|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 3:46:43 AM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 133
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
SovereignIsHe,
quote:
I will call this the Las Vegas doctrine since there a great deal of chance involved...
Proverbs 16:33
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 5:02:56 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3869
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I just reviewd your post, and you did not answer the WHY question. As per your usual tactics - if you don't like the answer, the answer wasn't given. You seem to think you have some great free will answer - pity you don't realize it's the wrong answer.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wish you would read more closely.
And, I wish you'd get off your high horse. I don't ride any horse, so you can quit using your imagination. Another pity, you either actually don't know how you come across or don't care...I opt for the later.
quote:
quote:
What a load of eisegeses..."lining up" for eternal life, indeed. From the NT uses and from the Septuagint, of which you are such a fan, it can be readily seen tasso means "order" "appoint" "arrange" or "ordain."
Can you explain to me the difference between "lining up" and "arrange"? Let's see how these verses "line up":
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." ...or
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had them line up. or perhaps, lined themselves up?
"For I also am a man set under authority," ...or
For I also am a man lined up under authority,
"and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." ...or
and there it shall be told thee of all things which are lined up for thee to do.
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging;" ...or
And when they had lined up him a day, there came many to him into his lodging;
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." ...or
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are lined up of God.
"and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)" ...or
and that they have lined up themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." ...or
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were lined up to eternal life believed.
In addition to the verses which declare that it is God who "adds" and "increases" to the church - people don't add or increase themselves.
"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
"And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)"
"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."
quote:
Do you see any mention of "God" in 13:48? LOL...because it goes without saying or, at least, should...until man actually began to think himself capable of ordaining himself to salvation.
quote:
quote:
quote:
No, you have to conclude that because of your theology. I will simply believe what Christ said THEY HAVE NO ROOT.
But because His actual parable has plants growing out of the ground, you are simply failing to grasp all of the parable. Because of lack of moisture, the second plant had no firm root. But, since you just want to continue to argue, there is no point. Discussion closed. I'm not arguing anything - I'm simply repeating the words of Christ THEY HAVE NO ROOT. You make it evident you just don't know what a parable is.
quote:
quote:
Who cares how they understood the phrase?...the word "firm' is NOT in the original. Nor is it in most other translations. It is not in the ASV, AV, GLT, NIV, KJV, NKJV, CSB, ERV, ESV, NLB. RSV, NRS, CJB, YLY, Douay, Peshitta. That should be enough alphabet, although there's even more, to prove to anyone who isn't so intent on imposing their theology on a passage. All of what you claim is easily refused by the very FACT that plants grew out of the soil in soil #2 and #3. Discussion closed. I, too, would have closed the discussion if I continued to deny the very words of Christ concerning the second soil -THEY HAVE NO ROOT.
quote:
quote:
Over and over and over I've told you. That is how Christ taught We ALL know that's how he taught. Rather, you have made it quite clear that you do not know how Christ taught.
quote:
But how is addressing how He taught answering why He said what He said. You have failed to differentiate that. No, you simply fail to recogize the differentiation. He taught the same to all, it's just that simple. Why, did He teach the same to all?....because He separates the wheat from the tares on the last day.
Don't you realize that the teaching of Christ is included in the NT? Don't you realize the Bible is for the world? Don't you realize that the world includes sheep and goats?
Do you think the Bible should include caveats - those who are elect read only these passages; those who are not, read these only? No, Christ taught the same message to whomever He taught, just as His people are to do the same, just as His Word does the same.
There's another answer given that you'll insist was not given.
quote:
quote:
It is not "potential" at all. It is a statement of fact - if you don't believe, except you believe, unless you believe - they're conjunctions not an adjective like potential.
Why haven't you grasped the meaning of "unless". It IS potential. IF they DON'T believe, they WILL die in their sins. IF they DO believe, they WON'T die in their sins. Why can't you see potential here? Mind boggling. You're the one who doesn't understand your own argument since "unless" does not mean potential - that is only you forcing your theology on the text. Christ didn't die to "potentially" save people, He actually saved people when He died. You can't find anything in Scripture to agree with your theology which says Christ "potentially" died for sins.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 5:09:51 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3869
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric B
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Well, then you explain how God determined the Crucifixion with Judas still freely choosing the sin and held accountable by God for it?
That doesn't mean he was entrapped into being a devil (God made him do it, and "withheld" something from him). I never said Judas was "entrapped" - those are your words. I very clearly said Judas acted out of his own desires and inclinations.
quote:
He was already at that level when christ chose them. There were many Jews wou wanted the Messiah-King so much (for their own selfish reasons), that they would have betrayed Christ to try to force Him to rise up and take power (which is what Judas' betray is believed to be). All the Apostles thought Christ would restore the temporal glory to Israel(Acts 1:6). The fact that there were others who thought the same as Judas doesn't negate the fact that he was specifically chosen by Christ to fulfill the prophecy.
quote:
quote:
I realize God doesn't do everything exactly as He did in the OT but I don't see why you think "we would all be lost". People in the OT were saved precisely as we are. Isn't salvation something that came with Christ? I mentioned the comparison between the testaments, because sometimes we get into using the harshness of the OT to justify some "tough" doctrine we are projecting in the NT. But the NT is supposed to be "good news". It everything is the same as it was back then, what was Christ for, then? Generally, it is explained that the OT era looks forward toward the efficacy of the Atonement and the NT era looks back upon it. Either way, the Holy Spirit must do the work of grace upon the heart of the one who will believe.
quote:
quote:
Well, it certainly does say something about God speaking individually of two people. And, then it does go on to say something about them "going to heaven". God spoke individually of each - one he loved, one he hated; and, those God love go to heaven. Jacob was chosen individually just as Abraham and Isaac were individually chosen before him. And that's where the jump lies. "Loved"="going to Heaven". You're taking "love" out of it's context, and making it the same as it is used in contexts specifically talking about who goes to Heaven, when in this context, it is about the "choosing" of the nations that would come from them, and not about their own entry into Heaven. I don't see the "jump" that you do since when the passage speaks of the individual it speaks regarding "love". And clearly, we are taught that if one is loved by God that one is saved. To say otherwise would be to contradict other scripture.
quote:
quote:
I disagree, it is absolutely to those who thought they had faith. They perished because they believed the lies of Satan. This isn't talking about the "world" but about the church. It speaks of a falling away from the truth of the Gospel in the churches "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."
Well, it comes down to a matter of different interpretation. "Temple" refers to Jewish worship. There are the preterist interpretations, which claim this was in AD70; the futurist intepretations which claim it is a yet future "restored temple" of the Jews, and then, the other views, which spiritualize "Temple" as "the Church". (and Reformed I see often go either with preterism of the middle view; usually a-mill and post-mill). Those apocalyptic statements, I would think are more for the Jews. So these are people who reject Christ, though they think they worship God. Not the same as whom Calvin and modern Lordship advocates say are decieved into false assurance of Christ. Paul is clearly writing to Gentile believers in the Thessalonian church. Paul's not talking about the Jerusalem Temple here, he's talking about the highest place of worship in the church - the temple of God. Passage after passage will show that the "temple" generally refers to the "temple of God" - not the Jerusalem Temple. And, it is here in this "temple of God" that Satan will sit/rule with his false doctrines. We see already by the time of the writing of Revelation Satan had quite a stronghold on some churches.
quote:
quote:
Why? Then you'd have to say Christ spent His entire ministry "taunting" because that is precisely how He taught. It's all really quite silly because it proves nothing about free will - nothing whatsoever....don't even know why it was brought up to begin with. Why not? It's all about "God's Glory", and much of His glory comes from roasting vessels of wrath. Since man deserves nothing but wrath (and the Potter had the right to create them that way), Jesus comes to "justly" taunt them with that wrath in this lifetime (before they then go into eternity), and then save a few out if it. It fits perfectly with the grand view monergists have set up LOL...quite a little gospel you've got for yourself. It seems so many don't understand how Christ, the Apostles, the Bible and believers teach the Gospel. It's obvious since they focus on man's innate abilities to intellectually believe the Gospel and voila!...you are saved
quote:
quote:
So far, I really don't see anything you've presented that needs to be "owned-up to". Well, it looks like on one hand, you're still kind of shying away from it by questioning the idea of Jesus spending his entire ministry taunting. Yet, it looks like you're reconsidering part of it, as you just said regarding 2 Thess. You guys seemed to have voraciously studied and fallen prey to the use of the propaganda technique of "the big lie".....how unbecoming...typical...but, still unbecoming.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 5:19:53 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3869
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
We don't get to decide if the actions of God are holy and righteous - He gets to decide - and He says they are. I know this.
He has given us the definition & Standard to that which is holy and righteous.
All I'm saying is that He prooves Himselfe to be such by what He does.
If He never did(verb) or thought(verb) anything holy and righteous, how could He BE(verb) holy and righteous. Do you think God was demonstrating His holiness and righteousness as He commanded the slaughters in the OT?
quote:
GOD: "Even though I've never done & will never do anything worthy to be holy and righteous full of honor & praise, even though I will never proove it, I say that I am, just because I'm God."
This is rediculous. Not ridiculous at all. Before we existed, God was holy and righteous. God didn't suddenly become holy and righteous because He created man. It is true, though, He certainly demonstrated His righteousness through various acts.
quote:
quote:
So when He destroyed every man, woman and child in the flood - He was acting holy and righteous. When he killed every Egyptian soldier in the Red Sea, He was acting holy and righteous.
It was the fact that He was upholding juctice & righteousness in judgment. What did all those thousands of babies do to be "judged" so?
quote:
quote:
Where do you get the idea that you are permitted to judge the actions of God?...no, He judges you.
I am not judging God incorrectly. My point is you are in no position to judge God at all. How can a sinful man judge the all holy Creator?
quote:
quote:
It's hard to reply to you because it's impossible to believe that a Christian would speak this way about God. In what world do you think you are able to judge God?....to prove Him worthy?
Do you dudge God to be holy and righteous? No, I do not. I accept what He says about Himself - that He is holy and righteous.
quote:
BTW, tell me HOW God is righteous other than His position as God? Not sure what you mean, here, since I have repeatedly said God is righteous simply because He is God.
quote:
quote:
God does not prove Himself to us.
Sure He does...
He's prooven Himself all through history. You're right. God certainly has done many, many things throughout history which have shown His majesty and His mercy. I think that is the more accurate way of saying what God does - He shows us His holiness and righteousness.
quote:
quote:
God does many things in the OT that we would find hard to call holy and righteous; but, the very fact that it is God who does it makes it holy and righteous.
I would disagree to this 100%
God has done nothing to find hard to call holy and righteous.
I see all He does eazy to call just, holy and righteous. Then you are indeed fortunate. Many have difficulty in seeing holiness and righteousness in the brutal slaughter of mother's with their babies.
quote:
Or, are you telling me that IF God would condemn some one who has Faith in Christ, God would still remain to be be holy & righteous just because He is God? If God has saved someone, it is not possible for Him to renege on His promise of eternal life - He has sworn an oath by Himself to that effect.
quote:
If God does opposite of holyness & righteousness, He would remain to be holyness & righteousness just because He is God? God cannot do opposite of what is holy and righteous because He is God.
quote:
I'm not saying that it's because I or anybody approves of what He has done.
It's the fact that he has done which prooves He is holy & righteous It seems you must be approving of what God has done if what He has done "proves" He is holy and righteous to you.
quote:
IOW, If God is not doing rightousness, He can not be righeous.
Your saying God can do nothing and remaine righteous.
Your saying God can do evil and remaine righteous.
Just because He is God. 1. Because God is God He cannot do unrighteousness.
2. How does God "do nothing" with respect to this world?
3. I've never said God could do evil, if by evil you mean sin.
quote:
Or that He is holy & righteous just because He says so &/or just because He is God.
That is contrary to reason. You think it's contrary to reason to believe God when He declares He is holy and righteous? Rather, I suggest it is contrary to reason not to believe God.
quote:
quote:
quote:
All your telling me is that God is worthy because He has said so.
That is circular reasoning if you don't know.
Are you actually saying that God's declaration He is worthy because He is God is NOT good enough for you?
IOW, God has said something about himself and you refuse to accept it?
How would I tell the diference between God & the devil if God has never proven Himself? Great, I see the problem - just a miscommunication...had me scared there for awhile. I'm not talking about somebody whispering in your ear, I'm talking about what God tells us about Himself in Scripture. He declares He is holy not for any other reason than that He is God. The same with righteousness, although, we see this most often in connection with his acts of righteousness.
quote:
quote:
BTW, it's not my "circular" reasoning - it is God's.
No, it ain't "God's, it's yours.
Your saying that God is righteous just because He says He is.
That is circular. Nope, it's not mine - it's God. He's the one saying it not me. He's the one declaring He is holy and righteous - just because He is.
Lev 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
quote:
quote:
man follows his own inclinations and own desires to sin. And God made man's own inclinations and desires to be sinfull by creating man with a sin nature. No, actually God created man "good".
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 5:33:08 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1578
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
FG,
quote:
quote:
You being convinced of this has no biblical warrant. I could twist any scripture to mean what I wanted by using your technique demonstrated in your attempt to make "honoring God and giving thanks" to mean "seeking God". That is the fundamental flaw of your whole Cornelius theory.
How do you imagine it looks like to "seek God"?
How I imagine what "seeking God" looks like is not the issue. The issue is what the apostle Paul actually wrote in Romans 1. You have to fabricate “seeking” into the passage because it just is not there.
Clearly, you don't want it to be there. And you keep ignoring my questions. My question was what you imagine what "seeking God" would look like, and you say that is not the issue. Since that is my question, it most certainly IS the issue. Please answer.
What the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 1 is the issue not your question. If your question were divinely inspired then it would be the issue, but since it is not we should go with that which is - God's Word. If you want to share your opinion on what seeking God is, go ahead. I personally see no need to define "seeking God" when the text at hand does not refer to it.
This merely shows your insistence to force the idea of ‘seeking God’ in a passage that has not one reference to seeking or any implication of seeking whatsoever.
It is not a matter of me not “want[ing] it to be there,” but that it is not there. What is clear is that you want that which is not there to be there.
quote:
quote:
If Paul's point was seeking God he would have said that plainly. He did not say,
"For although they knew God, they did not seek him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
But instead, he said,
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:21 ESV)
The glitch is in your refusal to see that honoring Him as God and being thankful are HOW people seek God.
Show me that “honor Him as God or give thanks to Him” has to mean seeking God. It is easy to say that you are right and I have a ‘glitch,’ but quite another thing to show without a doubt that honoring God has to mean seeking God, when honoring God and giving thanks mean so much more. When someone honors someone else it does not have to mean that the person is seeking the other. Greek scholars (those learned men you seem to have a disdain for these days) say the term ‘glory’ refers to something other than ‘seeking’, they say it means worship, praises and adoration; honor and magnify.
Praise, honor, magnify (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, second edition revised and augmented by Gingrich and Danker, The University of Chicago Press 1979, 204)
doxazo; Usage in the Authorized Version: glorify 54 times, honour 3 times, have glory 2 times, magnify 1 time, make glorious 1 time, full of glory 1 time; 62 occurrences of Greek word in AV
1. to think, suppose, be of opinion
2. to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate
3. to honour, do honour to, hold in honour – to worship, ro. i. 21
4. to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour
a. to impart glory to something, render it excellent
b. to make renowned, render illustrious
1. to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged (taken from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zonervan, 1975, 157)
Thayer defines the usage of doxazo in Romans 1:21 as ‘to worship’
In The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament, Edited by Spiros Zodhiates, the word doxazo is defined thus,
To glorify God, meaning to render glory to Him, recognize Him for Who and What He is, to celebrate with praises, worship, adoration (p481).
Man was created to extol the glory of God; “to cause the dignity and worth [of God] to become manifest and acknowledged.” None have done this, but instead “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” None have displayed the glory, perfections and character of God the way he created man to display Him.
quote:
quote:
God has revealed himself to all men through creation, but men have chosen not to honor Him as God or give thanks to Him.
Please note the text does not say "all men".
Please note: taking the text in context shows that it is all men. It is plain for most to see and Greek scholars and translators of most of the Bible versions and paraphrases used today agree, as you well know. I know you don’t care about Greek scholars that have much more experience and insight in word definitions, word usage, syntax, etc, than you, that is, when they disagree with you. Your unique interpretation has no basis.
quote:
quote:
This is the plain meaning of the text, which does not include a hint of seeking God. You have not proved otherwise so the plain meaning of the text should be accepted.
You must squint to avoid seeing a hint.
Is this your best argument to prove your case that ‘honor God as God and give thanks’ must mean ‘seeking God’? When someone says honor God and give thanks you have to have an agenda to read into it the meaning ‘seeking God.’ The plain meaning of the text is just what it says, ‘honor God as God and give thanks.’ You still have not proven otherwise.
< Message edited by SureHope -- 8/14/2008 7:38:48 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 - 8/14/2008 7:27:47 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1578
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
In the day that you sin you will die. One moment of not loving God with every fiber of your being makes you worthy of the eternal wrath of God. This in fact shows that God's expectation is "full time" obedience, not "part time." Man has not been willing and thus not able to obey this command and thus all are worthy of eternal damnation.
We are judged for eternal damnation on the basis of unbelief. John 3:18, 36.
True, those who have heard the gospel and have not believed are judged this way. Those who have not heard the gospel are judged on account of their neglect to honor God as God and give thanks – all have sinned and dishonored God instead of worshipping Him, adoring Him and being glad in Him.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The origin of our sins comes from our sin nature. That was my only point. Of course we ourselves are responsible for our sins.
And my point is that all men are free to choose that which they prefer. All men have preferred sin over God and are worthy of His eternal wrath. What God has created man to fulfill, no man has been willing and thus has not been able to fulfill.
From your pov, even the believer who is "filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) and "walking by means of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16) is still sinning. That is silly, and impossible.
Whatever you consider “silly” is of no importance to me and has nothing to do with my point which you did not address (your strategy seems to be to sidetrack, evidently to stay away from arguments for which you have no substantive answer).
Man is free to choose that which he prefers and all men have chosen sin. Man was not created for the purpose of sin, but for the purpose of glorifying God by being holy as God is holy, loving God and others, being perfect as God is perfect. But all men have chosen sin. No man has been able to fulfill God’s purpose in and of himself.
quote:
All men choose that which they prefer and men are able to honor God.
Paul shows us in Romans no one has honored God; that all have gone there own way – that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This is the ability of natural man – he prefers sin over honoring God.
quote:
quote:
In other words, you are saying that God created man to sin.
That conclusion is quite erroneous and does not come from my pov.
Since God created man to love Him with all his heart, mind, soul and strength and you say that man fulfills God’s purpose when he has moments of loving God with all his being and sins the rest of the time. Then, yes, you are saying that God created man to sin. For if man is fulfilling his purpose by being perfect in spurts then this must include his sinning in-between those spurts of perfection. If man is fulfilling his purpose by short segmens of sinlessness and sinning the rest of the time, then God's purpose is for both man to love Him and to rebeliously sin against Him. God's purpose for man is not merely to be holy in short segments, but to be holy as God is holy - which is all the time.
quote:
quote:
But God has created man to give glory to Him here on earth and all men have refused to do so.
God is pleased when men believe Him (Heb 11:6a). When God is pleased, he is honored. They go together.
Yes, that is true. As God gives light to see the glory of Christ in the gospel, men will put their faith in Him. He is irresistibly lovely. But natural man has proven himself to be unwilling and thus unable to fulfill God purpose in his own strength. The fact that ALL have sinned proves this.
quote:
quote:
None have been willing and thus able to love God entirely, be holy before Him, and be perfect as He commands. God does not command us to be perfect some of the time, but all of the time.
And, when we are, "some of the time", it is during those times that we honor Him by our faith and trust and obedience.
Again, you must now be speaking of a genuine Christian. God is honored by a Christian because of his faith in Christ which justifies the ungodly. This faith will bring about obedience. The Christian is justified by faith, not sanctification. Anything that a Christian does that even comes close to loving God and others perfectly can be attributed to God who is at work in believers both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
What I am speaking of is God’s purpose for man – that man would glorify Him “full time” (God did not create man to glorify Him part time). No man in and of himself has shown the ability to do this. Why? Natural man prefers sin rather than God. Even though man has been created to live for the glory to God, ALL men fall short of the glory of God and thus are in the need of God’s grace.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Give me Scripture that supports your theory that God created man to have part time love towards Him and therefore, part time sin. Show me from Scripture that God created man to love Him part of the time and sin the rest of the time.
Your argument is baseless. If man shows such love even for a time, that in itself demonstrates that man CAN do what God created him to do. So, your pov of "all or nothing" is groundless.
My argument is not baseless at all. God did not create man with the purpose to "love even for a time," but to love Him without sin. This is not groundless, but supported by Scripture. Remember, "all have sinned." All have gone their own way. None have fulfilled God's purpose for mankind - in and of man's ability that is.
You simply ignore the point that man CAN honor and obey God at times.
I don’t simply ignore that at all. You simply ignore the fact that God did not create man to obey God for segments of time and disobey the rest of the time – that thought is blasphemous. God created man to be holy as God is holy - which is all the time.
quote:
quote:
God did not create man to love Him for a portion of his life, but all of his life. If man were able to fulfill God's purpose and command there would be no need for redemption in Christ.
Not true at all. You don't understand Rom 5 then. We are condemned because of Adam's sin. It was imputed to us. That is why we need redemption in Christ. Even if theoretically someone could live sinless, he would still go to hell unless he believed in Christ.
And we all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. All have gone their own way and sinned. That is the point. No man has been willing and thus able to fulfill God’s purpose in creating him. We know this because all have sinned.
quote:
quote:
Man has proven that even though he has free will to choose that which he prefers, he has preferred sin and thus has chosen sin over God. All have done this which proves that all men are unwilling and unable to fulfill that which God has created them for and commanded of them.
This repeated rhetoric has no basis, and is in fact, contradicted by the very words of our Lord, who told a group of "non-elect" that they would die in their sins UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS they believed in Him. Now, explain WHY He would say that to a group of "non-elect" who weren't chosen for faith, and were "prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22).
The ONLY answer is quite obvious to the open minded reader: Jesus told them that because He was going to die for them and IF they believed in Him, they WOULD avoid dying in their sin.
Do you have a better more Biblical answer than that?
kelman, KJB and others are doing a great job answering that question.
My repeated “rhetoric” is true however you want to characterize it. Man has proven that even though he has free will to choose that which he prefers, he has preferred sin and thus has chosen sin over God. God created man to glorify God, love God, be holy as God is holy (not in spurts of holiness, but be holy as God is holy) and no man has done this, but has fallen far, far short of God’s glory. ALL have dishonored God by sinning against Him. All have shown themselves unwilling to fulfill the purpose for which God has created them - except those that God has given His Spirit. It is these alone who have a desire to please God and obey Him.
_____________________________
-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 - 8/14/2008 8:24:22 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2300
Status: offline
|
quote:
BALBAS
When I read this response, I felt as if I expected it. It is the natural
progression of the argument for "ability"
"Argument for ability"..........when Scripture clearly implies man is able?
Please tell me why God would command a man to do something if he was unable?
Please explain to me why God would desire a man to do
something if God was the sole cause of it?
Or why God would rejoice when a man responds if God determined the response?
Or why God waits for men to repent if God's call is always "effectual"?
Friend, there are even examples of God changing his mind
in response to a man doing something!
In light of these facts from a simple reading of Scripture, how can you be so confident?
If you really believe man is totally unable, then how do you deal with these facts?
Is it by reading Spurgeon, or the Westy Confession,
or alot of reformed authors? I submit by simply reading the Bible, it is not
that cut and dry. Scripture clearly implies ability based on examples
of the dynamics of covenant relationship.
Does this mean I deny God can do and will according to his good pleasure
anything he wants? Of course not. But just like using Paul or Israel as erroneous
illustrations of salvation (special election in the former and corporate election
in the latter), using examples of individuals God has chosen and used for his
purposes does not eliminate the FACT that in the context of salvation,
MAN MUST RESPOND. The simple fact that man must respond in repentance
and faith to satisfy a condition to be saved implies ability.
We must start with the Bible and end with the Bible, not a man nor a doctrine.
I find it very interesting to listen to evangelical Calvinist preaching. More often
than not they deny their own theology even if they ask "Are you called today?"
Who can know they are the subject of God's effectual call?
No matter how much your doctrine eliminates man from the equation,
your doctrine is still a product of a sinful man who "saw dimly".
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 8:46:26 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7678
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
No, what you've done is avoid my WHY question. It is very obvious to everyone that Jesus ONLY spoke truth. But your theology hasn't answered the WHY question of John 8:24. If Jesus didn't die for the so-called "non-elect", then WHY WHY WHY did Jesus tell the so-called "non-elect" that they would die in their sins UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS they believed in Him"?
For the sake of any argument at all I am just going to say that not one reformed person has answered your question in regard to John 8:24.
Since it is the truth, there is "no sake of argument".
quote:
I do NOT really believe that is true, but I dont even want to debate the matter any more.
Also, there is no debate. None of the reformed ask answered my WHY question. What is amazing is that so many of you think you have answered it.
quote:
What I am going to do is post to show the TRUTH as it is given from the very mouth of JESUS CHRIST and show how YOU OPPOSE it.
Seems to me it is the reformed who are opposing what Jesus said. I fully understand WHY Jesus said what He said to the so-called "non-elect". His plan was to die for every single human in history. That is WHY He could look anyone in the eye and say, "you will die in your sins UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS you believe in Me". Your theology cannot explain why He said what He said.
quote:
YOUR POV is that He told all these people that they would die in their sins because YOU ASSUME that all people are ABLE to HEAR what He has to say and believe Him.
They weren't hearing because they weren't paying attention to what He was saying. Do you listen to those whom you reject? No.
quote:
That is YOUR POV.
You ASSUME He told these people the following because you ASSUME all human beings have this special ABILITY to HEAR and BELIEVE Him.
Since some actually did believe in Him while He was speaking, they were paying attention to Him. The OT is full of references to the fact that the Jews generally were not paying attention to God, just as most of the Jews of Jesus' day.
quote:
That is why I said that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins.”
This is a clear warning to the unsaved, and a very clear solution to the danger they were facing. Reformed theology cannot explain WHY Jesus would say that to someone for whom He didn't plan on dying for.
quote:
Even if not one reformed person gives you any answer as to WHY WHY WHY Jesus told these people that they would die in their sins if they did not have faith in Him..........IT MATTERS NOT!
It matters most clearly.
quote:
What MATTERS is that YOUR POV is in direct OPPOSITION to the WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST.
Jesus Christ says this in John 8;
If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God.
If God were your father you would love me.
I am not here on my own, but he sent me.
Why can’t you understand what I am saying?
It’s because you can’t even hear me!
WHY CANT YOU UNDERSTAND?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EVEN HEAR!
Please note that Jesus gave a very clear warning with solution to their problem. Then He told them they can't hear because WHY? They were of their father the devil, just as their ancestors, who weren't paying attention to God either.
quote:
Those that have ears to hear;
CAN'T implies INABILITY.
CAN implies ABILITY.
The issue is they were of their father the devil per John 8:43,44. They were paying attention to the deception of the devil. That is why they "couldn't" hear Him. Whatever "inability" you think they had was "self induced" by their paying attention to their father the devil. Of course they couldn't hear Jesus.
quote:
I suppose the devil loves to have faith in Jesus Christ.
I can't imagine why you post such ridiculous things. What's your point?
quote:
It says in the start that IF God was their Father they would love HIM which would include the truth that He speaks.
If they were truly seeking God as their Father, they would have paid attention to Jesus' words.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 8:52:03 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7678
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
This leads into my question for you below that addresses the "easy and obvious answer" to your question that you claim that the FW camp can offer.
God knows in advance who will be saved whether you are Arminian or Calvinist or Free Will or whatever. Since he already knows, since he knows the outcome from the beginning of time, what would be the reason for Jesus to preach in any of these systems?
The answer is very simple. The reason is because Christ was to die for everyone. That is why He could say to everyone that they will die in their sins unless they believe in Him.
what you and all the reformists have avoided is explaining why Jesus would tell the non-elect to believe in Him and avoid dying in their sins. That very concept contradicts calvinism. I'm just amazed that none of you seem to see this.
You failed to see my point.
We both agree that God knows ahead of time who will be saved (regardless of how it comes about).
Therefore, I ask you the same WHY question.
If he knows beforehand that certain people won't believe, then WHY did he tell them about salvation?
The answer is quite obvious. He told everyone about salvation because His plan was to die for everyone and salvation is for everyone.
IF He didn't plan to die for everyone, what is the point of telling those for whom He didn't plan to die that "UNLESS you believe in Me, you will die in your sins"? You haven't answered THAT question.
quote:
It's the same question that you've repeatedly asked the RT camp. Saying that Jesus died for all people doesn't answer the question of WHY he would preach to people that he knows won't believe.
You are missing the point, and I just answered your WHY question. Will you answer mine? It is specifically about WHY He told the "non-elect" that they would die in their sins UNLESS they believed in Him.
Why would He say that to those for whom He wouldn't die for? Is that question more clear to you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 8:54:23 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7678
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: balbas
quote:
You mean you don't think the Devil is more knowledgable than the rest of us as to God's plan for mankind?
Recall what James noted about the demons: "the demons also believe, and shudder".
Frankly, the point that Bee and I have made should make you shudder, in light of your theology. Good thing I know what this statement meant otherwise I would be wrong in my equations...
Anyway, isn't it interesting to note that demons see the truth and even knows God more than we do and yet they do not repent?
Is that by choice or are they just devils? If it were by choice, why aren't they repenting? Is it then now by nature - that is because they are demons?
It is by choice: they simply refuse and rebel, as Isa 1:20 notes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 9:13:15 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7678
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I just reviewd your post, and you did not answer the WHY question. As per your usual tactics - if you don't like the answer, the answer wasn't given. You seem to think you have some great free will answer - pity you don't realize it's the wrong answer.
kelman, I say you didn't answer my question because you didn't. IF you actually HAD answered it, I would have commented on how I either agree or disagree with it. Do you see the difference here?
Since you don't like my "free will" answer, why can't you provide a better one from your theology? That's what I've been asking for all along.
quote:
quote:
quote:
What a load of eisegeses..."lining up" for eternal life, indeed. From the NT uses and from the Septuagint, of which you are such a fan, it can be readily seen tasso means "order" "appoint" "arrange" or "ordain."
Can you explain to me the difference between "lining up" and "arrange"? Let's see how these verses "line up":
I ask you a question about a phrase in ONE text, and what do you do? Immediately go to unrelated texts. No dice. Stay focused, please, and answer my question about how "arrange" doesn't relate to "lining up" in Acts 13.
quote:
"For I also am a man set under authority," ...or
For I also am a man lined up under authority,
Do you disagree that the Centurion was "aligned" under the Roman authority? If you do, you shouldn't.
quote:
"and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." ...or
and there it shall be told thee of all things which are lined up for thee to do.
You are trying very hard to miss the meaning of the word. This can easily be seen as a "list" of things to do. How are lists organized?
quote:
"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging;" ...or
And when they had lined up him a day, there came many to him into his lodging;
kelman, when you determine something, you are lining it up, as in organizing what you are "determining". If you keep squinting too hard, you may affect your eyesight.
quote:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." ...or
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are lined up of God.
That is the ONLY verse to support your use of "ordain". btw, all the powers that be have certainly been organized or "lined up" by God. so even in this verse one can see the concept of organization or lining up something.
quote:
"and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)" ...or
and that they have lined up themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
Works well, if one's eyes are opened and mind is not closed.
When one volunteers for something, would you deny that they are "lining themselves up" for something? Probably, and you would be wrong.
quote:
In addition to the verses which declare that it is God who "adds" and "increases" to the church - people don't add or increase themselves.
No, and neither do people "save" themselves. So what?
quote:
quote:
Do you see any mention of "God" in 13:48? LOL...because it goes without saying or, at least, should...until man actually began to think himself capable of ordaining himself to salvation.
No, they certainly were "lining themselves up" to hear what Paul was teaching.
Do you deny that the Gentiles were lining up to hear Paul?
quote:
quote:
But how is addressing how He taught answering why He said what He said. You have failed to differentiate that. No, you simply fail to recogize the differentiation. He taught the same to all, it's just that simple. Why, did He teach the same to all?....because He separates the wheat from the tares on the last day.
Please address WHY He would tell those for whom He wouldn't die that they would die in their sins UNLESS UNLESS UNLESS they believed in Him? We mere humans are commanded to preach to every creature and the reformed pov is that it is because we cann't differentiate between the "elect" and the "non-elect". But Jesus was under NO SUCH limitation.
You simply cannot answer WHY He said what He said to the so-called "non-elect".
quote:
Don't you realize that the teaching of Christ is included in the NT? Don't you realize the Bible is for the world? Don't you realize that the world includes sheep and goats?
How can the gospel "be for the so-called "non-elect"? Please explain. Since they weren't chosen for faith, how is it for them?
quote:
Do you think the Bible should include caveats - those who are elect read only these passages; those who are not, read these only? No, Christ taught the same message to whomever He taught, just as His people are to do the same, just as His Word does the same.
Actually, reformed theology has done just that: created false caveats. Yet, Jesus told everyone about salvation because He died for everyone and salvaiton is for everyone.
If you disagree, and you do, please explain WHY Jesus would say what He did to those for whom He wouldn't die.
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is not "potential" at all. It is a statement of fact - if you don't believe, except you believe, unless you believe - they're conjunctions not an adjective like potential.
Why haven't you grasped the meaning of "unless". It IS potential. IF they DON'T believe, they WILL die in their sins. IF they DO believe, they WON'T die in their sins. Why can't you see potential here? Mind boggling. You're the one who doesn't understand your own argument since "unless" does not mean potential - that is only you forcing your theology on the text. Christ didn't die to "potentially" save people, He actually saved people when He died. You can't find anything in Scripture to agree with your theology which says Christ "potentially" died for sins.
I never said Christ "potentially" died. He actually died for everyone. But what you keep missing is the potential in what He said. iow, IF they believed, they would NOT die in their sins. But, otoh, IF they did not believe, THEN they WOULD die in their sins. If you can't see the potential in that, there is no need for further discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 9:16:33 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7678
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
The glitch is in your refusal to see that honoring Him as God and being thankful are HOW people seek God.
Show me that “honor Him as God or give thanks to Him” has to mean seeking God. It is easy to say that you are right and I have a ‘glitch,’ but quite another thing to show without a doubt that honoring God has to mean seeking God, when honoring God and giving thanks mean so much more.
I'm not arguing that it doesn't mean "more". But you haven't proven that "without a doubt" that it doesn't mean to "seek God". And you won't even make a guess as to what "seeking God" might look like. So, you have no case. And there isn't any point in further discussion.
quote:
When someone honors someone else it does not have to mean that the person is seeking the other.
But it certainly CAN, which you seem to just want to reject, deny, and refuse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 9:18:09 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7678
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
In the day that you sin you will die. One moment of not loving God with every fiber of your being makes you worthy of the eternal wrath of God. This in fact shows that God's expectation is "full time" obedience, not "part time." Man has not been willing and thus not able to obey this command and thus all are worthy of eternal damnation.
We are judged for eternal damnation on the basis of unbelief. John 3:18, 36.
True, those who have heard the gospel and have not believed are judged this way. Those who have not heard the gospel are judged on account of their neglect to honor God as God and give thanks – all have sinned and dishonored God instead of worshipping Him, adoring Him and being glad in Him.
I think this is pure nonsense. John 3:18 and 36 don't give us various reasons why we are judged.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 9:25:50 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1769
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
SH ,
quote:
LOL!!! So, you think that man was created to obey God some of the time and sin the rest of the time? I think your opinion has taken you down a theological dead end.
Correct me if I'm wrong : but does not Calvinism teach that God created some men to do nothing but sin all the time (the reprobate) , and the elect who will only sin some of the time ?
Not that I know of. Do you have any quotes?
From the WCF : All those whom God hath predestined unto life , and those only , he is pleased , in his appointed and accepted time , effectually to call , by his Word and Spirit , out of that state of sin and death , in which they are by nature , to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ :
These would be the elect who will only sin some of the time (mostly before the effectual call) .
Then we have the vessels of wrath , who were (according to Calvinism) prepared to be vessels of wrath from before the foundation of the world ; those whom God reprobated , not because of anything He saw in them , nor anything they would or would not do ; God by His choice merely reprobated them . They can do nothing but sin .
Is that not a Calvinist teaching in a paraphrase ?
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 9:36:50 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1769
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
What in the world is Paul telling us here in Galatians? Could it be that God actually did call him before his birth?
But even before I was born, God chose me and called me by His marvelous grace. Then it pleased Him to reveal His Son to me so that I would proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles. When this happened, I did not rush out to consult with any human being. (Gal 1:15-16) NLT
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (Gal 1:15-16) KJV
Bob
I believe the NLT is not a good translation of those verses
Does God not form each individual in his mothers womb ? Does God not separate each individual from his mothers womb ?
What Paul is telling us in those verses is that the divine disclosure to man of the person and work of Christ is the essence of the gospel . Paul was called by God to preach that message amoung the heathen .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 10:15:54 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1769
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
Bee
quote:
quote:
Have you ever been in the class of men described as "workers of iniquity"?
If you answer yes then you were one of those fools the bible is describing.
You were not seeking God and did not deserve more light to be revealed to you as Free erroneously asserts.
To claim other wise is to say that you were never a worker of iniquity. It is to deny being a sinner.
Yes I have been in that class .
But there is nothing in Ps 14:4 to indicate that all mankind is in view with reference to the workers of iniquity . Quite the oppostie is plainly indicated however : because we see in the self same verse who eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord .
Two classes of people are in view ; fools/workers of iniquity , and God's people .
Finally, maybe a little bit of a break through. I don’t disagree at all with what you are saying here. Of course there are two classes of men. Saved and unsaved. To deny this would be silly.
What I disagree with is saying that Psalm 14 refers only to what we might call “hard core atheists”. I believe the “workers of iniquity” is referring to all of unregenerate mankind.
That is why Paul is referring to it. The grand conclusion of Ro 3 is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
We all were children of wrath by nature.
Ti 3:3For we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived,
Psalm 14 refers too the fool , meaning stupid , wicked
Ti 3:3 refers to the foolish , meaning unintelligent , sensual . It is clear they are not the same thing .
Workers of iniquity is not refering to unregenerate mankind in general , but to those who say in their heart there is no God : all the unregenerate do not say that there is no God .
Psalm 14 is not refering simply to the saved and unsaved , but to the fool who says there is no God , and to God's people .
quote:
If Ps 14:2,3 were refering to all mankind then there is no explanation for God's people in v. 4 . Further , there is no explanation for the poor of Ps 10:14 nor the humble of 10:17 ; which serves as a reference for Ps 14 .
And obviously , Ps 15 helps dispute the Calvinist interpretation of Ps 14 .
So , no , I'm not one of the fools nor workers of iniquity that Ps 14 is describing .
quote:
And I am not accusing you of being one. But again the point is we were at one time.
Not according to the different meanings of fool and foolish as used in Psalm 14 and Titus 3 .
quote:
The unregenerate or “workers of iniquity” have these characteristics.
Foolish, corrupt, none good. They lack understanding and don’t seek God.
They have no fear of God before them.
All unregenerate are not said to say there is no God : therefore all unregenerate are not classified , according to the text , as workers of iniquity in the context of Psalm 14 .
quote:
The debate isn’t if there are two classes of men. The debate is how we get from one class to the other or from point A to point B.
Does man on his own change and start seeking God or does God draw men to Jesus Jo 6:44?
Our discussion was on the two classes of men in Psalm 14 .
Man does not change on his own , he places his faith in Christ by his own choice .
You should realize that John 6:44 is refering to pre-cross drawing . John 12:32 is refering to post-cross drawing .
quote:
If the former is true then that means we clean ourselves up before we come to Christ but if the latter is true then we can say with the apostle Paul that "we are what we are by the grace of God".1 CO 15:10
By man choosing to place his faith in Christ , in no way means man cleans himself up ; that is a Calvinist misconception , and one they can never seem to see . We come to Christ just as we are , as sinners , the sinner comes to Christ by faith by free choice . Christ said that He came to call sinners , not those who are already clean .
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
