|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 9:35:53 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 198
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
Perhaps God knows that there is no way for love to be expressed unless there is choice.
Seems to me that Romans 9 talks about "God's Sovereign Choice". This passage has a lot to say about love from the perspective of God.
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 10:52:44 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jeremiah 26:13(NASB)
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey
the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind
about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
Amos 7:6(NASB)
The LORD changed His mind about this."This too shall not be," said the Lord GOD.
Still think God can't change his mind. Perhaps your view of omniscience needs amending.
(Job 23:13) But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
(Psalms 33:11) The counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Without pitting scripture against scripture, how are we to reconcile these seeming contradictions?
I think a good example is found in the book of Jonah.
(Jonah 3:2) Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
(Jonah 3:4) And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
(Jonah 3:10) 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.
Was the council of the Lord to destroy Nineveh and then that council was overthrown by man's repentance?
Jonah knew what God was up to.
(Jonah 4:1) But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
(Jonah 4:2) And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
That is the reason Jonah fled. He knew God was going to show them mercy and not destroy them.
So did God change his mind or was his original councel to show the Ninevites mercy?
_____________________________
I am not what I ought to be — I am not what I hope to be — Yet, though I am not what I ought to be, nor what I wish to be, nor what I hope to be, I can truly say, I am not what I once was- "By the grace of God I am what I am."-John Newton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 11:05:46 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 247
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
There really isn't much point to these discussions. Nobody's going to change his mind no matter how much scripture we quote. Non-reformists will go on believing that man saves himself and reformists will go on believing that Jesus saves. In the end, "To his own master, each man stands or falls."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 11:13:46 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Your correct Carico...this thing could go on for another 5000 pages and still no winner. 
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 11:17:15 PM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 190
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
Freegrace,
quote:
OK, if it is "not of ourselves" then please explain clearly WHY Jesus bothered to give the Jews the SOLUTION to their problem? For what purpose, other than just taunting them "while in their sins". btw, your pov renders them quite hopeless since they would have believed if God had chosen for them to believe. So, the only conclusion, based on your pov, is that Jesus was just being mean and nasty when He taunted them by giving them the specific solution to their problem, when they couldn't even appropriate it. Please explain that.
The Lord did not give the Jews the solution. He gave the world the solution. The world is what he loves not just the Jews. For God so love the world...John 3:16. The world was in sin not just the Jews when Jesus came to save the world.
If Jesus came to save He saves effectively. If everything is equal in will, ability and knowledge the question goes back to you. Why then not all believe? If everybody sees the beauty of Jesus why then do they resist the Lord? If there is really no alternative, why then would they choose poverty? You see, even your arguement of equal ability and equal knowledge need to be qualified! What then makes the believer to differ? Is it because they are more able and more knowledgeable?
I feel like the arguement of God taunting the Jews is the only thing that you are going for as far as arguing your case. It is the gotcha moment that you have been waiting for. Of course to place it in such a negative light you feel that I will have to defend the position and somehow slip.
Well, the truth is, you are the ones trying to read the soverignty of God as a unfair. And whenever I argue that even your FW position shows unfairness you would go back to the same thing and argue in circular without end the same things.
Go ahead do not call Him the God who is in control. Do not call Him the God who is Sovereign. Do not call Him the God who is all powerful and all influential. Let not this lofty honor be to God be not His because you fear that He might be accused of evil.
My view of the whole thing is the glorious right of God to choose. It is a right. It is His right to choose. Is he stepping on the will of man? What then is evil about that if it is His right to do so? You mean God smothering certain sinners with grace and love is evil and unfair? If it is about God's right what then is evil about that? And to use your point, if God dsend evil our way even if we do not deserve it, would God then sin? Isn't it His prerogative to even do so?
Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. Job 2:3-10
I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. Job 42:2
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said; But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go. Exodus 8:15, 32 (Here Pharaoh hardened his own heart)
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.; Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them; But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go; But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go.; Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country. Exodus 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10 (Here God hardening the Pharaoh's heart)
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses. Joshua 11:20
See that? Clearly God does not just let go of the will but has been clearly shown to influence the heart. He is not a "no touch" God when it comes to our wills. God showed Pharoah miracles and supernatural things and yet He hardens his heart. Now you tell me. Was God taunting Pharoah? Don't blame me if the only explanation I can gather from the word is that the Lord was doing it not to taunt but to show His glory as that is how the bible explains it to us. And would that then be an evil thing for God to do?
So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Romans 9:16-18
If God displayed His glory by hardening the heart of Pharoah, it is still the Lord showing His glory upon not choosing whomever he does not choose.
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Romans 9:14-16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 11:34:41 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 198
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
"I WILL have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I WILL have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Omnipresence is definitely an explanation of how he "will" do something. God is very active in this world. His time is not our time....
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 1:22:06 AM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 190
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
Freegrace,
quote:
If you are speaking of inherent inability, then please explain WHY Jesus gave them the exact solution to their problem? It makes no sense. What would stop Jesus from doing what He did? Are you saying that our inability should have given the hint to Jesus that the whole endeavor of saving man will be for naught? Your arguement asumes first that man has the ability therefore it should be not difficult for God to send the Son.
What I beleive is different. Because He is God He can send His Son despite our unbelieving hard hearts. The all powerful Creator of the Universe is undaunted of any difficulties. As I have already shown you in my previous posts, God is still the God of our wills. That realm is not un-treked by God. That place in the universe is not closed from God. We saw there that God is not shy to go into a man's heart and do as He pleases.
Your arguement is that it would be difficult for God to save man if all of us are inherently unable, well if the bible is true, then nothing is impossible with God.
quote:
If you are speaking of the "inability" that comes from being unwilling, then you are admitting that man chooses whether to be willing or not.
Sometimes I wonder if you are truly reading my post of just trying to find snips that will be good for your talking point. Anyway, as I have said so clearly in my other posts, our inability to understand makes us not appreciate the truth. Our sins makes us hate the truth. Our death makes us not feel for the truth. Our blind eyes makes us not see the truth. Our deaf ears makes us not hear the truth. We can summarize that by saying that our total inability makes us unwilling to believe the gospel.
quote:
Are you able to choose to whom you submit yourself? I am sure you will also say that you are able to harden your own heart. But as scriptures had shown us, God was when Pharoah was hardening His own heart, God admitted that it was Him who did it for Pharoah. So are you able to choose apart from the will of God? No. Shall we call that unjust. No. Praise God then for it is He who works in you to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13)
quote:
Hold on. What do you mean by "self determination"? Unbelievers are free to believe and reject whatever they want. I do NOT believe in "self determination" if you mean that man determines what his environment will be.
That is what I mean. Self-determination is to do as you will. You determine yourself if you will believe or not. That is what you believe. You believe that man has the ability to determine for himself whether to accept or reject the gospel. It is our contention that he is inable to make both choices because left in himself he will determine to not choose the gospel.
quote:
I pray what the Bible says. That the Holy Spirit would convict them of their sin, their unrighteousness, and their judgment, per John 16:8. I pray that God would send witnesses to them, per Rom 10:13-16. Now that depends on what you mean by the Spirit convicting them of sin. Do you mean when the Spirit convict they will no doubt repent?
quote:
Yet, it is man who "presents himself to the one he obeys as a slave", per Rom 6:16. Of course. But as you know, slaves are bound to their masters. Sin as a master binds us in strong chains. To be a slave of sin is to be bound with one master forever, unless a stronger man comes to break our shackles.
quote:
I believe this is just reformed rhetoric. We know that God created mankind to seek Him. That strongly indicates that he created man with the ability as well. So what if it is reformed rhetoric so long as it is biblical you cannot deny the truth.
I believe that question has been answered ad infinitum. But even with that it reminds me of my children's cathecism. One of the most basic question that the scriptures plainly answers. I just don't know why it is hard to acknowledge.
What is the chief end of man (why was man created?)?
Answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever(1 Corinthians 10:31; Psalm 16:11; 37:4; 73:25-26; Isaiah43:7)
quote:
You misunderstand Eph 2:8. Salvation is the gift, just as we read in Rom 6:23. It is plainly written in Eph 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and THIS is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
Yes the same with Rom 6:23. That is why eternal life is also a gift as every aspect of our salvation even faith is the gift of God.
It is not impossible for faith to be a gift as show in...
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is GIVEN THROUGH THE SPIRIT the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, TO ANOTHER FAITH by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. 1 Cor 12:7-11
quote:
quote:
There are scriptures that support man's incapacity. There are scriptures that tells us that this is the very reason for unbelief. There are scriptures that support how dead man is towards spiritual things. A dead man needs life before it ever sees the beauty of Christ. His eyes are lifeless, it does not see. What does he need then to acknowledge the glory of Jesus? Life! There must be blood pumping in that stoney heart before the eyes can open. There must be blood running though him before he can ever see. How can he believe something he cannot see and cannot hear? He does not have the eyes to see nor the ears to hear.
Much of this is reformed rhetoric. And none of what you say here supports or proves that regeneration precedes faith. ' Really? With all the scriptures been quoted so far that man is dead, blind, deaf, enslaved, unwilling, unable having things stacked against him because of sin to you those are not an evidence of man's inability? If scriptures cannot convince you that that man you are evangelizing needs the Spirit, then I say, preach on and have faith on a dead man's abilities.
quote:
Are you aware of the meaning of "grant"? It means to give to the one asking. Are you saying that you were not believing before you asked to have faith? If "grant" is not equal to "gift" or "grace" what then does Philippians 1:29 mean to you?
quote:
The main point of Eph 2 is the contrast between two positions: either one is dead in their sins, or alive with Christ. The concept of "dead" is really about separation, ie: the soul and the body in physical death. Unfortunately, the reformed misunderstand what "dead in sins" means, and have come up with the nonsense that the spiritually dead cannot respond to God until they are regenerated. The point of "dead in sins" means separated from God. I had to smile because I feel that this is a bate response especially with your interpretation of dead in sin. Ephesians 2 talks about the Christian's former state, comparing it to the state they are not in Christ. That is why it started with "As for you, YOU WERE dead in transgressions and sin...Like the rest WE WERE by nature objects of wrath...but because of His great love for us...God made us alive...".
If that is difficult to understand, how about a verse that does not say "dead". How about a verse that say "natural". Sounds like a man with life right? A verse that discusses unbelievers in their natural state.
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14
What does it say? It does not say dead but even with that we still do not understand.
quote:
Actually, in the Greek text, there is no "should". It just says "to seek". So, you support the idea that God created man for the purpose of seeking Him but without the ability to do so? Why? With or without 'should' it still does not say can'. Can you be holy and perfect like God? If not, why then would God command you to be so?
quote:
Romans 1 is quite clear. God has made Himself evident to mankind, so that He is clearly seen, to use the very words of the text. The result of that is that man is without excuse for not seeking Him, which, in the text, is suggested by "recognizing God as God, and being thankful". Yes, I agree that we see God but then as Romans 1 progressed the apostle shows how perverted man is that he peverts the worship of God.
That perversion warrants the metaphor of being blind. Though we naturally see we have sin to thank for for our peversions of holy/spiritual things. Again, there applies 1 Cor 2:14.
quote:
Stumbling does not equate to being crippled or incapactitated, if you think so. I am not for hair splitting. But here we go. The bible said that the Gospel is a stubmling block for the Jews. They do not understand it as the Gentiles do. Because to the gentiles it is an offense. Why? Well, as the bible tells us, we are not able. Cripple, incapacitated, paralyzed are metaphors of the same thing.
quote:
The "wedge" is Adam's original sin, which contaminated the human race with the sin nature. But that didn't change the fact that God created mankind to seek Him, and is able to either believe or reject what God makes evident to him. Adam sin, we all sin. We do not just carry Adam's sin but we sin ourselves. In what ever form it is, sin is still a wedge between man and God.
quote:
Actually, the Bible gives plenty of support for the fact that man is able to respond to Him. We all face a choice when God makes evident Himself to us, so that it is clearly seen. We can either "consent and obey" or "refuse and rebel" all per isa 1:19,20. Well all you are actually pointing is choice not ability. And if given a choice, the natural man always choose to call spiritual things foolishness (1 Cor 2:14). As we all know from scriptures, the nation of Israel is full of stories of disobedience further evidence that if left alone we will always make the worst of the two choices.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 4:40:31 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5469
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EricB
But then the point stands that accountability, and the resulting judgment are a script. It's "written" into the story that people "should" respond but don't, yet are treated like they could have when they couldn't. You say a "script", generally it is called God's salvation plan. I prefer salvation plan; but, in any event, the results are the same. Yes, God planned or "scripted" His creation. Frankly, why would anyone assume that God wouldn't plan or "script" that which He created?
quote:
It's not so much about Heven per se being an "entitlement", but since the only other place besides Heaven is Hell, then you might as well say that "lack of eternal torment" is also not an entitlement, but that's supposed to be a punishment, yet in this "script" setup, it was God's original intention for most people. God created everything perfectly including Adam and Eve. Adam brought condemnation upon himself, and us, by sinning and man brings further condemnation upon himself with every sin he commits. Still, as you say, it definitely was God's plan to have Adam sin and put into action His salvation plan by which He is glorified through Christ.
quote:
quote:
God does say that His glory is made manifest in the destruction of the wicked. He hardened Pharoah's hard to manifest His glory. Now, these are God's words, should we disagree because they sound disagreeable to us? "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
This passage is discussing Israel, a nation of people God was judging as opposed to Gentiles whom He was spreading His grace to, not individual people or everyone in a particular group being predestined for wrath as opposed to other individual people being elected for grace. No, God is not the "potter" of only Israel. Paul makes this clear in verse 24 of Romans 9 "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
quote:
Paul uses the example of Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh to show how the people were chosen ("elected") by God for His purpose and not by their own will in the first place, and how God raised them up to show his power, and then hardens, all according to His will, and chooses others (and once again, individual salvation is not even mentioned. The very context of Jacob and Esau from Malachi 1:1-4, 3:6, and even the original Genesis 25:12 account is discussing nations!). Jacob and Esau were individuals. The election was to the role of fathering the chosen nation. Jacob was individually chosen to that role.
quote:
quote:
BTW, I didn't see any indication of anyone having an attitude of "getting theirs".
Nobody puts it that way, but it is implied in the statements many make that particular election is necessary for God to be praised or for "us" to have any hope, and then that some think the damnation of everyone else also seems to be just as much part of the reason to praise of God because He saved them from that. I don't think this implies "getting theirs". To have a theology of particular election doesn't imply an arrogance of any kind. The fact that God is worthy of praise no matter what or how He decides is perfectly biblical. If He condemns people to death - it is just and right - because whatever God does must be just and righteous simply because - He is God. God commands us to love our neighbor, it is not a sign of love to take any joy or consolation from the “death of the wicked”.
quote:
This is kind of semantical. Put the last two statements together: "God illumines their minds...it appears their faith...is not mere pretence". The point is, He makes them believe they are believers, but it's only a misleading. I’m not convinced this “faith” comes from God, at all. In fact, I disagree that it does. We have scriptural evidence that many have some type of faith but not saving faith. Rather, it appears to be a type of faith produced by the human mind and not the faith which God gives.
quote:
But still, they realize that a person is not going to be behaviorally transformed at or even before the evangelist's invitation. But that seems to be what Washer and the other Lordship people are demanding. They too use the argument that "'beliving' [salvation] has become 'too easy'" I'm at a disadvantage not knowing these individuals; but, from what you've described I can see a lot of problems. The evangelist's "invitation" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with salvation. But, if one is "truly" saved - there WILL be a change in behavior. Christ is clear in Scripture that a saved individual produces fruit.
quote:
Mixing this perfectionism with a monergistic outlook, it now becomes more feasible, hypothetically, as God could instantly transform upon "regeneration", so that they would have all the "fruits" when the evangelist approaches him, so therefore, anyone not having these fruits was just not regenerated. This then naturally leads to judging other's fruits. But where do we draw the line? What exactly is "no fruits"? The "instant" of regeneration is unknown to us and "fruit" has no part in it. As individuals, other people's fruit is not our business. Besides, not all fruit is apparent to others. You ask "what exactly is no fruit". I think that would be the one who continues to live a lifestyle of sin and rebellion against God. I, for one, have been educated on this thread that there are theologies which teach this is quite possible.
quote:
And no preacher is saying "you are saved though you live like the devil". Actually, some are. This is a principle taught by the Free Grace Movement. According to it, all that is necessary to be considered saved is to have "once" believed. Although, they teach a Christian should lead a godly life, if he doesn't he need not worry since he once "believed".
quote:
They say you are saved in spite of it (Rom.5:8), now start to act like it, and grow in Christ. They can't see the end of this process, or where it will be anytime in the future, so they can't declare him not really saved then. Yes, of course, Paul teaches "and such were some of you"; but the operative word is WERE. If a sinful lifestyle continues, you are not one of these and cannot consider yourself saved.
quote:
If the person is still living that way years later, then they will probably question his salvation. But to demand it at the time of conversion, with his "not living like the devil" as the determining factor, then salvation is by works, and monergism avoids this implication by simply attributing the ability to do the works to God. No one can "declare" someone to be saved because none of us knows the heart of another. We have only their "actions" to go on.
I'm not sure what you mean by "...and monergism avoids this implication by simply attributing the ability to do the works to God.". It's not an implication of a works gospel to understand that if someone doesn't clean-up his act he should not consider himself saved. Scripture teaches that for a true believer all things have been made new; therefore, they should walk in the newness of life(Rom 6:4).
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 4:55:18 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5469
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Of course it's referring to the Gospel...Paul says it is in the first two verses: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
I'm just sorry for you that you have missed the change in subject in v.10 with the "deep things of God". Verse 8 tells us Paul is still speaking about the Gospel "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What did they not know?....that Jesus Christ is the Messiah...precisely why they crucified Him. Then Paul says in verse 9 "But"...as it is written. Where was it written?...in the OT. But, these things were not clear in the OT "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard:". And, in the next verse Pauls says these things have been revealed to believers...what things?...The Gospel of Jesus Christ which he had been talking about all along.
So, as you can see, there really is no reason for you to be "sorry"...well, sorry for me anyway, since there is no change of subject.
quote:
You continue to misunderstand 2:14. It isn't speaking about "believing", but rathert understanding, which was my point. There are many many unbleievers who actually DO understand the gospel clearly, yet reject it. So, 1 Cor 2:14 cannot be about the gospel.
The fact that unbelievers can intellectually understand the concepts of the Gospel does not negate that 2:14 is, in fact, speaking of the Gospel which I've shown to be the case.
quote:
quote:
Where is your consistency? You've stated that the OT is for the Jews so these OT quotes can't be used to support anything in the NT.
Nonsense. I've noted that some of the pormises were only for the Jews. Aren't you even aware that Acts 10:43 is in the NT yet refers back to the OT, and I've used that verse many times. So, your comment is irrelevant and silly. Actually, the only thing silly and nonsensical is your opinion that the OT believers were saved in some manner other than the way NT believers are. If those in the OT needed God to give them a new heart so they would obey Him, what makes you think you're so much better than they?
quote:
Now, you still didn't answer my question. If you want Rom 3:10-12 to refer to everyone in human history, you have to take v.13-18 as well, since Paul quoted all of them in 1 string. Are you prepared to do that or not? Hmm, seems like just another example of one of your ploys - always accusing others of not answering your questions. Where did you ask me this question before?
In any event, are you really suggesting this doesn't refer to all mankind? Of course, it does. God's been clear throughout the Bible what His opinion of fallen man is before God regenerates him. We see some of vs 13-18 reiterated in Psalm 5:9.
quote:
quote:
That simply is not true. We have no evidence from Scripture that Adam "responded" to God. What we do have is Adam hiding from and lying to God. Uh, did Adam answer when the Lord spoke to him? What do you call that?
Ya gotta love it...watching you stretch and wiggle. First, hiding and lying is NOT considered "reponding to God". You know perfectly well that your point was that even in his unregenerated state Adam could still respond positively to God. You were hoping to prove that man need not be given a new heart before he can respond to God...don't try to wiggle out of error by such ridiculous statements.
quote:
quote:
You have no argument since you believe the same thing. God's love is shown to the elect whether these elect choose Christ because of their own intrinsic faith or these elect choose Christ because God has given them the faith to do so. Therefore, you also understand there is "a definite de-limiter on His love."
No, you simply express your continued failure to understand the FW pov. God's love is infinite, and so is His justice. Your answer is so unresponsive it's amazing. Or perhaps you really do think God is showing love to those He destroys? The point is that regardless of which theology, FW or RT, God's love is shown only to the elect - those who believe. Therefore, what you meant as a slur to RT can be said of FW - you also understand there is "a definite de-limiter on His love.
quote:
Through His love, He provided salvation (not just your imagined and irrelevant potential nonsense) to everyone, and thorugh His justice gives it to all who believe. Exactly what I said all that is being provided is the "potential" of salvation in the FW pov. Whereas, in RT, actual salvation is provided for each and every one of the elect.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 5:00:12 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5469
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
But, fact is, salvation HAS been purchased (agarazo) for everyone, including the false teachers who deny our Sovereign Lord, per 2 Pet 2:1, which is just one more verse that contradicts your pov. The 2Pet 2:1 verse does not speak of atonement, propitiation, or forgiveness of sins. And, "agorazo" is used in both a redemptive and non-redemptive sense. If you'd like the references, I will provide them.
I checked my sources, and found "agarazo" is used 31 times in the NT. From the KJV, it is translated as "buy", "bought" or "redeemed", and all the uses indicate a redemptive idea. Please show me where you see any "non-redemptive" use of "agarazo" in the NT. Thanks.
"To summarize this argument, then: in the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used, only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and b) in every case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4). None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1."
You need to explain what you mean by "redemptive" since in ALL 31 uses, there is the concept of buying or redeeming something. How is "buy" different than "redeem"?
Please give me an example of the use of agarazo in a non-redemptive use, because I don't know what you mean by that.
Redemptive in the sense that Christ paid for sins and in the five instances this redemption is always accompanied by other contingencies...such as the fact they were believers or the purchase price - the blood of Christ - as in Rev 5:9 "...for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And in every case it is restricted to believers."
Whereas, we don't find this in 2Peter 2:1, there is no mention of any price and these falses teachers are obviously not believers. Therefore, it cannot be concluded those in 2Peter 2:1 have been "bought" by Christ in the redemptive sense - that He paid for their sins.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 7:56:00 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2712
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
God made certain that there would be sin, but is not the author of it.
If He is the One who "made certain there would be sin", then just who is the author of sin? Whoever "makes certain" that something happens is the author of it.
Did anyone else create the world knowing full well that sin would be a part of the creation? Or was it God alone that created the world? Since we know it was God alone who created the world, your statement above makes God the author of sin, which He is not.
God approved of the existence of sin, otherwise there would not be any sin. Yet, He is not the author of sin. It is a mystery that no thoughtful theologian can claim he understands.
Yes, God has allowed sin to enter the world. God DID make certain there would be sin.
By "author of sin" we need to be clear what it means.
Does it mean God created evil? I think not.
Evil is simply the absence of God, the absence of light.
God allows the evil one free reign over his creation (prince of the power of the air)
and at the same time limits evil. Does God control evil? Yes. Does God
determine every evil act that occurs? No, he has given that power to Satan.
My point is denying free will, misunderstanding permissive will, and taking
the overbalance view of God predetermining every single act forces you to
include every evil act ever perpetrated.
I simply ask "Is this compatible with the character of God?"
The doctrinal statement says he is not the author of evil, OK.
But a doctrinal statement cannot insulate God from what you accuse him of.
Decreeism surely DOES make him the orchestrator and perpetrator of evil,
which is simply contrary to his character.
The balance is this: God is sovereign - he is all knowing and all powerful, and
from the beginning allowed evil to exist, but at the same time his creation has
free will and is able to recognize his condition and turn to God.
This does not mean man can saved himself. This simply means man can meet
the condition God has declared for him to save a man.
Seems to me ability is proven by the fact that God gives a command to repent,
God has a desire for men to repent, God waits on his creation to repent, rejoices
when he repents, and even changes his mind when he repents.
Why would God or anyone else give commands, have desires, etc. if man had no ability?
_____________________________
Fiction: There is more than one way to be saved.
Fact: There is more than one way to understand
how we were saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 8:03:06 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2712
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
Jeremiah 26:13(NASB)
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey
the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind
about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
Amos 7:6(NASB)
The LORD changed His mind about this."This too shall not be," said the Lord GOD.
Still think God can't change his mind. Perhaps your view of omniscience needs amending.
(Job 23:13) But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
(Psalms 33:11) The counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Without pitting scripture against scripture, how are we to reconcile these seeming contradictions?
Read my signature, brother.
We must live in the tensions.
God seems to respond to man but at the same God must be in control.
Overbalancing is not the answer.
We will get nowhere arguing Scriptures.
Its much easier to drive our stakes in deep and camp out than to seek the truth, friend.
_____________________________
Fiction: There is more than one way to be saved.
Fact: There is more than one way to understand
how we were saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 8:09:24 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2712
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
There really isn't much point to these discussions.
Nobody's going to change his mind no matter how much scripture we quote.
Non-reformists will go on believing that man saves himself and reformists will
go on believing that Jesus saves. In the end, "To his own master, each man stands or falls."
Your lack of understanding is obvious by your statement.
You think they believe the save themselves and argue with your incorrect presupposition!
No wonder you make no headway in the debates.
Those who believe they have absolute truth can only convince
through love, not by characterizing people, questioning their salvation,
calling them names and believing everyone who disagrees is a heretic
of some sort.
I suggest you take some time off and study the "enemy" for a while, Carico.
I bid you farewell.
_____________________________
Fiction: There is more than one way to be saved.
Fact: There is more than one way to understand
how we were saved.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 8:22:20 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
God made certain that there would be sin, but is not the author of it.
If He is the One who "made certain there would be sin", then just who is the author of sin? Whoever "makes certain" that something happens is the author of it.
Did anyone else create the world knowing full well that sin would be a part of the creation?
That doesn't answer my question. Knowing that sin would enter the world has zero to do with who the author of that sin is.
quote:
Or was it God alone that created the world?
Yes, of course He created the world. That also doesn't answer the question.
quote:
Since we know it was God alone who created the world, your statement above makes God the author of sin, which He is not.
Not at all. You erroneously assume that because He created the world, and sin entered the world, that He created sin, which He did not.
Did He create the world with sin in it? No. He created a perfect world.
When did sin enter the world? Only when Adam and the woman sinned. They alone created their sin. Who tempted the woman? The serpent (Satan), who created his own sin.
God approved of the existence of sin, otherwise there would not be any sin. Yet, He is not the author of sin. It is a mystery that no thoughtful theologian can claim he understands.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 8:24:48 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
Your correct Carico...this thing could go on for another 5000 pages and still no winner.
How can you even say that Carico is correct, when he/she continues to repeat the gross error of "non-reformists will go on believing that man saves himself"? I know you know better than that.
It's becooming quite apparent that Carico will probably never understand the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 8:50:33 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: balbas
Freegrace,
quote:
OK, if it is "not of ourselves" then please explain clearly WHY Jesus bothered to give the Jews the SOLUTION to their problem? For what purpose, other than just taunting them "while in their sins". btw, your pov renders them quite hopeless since they would have believed if God had chosen for them to believe. So, the only conclusion, based on your pov, is that Jesus was just being mean and nasty when He taunted them by giving them the specific solution to their problem, when they couldn't even appropriate it. Please explain that.
The Lord did not give the Jews the solution. He gave the world the solution. The world is what he loves not just the Jews. For God so love the world...John 3:16. The world was in sin not just the Jews when Jesus came to save the world.
Your point is moot. He was directly speaking to a group of unbelieving Jews who were going to die in their sins unless they believed in Him. Of course He IS the solution for the whole world, but He gave a specific warning to a specific group of people, along with the specific solution. You haven't explained WHY He did, in light of reformed pov.
quote:
If Jesus came to save He saves effectively. If everything is equal in will, ability and knowledge the question goes back to you. Why then not all believe? If everybody sees the beauty of Jesus why then do they resist the Lord? If there is really no alternative, why then would they choose poverty? You see, even your arguement of equal ability and equal knowledge need to be qualified! What then makes the believer to differ? Is it because they are more able and more knowledgeable?
Is all you can do is change the subject rather than answer the question? All your questions have already been answered. Do your homework. Can you please answer WHY Jesus warned them and also gave them the solution, if they can't apply the solution?
quote:
I feel like the arguement of God taunting the Jews is the only thing that you are going for as far as arguing your case.
The argument comes from applying the reformed pov to Jesus warning. You tell me why it isn't a taunt then. Because in the light of reformed pov, how can it be other than just a taunt?
quote:
It is the gotcha moment that you have been waiting for. Of course to place it in such a negative light you feel that I will have to defend the position and somehow slip.
OK, just explain WHY Jesus warned a group of unregenerates and gave them the solution that they would have to apply in order to avoid the danger if they were unable to apply that solution on their own.
I don't expect that you will "slip up". I fully expect that you simply cannot answer the question as to WHY Jesus gave them the solution.
In fact, your pov has NO answer for why Jesus warned them and gave them the solution.
quote:
Well, the truth is, you are the ones trying to read the soverignty of God as a unfair. And whenever I argue that even your FW position shows unfairness you would go back to the same thing and argue in circular without end the same things.
Apparently, you are unable to answer the question, so you just change the subject with this nonsense. I've never claimed the sovereignty of God is unfair. It sure seems unfair in the light of reformed pov, though. But, in the lihgt of FW pov, it is totally fair.
quote:
Go ahead do not call Him the God who is in control. Do not call Him the God who is Sovereign. Do not call Him the God who is all powerful and all influential. Let not this lofty honor be to God be not His because you fear that He might be accused of evil.
I've fully acknowledged that He is sovereign and in control. However, my pov recognizes that He allows/permits sin to occur. That is why He is not the author of sin. Sin is created by man's and angel's own wills to sin. Sin proves free will.
quote:
My view of the whole thing is the glorious right of God to choose. It is a right. It is His right to choose.
And I agree. Our difference is how He chose. You believe He chose randomly; some for heaven and some for hell, without any preconditions at all. And you try to call that "fair". I believe He created His plan to save man based on man believing what He promises about His Son. That IS fair. Particularly since He created mankind to seek Him, AND He has made evident Himself to everyone, so that no one has an excuse for not seeking Him. That is TOTALLY fair.
quote:
Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. Job 2:3-10
How does the life of Job answer the question of WHY Jesus gave the solution to the unregenerates IF the solution can only be applied by God?
quote:
See that? Clearly God does not just let go of the will but has been clearly shown to influence the heart. He is not a "no touch" God when it comes to our wills. God showed Pharoah miracles and supernatural things and yet He hardens his heart. Now you tell me. Was God taunting Pharoah? Don't blame me if the only explanation I can gather from the word is that the Lord was doing it not to taunt but to show His glory as that is how the bible explains it to us. And would that then be an evil thing for God to do?
So, your answer to my question of WHY Jesus bothered giving the solution to the unregenerates who, according to the reformed pov, cannot apply the solution to avoid the danger, is to "show His glory"? Please tell me, how does that work?
You still haven't answered the question: if they aren't able to apply the solution, WHY did Jesus give it to them?
quote:
If God displayed His glory by hardening the heart of Pharoah, it is still the Lord showing His glory upon not choosing whomever he does not choose.
This does not answer the question of WHY Jesus gave the solution to people that you consider are unable to apply the solution to avoid the danger.
quote:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. Romans 9:14-16
Your post was quite long, and you included many passages that have zero to do with my question. It is obvious that you cannot answer my question.
Re: Rom 9:14-16, mercy and compassion are given to those who return to the Lord, per Isa 55:7. What is the "preconditon" in Isa 55:7 for the Lord's compassion? "returning to Him".
The Free Will pov answers my question of WHY Jesus gave the solution to the unregenerate Jews, along with the warning to them. In compassion and mercy, which we call "love", He warned them of the danger they were heading for, and gave them the solution, because they were able to apply it to their danger and escape that danger.
Please explain to me why my answer to my question is in error, since your pov disagrees with mine. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 9:38:02 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: balbas
Freegrace,
quote:
If you are speaking of inherent inability, then please explain WHY Jesus gave them the exact solution to their problem? It makes no sense. What would stop Jesus from doing what He did? Are you saying that our inability should have given the hint to Jesus that the whole endeavor of saving man will be for naught? Your arguement asumes first that man has the ability therefore it should be not difficult for God to send the Son.
I have given you a question, not an argument. And you haven't answered it yet.
To your question of "what would stop Jesus from doing what He did (warn the Jews with solution), it is the reformed pov that should have stopped Him.
The reformed pov, God chose who would believe, and He chose to regenerate them in order for them TO believe, right? If that is true, please answer WHY Jesus told the crowd of their danger, and gave them the solution, since it is God who chooses who will believe.
quote:
What I beleive is different. Because He is God He can send His Son despite our unbelieving hard hearts.
How does this answer my question?
quote:
The all powerful Creator of the Universe is undaunted of any difficulties. As I have already shown you in my previous posts, God is still the God of our wills. That realm is not un-treked by God. That place in the universe is not closed from God. We saw there that God is not shy to go into a man's heart and do as He pleases.
How does any of this answer my question?
quote:
Your arguement is that it would be difficult for God to save man if all of us are inherently unable, well if the bible is true, then nothing is impossible with God.
I gave you a question, not an argument to answer. You keep changing the subject instead of answering the question.
quote:
quote:
If you are speaking of the "inability" that comes from being unwilling, then you are admitting that man chooses whether to be willing or not.
Sometimes I wonder if you are truly reading my post of just trying to find snips that will be good for your talking point. Anyway, as I have said so clearly in my other posts, our inability to understand makes us not appreciate the truth.
You wonder if I "truly read your posts". Yet, you ignore what I say here. ARE you speaking of the "inability" that comes from being unwilling, or not? If you are, then you ARE admitting that man chooses whether to be willing or not. So, being unwilliing means man HAS a choice; he can either be willing or unwilling. He is free to choose either.
quote:
Our sins makes us hate the truth. Our death makes us not feel for the truth. Our blind eyes makes us not see the truth. Our deaf ears makes us not hear the truth. We can summarize that by saying that our total inability makes us unwilling to believe the gospel.
I consider this to be reformed rhetoric. There is nothing in Scripture to substantiate your claim: "our sins makes us hate the truth". Your summary needs explanation. HOW does our "total inability" make us unwilling?
If we are unable (inherently), there is NO issue of either being willing or unwilling. iow, it doesn't matter if we are willing or unwilling to do something, if we are inherently unable to do so. Do you understand this?
quote:
quote:
Are you able to choose to whom you submit yourself? I am sure you will also say that you are able to harden your own heart.
Why would you disagree if I do? The Bible even says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart a number of times.
quote:
But as scriptures had shown us, God was when Pharoah was hardening His own heart, God admitted that it was Him who did it for Pharoah. So are you able to choose apart from the will of God? No. Shall we call that unjust. No. Praise God then for it is He who works in you to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13)
The Bible says that both did.
quote:
quote:
Hold on. What do you mean by "self determination"? Unbelievers are free to believe and reject whatever they want. I do NOT believe in "self determination" if you mean that man determines what his environment will be.
That is what I mean. Self-determination is to do as you will. You determine yourself if you will believe or not. That is what you believe.
You missed my point. I was speaking of environment, not a belief system. And your answer here is contradictory. Man cannot always "do as he will". He does some of the time, to be sure. But certainly not always. But, man is always free to believe and reject what he wants.
quote:
You believe that man has the ability to determine for himself whether to accept or reject the gospel.
That is the FACT for all Truth that is presented. Man either believes it or not.
quote:
It is our contention that he is inable to make both choices because left in himself he will determine to not choose the gospel.
Who is "our"? SureHope has admitted that man is able to choose right yet none are willing. Though he won't admit it, he has agreed with the FW pov. Your answer here is contradictory or at least very confusing because you are mixing "inable" with "determine to not choose", which is free will.
If man is free to choose, he is able. If man is unable, there are no choices to "determine".
quote:
quote:
I pray what the Bible says. That the Holy Spirit would convict them of their sin, their unrighteousness, and their judgment, per John 16:8. I pray that God would send witnesses to them, per Rom 10:13-16. Now that depends on what you mean by the Spirit convicting them of sin. Do you mean when the Spirit convict they will no doubt repent?
No, I don't. Conviction of sin is to bring to a realization of one's guilt. What that one does with that realization is the issue. Some will repent, but not all.
quote:
quote:
Yet, it is man who "presents himself to the one he obeys as a slave", per Rom 6:16. Of course. But as you know, slaves are bound to their masters.
Why do you ignore my point. It is man who presents himself to his master. It is freely done. That we are "bound" doesn't change the FACT that we presented ourselves in the first place. It was OUR CHOICE.
quote:
quote:
I believe this is just reformed rhetoric. We know that God created mankind to seek Him. That strongly indicates that he created man with the ability as well. So what if it is reformed rhetoric so long as it is biblical you cannot deny the truth.
But, your "so long as it is biblical" is the problem. It isn't.
quote:
What is the chief end of man (why was man created?)?
Answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever(1 Corinthians 10:31; Psalm 16:11; 37:4; 73:25-26; Isaiah43:7)
I looked up all of these verses. Only isa 43:7 speaks of why man was created. And yet, none of these verses minimizes Acts 17:27, do they. God created mankind to seek Him. btw, when man DOES seek God, He IS glorified.
quote:
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is GIVEN THROUGH THE SPIRIT the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, TO ANOTHER FAITH by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. 1 Cor 12:7-11
Please note; this passage is directed to believers only. And also note the phrase "to another faith by the same Spirit". It should be obvious that this "faith" has nothing to do with saving faith, nor is even given to all believers. You have used this passage quite out of context. Not kosher.
quote:
quote:
quote:
There are scriptures that support man's incapacity. There are scriptures that tells us that this is the very reason for unbelief. There are scriptures that support how dead man is towards spiritual things. A dead man needs life before it ever sees the beauty of Christ. His eyes are lifeless, it does not see. What does he need then to acknowledge the glory of Jesus? Life! There must be blood pumping in that stoney heart before the eyes can open. There must be blood running though him before he can ever see. How can he believe something he cannot see and cannot hear? He does not have the eyes to see nor the ears to hear.
Much of this is reformed rhetoric. And none of what you say here supports or proves that regeneration precedes faith.
Really? With all the scriptures been quoted so far that man is dead, blind, deaf, enslaved, unwilling, unable having things stacked against him because of sin to you those are not an evidence of man's inability?
Not at all. And your putting "unwilling" and "unable" together demonstrates your misunderstanding of the terms, even. Until you get that sorted out, you will not grasp this concept.
quote:
If scriptures cannot convince you that that man you are evangelizing needs the Spirit, then I say, preach on and have faith on a dead man's abilities.
Of course I know that the unsaved, unregenerate needs the Spirit. But not for believing. You've got the cart before the horse. Again, there is NO sCripture that tells us that one must be regenerated so that one can believe.
quote:
quote:
Are you aware of the meaning of "grant"? It means to give to the one asking.
Are you saying that you were not believing before you asked to have faith? If "grant" is not equal to "gift" or "grace" what then does Philippians 1:29 mean to you?
The "gift of faith" that you reformed love to repeat and the "granted to believe" of Phil 1:29 is based on those who are seeking God. When He presents the gospel to them, He enables them to understand so they can believe.
quote:
quote:
The main point of Eph 2 is the contrast between two positions: either one is dead in their sins, or alive with Christ. The concept of "dead" is really about separation, ie: the soul and the body in physical death. Unfortunately, the reformed misunderstand what "dead in sins" means, and have come up with the nonsense that the spiritually dead cannot respond to God until they are regenerated. The point of "dead in sins" means separated from God.
I had to smile because I feel that this is a bate response especially with your interpretation of dead in sin.
And I smile with yours.  You seem to equate physical and spiritual death only in the sense of function, and you reject or resist the postion aspect.
quote:
Ephesians 2 talks about the Christian's former state, comparing it to the state they are not in Christ. That is why it started with "As for you, YOU WERE dead in transgressions and sin...Like the rest WE WERE by nature objects of wrath...but because of His great love for us...God made us alive...".
Yes. This is why I know that "dead in sins" is about position, not function. Even your own words agrees with my pov: "former state, comparing it to the state they are not IN Christ". Do you understand that "IN" refers to position, not function?
quote:
If that is difficult to understand, how about a verse that does not say "dead". How about a verse that say "natural". Sounds like a man with life right? A verse that discusses unbelievers in their natural state.
Whether you say "dead in sins" or "natural man", the whole point is that they are separated from God. Or do you disagree? neither phrase has anything to do with ability or function.
quote:
the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14
This verse speaks of the "deep things of God", not the gospel. The very FACT that there are millions of unbelievers who DO understand the gospe yet reject it disproves your understanding of this verse.
quote:
What does it say? It does not say dead but even with that we still do not understand.
Right, the deep things of God.
quote:
quote:
Actually, in the Greek text, there is no "should". It just says "to seek". So, you support the idea that God created man for the purpose of seeking Him but without the ability to do so? Why?
With or without 'should' it still does not say can'.
The Bible says "to seek God". They were created to do it, which is the point. You didn't answer my question: did God create man for something but without the ability to do it?
quote:
Can you be holy and perfect like God? If not, why then would God command you to be so?
Another diversionary smokescreen to change the subject, no doubt. The anser to this diversionary question does NOT answer my question.
quote:
quote:
Romans 1 is quite clear. God has made Himself evident to mankind, so that He is clearly seen, to use the very words of the text. The result of that is that man is without excuse for not seeking Him, which, in the text, is suggested by "recognizing God as God, and being thankful".
Yes, I agree that we see God but then as Romans 1 progressed the apostle shows how perverted man is that he peverts the worship of God.
Paul was describing the ones who didn't honor God by seeking Him, as Cornelius did.
quote:
quote:
Stumbling does not equate to being crippled or incapactitated, if you think so.
I am not for hair splitting. But here we go. The bible said that the Gospel is a stubmling block for the Jews. They do not understand it as the Gentiles do. Because to the gentiles it is an offense. Why? Well, as the bible tells us, we are not able. Cripple, incapacitated, paralyzed are metaphors of the same thing.
What is the gospel to the Gentiles? Why didn't you mention that? It is foolishness to them. Why did you even state: "they (Jews) di not understand it as the Gentiles do", when the FACT is the Gentiles consider the gospel to be foolishness? And the Bible never says man is unable to understand the gospel.
quote:
quote:
Actually, the Bible gives plenty of support for the fact that man is able to respond to Him. We all face a choice when God makes evident Himself to us, so that it is clearly seen. We can either "consent and obey" or "refuse and rebel" all per isa 1:19,20.
Well all you are actually pointing is choice not ability.
Yes, choice. Thanks for noticing. And to have a choice, one MUST HAVE the ability. iow, you cannot choose to do what you cannot do. Do you understand this?
quote:
And if given a choice, the natural man always choose to call spiritual things foolishness (1 Cor 2:14).
Why do you say "if given a choice"? Man either IS given a choice, or he isn't. Which is it for you? SureHope admitted that man IS given a choice.
The very meaning of choice DEMANDS ability, or there is no real choice.
quote:
As we all know from scriptures, the nation of Israel is full of stories of disobedience further evidence that if left alone we will always make the worst of the two choices.
False conclusion. You note two choices. They are only real if both can be chosen and done. If either choice can't really be done, then there is NO choice in the matter.
So, which is is? Does man face choice or not? SureHope, one of your campers, agreed that man DOES face choice. What say you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 9:52:12 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Of course it's referring to the Gospel...Paul says it is in the first two verses: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
I'm just sorry for you that you have missed the change in subject in v.10 with the "deep things of God". Verse 8 tells us Paul is still speaking about the Gospel "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What did they not know?....that Jesus Christ is the Messiah...precisely why they crucified Him. Then Paul says in verse 9 "But"...as it is written. Where was it written?...in the OT. But, these things were not clear in the OT "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard:". And, in the next verse Pauls says these things have been revealed to believers...what things?...The Gospel of Jesus Christ which he had been talking about all along.
So, as you can see, there really is no reason for you to be "sorry"...well, sorry for me anyway, since there is no change of subject.
None of this "explanation" changes the FACT that many unbelievers can and do understand the gospel message yet reject it. That in itself disproves your misundersatnding of what 1 Cor 2:14 is speaking about. It is about understanding, and there are many unbelievers who actually DO understand it.
quote:
quote:
You continue to misunderstand 2:14. It isn't speaking about "believing", but rathert understanding, which was my point. There are many many unbleievers who actually DO understand the gospel clearly, yet reject it. So, 1 Cor 2:14 cannot be about the gospel.
The fact that unbelievers can intellectually understand the concepts of the Gospel does not negate that 2:14 is, in fact, speaking of the Gospel which I've shown to be the case.
That FACT completely negates what you think 1 Cor 2:14 says.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Where is your consistency? You've stated that the OT is for the Jews so these OT quotes can't be used to support anything in the NT.
Nonsense. I've noted that some of the pormises were only for the Jews. Aren't you even aware that Acts 10:43 is in the NT yet refers back to the OT, and I've used that verse many times. So, your comment is irrelevant and silly. Actually, the only thing silly and nonsensical is your opinion that the OT believers were saved in some manner other than the way NT believers are.
Your wild and erroneous claim here is amazing. Why would you think I believe that OT beleivers "were saved in some matter other than the way NT believers are"? What does Acts 10:43 say? I must wonder why you aren't paying attention.
quote:
quote:
Now, you still didn't answer my question. If you want Rom 3:10-12 to refer to everyone in human history, you have to take v.13-18 as well, since Paul quoted all of them in 1 string. Are you prepared to do that or not? Hmm, seems like just another example of one of your ploys - always accusing others of not answering your questions. Where did you ask me this question before?
It's been addressed repeatedly, and I've challenged the lot of you to answer. Do you have one?
quote:
In any event, are you really suggesting this doesn't refer to all mankind? Of course, it does. God's been clear throughout the Bible what His opinion of fallen man is before God regenerates him. We see some of vs 13-18 reiterated in Psalm 5:9.
You are ignoring the point. Do you claim that each quote (7 of them) in Rom 3:10-18 speaks of each human in history? I know that the RT pov claims that Rom 3:10-12 speaks of each person in history. But, my question to you is this: what about the other 6 quotes from the OT found in v.13-18? Do each of them speak of each person in history as well?
quote:
quote:
quote:
That simply is not true. We have no evidence from Scripture that Adam "responded" to God. What we do have is Adam hiding from and lying to God.
Uh, did Adam answer when the Lord spoke to him? What do you call that?
Ya gotta love it...watching you stretch and wiggle. First, hiding and lying is NOT considered "reponding to God". You know perfectly well that your point was that even in his unregenerated state Adam could still respond positively to God. You were hoping to prove that man need not be given a new heart before he can respond to God...don't try to wiggle out of error by such ridiculous statements.
If Adam was "dead" in the reformed pov sense, he wouldn't even have been able to answer any questions, now, would he. yes, he certainly DID respond. Why do you think "lying" is not a response, btw?
quote:
quote:
quote:
You have no argument since you believe the same thing. God's love is shown to the elect whether these elect choose Christ because of their own intrinsic faith or these elect choose Christ because God has given them the faith to do so. Therefore, you also understand there is "a definite de-limiter on His love."
No, you simply express your continued failure to understand the FW pov. God's love is infinite, and so is His justice.
Your answer is so unresponsive it's amazing. Or perhaps you really do think God is showing love to those He destroys?
He showed His love by sending His Son to the cross for all of them. When He send them to hell, it is for JUST CONDEMNATION, for refusing the gift.
quote:
The point is that regardless of which theology, FW or RT, God's love is shown only to the elect - those who believe.
Wrong again. God's love is shown to the whole world when Jesus went to the Cross.
quote:
Therefore, what you meant as a slur to RT can be said of FW - you also understand there is "a definite de-limiter on His love.
No, I don't and I just explained it. You just don't understand the FW pov.
quote:
quote:
Through His love, He provided salvation (not just your imagined and irrelevant potential nonsense) to everyone, and thorugh His justice gives it to all who believe.
Exactly what I said all that is being provided is the "potential" of salvation in the FW pov. Whereas, in RT, actual salvation is provided for each and every one of the elect.
Please go back and read my post 25708, which provides a clear illustration of how salvation has been purchased (agarazo) for everyone, yet not everyone will recieve it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 9:56:57 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
You need to explain what you mean by "redemptive" since in ALL 31 uses, there is the concept of buying or redeeming something. How is "buy" different than "redeem"?
Please give me an example of the use of agarazo in a non-redemptive use, because I don't know what you mean by that.
Redemptive in the sense that Christ paid for sins and in the five instances this redemption is always accompanied by other contingencies...such as the fact they were believers or the purchase price - the blood of Christ - as in Rev 5:9 "...for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And in every case it is restricted to believers."
You mention "five instances". Could you provide which ones you refer to?
quote:
Whereas, we don't find this in 2Peter 2:1, there is no mention of any price and these falses teachers are obviously not believers.
Your reformed bias is quite clear. You have admitted that unless believers accompany azarazo, it isn't "redemptive". That is only eisegesis. Further, your comment "no mention of any price" is quite irrelevant. How can you "purchase" anything without a "price" being associated with it? Please answer that.
quote:
Therefore, it cannot be concluded those in 2Peter 2:1 have been "bought" by Christ in the redemptive sense - that He paid for their sins.
You still haven't shown a "non-redemptive" sense of agarazo. What does "redeem" mean? To buy. The unbelievers were bought by the Master. Please tell me what that can possibly mean if not in a purchasing sense?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 12:19:49 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2556
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
From the point of view that you present, it sounds as if you're saying that God owes his creatures salvation. God doesn't owe us anything.
I would agree. God doesnt owe us . He owes Himself, to be Just. To me the following is inconsistent with God’s nature as we know it:
God selects some for damnation. They are not better or worse then those who are selected for salvation. That is, to me not something a Loving, Just God would do.
Anothing thing- people are punished for condition they are born with. That is like punishing a blind man for being born that way.
I still do not fully understand the point/all reasons for giving us FW, but it does at thing point sounds much more Just then creating people for Hell based on nothing but- supposedly- divine choice.
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 12:25:24 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
John 8:24
"I said therefore to you, that YOU SHALL DIE IN YOUR SINS; for UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT I AM HE, YOU SHALL DIE IN YOUR SINS."
I have asked the reformists to answer the question of WHY did Jesus give these unbelieving Jews both the warning (you shall die in your sins) as well as the solution (unless you believe that I am He).
From KJB, all he could muster was that Jesus was just stating the truth. OK, no doubt, but that completely misses the emphasis found in this verse. He seems to ignore the very clear warning that Jesus was giving them. By simply saying that Jesus was just "telling the truth" KJB seems to be trying to avoid the difficulty of WHY bother warning them if they are not part of the reformed elect. He makes no attempt to explain or even acknowledge that Jesus also gave the solution to their problem.
balbas, otoh, simply tries to change the subject with the following from post #32680:
quote:
ORIGINAL: balbas
I feel like the arguement of God taunting the Jews is the only thing that you are going for as far as arguing your case. It is the gotcha moment that you have been waiting for. Of course to place it in such a negative light you feel that I will have to defend the position and somehow slip.
Apparently, balbas sees the difficulty that this verse poses for the reformed pov, and acknowledges that I expect a reformed one to defend the pov and will somehow slip. Frankly, I don't see HOW any reformist can provide a rational answer, given their pov.
Bottom line: none of the reformists have provided an answer. Yes, there have been a number of posts, very long posts at that. But, instead of explaining WHY Jesus bothers to give a warning to the (reformed)reprobate, plus giving the solution, they can only ask more irrelevant questions and make comments that are not related to the question or the verse at all.
Here is the issue: Jesus is speaking to unbelieving Jews. There is no indication that any are "of the elect", as the reformed like to think.
Yet, Jesus warns them that they "shall die in your sins", a clear warning. The RT pov cannot answer the "WHY question". For, according to their pov, God has already chosen all who He has decided to give faith to, leaving all the rest to their just condemnation. So, for what purpose did Jesus give them this warning?
Further, even if they were "of the elect", as the reformed like to say, the question STILL remains; WHY did He warn them, knowing all along they were "of the elect" and could NOT reject the gospel because God had already decided to regenerate them, so they had no choice but TO believe in Him. There is no warning towards those who are NOT in danger.
Are any of the elect in danger of going to hell? Or, are any of the elect in danger of not believing the gospel? The reformist must strongly deny that they are. OK. So, WHY does Jesus warn these people?
If they are not "of the elect", the warning ABSOLUTELY IS A TAUNT.
If they are "of the elect", the warning IS IRRELEVANT, since there is no possibility of any of the elect going to hell. They ARE NOT in danger of it.
This is the dilemma faced by the reformed, created by their very own pov.
So, reformist, which is it? Was Jesus' very real warning simply:
A) a very mean taunt to the non-elect
B) irrelevant to the elect
Recall, to the reformist, there are only 2 kinds of people in this world: the elect, and the non-elect.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 12:32:34 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
From the point of view that you present, it sounds as if you're saying that God owes his creatures salvation. God doesn't owe us anything.
I would agree. God doesnt owe us . He owes Himself, to be Just. To me the following is inconsistent with God’s nature as we know it:
God selects some for damnation. They are not better or worse then those who are selected for salvation. That is, to me not something a Loving, Just God would do.
Anothing thing- people are punished for condition they are born with. That is like punishing a blind man for being born that way.
I still do not fully understand the point/all reasons for giving us FW, but it does at thing point sounds much more Just then creating people for Hell based on nothing but- supposedly- divine choice.
Del, you've expressed this problem very well. Since none of the reformists can give any reason for WHY or HOW God chooses, other than to just claim "He is God, He is sovereign, and He can and will do as He pleases", their pov comes up making God look rather "fickle".
There is no reason for His choices, none at all. They sure can't say they deserved His choice. Of course, the FW pov also notes that Christ's death on the cross for everyone was not done because anyone deserved it.
The FW pov shows God to be all loving- Christ died for the whole world, and all gracious- believing the gospel doesn't earn us anything, nor makes the believer deserving of anything.
BUT, the FW pov shows that God is just. He created man to seek Him, and He made Himself evident so that no one would have any excuse for not seeking Him. Therefore, His justice is satisfied when He justly sends unbelievers to hell. They had no excuse. They were able to believe. They simply refused to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 12:38:16 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2556
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The fact that there is a point in time when God applies the word to the heart of the one He atoned for is not the same as the potential or possibility of FW. There is no "can or will" concerning the effects of the Cross - there is only "will" - the blood of Christ "will" be applied in the fullnes of time to every individual Christ atoned for.
Christ accomplished the actual - not potential/possible propitiation of the elect's sins. With FW, it is only potential because many will not be saved even though Christ paid for their sins – so it remains only the potential to become forgiven.
I see your point now, K. Makes sense.
But then i question C interpretation of 1 Tim4:10 "is the Savior of all men, especially of believers"
I am not sure I can see what Piper sees in his "common grace" idea: Jesus saves all men from the immediate eternal punishment they deserve all during the time they are allotted to live on the earth, but He saves only the elect from eternal punishment after they die
That doesn’t make sense to me. For those predestined to damnation its no grace at all
That is not Grace! It would have been better for them to not have it - Every moment of such “common grace” will cost them eternity of torture in hell That is sadistic, they would be better off never been born or die as quick as possible.
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 12:46:05 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10247
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
One more point about John 8:24 that needs to be made.
If Jesus did not plan to die for those in the crowd He warned, WHY bother warning them, and WHY bother giving them the solution that won't work anyway.
And, If Jesus did plan to die for those in the crowd, WHY bother warning them since they cannot be in any real danger, since they are of the "elect"?
But, Jesus was clear with His warning, and clear about the solution to the danger they all faced. And by giving them the solution, we must conclude that He planned to die for all of them, or His warning becomes less than meaningless; it becomes idiotic.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
That's why I've always maintained that Arminians are secular humanists who pay Jesus lip service. 