|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 8:07:47 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2920
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
Skin color is no sin. Huge difference between that and coming forth from our mother's womb speaking lies.
What is the extent of the fall? That is the question you are going to have to answer for yourself.
Did we inherit evil hearts that love sin and hate Christ? And because of these evil hearts we are unwilling to come to Christ? And because we are unwilling to come to Christ we are unable to do so?
I believe the bible teaches this to be true. Not only that but based on personal experience both with myself and my fellow man, I have found it to be a truth that men love darkness and hate light.
There has to be a supernatural change take place that cause men to love what they once hated.
Nice post...some would soften sin's impact, or minimize the effects of the fall. This is troubling ! If we could correct our missteps or adjust our malfunctions, or re-calibrate ourselves, Jesus would not have had to come to this awful place and leave His Heavenly throne. We were WITHOUT hope and without God. We were yet WITHOUT strength or power. Some, nearly with blasphemy, assert we simply need a minor "tweak" and not a complete overhaul. This isn't even a truncated version of the gospel...it's NOT the gospel.
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 8:19:20 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
It implies in basics that a person is turning away from sin and toward God.
Might I remind you that you said you had no problems
with Grudems disertation on repentance?
His definition is "a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it,
and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ."(p. 713)
He goes on to say
"Repentance, like faith, is .... a personal decision to turn from it
(a renouncing of sin and a decision of the will to forsake it and lead a
life of obedience to Christ instead)."
It is not only a personal decision, it is a necessary, an might I add
critical first step a person takes in order to believe and be born again.
The Westminister Confession states man has "lost all ability of will
to any spiritual good accompanying salvation" (Ch 9, 3.). While
this will support your theory of man being incapable of repentance....
....looking further, the WC also says specifically of repentance in 15.5:
"....but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent
of his particular sins, particularly."
How could it be "every man's DUTY, if he is unable"?
I have given you the Scriptures in post #30500 - care to take a stab at it?
Seems you have an argument with one of the vanguards of RT
as well as your own doctrinal statement.
quote:
Repentance is a righteous thing to do.
Turning away from sin and towards God is good as in righteous...............yes?
Is that something we do or do not agree on?
Then only the righteous can repent!
Remember we are talking about repentance BEFORE we
are saved (oops, silly me - I've got it backwards, don't I?) 
If only the righteous can repent, then you nullify repentance
unto believing (silly me - I forgot - we are born again so
we can believe what God has foreordained we would believe--tsk, tsk.)
No, am a afraid not, although I can see why you would label
it as an act of righteousness because you then exclude
the unsaved man from having any part in it to support your theology.
Just a thought - there were "none righteous, no not one"?
And I seem to remember "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us",
as well as "God desires ALL men EVERYWHERE to repent".
How can you possibly ignore this and claim repentance
is limited only to those capable of righteous acts?
Clearly we are saved IN our sin, WHILE we were slaves to
sin, BEFORE we are saved and born again, so how can
repentance be limited to those who are already born again?
Those who have been regenerated have already had their
minds turned to the Lord. Seems the need for repentance is nullified.
I came across this in my morning Bible reading of 2 Chronicles:
The high places, however, were not removed, and the people still had
not set their hearts on the God of their fathers. 2 Chr 20:33
Were these people "righteous" as you say?
Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king,
"Should you help the wicked and love [a] those who hate the LORD ?
Because of this, the wrath of the LORD is upon you. 3 There is, however,
some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have
set your heart on seeking God." 2 Chr 19:2-3
Although 17:6 might imply Jehoshaphat was righteous because
"His heart was devoted to the ways of the LORD; furthermore,
he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.",
I don't see where righteousness was ever credited to him.
Finally, as for repentance as a righteous act, think Isa 55:6-7 out
to put that theory in the dustbin of bad theology:
"Seek the LORD while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
Do you see how simply declaring repentance to be a work unto salvation
and an act of righteousness, ignores the overarching theme in of
Scripture that says unregenerate man IS capable of repenting, MUST
repent, PLEASES GOD when he repents, and God is PATIENT WITH HIM,
giving him time to repent?
I submit repenting is the ONLY thing man can do related to his salvation.
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 8:26:03 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
Please tell me how we can be commanded to do something we are unable to do.
God says to be holy, because He is Holy. How would you or I even begin to tackle that ?
The same way I try to tackle 1 John, but usually get slapped around.
My answer: God's prescriptive will.
God does have desires, you know.
One of them is that "all men everywhere would repent".
quote:
We are dust, jars of clay., incapable and unable TO DO ANYTHING BUT SIN !!!
God can make all the demands He wants---He is God. So what if man believes God
requests the impossible ? The reason God puts us in impossible predicaments, is so
that when He delivers us, He gets ALL the credit, all the glory and honor, and all the
recognition. The angels may rejoice, but it is ALL God-ward. Only a fool would believe
the angels are cheering for man.
Gee whiz, Manna, all I am asking you do to is recognize the fact
that man is capable of understanding his condition and status before God.
Would you answer the questions in Post 30500 please
and then explain to me how man is unable to repent?
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 8:27:07 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1773
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Manna ,
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
Where do you see FG scoffing on man's sin nature ? As usual FG , we see no direct answer to your questions , just a bunch of rhetoric .
quote:
Maybe you fellers should take your own advice and read the posts slower...I was told that I deflected blame for my sin, and was accused of someone else causing my sin other than me. Show me where I said that. So if your definition of twisiting other's words around without seeking clarification is "RHETORIC", yeah ! Here's what I posted:"So now you are scoffing at the notion man has a sin nature ?
FG never told you that you deflected blame for your sin , nor were you accused of someone else causing your sin other than you.
Here is exactly what FG asked you , which you did not even attempt to answer : And the sins that you choose to commit. Or, do you believe that the sins you commit are "caused" by someone else? If so, do tell, who?
To which your answer was : So now you are scoffing at the notion man has a sin nature ?
You evaded the question completely and attempted to shift the focus to something FG never even implied . And that is a common practice of many here and the rhetoric I refered too .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 8:30:50 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
Would you have us believe their is a corner of the universe that operates
independently of God. Evil somehow created itself ? You must believe there
is a power greater than God. We know that is not true, so we can dismiss your
logic as fallacious and incoherent, filled with silly short-sightedness.
Evil is what God is not.
Evil exists as a "parallel universe" if you will.
Yes, God can control it. I know he can because he restrains it.
But God as the originator, orchestrator, and decreer of evil?
Embrace it at your own peril, my friend!
Remember "God is light, in him is no darkness".
James tells it clearly, too.
God CANNOT sin.
Making God the perpetrator "once removed" does not exempt
him from responsibility, either, bro.
Oh, and simply stating he is not the author of sin, doesn't
get the Westy's off the hook either, IMHO>>>>>> 
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 8:52:07 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1773
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
How if God chose to save all , would that negate any of God's mercy ? Instead , that would magnify God's mercy . Which is exactly why He said : For God hath concluded them all in unbelief , that he might have mercy upon all .
No one said negate mercy, did they ? There would be NO mercy. There would not be an example of mercy if all were saved. Some have to remain in condemnation in order for mercy to apply. You are using a false and improbable illustration to prove your point. ALL cannot and will not be saved. If you believe that, you are a universalist. Are you ? All men are not saved. All men deserve condemnation. God decides and chooses to save some by His mercy. That's what The Bible says.
When one says "There would be NO mercy" , that nullifies mercy , which is the definition of negate .
Why would there be no example of mercy if all were saved ? Especially since God has already concluded that all are under sin .
Mercy would still apply if no one was condemned .
How can I be using a false and improbable illustration to prove my point when God hath concluded them all in unbelief , that he might have mercy upon all.
I can find no Scripture that states that all cannot be saved ; though there is plenty of evidence that not all will be saved . And those not saved are not saved because of unbelief .
No , I'm not a universalist .
God has chosen , by His election , to save by mercy through grace , and not of works (Romans 9:9,16 : to save whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord . And that not by the Calvinist doctrine of individual , irresistable , unconditional , election to salvation : or else Paul is mad when he flatly states : If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh , and might save some of them . And : And they also , if they abide not still in unbelief , shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in again .
Don't sound to me (or apparently to Paul either) much like the Calvinist interpretation of individual , irresistable , unconditional , election to salvation .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 9:09:58 AM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 417
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nice post...some would soften sin's impact, or minimize the effects of the fall. This is troubling ! If we could correct our missteps or adjust our malfunctions, or re-calibrate ourselves, Jesus would not have had to come to this awful place and leave His Heavenly throne. We were WITHOUT hope and without God. We were yet WITHOUT strength or power. Some, nearly with blasphemy, assert we simply need a minor "tweak" and not a complete overhaul. This isn't even a truncated version of the gospel...it's NOT the gospel.
Amen Manna,
The freewill version of the fall reminds me of the Dukes of Hazard theme song.
Just'a good ol' boys
Never meanin' no harm.
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born
They are really good boys. They don't mean no harm. It's not really their fault they get it wrong constantly. They'll figure it out one of these days.
One of the problems is that we compare ourselves to ourselves too much. If we would compare ourselves to the one whose eyes are too holy to behold sin, then would men cry "all my righteousness is but filthy rags".
_____________________________
(Isaiah 33:17) Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty;
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 9:13:30 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
Since Cornelius was an unbeliever when he prayed continually, what does the Holy Spirit interceding for His people have anything to do with this?
Well, what are you trying to say to me.......that un-believers pray much better than believers do? 
I was being clear. At the time Cornelius prayed, he was unregenerate. He was not "one of His people". He was also unsaved.
quote:
When I say "His people" it means something.
Yes, everything means "something". The issue is to determine what each word means. 
quote:
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Now.....before asking more questions, read the text and follow along the train of thought from a reformed point of view even if you dont agree with that point of view. You dont have to agree with the view.....but just understand it.
Do you see the point?
No. I see no relevance between Cornelius and Rom 9:22,23. I do see significant relevant between Cornelius and Romans 1, however.
quote:
I even underlined portions of the text with the hope that it might catch your attention.
Yes, you are always trying to find support for your versioin of election.
quote:
The point is that Cornelius was predestined to be called by God. Cornelius belongs to God and God worked all things for the good of Cornelius. God called him out from among the Gentiles.
I understand your pov. But I disagree, since there is nothing from the Acts text to even remotely support your pov. All we are told from the text is that as an unbeliever he recognized and honored God, which is also noted in Romans 1, and as a result, God answered his prayers by sending Peter with the gospel.
This fits perfectly with the promises from Scripture that shoever seeks God will find Him. Do you see my point form 2 Chron 15:2, Heb 11:6b and Acts 17:27?
quote:
How many human beings that pray to God and show Him reverence have angels show up?
I have no idea. And neither do you. Even today we hear reports from missionaries of rather amazing stories of how God brings the gospel to people. Since the Bible promises that those who seek God will find Him, it should be obvious that God will make sure the gospel is presented to all seekers.
quote:
Dont you think that was some special revelation there?
I think any time God presents the gospel to man is special. But, from Romans 1, those who either don't/won't recognize God, or recognize but don't/won't honor Him are "turned over to their own lusts". iow, God doesn't make any further move towards those.
However, it is also clear from Romans 1 that He has already made the first move towards everyone in the human race by making evident "everything that is known about God" so that men are without excuse for not recognizing and honoring Him. Cornelius is an example of one who not only recognized God, but reverenced Him, with the result that God gave him "special revelation". Anything in this paraphraph you disagree with?
quote:
This is the way it was;
God was making the riches of His glory known to an object of His mercy, whom He PREPARED in advance for glory!
It does not matter what preparation God had to do in advance to this object of His mercy (like softening the heart)......the fact is, God did it!
Please don't ignore the significant principle in Romans 1 where God has made known to mankind the evidence of Himself, so that men are without excuse.
Seems you are trying to justify the idea that God makes Himself known only to your idea of the "elect". But Romans 1 says otherwise. God has made Himself known to everyone. that's why no one has any excuse for not rrecognizing and honoring Him.
quote:
Cornelius was prepared in advance and we can see back in Romans 8 the following;
To be accurate, according to Romans 1, the entire human race was "prepared", as God revealed Himself to everyone.
quote:
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
At the opening of Acts 10, this verse didn't apply to Cornelius, an unbeliever.
quote:
So if there was anything about Cornelius that brought him to salvation it was ALL of God. It is obvious that Cornelius was one of the elect......His chosen people.
Obvious to the reformed. What is obvious, in light of Romans 1 is that Cornelius responded to the evidence that God gives everyone and he not only recognized God as Creator, he honored Him through prayer and ams. And God's obvious response to the actions of Cornelius cannot be denied.
You want to see Cornelius as simply being "caused" by God to honor Him, but the text gives no support for that.
quote:
God elected him in advance, prepared him in advance, and saved him in a specific time.
That is the reformed "spin" on his life. But Romans 1 gives us a clear glimpse on how God works. He gives everyone evidence. Those who respond to that evidence are given more evidence. Do you really want to deny this?
quote:
quote:
Are you agreeing or denying that God answered his prayers by sending Peter with the gospel? Your answers are far from being clear.
I dunno........why dont you tell me his prayers and then I will answer.
Please get real. Are you unable to grasp what the angel told him at the beginning of Acts 10? What should be clear to everyone is that the angel was telling Cornelius that God had heard his prayers and was going to answer them. If you cannot figure that out, there's probably not much use in further discussion, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on lots.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 9:51:39 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
quote:
Frankly, it's been hard to figure out your answers.
I dont think everybody else in this thread is having a hard time figuring them out. Not sure about that though.
Exactly!
quote:
If many other people in the thread understand them and you dont......could you possibly consider that you just dont understand them and its no fault of my own?
You have admitted that you are "not sure".
quote:
quote:
My point was that what "causes him to seek" is found in Romans 1, because "everything that is known about God has been made evident to them because God made it evident to them". Do you agree that what God has made evident to mankind is His way of working in man to cause him to seek Him?
I know your point and I do not agree.
Please explain why you don't see that what God has done for everyone in Romans 1 cannot be considered His way of "working in man". Seems pretty obvious to me.
quote:
It was made evident to everybody, but it does not cause people to seek Him.
I didn't say it "causes" people to seek Him. But we DO know from Scripture the promise that for those who DO seek Him, they will find Him.
Do you deny that Cornelius represents someone who, because God made Himself evident, desired to seek God?
quote:
Romans 2 clears it up very well when it declares;
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Uh, there's nothing to "clear up". Romans 1 is clear enough.
btw, Romans 2 is addressing believers, Paul's audience. The subject in Rom 1 was "men who suppress the truth", which would be a different group.
Hope that clears it up for you.
quote:
If you are going to pass judgment on someone else for suppressing the truth.......you are condemning yourself because you do the same thing!
What is so hard about that to figure out?
Ah, I see the problem. You think "passing judgment" in Rom 2 refers to suppression of truth. Why? Paul has moved on from Romans 1 and is now addressing believers regarding passing judgment on others.
In Romans 1, it should be clear to you that the "suppression of truth" dealt with the evidence that God has given to everyone.
quote:
Does Romans 3 convince you that natural revelation causes men to seek God?
Romans 3 convinces me that fools, who suppress the truth, are not caused to seek God. Paul even quoted from Psa 14 and 53, so you have no argument from Rom 3 about who seeks God or not.
The principle in Romans 1 is clear and needs no further "spin" from the reformed.
quote:
Lets see;
10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
If you would read Psa 53, you will see that v.10 and 11 comes straight from there. Paul left off v.1 of the Psa, which reads, and IS the context for the next 2 verses in Psa. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."
Does that sound like suppression of the truth to you, or not? It clearly does to me.
quote:
What do we do now.......make an exception in Romans 3 for Cornelius? No, we properly understand all the contexts, and realize that Cornelius was not a fool, who suppressed the truth of God's existence, since God has made it evident to everyone, leaving no one with an excuse for not recognizing or honoring Him.
Do you know what that means? No one has an excuse for saying there is no God.
It also means no one has any excuse for not giving reverence to Him.
Since no one has any excuse, that means all are capable of recognizing and honoring Him, because the Word indicates just that.
quote:
Romans 3 should convince you beyong any doubt at all that all people suppress the truth and that nothing in Romans 1 or 2 mentions or concludes that certain people (like Cornelius) seek God because of natural evidence.
Actually, I'm convinced that the reformed cannot properly understand Scripture when they read it from their biased position.
quote:
Now, I suppose we could change that to say "no one except Cornelius seeks God"....but then we ourselves would be distorting the truth.
You simply misunderstand. The truth is that no fool seeks God, because he suppresses the truth that God has made evident to everyone. Cornelius was not a fool.
From your pov, please explain how Cornelius demonstrated that he was a fool, since you claiim everyone is a fool. Other than a verse out of context, what else can you show to demonstrate
quote:
quote:
My point was that what "causes him to seek" is found in Romans 1, because "everything that is known about God has been made evident to them because God made it evident to them".
Do you agree that what God has made evident to mankind is His way of working in man to cause him to seek Him?
That's exactly what I see in the life of Cornelius. Acts 10 begins with an unbeliever who recognized God and honored (reverenced) Him.
I do not agree that men seek Him unless there is a special revelation or divine working in the man.
Why don't you consider that what God has made evident to everyone is not a special revelation? Please elaborate here, because I see no reaason not to.
iow, convince me why what God has done for everyone cannot be considered "special revelation".
quote:
My point is natural revelation causes no one to seek even though all men are without any excuse for not seeking.
The problem with your pov is that the Bible promises that those who DO seek God will find Him, and that Cornelius demonstrates that prinicple very well.
Can you convince me that Cornelius doesn't demonstrate that principle?
quote:
Men naturally suppress the truth, turn away, and it also applies to Cornelius.
How can you convince me that Cornelius suppressed the truth? All you have is verses which I will claim are taken out of context and don't apply to him.
The Bible surely doesn't give us any suggestion that he was suppressing the truth. Quite the opposite, actually! So, again, convince me from the context of Cornelius.
What is obvious to me is that his story doesn't support your pov at all.
quote:
quote:
My point is that God answered his prayers.
And Cornelius prayed for the gospel?
From what Peter recalled in Acts 11:14, seems he prayed to be saved. Convince me that he didn't from what Peter said.
quote:
quote:
Did you really think the WCF answered those 5 questions?
I dont really think it did......I know it does!
Well, I'm not interested in what the WCF thinks. Why can't you just give me 5 "yes" or "no" answers? What is so difficult about that?
You've claimed that "everyone else" on the thread has no problem with your answers. Giving me a link to the WCF is hardly an answer.
quote:
It gives great answers if you would just take the time to read them.
So instead of just quickly giving me 5 very short answers, you want me to "take the time" to read some document that will not specifically nor efficiently answer my questions?
That is nothing more than a cop out. I will take your response as you are unwilling to answer my questions.
Which will lead the thread to possibily conclude that you know what the answers are, and they don't support your pov as the reason you won't answer them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 9:56:10 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
You inability to honestly present my pov does your credibility no good. I've said that any who has ever believed are saved. Why can't you get it right? I always honestly present your pov. Your view is that unbelievers can be saved. That is not scriptural no matter how you try to present it.
Your statement here actually highlights your failure to present my pov right. Again you've used the term "unbeliever" as a gross misrepresentation of what I have actually said, which is "former believer". Just because you don't think such a one exists isn't my problem. Since you have made it clear that you won't respect the terms I use, there is no further reason to discuss anything with you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 10:03:16 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
I can find no Scripture that states that all cannot be saved ; though there is plenty of evidence that not all will be saved . And those not saved are not saved because of unbelief .
Paul even included the entire human race in his statement on how one is justified. The reformed response has been just ridiculous.
quote:
God has chosen , by His election , to save by mercy through grace , and not of works (Romans 9:9,16 : to save whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord . And that not by the Calvinist doctrine of individual , irresistable , unconditional , election to salvation : or else Paul is mad when he flatly states : If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh , and might save some of them . And : And they also , if they abide not still in unbelief , shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in again .
Don't sound to me (or apparently to Paul either) much like the Calvinist interpretation of individual , irresistable , unconditional , election to salvation .
Excellent point, Bee!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 10:31:49 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Skin color is no sin. Huge difference between that and coming forth from our mother's womb speaking lies.
Dear TD, I absolutely not understand this, please do explain further.
How is being born black or let's say, blind is different from being born with sinful nature ? Blind person stumbles,falls and breaks stuff, crippled from birth may be dropping things, black person is always a sore spot in a generic, closeted whitesupremacist, suburban protestant church
They all are causing bad things, pain and suffering and inconvienences to people as a result of the race or the condition they are born with.
They cant help it.
Born with sinful nature cant help it but sin- all they do is tainted with sin.
How is it different in terms of responsibility?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 10:34:21 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
tdd1975
What is the extent of the fall? That is the question you are going to have to answer for yourself.
Did we inherit evil hearts that love sin and hate Christ? And because of these evil hearts we are unwilling to come to Christ? And because we are unwilling to come to Christ we are unable to do so?
I believe the bible teaches this to be true. Not only that but based on personal experience both with myself and my fellow man, I have found it to be a truth that men love darkness and hate light.
There has to be a supernatural change take place that cause men to love what they once hated.
I am not quite sure how is that related to my question and the topic of responsibility, if you dont mind to elaborate, but of course, i agree . AMEN! effects of the fall are horrible
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 10:46:56 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hey Sis ! HUG ? oh, thank you dearly. That is nice.
I would take a friendly fight as well – as in on responsibility issues or something like that :))
I dont deny reformed theology arguments and views, but can't subscribe to it for i know questions that will be asked of me by people if i do; some things are just unanswered as of yet.
Not that FW is all understood by me, but i'd rather be in neither camp forever (it'like - who cares ? not that being in either camp affects christian walk at all, i see meanest people in C and A, and christ-like ones in both)
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 11:38:56 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
RWE
quote:
Is it is clear to you that Jezebel was given time to repent in Rev 2:21?
If she was unable to repent, what sense does this make?
I don't understand this line of thinking?
TDD - please explain how could she be given time to repent
if she was unable and her repentance was granted by God?
Are we to think God was waiting for her to simply realize she is
now able to repent? Is so, she was obviously able to refuse,
so who's in charge now?
quote:
I know you believe in the omniscience of God and I remember
you saying that you believe election to be based on foreknowledge.
Be it known foreknowledge of who will believe is a free will position.
It think it is consistent with the the view that God draws, but man must respond.
Unfortunately, RT rejects this view because if harms their
view of God as the predeterminer all all things, including
who will or will not repent, and what sin we will or will not commit.
Seems very clear to me that
God commands all men to repent,
desires all men to repent,
waits for men to repent,
and obviously knows all who will repent.
Saying man is unable to repent until God turns
his heart is illogical in the face of this.
Acknowledge man is able to repent doesn't make God a
hand wringing bystander, it puts the ball in man's court.
Man must respond!
And MAN is to blame when God's wrath falls on him.
As an aside, I'm sure you know the eternal decree theology is a major
sticky point for the reformed (most will admit it is) whereby they
come dangerously close to the blasphemy of making God
the orchestrator and perpetrator of sin, regardless of the claim
that God is only an indirect party to evil, nor the claims of their confessions.
quote:
Well based on that, even if freewill is true, God knows Jezebel isn't
going to repent if he gives her another 20, 30, 50, or 100 years.
You should qualify free will. I'm sure you agree man has free will to sin, no?
Or are you saying man has absolutely NO free will? Hopefully not.
So he gave her time to repent for what reason?
Why would God give her time to repent if he foreknew she never would?
His foreknowledge of whether she will repent or not is not made sensible by the Scripture, TDD.
Try seeing this verse in the context of 2Pet 3:9, which says
it is God's desire for all men to repent, even knowing not all will.
quote:
So giving her more time really only accomplishes one thing.
It increases her guilt. Do you agree with this?
The point is, she refuses to recognize her guilt, implying she is able to repent.
Anyway I fail to see your point. For what purpose is served
by "increasing her guilt? She is already condemned because
her hardened heart will not repent!
quote:
The only way giving Jezebel more time to repent in the hope that she
will repent is if God doesn't know the outcome.
I definitely disagree.
Is your thought on this reflecting what your theology has taught you...
...which is the notion that whatever God foreknows he decrees.....
....which boxes you right into God capable of evil...
quote:
He would have to be sitting on the sidelines saying " things don't
look good for Jezebel but I am going to give her a few extra innings
to see if she can pull it out".
You see it this way because RT puts God's sovereignty in a box.
Did you know God changes his mind? How do you explain that?
The hand-wringing picture of God is simply not it.
It is more like God standing cross-armed in his righteousness
saying "You must respond" or the outlook is bleak.
quote:
Now, I know you don't believe that about God so please
don't take this as an attack. I am saying this for discussion sake. I don't take it as an attack - I treasure your input.
quote:
You ask me how I reconcile total depravity and election with
God giving Jezebel more time to repent.
So I am asking you how you reconcile foreknowledge with it.
God knowing Jezebel would not repent does not nullify his desire for
her to repent - God wants us to know what his desires are.
I don't have to reconcile anything because I am not trapped
in the RT theology of foreknow = foreordain.
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 11:48:42 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
rwe2156,
quote:
Tell me how does a "personal decision" to turn from sin imply
that God is the initiator of it?
I will use text from John 6;
Unbelief is sin.
28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Did you see "what must WE do"?
This "work of God" must be reconciled to this fact: WE DO SOMETHING.
I think this "work of God" is God opening our hearts to believe
based on OUR FREE WILL ACT OF REPENTANCE.
quote:
How do people come to Christ?
37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
Those who make a personal decision to repent are
given over to God who then does his work: rebirth.
quote:
Here is human inability;
44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
This says nothing about man being unable to repent.
But here it says:
GOD DRAWS
and if God draws, MAN MUST RESPOND.
Not as a "stepford child" or robot, but as a free agent able to reject.
KJB
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 12:15:23 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mattumanu
So you acknowledge what 17:30 Scripture says:
it is God's desire that all men come to repentance.
You seem to have ignored the next part, you know, the part about Judgment?
I'd like you to look back at the conversation and respond to that.
What about it? God's desire is for man to be redeemed, not condemned.
You don't believe this?
Did you read the last part of the next verse:
"He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
quote:
RWE: I am saying Scripture clearly says man CAN repent on his own.
I have given you the Scriptures that say man is commanded,
God desires it, and man can refuse to, and God is happy when it
happens, yet it is not apparent to you we repent freely.
MATT: On his own?
Yes, on his own. See Isa 55:7 for proof the unrighteous can repent.
quote:
You are the one says that a man has to respond to the conviction
of the Holy Spirit, which is an act of God.
No I am not.
He is ignorant of the HS until he is receives him when he is reborn.
Repentance starts with a realization of his condition.
Why do you think unregenerate man is completely spiritually dead?
He has no knowledge of God?
I am not so sure about this.
quote:
Are you saying now that a man, of his own free will,
without the action of the Holy Spirit, can repent?
I know, I know.
It seems so strange to think man receives the Holy Spirit AFTER he is saved.
Why don't you just admit C's view of regeneration cannot be
by way of the HS but rather some secret act of God?
It will less confusing and you might convince some (like me).
quote:
Is this how we give Glory to God? Some of the Glory goes to God,
and some of the Glory goes to man for his act of repentence?
Absolutely not.
God alone is glorified when the creature responds.
quote:
It's been clearly demonstrated by God in history that man's natural
response is to hate God.
I don't believe this. I know of many, many people I have witnessed
to who not only acknowledge God, but actually live quite "moral" lives.
Because natural man is spiritually ignorant automatically makes him a God-hater?
If you want to say natural man is ignorant in his perishing, I'll agree.
quote:
If God backed away from His creation, as the
Deists would have you believe, setting aside the fact that creation itself
would fall apart without God to uphold it, not one single, solitary human
being would ever repent again. Never. Why? Because we would only
ever and forever more be enemies of God. That is what our fallen nature does.
If God backed away from his creation, evil would rule, and
of course nobody would repent - there would be no evidence of
God - t would be hell on earth.
quote:
To which God by His grace gives faith itself to His people as a gift on
account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, not for any Glory of man
but only for the Glory of God alone.
On the condition his people have made a personal decision to repent.
quote:
To which you posit that the one condition that man must meet in
order for God to save them, is repentance. And you say that's not a work?
So your answer is there nothing man must "do" to be saved, my friend?
Then what in the world is the purpose of the gospel?
Man doesn't repent, God does it for him?
Man doesn't believe, God does it for him?
And Christ died for WHO? Oh yes, all who God chooses to save, I forgot.
So to save a man, he first enables him to repent,
who does the repenting, God or the robot?
No, no, it must be that God draws, and man must respond.
He is without excuse, he is created in God's image
and God desires ALL men to be saved.
Its man's rejection, not God selection, friend.
Care to look at Post 30500 and answer my questions?
I would be most interested in your responses.
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 12:29:40 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
Please tell me how we can be commanded to do something we are unable to do.
God commands us to love Him with every fiber of our being.
AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ (Mark 12:30 NASB95)
We are unable to obey this command because we are unwilling to obey.
Exactly my point.
quote:
RWE: Please explain to me why God would desire something he is the cause of?
SH: Last I knew God was the cause of all things.
Including evil?
quote:
For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?
And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27 NASB95)
But as for Israel He says, " ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED
OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE." Rom 10:21.
quote:
RWE: Why would God rejoice over something he caused a person to do?
SH: Because He rejoices in the manifestation of His work.
So the man he enables to be saved he delights. Great.
What about the ones he does not enable?
Oh, that's right, they get what they had coming to them.
quote:
RWE: Why would God wait for a man to respond if he is unable?
SH: First: Man’s inability is not that he does not have a will that could choose Him.
Are you saying man does have a will that could choose God?
quote:
Man’s inability is a moral inability – natural man does not want God.
Man is morally unable because he is steadfastly unwilling.
I thought is was the condition of his heart?
What do you think of Isa 55:7?
quote:
Third: God gives His Spirit to natural man in order for Him to
understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2).
So we are saved before we believe?
quote:
God does not wait for natural man to respond;
God initiates by giving His Spirit (1 Cor 2).
But Scripture says he does wait (2 Pet 3:9; Rev 2:21)
quote:
God is patient and kind – He does not give His people what they deserve.
You mean "his chosen people" don't you?
quote:
God is gracious – He gives His people the exact opposite of what they deserve.
Grace is getting something we don't deserve.
Mercy is not getting what we do deserve.
I am joyful for grace, I am relieved by mercy.
It all opens up when man understands his condition and repents.
Thanks.
_____________________________
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 - 7/3/2008 12:54:35 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
quote:
Do you disagree that he was unregenerate and an unbeliever at the beginning of Acts 10?
Do you agree that he reverenced God and prayed continually?
Do you disagree that God heard his prayers?
Do you disagree that, based on his prayers, God send Peter with the gospel?
Do you disagree that when he believed the gospel that God saved him?
I will answer all five of your questions while I hum several tunes all at once.
I will also provide a portion of the WCF;
You can find the entire chapter here;
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
You can click on the numbers on that site to find and read the Scripture proof text.
The WCF is what I call a "calvinistic writing", which was written by men who were not inspired by God, as the Scriptures are.
The fact that you chose to "default" to the WCF indicates you may not be all that grounded in your theology, forcing you to point to it and say, "what he said".
Otherwise, you should have no problem giving me a simple "yes" or "no" to the 5 questions.
I think the real issue is that the answers to those questions are quite obvious and can be easily seen from the text. The problem is that you realize that the answers support my position and undermine yours.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 12:58:19 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:< | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
