|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 1:50:12 PM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1773
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
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.
Right FG , and anyone can start with almost any presupposition , like the WCF , and then shoehorn selected verses out of context in to fit the presupposition . There's ample evidence for that in JW's and Mormons , amoung many others .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 1:54:55 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2920
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
If only one person in the entire human race had committed only one sin in his entire life , Jesus would still have had to come and gone to the cross to propitiate God for that one sin .
REALLY ?...How do you see this verse ?
Isaiah 49:6 (New King James Version)
6 Indeed He says,
‘ It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
Furthermore, I understand the spirit of what you are saying, but you cannot say this with 100 % certainty. You don't know. There is nothing to realistically compare or contrast it with. I would venture to say that this is said because people carry to the extreme the "God is love" mindset. This is said by godly people who mean well, but it simply cannot be proven.
_____________________________
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 2:20:55 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2920
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
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.
And who would this "some" be that assert all we need is a minor "tweak" ?
Dead is 100 % spiritually dead. Without hope means NOT ANY hope ! All of us were born into sin, with a sin nature. We are not good, although secular humansists and others believe man is both intrinsically and inherently good. God does not believe we are good, does He ? Nope, all men are under wrath, under condemnation, until God places them under The Blood. Salvation done by God for man. Not for all men, because as we know, all men are not going to Heaven. It isn't even a possibility, so why indulge in a fruitless venture ? God does not believe in universalism. God does not believe in POTENTIAL universalism. To hope that all men be saved, is a manmade concoction, because God has not exercised His Divine choice in this manner. God has not chosen all men for whatever reason. I do not know the reason, other than to refer to The Biblical proclamations that God does what pleases Him, and God does according to his good will and pleasure. No one can stay His Mighty hand or thwart His perfect purpose, God will do what He will do for whatever reasons. Some do not like this, and believe it depicts God in an unfavorable or ungodlike manner. These will have to take up the issue with God Himself...
_____________________________
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 3:34:40 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
I would venture to say that this is said because people carry to the extreme the "God is love" mindset
How in the world can anyone "carry to the extreme" God's love??? Some of the statements on this thread are really amazing. Gee, to imagine that someone would actually even want to do that! 
quote:
This is said by godly people who mean well, but it simply cannot be proven.
One has only to read John 3:16 to see what is said about God's love and the world.
Twisting "world" into meaning "the elect" is not done by scholarly understanding because there is nothing in the text or even context to "force" that meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 3:46:30 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
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.
And who would this "some" be that assert all we need is a minor "tweak" ?
Dead is 100 % spiritually dead. Without hope means NOT ANY hope ! All of us were born into sin, with a sin nature. We are not good, although secular humansists and others believe man is both intrinsically and inherently good. God does not believe we are good, does He ? Nope, all men are under wrath, under condemnation, until God places them under The Blood. Salvation done by God for man. Not for all men, because as we know, all men are not going to Heaven. It isn't even a possibility, so why indulge in a fruitless venture ? God does not believe in universalism. God does not believe in POTENTIAL universalism. To hope that all men be saved, is a manmade concoction, because God has not exercised His Divine choice in this manner.
Bee, what an "amazing" answer to your simple question! Maybe it's just not possible for many of our reformed brethren to give clear and concise answers.
quote:
God has not chosen all men for whatever reason.
While the reason may not be clear or even known by you, The Bible has been very clear to state the reason that God has not chosen all men. The reason is that not all men will believe.
quote:
I do not know the reason, other than to refer to The Biblical proclamations that God does what pleases Him, and God does according to his good will and pleasure.
There are many Biblical proclamations that very clearly state what God requires of man.
quote:
No one can stay His Mighty hand or thwart His perfect purpose, God will do what He will do for whatever reasons.
Apparently John 6:40 makes no sense to you, then.
quote:
Some do not like this, and believe it depicts God in an unfavorable or ungodlike manner.
Gee, I wonder why? 
quote:
These will have to take up the issue with God Himself...
Actually, seems those who "depict God in an unfavorable or ungodlike manner" will be taking up the issue with God Himself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 4:14:40 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
to those who hold to the view that God ordains or is the first cause of sin, can you clarify something?
when the christian is tempted paul writes this in 1 cor 10
No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
can you explain how God can provide a way of escape from a sin that He has ordained the christian to commit? certainly paul was speaking of the possibility of a real way of escape or this is an empty promise
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 4:32:33 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
mannamuncher,
we talked about james 1 where james wrote
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
and i said that you sholud not place evil at God's feet and you called that silly and short sighted. but you never gave a response to my silly short sighted biblical passage so i thought i would quote john calvin here as it seems appropriate
He then treats here of inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate desires which entice to sin. He justly denies that God is the author of these, because they flow from the corruption of our nature.
This warning is very necessary, for nothing is more common among men than to transfer to another the blame of the evils they commit; and they then especially seem to free themselves, when they ascribe it to God himself. This kind of evasion we constantly imitate, delivered down to us as it is from the first man. For this reason James calls us to confess our own guilt, and not to implicate God, as though he compelled us to sin.
But the whole doctrine of scripture seems to be inconsistent with this passage; for it teaches us that men are blinded by God, are given up to a reprobate mind, and delivered over to filthy and shameful lusts. To this I answer, that probably James was induced to deny that we are tempted by God by this reason, because the ungodly, in order to form an excuse, armed themselves with testimonies of Scripture. But there are two things to be noticed here: when Scripture ascribes blindness or hardness of heart to God, it does not assign to him the beginning of this blindness, nor does it make him the author of sin, so as to ascribe to him the blame: and on these two things only does James dwell.
Scripture asserts that the reprobate are delivered up to depraved lusts; but is it because the Lord depraves or corrupts their hearts? By no means; for their hearts are subjected to depraved lusts, because they are already corrupt and vicious. But since God blinds or hardens, is he not the author or minister of evil? Nay, but in this manner he punishes sins, and renders a just reward to the ungodly, who have refused to be ruled by his Spirit. (Romans 1:26.) It hence follows that the origin of sin is not in God, and no blame can be imputed to him as though he took pleasure in evils. (Genesis 6:6.)
while i dont agree with calvin in a lot of areas seems that calvin agrees that God is not the author of sin.
care to comment?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 4:48:31 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
mannamuncher,
we talked about james 1 where james wrote
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
and i said that you sholud not place evil at God's feet and you called that silly and short sighted. but you never gave a response to my silly short sighted biblical passage so i thought i would quote john calvin here as it seems appropriate
Gee, john_mark, that seems to be the "norm" around here.
quote:
He then treats here of inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate desires which entice to sin. He justly denies that God is the author of these, because they flow from the corruption of our nature.
My, my, John Calvin agrees with me!
Thanks for the quote from Calvin. Kinda makes me wonder why the reformed ones here call themselves "calvinists", when his position seems so different from theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 7:00:35 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 417
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
john_mark
quote:
how right you are here FG. i am always amazed at what spiritually dead people do
gen 4
13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is too great to bear! 14 "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." 15 So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.
here we have a spiritually dead man asking God for mercy and recieving it. if he did not believe that God was capable of granting mercy why does he ask?
romans 2
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them
here we have spiritually dead people instinctively doing the things of the Law and their consceinces bearing witness.
romans 10
2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge
here we have the dead with a zeal for God.
acts 17
For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you
here we have dead people worshipping God though ignorance, yet pretty amazing feat for dead people.
I know you posted this a couple of weeks ago but you said something in this post that has stuck with me. You said twice that it is amazing what spiritually dead people can do. I agree with you and we should not take lightly how far the spiritually dead can go and still be dead in trespasses and sin.
Having said that we should be more amazed at what the spiritually dead can not do.
Cain could fear God for his physical life and yet not for his spiritual.
The gentiles could have a conscience for the law but no clue to the spiritual consequences of not keeping that law.
The Jews had the law and a zeal for righteousness and yet lacked something as simple as faith.
And the gentiles in Acts 17 could worship everything but the true God.
Do you see what I am getting at? It is amazing how spiritually ignorant and dead they really were.
On the day of judgment these will not be thought of as amazing in what they did but rather as foolish in what they didn't do. Namely to repent and believe the gospel.
_____________________________
(Isaiah 33:17) Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty;
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 7:15:59 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 417
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
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?
(Matthew 12:34) O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
The problem is we are born snakes. What comes out of us is poison. The only good thing for a deadly viper is to have its head cut off. Unless of course you are God then you can transform it into a harmless sheep.
That is why I brought up the extent of the fall. You have to decide where to start from with man.
Are they totally depraved as Calvinism teaches?
Was man's will unaffected by the fall as some teach?
Is there some amount of goodness left in man?
I believe an honest assesment of scripture and the human heart will bear out that Calvinist are right. Man is totally depraved.
We're snakes Del. Evil vipers worthy of hell.
What say you?
_____________________________
(Isaiah 33:17) Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty;
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 7:50:17 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 525
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
I know you posted this a couple of weeks ago but you said something in this post that has stuck with me. You said twice that it is amazing what spiritually dead people can do. I agree with you and we should not take lightly how far the spiritually dead can go and still be dead in trespasses and sin.
Having said that we should be more amazed at what the spiritually dead can not do.
Cain could fear God for his physical life and yet not for his spiritual.
The gentiles could have a conscience for the law but no clue to the spiritual consequences of not keeping that law.
The Jews had the law and a zeal for righteousness and yet lacked something as simple as faith.
And the gentiles in Acts 17 could worship everything but the true God.
Do you see what I am getting at? It is amazing how spiritually ignorant and dead they really were.
On the day of judgment these will not be thought of as amazing in what they did but rather as foolish in what they didn't do. Namely to repent and believe the gospel.
i understand what your saying and was not trying to praise those lost in sin in anyway. what i was responding to was the idea that is often portrayed that those who are lost in sin/spiritually dead cannot have any knowledge/contact with God, cannot pray or consider God, that the only thing they can possibly do is sin. and yet we have scripture where lost people do interact with God. if one were to say that spiritually dead people can know about God but wont choose Him, that would seem inline with scripture. even to say that spiritually dead people while having knowledge of who God is, they cannot in and of themselves choose Him, i could begin to understand. but many times the spiritually dead are portrayed as completely incapable of any understanding of God whatsoever, and that doesnt seem inline with scripture.
consider the israelites, they were told that obedience to God's Law was within their grasp.
30:11
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, ' Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
would the vast majority obey, no. but they had the ability to obey
read jer 35, i will quote just a small portion.
The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, which he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are observed. So they do not drink {wine} to this day, for they have obeyed their father's command. But I have spoken to you again and again; yet you have not listened to Me.
the relationship between the rechabinites and and judah is they both had the ability to obey. though we know judah did not.
to answer your question they were spiritually ignorant, no i have to correct that, they were defiant against a God they knew. to me it is more damning to turn against the truth that God reveals and the ability they had than to say that one who is spiritually dead has no understanding of God and therefore cannot choose Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 7:50:59 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7881
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
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?
(Matthew 12:34) O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
The problem is we are born snakes.
We are born as human babies. 
quote:
What comes out of us is poison.
Just ask any new mother what comes out!
quote:
The only good thing for a deadly viper is to have its head cut off. Unless of course you are God then you can transform it into a harmless sheep.
Men aren't literal vipers, and there is no passage that teaches that God "transforms vipers into harmless sheep".
quote:
That is why I brought up the extent of the fall. You have to decide where to start from with man.
Let's start with this:
Gen 1:26 "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. Or,
Gen 1:27 "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Or,
Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
quote:
Are they totally depraved as Calvinism teaches?
Define "depraved" please. If you mean, unable to save himself, man is totally depraved. If you mean, otoh, unable to respond to God in any way, man is able to respond to God, as Adam adequately demonstrated in the Garden after the Fall.
quote:
Was man's will unaffected by the fall as some teach?
No.
quote:
Is there some amount of goodness left in man?
God created man in His own image, and created man with a conscience to know right from wrong. Per Tom 2:14, 15.
That is why man is accountable. God gave man the ability to know right from wrong, as society bears out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 8:44:59 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
The WCF is what I call a "calvinistic writing", which was written by men who were not inspired by God, as the Scriptures are.
I dont know why you would say that to me when it can apply right back at you also.
All the stuff you write on this forum is what I call "free-will writing" which is also written by a human being.
Are we going to say you are not inspired by God in your writings?
Are we to take it to mean that all these things you have been telling us all along are not inspired?
You are supposed to be preaching the Word of God. That is what I have been preaching from...the Word of God.
When people preach the Word of God it is just as inspired as it always was and always will be.
quote:
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".
Why would I default to "what you said" instead of "what they said" when they are correct and you are not?
Try to understand that what you just posted on that post and tried to apply to me can also apply to you.
Anyway, to the topic at hand, you are totally wrong on Romans 1,2, and 3.
The text in both Romans 1 and 2 bring us to the conclusion made in Romans 3.
What shall we conclude then?
Are we any better?
Not at all!
We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
Romans 1 and 2 brought us to the conclusion of universal sin which is universal rebellion.
Being under sin is not a nice thing or a simple little boo boo........it is depravity.
It is the universal depravity of mankind.
I am wondering if anyone else on this thread looks at the text in Romans 1,2, and 3 the way you do?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would.
I dont think I have read or heard any commentary in my entire life that describes Romans 1, 2, and 3 the way you try to do.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/3/2008 8:45:04 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2366
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
If He foreknows certain people will never repent then
what is the point of giving more time?
Good question, and one I'm not sure I can answer,
other than being patient and giving man more time
to repent it God's purpose in bring as many as
possible to repentance and salvation.
Maybe its why Jesus hasn't come back yet --
not all who will be saved have been saved.
Romans 11:25 (King James Version)
25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And the context is..........??
If they (Gentiles) do not persist in unbelief they
(the wild branches) will be grafted in (v. 23)
meaning salvation is available to the Gentiles.
How much more readily will the natural branches
(God's chosen people, Israel)
be grafted in to their own tree (v. 24) meaning
God's chosen have an advantage.
So what is this mystery, Manna?
Why the blindness? Could it be those who have become hardened?
So who is God patiently waiting for, Manna?
_____________________________
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 10:30:53 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1678
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
rwe2156,
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.
It seems that I am repeating myself on this.
I already know that people make personal decisions and that is because they are persons and not robots.
I know that when God grants repentance and faith to a person they will make a personal decision.
I know if God does not grant repentance and faith to a person they will still make a personal decision.
I dont see how that concept is a big mystery? I am not trying to make some big mystery here.
I am fully aware that people make decisions and have wills and I dont ever remember saying otherwise.
quote:
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."
quote:
How could it be "every man's DUTY, if he is unable"?
Because God says it is. Is that enough of an answer? What more can I say?
Humans beings are not supposed to sin......ever. God says so. Isnt that enough?
If God demands perfect obedience and man is not able to comply with perfect obedience, is it wrong for Him to make the demand?
God knew people were going to sin before He made them (because He knows all things).
Why didnt He just lower the standard to something men could comply with? He could say its fine to sin and men would not ever have a problem in that regard.
The thing is.....He does not have to lower the standard even if men cant meet the standard.
I mean, if the fire department catches some pyromaniac that just cant control himself and is always trying to burn down houses, dont they still have the right to demand he stops what he may not be able to stop?
Do they have to lower the standard for the guy and say, "well, he just cant help himself so we will just say its ok if he burns houses down".
It could be the same was with sexual maniacs. Just because they cant seem to control themselves and they go around raping people does not mean people cant demand that they cease.
People sin because they have a sin nature even though God says people are not supposed to sin.
When you have a sin nature you cant help it but sin......but it is still wrong.
A young man asked Jesus what he needed to do to have eternal life.
Jesus basically told him to keep the law even though Jesus knew no man can keep the law.
Was Jesus wrong to demand from a man what a man cannot do?
The man supposed he had always kept the law and told Jesus that.
Thats fine! Jesus just gave the man more commands that the man could not do!
"Sell your stuff, give it to the poor, and follow Me".
Dont you think Jesus knew the mans heart before He even gave the man those commands?
Dont you think Jesus already knew the man was unable to do the next command that he was going to give him? Of course He did-------and He still gave Him those commands.
He has every right to command what He wills to command and it has nothing to do with your ability in meeting what He requires. He is the standard and we do not meet the standard.
I mean think about it.....if you were really so full of this free-will stuff and capable of making all these great choices and decisions.....you would have already met the first requirement of never sinning.
quote:
I have given you the Scriptures in post #30500 - care to take a stab at it?
I missed it......I might try to check it out later.
quote:
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.
I dont think I got the point across.
Repenting is a righteous act.
If people are saved by mercy (which they are) and not by the righteous works they have done.....repentance has to be the work of God.
The righteous will live by faith. God grants faith. God grants repentance.
Silly me I guess.
quote:
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?
Repentance is totally limited to those that are granted repentance.
The unrepentant do not have the will to repent when Scipture is perfectly clear that they are held captive by the devil to do his will. They dont have the will and are under satans will. The will to repent does not exist in the captive.
The devil is holding them captive to do his will so do you think he is going to will them to repent?
It would be absurd to even think that satan would will them to turn to Jesus Christ. 
What part of being held captive by satan to do his will implies people are free to do other than what holds them captive? Surely we dont need to define the word captive do we?
quote:
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.
Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
They are clearly captive and not free.
The devil holds them captive to do his will and that is their will.
They will make personal decisions based on what holds them captive.
When the devil holds a person captive to do his will.......repenting is not a personal decision that a person will make....unless they are granted repentance by God.
Yes......God sets captives free!
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 3:00:59 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3886
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Okay, it seems you've finally made-up your mind. But please get this, FG, UNbelievers do NOT go to heaven and that's what the second soil is - UNbelievers. God takes away that which they SEEMED TO HAVE. And, what they SEEMED TO HAVE was saving faith; but, of course, it never was. Hopefully, you can understand this principle and statement of fact God puts forth.
I fully understand your misunderstanding of the text. Jesus said they believed for a while. Nowhere in this universe does "believed for a while" equal "not believed". Other than in calvinistic writings.
No matter how you slice it “believed for a while” equals “not believing, now”. Scripture declares only “believing” people go to heaven – NOT - “not believing, now” people. You've yet to present any credible support for your pov...why? Could it be because there is none?...
quote:
quote:
Your theology wants to have its cake and eat it too; but, God refuses to allow it that. You insist unbelievers are saved; but, God insist they are damned:
I guess it would be too much to hope that you would ever characterize my pov accurately. If you would at least acknowledge the term "former believer" you would be showing some intellectual honesty. I would only use the term "unbeliever" for someone who never believed. Can you at least honor that distinction? I'm not the one having problems with intellectual honesty here, FG. Your theology is outstanding evidence of yours, though. I've bolded your statement above. This is simply your theological views imposed on Scripture. You have no scriptural support for that statement; it's just a manufactured pov. What you would or would not use is irrelevant because Scripture makes no such distinctions. Where does Scripture even allude that "former" believers are saved?....no where.
quote:
quote:
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -John 3:18
This verse says nothing about those who believed for a time.
And for good reason. If you are a "former" believer you are NOW "he that believeth not"; and, according to Christ, are already condemned.
quote:
quote:
But, of course, God never "suggests" that unbelievers will enter heaven - just the opposite, in fact.
Since eternal life is given the moment one believes, even if for a while, they are saved. Your difficulty is in accepting the fact that one can only believe for a while. Yet that is exactly what Jesus noted. Rather, your difficulty is in your inability to recognize when Scripture notes many people who had a type of faith but were condemned nonetheless. We've gone through the relevant passages in the past; but, they make no impact on your understanding. This type of faith is not saving faith and therefore they were NEVER given eternal life to begin with.
quote:
quote:
Nope, FG, you are now simply adding to the Word of God as you insert your theology. God does not say those who "never" believed - those are your words.
kelman, when the Bible speaks of "unbelievers" it is speaking of those who have never believed. Jesus noted some who only believed for a while. The Bible states it, but your theology won't let you accept it. You like to note some of what Jesus notes but not all of what Jesus notes. This soil only SEEMED TO HAVE and even that was taken from them(vs18). Since the parable is about salvation, it is senseless to say, as you do, that their "good works" were taken from them.
quote:
quote:
And that would make them what, FG?....unbelievers...those who will never enter heaven, those who are under the condemnation of God.
Before they "fell away", were they saved? Of course not. They didn't have saving faith; and what they SEEMED to have Christ said would be taken from them(vs18). The Bible gives us a number of accounts of those who did not have saving faith.
quote:
quote:
Of course, Scripture speaks of those who do not "truly" believe. It may not use the word "truly" just as it doesn't use the word "rapture" or "trinity"; but, it does, in fact, describe those who simply "appear" to be saved and tells us they are not.
How interesting! You challenge me by "inserting" the word "never believed". Yet, here you are, inserting words, like "not truly believe".
What's actually "interesting" is that I have scriptural support for the eternal destination of those who "truly' believe and for those who do not. You, otoh, have no support for your theory that people who no longer believe are saved.
quote:
When the Bible speaks of believing or faith, it always means faith in Christ, which is saving faith. There are no passages that state or even "suggest" that one's faith will definitely persist, in spite of all your theological rhetoric. As usual your FGM rhetoric gets in the way of scriptural truth. For one thing "faith" does not always mean "faith in Christ". It can mean the faith OF Christ, it can mean the body of doctrines, it can mean saving faith and it can mean a non-saving faith.
quote:
I expect you will deny that Paul is referring to believers in these verses, but you cannot deny 1 Tim 5:8 is about believers, since Paul says they are worse than unbelievers. How can an unbeliever be worse than an unbeliever? As for 1 Tim 5:8 “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” it is obviously speaking about the actions of those who profess Christianity – just as we see Paul speaking of a believer’s obligation in Gal 6:10 “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” IOW, in the vernacular, “all talk, no action” = no saving faith.
Instead we find verses such as the following where God tells us a child of His WILL continue in faith:
Heb 12:2 “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;” Why do you think God fails, FG?
1John 5:4-4 “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?”
2Cor 2:14 “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.” Here Paul tells us that believers will always manifest their knowledge of Christ in every place. They can’t always manifest what they no longer have, can they?
One cannot read the Book of Revelation without seeing that only those who overcome will enter heaven. Among other definitions, overcome means “to hold fast to your faith”.
The following is one of the most glorious, uplifting passages proving that only those who HAVE faith will be in the company of the Lamb:
Rev 17:14 “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.”
What a disturbing and sad FGM doctrine is this particular one which leads people unsuspectedly to their eternal destruction.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 3:25:45 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3886
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman I must have been unclear when I responded to your idea of a "time period" because I do, in fact, believe it is relevant. The second soil had some type of a belief, not a saving faith, of course, but only for a period of time did they have this non-salvific belief.
You don't get any of that from the text. Only from calvinistic writings, which have defined faith the way they see it. The time limit is one of "quantity", not "quality". Please deal with these differences. The fact is you’re the one who is plainly not able to deal with the differences. The “quantity” of their faith was not long-lived. The “quality” of their faith was eternally useless because it had no ROOT. Jesus Christ is the Root the second soil did not have Jesus Christ. Nor, did they have WATER which is a picture of the Holy Spirit. So you are quite incorrect to say the second soil had a “quality” faith – they did not as Scripture points out. Any faith that does not "overcome" is not saving faith - that's what Scripture teaches.
quote:
quote:
Then even that which they SEEMED TO HAVE was taken from them(vs 18).
Again, speaking of production of fruit, the subject of the parable. You keep contradicting yourself. You’ve the one arguing that the second soil was saved, so obviously you thought the parable was about salvation which, in fact, it is. But because vs 18 proves the second soil was NOT saved, you’re changing your tune.
quote:
quote:
It is precisely because I pay attention to what you INSIST that I present your theology quite accurately. To you it is simply a "principle" for those who will enter heaven to believe and to love Christ, though, it is not at all "necessary". They "should" but need not, which of course, is totally at odds with all of Scripture. Is that clear, FG?
nearly nothing of what you claim is my pov comes close to my pov. Is that clear? Guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is...or, in this case the word "nearly". Your theology acknowledges that a believer “should” love Jesus Christ, it acknowledges that a believer “should” produce fruit. BUT, your theology also declares there are believers who will not. In fact, your theology also declares people can totally walk away from Christ…walk so far away, in fact, that they deny His very existence and that of His Father’s. Your theology acknowledges and declares all this without one single solitary piece of support from Scripture.
quote:
I admire that you admit he is a mystery. None of the other reformed ones would do that. They just ignore my questions, yet criticize my position without explanation. Why so disingenuous, FG? We have repeatedly engaged you with regard to Cornelius – many of us have. I even took your Cornelius test! Who denies that Cornelius prayed and maybe even prayed for salvation? We are told to pray, seek, hope and wait upon the Lord for salvation(Lam 3:24-26).
quote:
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. Your problem is you have nothing but a works gospel when you insist God saved Cornelius BECAUSE he prayed.
quote:
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. Actually, that is not precisely correct, FG. You must deal with the verses which say those who seek will NOT find God, such as Luke 13:34 “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” or John 7:34 “Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.” and Acts 17:27 “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:” and yet again Rom 3:11 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” or Rom 11:17 “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”
The following is the only way we can truly “find” Christ Deut 4:29 “But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul." and in Psalm 119:2 “Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart." and in Jer 29:13 “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
David says something interesting to Solomon in 1Chr 7:29. “..but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.” Either Solomon repented and was saved, or he did not; and, if not, he would have been “cast off forever”. So, we’re looking at 1. losing one’s salvation or 2. never having had saving faith to begin with or, and my personal favorite since this is what Scripture indicates, 3. Solomon repented of idolotry. There isn’t any room here for one who was once a true believer then losing that faith and NOT being “cast off forever”.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/4/2008 3:35:20 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3886
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
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.
You wish to impose "your terms" on Scripture where it presents no such words or concept - that of a "former" believer being saved.
The fact remains if one no longer believes they ARE an unbeliever and unbelievers are not saved. And no amount of scriptural gymnastics, no amount of twisting and bending on your part can change that fact
True, I don't respect that type of disingenuous dealing with Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
