unregenerate man surely cannot understand, just as 1 Cor 2:14 states.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:52:29 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
The very FACT that they rejected the Truth that God made evident to them proves they had free will. Remember, free will means only freedom of choice when faced with options. When God makes His existence evident, man is faced with a choice: to either believe or reject that Truth. The very FACT that they rejected the Truth that God made evident to them is that they have darkened understanding. Darkness hating the light. Sin loving iniquity. Natural man not understanding spiritual things.
You are confusing verses again. A careful read of Romans 1 will show that as a result of rejecting the Truth they caused their hearts to be darkened. Please not the proper cause and effect here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 7:55:50 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: doublecross
quote:
Since the Bible is so clear that salvation comes from God, your statement is meaningless. I do not think you know the true meaning of your statement.
You seem to have that same "special qualities" claimed by Carico in being able to more accurately "know" what other people think they know. If you aren't omniscient, your claim suggests only an opinion without any base or support.
quote:
Salvation comes from God because God sent His Son.
Salvation comes from God because the Son came to die for sinners.
Salvation comes from God means the Spirit enabling men to understand and believe the gospel.
Your additional "because's" don't change what I said at all, so what was your point here? I claim that salvation comes from God, which you didn't disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 8:02:23 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
You seem to be laboring under the impression Cornelius is the ONLY person mentioned in Scripture, or for that matter in the whole world. Not at all. I've noted that Cornelius is an example of a principle. Hopefully that should clear up what you seem to be laboring with concerning my pov.
The "principle" falls flat since there are many "examples" where the result is not the same.
Why do you think I believe the result will always be the same? Cornelius demonstrates that unregenerate man can believe the divine revelation of truth that God makes evident. That's all. Apparently you haven't grasped that concept yet. The fact that there are many examples of those who didn't believe also demonstrates free will in facing the choice of either to beleive or reject the gospel.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The fact remains, a fact which, btw, proves your theories wrong, that many receive and BELIEVE the light given to them but it does them no good - they remain unsaved.
If you had followed my complete thought on this, you would have known that, like Cornelius, God provides "more light" in stages. I'll try one more time. There are many who have believed the "light" God gave them yet have NOT received any "more light". This is why I say your "principle" concerning Cornnelius doesn't hold-up.
How do you know who has or has not received more light? Are you claiming some kind of omniscience?
quote:
quote:
Could you define what you mean by the term "libertarian free will"? I define free will as freedom to choose between options available.
If your definition of "LFW" doesn't equal my definition, you are arguing against a phantom. I don't argue a false definition of FW.
LFW - means "that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections..... One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. "
Does that about sum up your definition?
Not even close. No wonder most of the posts keep going over your heads. I would NEVER argue for that silly definition.
I wonder if you even understand my definition of free will, which is being able to freely to believe or reject the Truth when it is presented.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:01:36 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
O:
even by allowing us to have free will God's will still is done.
I dont think it has to be or one or the other. Neither do i think giving people FW makes God less sovereign.
Kelman:
I think you're avoiding the example of God's determination of the Cross yet still holding man responsible. There was no way these men were not going to kill Christ - God ordained that they would. God determined, He ordained, yet, these men still by their own freewill killed Christ. That's how it worked then, that's how it works now.
Elaborate what you mean by freewill here, plz. I dont disagree, but i presumed your position was that people have no freewill... You mean they had a choice, it was up to them to do or not do it, they made the choice, influences and circumstances did not absolutely determine it? See THIS POST to FG where he asked the same question. In the meantime, they had a choice; but, it was definitely not free from influences.
Now, just what does that mean? When you are faced with a decision, you have choices. Your choices are freely made.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:20:36 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
O:I understand that, thanks, but what about responsibility? How can a person be held responsible for something he can not do ?
SH:
Natural man's inability consists in his unrelenting unwillingness. Fallen man still the faculties to choose God, but he would rather walk in darkness.
Thank you, I remember having that debate before and it went smth-g along the lines:
How can we be responsible for something we cannot do, namely believe (acc. to C position we can’t choose God on our own)? The very succinct Priceless, whom I miss dearly here, answer was: Salvation is not offered to all, unelect are not held responsible for failure to believe. It only given to some, to elect. So unelected are not judged by their inability to believe, but by their failure to live sinless life.
Is that the opinion that you also hold? As precise as possible.
Thanks in advance, friend
I hold the same opinion you do about Priceless. Priceless was wise, scripturally knowledgeable, clear, logical, concise and respectful.
1. I agree that “salvation is not offered to all.” This is evident in the Bible and in the history of man; not all have heard the good news.
2. Also, the “unelect are not held responsible for failure to believe . . . unelect are not judged by their inability to believe, but by their failure to live sinless life.” In my mind this is true and very important for all to understand. If there were no salvation offered to any, all would be judged for their failure to live to the glory of God. When Paul wrote, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” he was referring to all sinning against the revelation of God revealed in creation (Gentiles) and those who sinned against the written revelation of Himself found in the Old Testament (Jews). A sinner is under judgment and condemned by the fact that he has dishonored God, if he has heard the gospel or not.
3. All humanity is morally responsible for their choice of dishonoring God in the face of God’s revelation of Himself found in creation. All humanity has the moral faculties to honor God, but all have chosen to use these faculties (heart, mind, will, etc.) to dishonor Him by showing their disregard for God and lack of love and affection for God. Man is held responsible for dishonoring God, because man has chosen to do so in light of who God has revealed Himself to be to all men. This is the essence of sin and all have sinned.
4. The statement, “Salvation . . . is only given to some, to [the] elect,” in my mind is also true.
A. Many hear the general call of the gospel, but reject it as foolishness. The gospel is deemed as foolishness because people love darkness rather than light. People are responsible because they choose to walk in deception.
B. The elect are given light to see the glory of Christ in the gospel and instead of rejecting it as foolishness; they receive the message of the Cross as the wisdom of God and the power of God. It is not until the natural man is given the Spirit of God that he will see the ultimate value of Christ; see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ . . . see the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus. This is all of grace. Man’s stubborn rebellion is arrested by God’s mercy and grace by God giving light that enables the spiritually blind to see the ultimate value of the things of the kingdom of God.
Inability and Responsibility
When discussing fallen man’s inability to believe and his responsibility to believe I think we need to understand that all natural men have the faculties to believe the truth, but are unwilling to do so. Their inability does not consist in not having a working mind, conscience and will. Fallen man shows perfectly well that he has the mind and will needed to make moral choices; he chooses to use them for his sinful ends and at the expense of his conscience. Fallen man justifies his sin and suppresses the truth and thus sears his conscience to one extent or another. The problem is with the heart: the affections, inclinations and desires which influence that which the mind thinks and determines the will.
It is man’s persistent and unrelenting desire to live in a way that dishonors God which is the foundation of his inability to live in a way that honors God. Natural man cannot choose God on his own because on his own he refuses to choose God. It is a moral inability based upon his unwillingness. (This does not mean that all fallen men express savage sinfulness. Many are very moral, but are not the righteousness of God.)
A person is unable to believe that which he is unwilling to believe.
A person is unable to love that which he is unwilling to love.
A person’s heart, his affections, inclinations, desires, etc., determine what he is willing or unwilling to believe or do.
This person will remain unable to believe until made willing. When that which motivates or determines the will (the heart) is changed in a dynamic way, that person no longer savors the things of the world but savors Christ, thus making him willing to seek God and hunger and thirst after righteousness and definitely willing to believe.
God is at work in you [His elect] both to will and do of His good pleasure.
Blessings,
SH
< Message edited by SureHope -- 7/21/2008 9:38:19 AM >
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:26:22 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1620
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Your claim that because men are without excuse therefore they can and do seek God is not founded in Romans 1 and is flatly denied in Romans 3.
Yet, Acts 10 and the life of Cornelius demonstrates that unregenerate men can and do seek God. So, obviously, your understanding of Rom 3 is incorrect.
It appears that the short description of the life of Cornelius is the foundation upon which you base your interpretation of Romans. It should be the other way around.
Cornelius does not make my interpretation obviously right or wrong. Acts shows us a very small slice of the life of Cornelius and does not address how he came to seek God. Romans 3 is so clear that it stands on its own and does not need to be defined by what you get out of the description of Cornelius in Acts. The train of thought, word definitions, sentence structure of Romans 3:9-19 all point to an obvious interpretation.
Paul quotes from Psalms 14 and 53; Psalm 5:9; Psalm 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8; and Psalm 36:1 to confirm the universal sinfulness of man.
Paul makes the definitive statement that all are under sin (meaning that all men are under the power of sin and thus deserve the judgment and condemnation of God).
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; (Romans 3:9 NASB95)
Paul immediately says, “as it is written.” The Greek word translated “as” is the adverb “kathos.”
1. according as
a. just as, even as
b. in proportion as, in the degree that
2. since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
3. when, after that
The context shows us that “as it is written” directly connects the first clause, “ . . . are all under sin” with the second clause, “There is none righteous . . . there is none who seeks for God . . . .” The meaning is clear,
all are under sin – according as it is written – there is none who seeks for God
all are under sin – just as it is written – there is none who seeks for God
all are under sin – even as it is written – there is none who seeks for God
The term “kathos” shows us that “there is none who seeks for God” is in accord with “all are under sin.” Paul is demonstrating from OT Scripture that “all are under sin,” and does so by quoting, “there is none who seeks for God.”
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines the adverb “as” – “for instance, for example, thus.”
Paul is using OT Scripture in order to give an example, a case in point, and an illustration from God’s word that proves that “all are under sin.” How does a Jew know that all are under sin? By what the word of God says: “there is none who seeks for God.”
Translations such as the NASB, ESV, KJV, RSV, ASV, NRSV, Young’s Literal Translation, HCSB, all have the clause, “we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” and the transitional phrase “as it is written” and the Old Testament quote all in the same sentence. They separate the first clause “. . . all under sin” with the transitional phrase “as it is written” with a comma or a semicolon, which shows us Paul’s train of thought is uninterrupted – he is continuing his thought concerning “all under sin.”
Translations such as the NKJV, NIV, NLT, have a new sentence starting with the transitional phrase “as it is written,” but these have both clauses on either side of the transitional phrase “as it is written” in the same paragraph. The apostle’s train of thought is obvious: “all are under sin – according as it is written – there is none righteous . . . there is none who seeks for God . . .” [Young’s Literal Translation translates kathos – ‘according as’ which Thayer is in agreement ( see Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1975, 314-315)].
There is no change of thought between “all are under sin” and “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.” The transitional phrase “as it is written” shows us clearly that the scriptures quoted confirm, validate and prove Paul’s statement, “both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” Paul did not begin a new thought about a sub-group of sinners called fools. His purpose is to show that the Jew is under sin in the same way the Greek (Gentile) is under sin.
What do the translators who place headings above passages say about this passage?
NASB: All the World Guilty
ESV: No One Is Righteous
NIV: No One Is Righteous
NKJV: All Have Sinned
GNT: No One Is Righteous
CEV: No One Is Good
None of these or any of the other of multitudes of translations I have use the heading, “A Sub-Group of Sinners Called Fools Are Not Righteous and Don’t Seek God,” no, not one of them. These all agree that the passage, which includes the Old Testament quotes, are saying that “all are under sin” is confirmed by the OT quote, “none seek after God.”
Here are a couple paraphrases which make even more obvious that which is already glaringly obvious.
Phillips – “For I have shown above that all men from Jews to Greeks are under the condemnation of sin. The scriptures endorse this fact plainly enough. ‘There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God . . .”
New English Bible – “. . . Jews and Greeks alike are all under the poser of sin. This has scriptural warrant: “There is no just man, no one; No one who understands, no one who seeks God.”
Cornelius, Lydia, the Centurion, or anyone else can never disprove what Paul has clearly, concisely and undeniably written.
“All are under sin” – the proof of this is found in the OT Bible – “There is none who seeks for God . . .”
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:26:27 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
For man to have the free will to choose for God aside from the determination, predestination and foreknowledge of God, this would negate all three...how could it not?
The real questionis, why do you think it would? When God makes Himself evident to man, that creates a choice: to either believe Him or reject Him. Please explain why either believing or rejecting the Truth He makes evident would negate any of His attributes.
quote:
Scripture says God ordains us to salvation(Act 13:48).
You may cling to that erroneous translation all you want. Tasso does not mean to ordain. The context of Acts 13:42-48 sets up a comparison between those who rejected the gospel with those who were very interesteed in hearing what Paul had to say. They were, in fact, disposed to the good news. That's the meaning.
quote:
It says we are predestined unto salvation(Eph 1:5,11).
Our choosing in 1:4 is based on being "in Him", which is dependent upon our faith. Neither verse says what you want them to say.
quote:
There is no room in these verses and in God's actions which allow for man to exercise a free will apart from God's influence.
No one has argued against the idea of God's influence. In fact, that's been one of my main points. Romans 1:18-24 is ALL ABOUT God's influence, by His making Himself evident to man so that man has no excuse.
Did not God send an angel to Cornelius with a "divine" message? Yes, He did.
Did not God send Peter with the gospel to Cornelius with a "divne" messge? Yes, He did.
So, your erroneous thinking that free will somehow negates God's influence is not based in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:36:53 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
A. Many hear the general call of the gospel, but reject it as foolishness. The gospel is deemed as foolishness because people love darkness rather than light. People are responsible because they choose to walk in deception.
No, they are responsible because since God made Himself evident to them, they have no excuse for not seeking Him. But you said it right: "they choose to walk in deception". They didn't have to choose that way. They are free to choose to seek God, which they don't. That's why they have no excuse.
quote:
B. The elect are given light to see the glory of Christ in the gospel and instead of rejecting it as foolishness;[/uote]
You have no Scriptural support for this statement. This is only rhetoric.
quote:
It is man’s persistent and unrelenting desire to live in a way that dishonors God which is the foundation of his inability to live in a way that honors God.
Please clearly explain what we know from Scripture regarding the life of Cornelius. He reverenced God and prayed to Him continually as an unregenerate. There is NO mention of the Holy Spirit in his life until he believed.
quote:
Natural man cannot choose God on his own because on his own he refuses to choose God.
Your own statement demonstrates your contradiction of thought. A refusal means a choice is being made. iow, you cannot refuse something apart from a decision to do so. If your "refusal" does not come from a choice, you didn't really refuse.
quote:
It is a moral inability based upon his unwillingness.
This is just reformed rhetoric. There is no Scriptural support for this statement.
quote:
(This does not mean that all fallen men express savage sinfulness. Many are very moral, but are not the righteousness of God.)
Please explain what Acts 17;27 means when it declares that God created mankind to seek Him, please.
quote:
A person is unable to believe that which he is unwilling to believe.
Being unable and being unwilling are two entirely different and unrelated things.
quote:
A person is unable to love that which he is unwilling to love.
ditto.
quote:
A person’s heart, his affections, inclinations, desires, etc., determine what he is willing or unwilling to believe or do.
Since God created man to seek Him, man has NO EXCUSE for not doing so. Cornelius sought God as an unregenerate who recognized that God existed, and he showed reverence for Him and sought Him, and found Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:38:22 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1773
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Here's the new Romans 9:11 made up by non-reformists:
"For after the twins were born and Esau rejected me but Jacob didn't, to show that it's man's works, not God's election that stands, she was told, 'the older will serve the younger because Esau rejected me and Jacob didn't." 
So because non-reformists don't like the fact that God does the choosing instead of each individual person, they change the bible to make it say what their itching ears want to hear.  Sorry, but God doesn't like His word blasphemed and changed and it will not go un-noticed by Him. You can count on that.
So the first thing they need to do is believe the bible as written then find an interpretation that reconciles all scripture together instead of changing the bible to make it say what you want it to say. If you take the time to do that, you'll find that it makes perfect sense as written.
Anything written in Romans 9-11 can only be understood in the context of those chapters .
These three chapters (Romans 9-11) properly read together , address not so much the question of how individuals are saved (see Romans 3-6 for a direct address of those matters) , but rather what Christians should say about Israel in light of its current rejection of the gospel . If many of Pauls fellow Jews resisted the gospel because God had (unconditionally) chosen to elect some individuals for salvation and others for damnation (as Romans 9-11 alone might be read) , it is hard to understand why such a simple claim requires three chapters of explanation , and why the warning against the clay's questioning the potter (Romans 9:19-20) should not immediately end the entire discussion . If it is God's sovereign will to unconditionally damn specfic persons , then it is also difficult to account for Paul's anguish over their loss and for his zealous and hopeful efforts to save some of them (Romans 11:14) . But Paul has much more to say beyond Romans 9:23 , and his line of argument leads away from a deterministic interpretation of salvation .
Paul is apparently worried that some Gentile Christians are all too ready to dispense entirely with Israel and its history (see Romans 11:18-21) , Perhaps reasoning that if God awards salvation by faith alone apart from national identity , and if most Jews have rejected God's call to this salvation , then the nation has sinned away its privileged position , its national identity has become irrelevant . But Paul most certainly halts such thinking . He asks , "Did God reject his people?" and immediately provides an unequivocal answer , "By no means" (Romans 11:1) . Though some , if not most , Israelites have fallen , Paul insists that the nation still functions as God's chosen vessel , serving as God's insturment in extending his gospel to the world (Romans 11:11-12 , 15 . Furhtermore , Gentiles who now believe in Jesus must realize that they , like wild olive branches , have been grafted into an ancient tree , the vital trunk supplies God's life to all living branches , whether natural or engrafted ones (Romans 11:18,24) . The ancient tree of Israel , planted by grace , remains the chosen tree , for "God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29) . Paul distinguishes the irrevocable call of the nation of Israel as a whole from the fate of individual Israelites . While the final destination of the people of God is absolutely certain , the future of any given individual is determined by his or her continued faith and trust in God .
Gentiles who believe are grafted into the ancient tree , whereas Jews who fall into unbelief are broken off . The natural branches lying on the ground can "be grafted into their own olive tree" if "they do not persist in unbelief" (Romans 11:23-24) . In Romans 10 Paul asserts that Israel's failure to receive the gospel did not follow from simple ignorance . Instead , Israel refused to submit to God's provisions , stubbornly insisting on establishing its own righteousness (Romans 10:3) . The gospel message has been spread so widely that Paul uses Psalm 19:4 to describe its reach : "Their voive has gone out into all the earth , their words to the ends of the world." If Israel is ignorant of God's righteousness by faith (Romans 10:3) , this ignorance is Israel's own creation , rooted in its refusal to listen to the message even now . Israel's present condition , though it grieves God and Paul alike , does not represent the end of Israel . Israel's hardness is temporary because this hardness may be reversed , it is conditional because it will last only so long as unbelief persists (Romans 11:23) . Paul hopes to reach the Jews hard hearts from time to time through preaching of the gospel (Romans 11:14) , showing that such hardness can scarely be considered an unconditional and irreversible decree of God's eternal will .
If you pull a few selected verses from the three chapter context , you can make it say almost anything you want it too . These three chapther's must be interpreted together or you will misinterpret what Paul is saying .
If you take the time to do that, you'll find that it makes perfect sense as written .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/21/2008 9:44:59 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7888
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Your claim that because men are without excuse therefore they can and do seek God is not founded in Romans 1 and is flatly denied in Romans 3.
Yet, Acts 10 and the life of Cornelius demonstrates that unregenerate men can and do seek God. So, obviously, your understanding of Rom 3 is incorrect.
It appears that the short description of the life of Cornelius is the foundation upon which you base your interpretation of Romans. It should be the other way around.
You've missed some of my posts. I have noted that Cornelius demonstrates the principle found in Romans 1. The foundation is Romans 1. Cornelius just demonstrates that foundation.
quote:
Cornelius does not make my interpretation obviously right or wrong. Acts shows us a very small slice of the life of Cornelius and does not address how he came to seek God.
Right. That is found in Romans 1, the foundation. Namely, God made evident to Cornelius (as He does for everyone) His existence, nature, power and atrtributes, so that Cornelius had no excuse for seeking Him. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY CORNELIUS SOUGHT GOD.
quote:
Paul quotes from Psalms 14 and 53; Psalm 5:9; Psalm 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8; and Psalm 36:1 to confirm the universal sinfulness of man.
Since both Psa 14 and 53 begin with "the fool says in his heart", your claim is without any support regarding who suppresses the Truth. Also, universal sinfulness of man is clearly proven from Rom 3:9 and 3:23. You don't need anything from Psa or Isa to prove it.
quote:
Paul makes the definitive statement that all are under sin (meaning that all men are under the power of sin and thus deserve the judgment and condemnation of God).
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; (Romans 3:9 NASB95)
Paul immediately says, “as it is written.” The Greek word translated “as” is the adverb “kathos.”
1. according as
a. just as, even as
b. in proportion as, in the degree that
2. since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
3. when, after that
The context shows us that “as it is written” directly connects the first clause, “ . . . are all under sin” with the second clause, “There is none righteous . . . there is none who seeks for God . . . .” The meaning is clear,
all are under sin – according as it is written – there is none who seeks for God
all are under sin – just as it is written – there is none who seeks for God
all are under sin – even as it is written – there is none who seeks for God
Nice try, but no dice. The very context and subject of what Paul immediately quotes in v.10-12 is about fools, NOT about mankind exhaustively.
quote:
The term “kathos” shows us that “there is none who seeks for God” is in accord with “all are under sin.” Paul is demonstrating from OT Scripture that “all are under sin,” and does so by quoting, “there is none who seeks for God.”
Your interpretation fails to consider other Scriptures which indicate that man CAN seek God, as Cornelius demonstrates. Also, God created man to seek Him, per Acts 17:27. So, your interpretation creates a contradiction within the Bible. How do you excape that?
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
