|
Users viewing this topic:
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 11/30/2008 10:18:16 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1308
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Opp, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sparenoarrows
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
Before
The bible says the flesh cannot please God... The flesh is death, the Spirit is life... You must believe you had the Spirit prior to salvation...
And yet, I don't believe I had the Spirit prior to salvation.
quote:
quote:
It's not that God's hand was held at bay until I gave Him the green light. It's that God voluntarily held His hand at bay until I gave the green light.
Which means you are staying the hand of God... You state the right thing, but in your "explanation" you make my point... Can't have it both ways... And rendering God to some heavenly bellhop awaiting the whims of man doesn't work...
No, I am not staying the hand of God. God can save me with or without my acceptance. Salvation is all in God's hands.
quote:
quote:
No, that does not equate with me saving myself.
Which is it? You said: so if my part was removed, I'm not sure if salvation would still be there.
If you believe that you not doing your part removes salvation logic dictates that you partake in your salvation.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that my part is what causes salvation. Only God can save someone. Salvation can take place with or without my acceptance. I believe God is gracious and loving enough to do it with my acceptance. You, apparently, believe that God saves you whether you accept His salvation or not.
quote:
quote:
What it equates to is God graciously awaiting my acceptance of the free gift that He is offering me.
Which according to you, if you didn't accept there would be no salvation... Precisely!! 
quote:
quote:
My salvation does not depend on my acceptance or not because God could save me without that acceptance if He so chose.
Er... You just said God waited for you acceptance of the free gift... Had you not accepted according to your own words there would be no salvation... Exactly!! My lack of acceptance is not what causes me not to be saved, nor is my acceptance what causes me to be saved. It's the graciousness of God that saves, not my acceptance or lack thereof.
quote:
You are not being very consistent...
Maybe not, but I'm consistent enough to know that I'm saved, because God saved me.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
SFC, USA (Ret)
The reflections of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD -- Proverbs 16:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 6:14:12 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
It seems to me that many of Jesus' disciples turned away from following Jesus, and one betrayed Him. Were any of them saved?
(Joh 6:53 ESV) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
(Joh 6:54 ESV) Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:55 ESV) For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
(Joh 6:56 ESV) Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 ESV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 ESV) This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
(Joh 6:59 ESV) Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
(Joh 6:60 ESV) When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
(Joh 6:61 ESV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 ESV) Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 ESV) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
(Joh 6:64 ESV) But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
(Joh 6:65 ESV) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
(Joh 6:66 ESV) After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
(Joh 6:67 ESV) So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
(Joh 6:68 ESV) Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
(Joh 6:69 ESV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
(Joh 6:70 ESV) Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil."
(Joh 6:71 ESV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
The question to ask is, why did Jesus turn to the 12 to ask them? I believe He wanted them to understand the confession themselves. Jesus Himself acknowledges that both God the Father chose them and He chose them. He forces Peter to have to answer why they stuck around. Then Jesus also acknowledges that one of them is going to betray Him. Judas was chosen, not for salvation, but as a betrayer.
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 6:28:59 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1705
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Anyhoo, don't you think that seeking God is honoring to Him?
Whether I think it is or not is not the point. The point is that Paul did not mention anything about seeking God in Romans 1 and it is merely conjecture to say that is what he meant. The context of Romans goes against that conjecture.
quote:
quote:
quote:
However, why do you think that "honoring God" isn't a form of seeking God?
You appear to base your Rom 1 Theory upon the possibility that "honoring God" is a "form of seeking God." You have no proof that it is. Nothing in Romans 1 leads us to think that he has seeking God in mind.
OK. Then please answer my question above then.
You still have no proof. You base your Rom 1 theory upon the conjecture that the appropriate response to God’s revelation of Himself found in creation is seeking Him and that some actually do seek Him based upon creation alone (which is not found in Romans 1 at all). I don’t think he meant “seeking God” at all. What is the appropriate response to seeing and knowing God? It is loving Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. This is the only appropriate response to God. Instead all men have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Out of this lie – that the creation is more valuable than the Creator – comes all sorts of acts of sin. But the fundamental sin is the sin of worshipping and loving ourselves, and using others and things over and above loving God and genuinely loving others; and all have done this – all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God in this way.
quote:
quote:
In your way of thinking you could ask, Why do you think that "honoring God" isn't a form of singing to God? Was Cornelius singing? If not he didn't fulfill the Romans 1 Principle, if you attribute "singing" to "honoring God." For some reason you choose "honoring God" means "seeking God."
Why wouldn't "singing to God" be considered a form of honoring God. Other than the words being sung, that is.
The point is, Paul did not say singing or seeking. So to create a doctrine or “principle” upon what you conjecture Paul to mean is not being faithful to Holy Scripture.
quote:
quote:
Your theory still has no foundation. Paul does not say "seeking God," but "honor God."
But, it should be clear to you that seeking God after He reveals himself is honoring Him as God.
Whether that is true or not is not the point. The point is, what did Paul write in Romans 1? He said nothing about seeking God as much as he did not say anything about singing. The context points to something quite different.
quote:
quote:
Those who honor God are those who see who is is and live accordingly.
But we're talking about the initial response to God's revelation about Himself to mankind. You are thinking of the "end result" here; I am thinking about the initial part.
No, I am not thinking about the “end result.” I am saying that Paul clearly communicates that all men have been shown enough about God in creation that they should have lived a life that was in accord with who God is. No one has done this; all have sinned. This is the point that the apostle has made; not that some seek God.
quote:
quote:
All have no excuse for not living according to the revelation of God found in creation. But none have. All have sinned.
I agree to disagree. Even sinners can and do seek God. You have "sinning" to preclude the possibility of seeking God. I don't see it at all. Even believers continue to sin, so sin doesn't block man's response to God the way you see it.
But Paul’s purpose has nothing to do with man seeking God – it is not mentioned once in Rom 1. Paul’s purpose is to show that all are under sin and in the need of grace, not that some seek God. He is showing that even though God has revealed Himself through creation no man has lived according to that revelation of Himself; no one has given glory to Him by their lifestyle – all have sinned.
quote:
quote:
Your theory is based upon the premise that God gives more light to those who seek Him, yet Romans 1 is silent on this as is the passage concerning Cornelius.
But Acts 10 isn't silent.
It is silent on the topic of what motivated Cornelius to do what he did. Acts 10 is silent on the topic that God gives more light to those, who on the basis of God’s revelation of Himself found in creation, seek Him.
quote:
quote:
You have absolutely no basis at all for your so called "Romans 1 Principle."
Because God says no one has an excuse for not honoring Him, that means man can honor Him. If one is unable to do something, they HAVE an excuse.
It all depends upon what you mean by “man can honor Him.”
Man has the faculties to honor God, therefore he has no excuse. Man does not have the desire, therefore he is unable to do that which opposes his desire. The hearts of all natural men are wicked and ungodly.
Your philosophy is no proof of your theory.
quote:
Cornelius is proof that unregenerate man can seek Him. You just deny it.
I don’t “just deny it.” Two points:
1. I must deny that which goes against clear statements in Scripture such as 1 Cor 2:14.
2. There is nothing in the passage concerning Cornelius that states anything about the cause of his belief; it is not there at all. Thus, no one can honestly say anything about what caused his belief.
quote:
You must deny the life of Cornelius; otherwise you have to face the problem he creates in your theology.
No, I enjoy the doctrine that is clearly stated concerning the life of Cornelius. I don’t have the problem you have though, that of creating a Romans 1 principle that has no foundation and then showcasing Cornelius as an example of that false principle.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 7:38:05 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2473
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
And yet, I don't believe I had the Spirit prior to salvation.
G46:
Seems to be a basic understanding of salvation, doesn't it?
Understand, according to Calvinism you cannot be repent and believe
without receiving the Holy Spirit first.
Its a sticky point and one which Scripture speaks out agast.
Even the apostles didn't receive the Holy Spirit until well after they were chosen
and well after they were under the teaching of their Master.
Acts 2:38 clearly tells us the order, too.
This "regeneration" the Reformed ones speak of must be something
different than receiving the Holy Spirit or it is false teaching, IMHO.
Only one person on this thread, TDD, has agreed they must be different
processes. But this is not what reformed theology believes.
I do agree, though, that a person is incapable of receiving the Gospel
and believing in their heart unless it has been opened first. We cannot
truly believe in our minds only - this is simply intellectual belief.
The only way any thing can happen is for the person to recognize their
sin and their condition - the first necessary step in repentance, as Sproul says.
The argument is whether man can repent, because if wicked men can repent
(Isa 55:6) then man does play a part in his salvation. How do we know this
is possible?
Because man possesses an internal moral witness - God has
written the law on our hearts (Jews and Gentiles), and we are created in
the image of God (we are born with a spirit). We know this is true because
even a pagan knows it is wrong to murder, and steal, etc.
Now, what brings a man to repentance? An awakening or an awareness?
I submit its both, but the awareness is the first step.
Well, the Calvies say no man is able to repent because repentance is a
righteous act and there are none righteous, not one - all are depraved
and not capable of any good in God's eyes. Everything they do is sin.
Does the Bible say? Was not Abraham's faith credited to him as righteousness?
Does not the Bible say "Let the wicked repent"? Of course it does.
But you the view is justified by by labeling repentance and faith as works,
not only works, but works of righteousness, which means Abraham's
faith was not his, but given to him by God. Unfortunately, God must
have left this out because the Scriptures say it was Abraham's faith
and it was credited to him as righteousness, clearly implying that
the faith itself was not a righteous act.
Since Heb 11:6 says without faith it is impossible to please God. Since pleasing
God is a righteous thing to do, then faith must be righteous, no? This answer
is both are true.
Now, since God rejoices when one sinner repents (interesting in and of itself
if God chooses those who will repent) then repenting must be pleasing
to God and therefore must be a righteous act - see how the reasoning goes?
As for men seeking God, to say this is impossible simply denies many, many
verses of Scripture such as Eze 33:11, Isa 55:7, Dt 4:29 and Acts 17:27.
All one needs to is listen to people's testimonies of how they came to Christ
and it is clear: God brings circumstances, people, and the Word of God into
just the right ways to bring about repentance.
But many people have found security in their money. I suspect our churches
will be seeing more and more "visitors" if the economic collapse continues.
Many people have found confidence in their own ability - just wait until
they fail or get sick and find they are not in control after all......
My theology tells me its not God's selection, its man's rejection.
I do not deny election. It is a biblical doctrine, but I think they way
the reformed see election is not only unbalanced but leads to spiritual
elitism - that somehow God chose them and not another is a
dangerous thought in the mind of a sinful man. I prefer the term
"selective redemption" rather than election, because election implies
there was some reason to choose a particular person for salvation.
BTW, they cannot give one example of a person chosen for salvation
only, based on nothing but God's choice - every example of election
in the Bible is for service or purpose.
The New Covenant is not about God choosing a select group -- quite the contrary!
Its about redemption now going out to the whole world - COMPEL them
to come says Matt 22 in the parable of the wedding feast.
That's the WHOLE history of the God/man relationship from day one
.....................and the beat goes on.
Another thing - if selective redemption is true, why would the elect need to be
"reasoned with", or "compelled" or coerced or convinced in any way? And
why aren't many of the "elect" saved the first time they hear the gospel?
Seems to me Irresisible Grace might not be so irresistible afer all!
_____________________________
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 - 12/1/2008 7:59:18 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
All people choose that which is most desirable. If the evidence of Christ Jesus and His gospel is not desirable to someone, that person does not spiritually understand.
There is no Scriptural indication that the gospel must be "spiritually understood". That comes only from your understanding of 1 Cor 2:14. The Bible presents the very clear idea that man must believe the gospel. The spiritual understanding is for believers for their spiritual growth, and has nothing to do with unbelievers.
quote:
This means that before a person chooses he does not really have a confident trust and therefore the choice is the foundation of belief or confident trust. This is backwards.
You still have it backwards. You will only put your trust in what appears to be the "best deal", which is a choice. Don't you compare when there is a choice of what to trust? Or, do you just close your eyes and say eeny meeny miny mo?
quote:
The only reason a person chooses that which he already trusts is because he already trusts.
And just how did he get to that point of "already trusts"? By making a decision. You keep missing part of the process.
quote:
The choosing to trust is a moot point if you really have confident trust.
The confident trust came from a choice between the options.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Trust does not come out of choice, but choices come out of confident trust.
That is exactly backward.
If you are correct, then trust is based upon the person trusting not the evidence that brings confident trust in that which is trusted.
Your conclusion is not understandable. I am correct. Trust is based on choosing that which the evidence supports as trusting.
quote:
I use it the concept of “root” because it gets across the idea I intend. If your confident trust is based upon your choice, then you have no firm root of trust, because it is based upon your choice and not undeniable evidence that is the root of genuine confident trust.
What you keep missing is that the "undeniable evidence" is the basis upon which you trust.
But you yourself make the choice as to what is "undeniable evidence", since we all see things a bit differently, as this thread attests to.
What has convinced you as trustworthy re: theology hasn't convinced me at all. And what is undeniable evidence from Scripture which contradicts calvinism hasn't convinced you at all.
So, that example alone proves that we choose what we trust.
iow, what is "undeniable" to you sure isn't to me, and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:09:24 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
Just because "many unbelievers" may clearly intellectually understand the gospel is not the point and therefore disproves nothing.
Your "intellectual" argument is baseless. The Bible doesn't speak of "intellectual faith" as opposed to any other kind of faith. That is a made up concept from RT.
The point is that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God and cannot understand, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14). It matters not that you say there are natural men who clearly understand because Paul disagrees with you.
It does matter, and proves that you merely misunderstand what Paul was saying. The "things of the Spirit" refers back to the "deep things of God" in v.10. These are things for believers, not unbelievers.
The concept of this is also found in Heb 5:12 where the writer tells his audience that they should have advanced from "milk" to "strong meat", or from basic doctrine to advanced doctrine.
quote:
In 1 Cor 1 and 2 Paul contrasts the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. The gospel is not understood by the wisdom of men, but is made clear by the Holy Spirit alone.
I agree. Our difference is that I am convinced that the Holy Spirit will make the gospel clear for understanding to everyone who is presented with the gospel. You seem to think that God conceals understanding from those you call the "non-elect", even though Jesus evangelized them specifically.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Paul does not speak of the natural man not having intellectual knowledge, but that he lacks spiritual discernment. Because natural man does not have spiritual discernment he does not understand spiritually and therefore considers the things of the Spirit of God (the word of the cross) as foolishness.
Since we know that the Holy Spirit makes the Word clear, why would the Holy Spirit conceal the Word when it is being presented to people?
You can ask God when you get to heaven. What we know is that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God.
I don't have to wait. The Bible is clear enough. The Holy Spirit convicts man of sin, righteousness and judgment, and reveals truth.
There is no support from the Bible that God conceals His Truth from those who seek.
quote:
The entire thrust of the NT is for man to believe the gospel; Paul was sure clear about that. So, why would the Spirit conceal the gospel from mankind?
Good question, but the answer can never negate the clear declaration of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 2:14. The philosophy of man should never replace that which is clearly stated in the Scripture.
Yes, the question certainly is good, and the answer does NOT negate what Paul wrote. You just misunderstand him.
The answer, which doesn't negate Paul's words, are that the Holy Spirit makes the gospel clear to those who are listening.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:13:32 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
The question to ask is, why did Jesus turn to the 12 to ask them? I believe He wanted them to understand the confession themselves. Jesus Himself acknowledges that both God the Father chose them and He chose them. He forces Peter to have to answer why they stuck around. Then Jesus also acknowledges that one of them is going to betray Him. Judas was chosen, not for salvation, but as a betrayer.
I agree, as my post 4445 makes clear about what "election" is all about. Clearly Judas was not chosen for salvation, nor where any of the other disciples. They were chosen for special privilege and service. I would go so far as to say Judas was chosen for "service", although I wouldn't say "special privilege". 
quote:
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
Anyone can deny anything. Criminals do it all the time in court. What is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:25:32 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
Anyone can deny anything. Criminals do it all the time in court. What is your point?
Rephrase: Could Judas have refused his role in Christ's death?
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:29:53 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
quote:
However, why do you think that "honoring God" isn't a form of seeking God?
You appear to base your Rom 1 Theory upon the possibility that "honoring God" is a "form of seeking God." You have no proof that it is. Nothing in Romans 1 leads us to think that he has seeking God in mind.
OK. Then please answer my question above then.
You still have no proof.
This doesn't answer the question, now, does it. Can you answer the question or not?
quote:
You base your Rom 1 theory upon the conjecture that the appropriate response to God’s revelation of Himself found in creation is seeking Him and that some actually do seek Him based upon creation alone (which is not found in Romans 1 at all).
It is hardly "conjecture". It is actually quite obvious. How do you think man would be accountable and without excuse if God didn't reveal Himself? Can you answer that?
quote:
I don’t think he meant “seeking God” at all. What is the appropriate response to seeing and knowing God? It is loving Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. This is the only appropriate response to God.
You keep going to the 'end result', when I'm talking about initial response.
quote:
quote:
quote:
In your way of thinking you could ask, Why do you think that "honoring God" isn't a form of singing to God? Was Cornelius singing? If not he didn't fulfill the Romans 1 Principle, if you attribute "singing" to "honoring God." For some reason you choose "honoring God" means "seeking God."
Why wouldn't "singing to God" be considered a form of honoring God. Other than the words being sung, that is.
The point is, Paul did not say singing or seeking. So to create a doctrine or “principle” upon what you conjecture Paul to mean is not being faithful to Holy Scripture.
Why do you insist upon such "specific" words, when even your own theology cannot support the idea that God causes belief?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your theory still has no foundation. Paul does not say "seeking God," but "honor God."
But, it should be clear to you that seeking God after He reveals himself is honoring Him as God.
Whether that is true or not is not the point.
It is not only true, but it IS the point. You just won't even consider it, because it contradicts your theology.
quote:
The point is, what did Paul write in Romans 1? He said nothing about seeking God as much as he did not say anything about singing. The context points to something quite different.
The context of Rom 1:18 to end of chapter is about no one having an excuse for not honoring God and being thankful.
What you want to deny is that to be without excuse means being able to. You just won't have that, will you.
quote:
No, I am not thinking about the “end result.” I am saying that Paul clearly communicates that all men have been shown enough about God in creation that they should have lived a life that was in accord with who God is. No one has done this; all have sinned.
Yes, all have sinned. We got that from Adam. That isn't the issue whether anyone can or will seek God. The point is that no one has an excuse for not honoring Him and being thankful, which is obvious to me indicates seeking Him, which Cornelius demonstrates.
quote:
This is the point that the apostle has made; not that some seek God.
He didn't have to. That point is made in Acts 17:27.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your theory is based upon the premise that God gives more light to those who seek Him, yet Romans 1 is silent on this as is the passage concerning Cornelius.
But Acts 10 isn't silent.
It is silent on the topic of what motivated Cornelius to do what he did. Acts 10 is silent on the topic that God gives more light to those, who on the basis of God’s revelation of Himself found in creation, seek Him.
Here is what is really silent in the Bible. Any notion that God causes man to believe the Bible, and that He chose who would believe.
Cornelius was motivated by his knowledge that God existed as Creator of the universe and he began to seek Him. That is so obvious.
quote:
quote:
quote:
You have absolutely no basis at all for your so called "Romans 1 Principle."
Because God says no one has an excuse for not honoring Him, that means man can honor Him. If one is unable to do something, they HAVE an excuse.
It all depends upon what you mean by “man can honor Him.”
OK. There is nothing in my pov that contradicts anything in Scripture.
The life of Cornelius gives your pov nothing for support.
Man has the faculties to honor God, therefore he has no excuse. Man does not have the desire, therefore he is unable to do that which opposes his desire. The hearts of all natural men are wicked and ungodly.
Your philosophy is no proof of your theory.
quote:
Cornelius is proof that unregenerate man can seek Him. You just deny it.
I don’t “just deny it.” Two points:
1. I must deny that which goes against clear statements in Scripture such as 1 Cor 2:14.
2. There is nothing in the passage concerning Cornelius that states anything about the cause of his belief; it is not there at all. Thus, no one can honestly say anything about what caused his belief.
quote:
You must deny the life of Cornelius; otherwise you have to face the problem he creates in your theology.
No, I enjoy the doctrine that is clearly stated concerning the life of Cornelius. I don’t have the problem you have though, that of creating a Romans 1 principle that has no foundation and then showcasing Cornelius as an example of that false principle.
Blessings,
SH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:38:05 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
Anyone can deny anything. Criminals do it all the time in court. What is your point?
Rephrase: Could Judas have refused his role in Christ's death?
Ah, I was wondering...
Anyhoo, I believe that Judas was free to either do what he did or not do what he did. The clear point is that God already knew exactly what he was going to freely do. That is why he was chosen.
Seems calvinism gets all caught up in God's foreknowledge somehow being the same as God causing what comes to pass.
It is completely compatible with all of Scripture for God in His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge to plan things based on what His creatures will do freely. I really don't know why that is so difficult to accept.
God cannot be the cause of everything, because then you have God the cause of sin, which is blasphemous.
Just like car makers make cars. Cars are objects that kill people, but the car makers are not accountable or responsible for how the stupid drivers misuse their cars. It is the drivers of those cars who are responsible and accountable for their free actions while behind the wheel. That seems a pretty accurate illustration of man and his freedom of choice.
God created man with freedom of choice, as Adam had. Adam abused his freedom and sinned. We all do the same. And God always knew exactly what man would do.
God is not the cause of sin, period.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:41:24 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2965
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
Anyone can deny anything. Criminals do it all the time in court. What is your point?
Rephrase: Could Judas have refused his role in Christ's death?
Ah, I was wondering...
Anyhoo, I believe that Judas was free to either do what he did or not do what he did. The clear point is that
you are wrong...
It was prophesied, ordained and decided by God !
The big ? is...why you don't like it !
_____________________________
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 - 12/1/2008 8:49:41 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
Anyone can deny anything. Criminals do it all the time in court. What is your point?
Rephrase: Could Judas have refused his role in Christ's death?
Ah, I was wondering...
Anyhoo, I believe that Judas was free to either do what he did or not do what he did. The clear point is that God already knew exactly what he was going to freely do. That is why he was chosen.
Seems calvinism gets all caught up in God's foreknowledge somehow being the same as God causing what comes to pass.
It is completely compatible with all of Scripture for God in His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge to plan things based on what His creatures will do freely. I really don't know why that is so difficult to accept.
God cannot be the cause of everything, because then you have God the cause of sin, which is blasphemous.
Just like car makers make cars. Cars are objects that kill people, but the car makers are not accountable or responsible for how the stupid drivers misuse their cars. It is the drivers of those cars who are responsible and accountable for their free actions while behind the wheel. That seems a pretty accurate illustration of man and his freedom of choice.
God created man with freedom of choice, as Adam had. Adam abused his freedom and sinned. We all do the same. And God always knew exactly what man would do.
God is not the cause of sin, period.
Do you know from scripture that Judas could have refused? Could Jesus have refused to go to the cross?
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:34:13 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
The question to the freewillers is this: Could Judas have denied his role in Jesus' death?
Anyone can deny anything. Criminals do it all the time in court. What is your point?
Rephrase: Could Judas have refused his role in Christ's death?
Ah, I was wondering...
Anyhoo, I believe that Judas was free to either do what he did or not do what he did. The clear point is that
you are wrong...
opinion, opinion, opinions. 
quote:
It was prophesied, ordained and decided by God !
Sure, God caused poor ol' Judas to do it. So, he could claim "God made me do it!" Sure. God certainly held him accountable for it. But to claim that God made him do it? That doesn't make any sense.
quote:
The big ? is...why you don't like it !
What I don't like is your erroneous pov.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:39:39 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Anyhoo, I believe that Judas was free to either do what he did or not do what he did. The clear point is that God already knew exactly what he was going to freely do. That is why he was chosen.
Seems calvinism gets all caught up in God's foreknowledge somehow being the same as God causing what comes to pass.
It is completely compatible with all of Scripture for God in His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge to plan things based on what His creatures will do freely. I really don't know why that is so difficult to accept.
God cannot be the cause of everything, because then you have God the cause of sin, which is blasphemous.
Just like car makers make cars. Cars are objects that kill people, but the car makers are not accountable or responsible for how the stupid drivers misuse their cars. It is the drivers of those cars who are responsible and accountable for their free actions while behind the wheel. That seems a pretty accurate illustration of man and his freedom of choice.
God created man with freedom of choice, as Adam had. Adam abused his freedom and sinned. We all do the same. And God always knew exactly what man would do.
God is not the cause of sin, period.
Do you know from scripture that Judas could have refused? Could Jesus have refused to go to the cross?
I notice you didn't comment on my illustration of car makers.
As for your "what ifs" questions, they are just not relevant to discuss. We only know what we know. Just because there is no verse exclaiming that Judas was able to refuse to go doesn't prove anything.
Again, Judas acted freely, and God knew what he would do. Can you accept that? If not, and you must have God be the cause of his actions, you are also agreeing with the notion that God causes sin. Do you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:57:04 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Anyhoo, I believe that Judas was free to either do what he did or not do what he did. The clear point is that God already knew exactly what he was going to freely do. That is why he was chosen.
Seems calvinism gets all caught up in God's foreknowledge somehow being the same as God causing what comes to pass.
It is completely compatible with all of Scripture for God in His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge to plan things based on what His creatures will do freely. I really don't know why that is so difficult to accept.
God cannot be the cause of everything, because then you have God the cause of sin, which is blasphemous.
Just like car makers make cars. Cars are objects that kill people, but the car makers are not accountable or responsible for how the stupid drivers misuse their cars. It is the drivers of those cars who are responsible and accountable for their free actions while behind the wheel. That seems a pretty accurate illustration of man and his freedom of choice.
God created man with freedom of choice, as Adam had. Adam abused his freedom and sinned. We all do the same. And God always knew exactly what man would do.
God is not the cause of sin, period.
Do you know from scripture that Judas could have refused? Could Jesus have refused to go to the cross?
I notice you didn't comment on my illustration of car makers.
As for your "what ifs" questions, they are just not relevant to discuss. We only know what we know. Just because there is no verse exclaiming that Judas was able to refuse to go doesn't prove anything.
Again, Judas acted freely, and God knew what he would do. Can you accept that? If not, and you must have God be the cause of his actions, you are also agreeing with the notion that God causes sin. Do you?
I should not have to comment on the car makers illustration because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
You apparently have God looking into the future to see what man is going to do. That is open-theism which has been declared a heresy.
You don't believe Romans 9 when it says that there are vessels of wrath created for destruction. Do you believe that God hardened Pharaoh's heart?
You didn't answer the question about whether Jesus could have refused to go to the cross.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 10:14:13 AM
|
|
|
HardKnox
Posts: 448
Joined: 11/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Umcbee,
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
quote:
ORIGINAL: HardKnox
I’m totally satisfied that the Arminians and their micro-relatives; freewillers, freegracers, syncretists (that would be rwe, what I would call a leavener), and whatever category Ode falls into, if any; have been sufficiently answered with scripture in this matter. The Bible clearly teaches total depravity, the bondage of the will, the sovereignty of God, irresistible grace, and limited atonement. Now, as I’ve read through the last 10 pages or so, it is obvious that Calvinists and Arminoids are talking across one another. I think the Calvinists are giving a fine account from the Bible for the most part, I don’t agree with everything I’m reading, but I’m just one person here. The Arminoids, on the other hand, are purely eisegetical, reading into scripture things that are not there, like whosoevers meaning everybody, and God commands which means there has to be abilities, yadda, yadda. The Arminoids usually can’t make up there minds which side of salvation to pull scripture from or blanket every objection with nations and Israel and age of grace. The there’s FG and his Jr. Woodchuck Manuel of freegrace Greek to keep us all rolling on the floor. Bottom line, I think it’s a total waste of time trying to convince the Arminoids that they’re wrong. They probably already know it by now anyway.
So, I thought I’d throw in a different line to spice up this conversation. Let’s talk about where Arminoidiansim comes from all the way down the line. Why do some people insist, against all biblical teaching, that sinners have some slight impetus for being able to choose, believe in, respond to, repent of, receive, accept, or seek God to salvation? The Bible doesn’t teach it, that is as clear as that the Bible doesn’t teach long creation. One may believe long creation is correct, but they must go outside the Bible to get that idea. Same with Abilityism. No doctrine is so clear in the Bible than that man cannot lift a finger to effect salvation. It doesn’t matter that you say God provides 99.9999% of salvation and man has to do that microscopic .0001% for God to activate it, it is not in the Bible and I will not waste another minute proving that, its done!
Ultimately, this humanistic taste is the doctrine of sinners. It is the nature of sin to be self-centric. As the young sinners grows into the public body of sinners, he/she learns to be a social sinner and so humanism is born in his/her breast. It is a collective form of self-centricity. The Self-centric nature of sin is documented throughout 6000 years of history and interpreted throughout the entire Old Testament. Its summed up in Judges, where the best the world has to offer God, continually apostatizing Israel, everybody is “doing what is right in his own sight” disregarding the God who is with them. God in the midst of the camp of Israel is not sufficient to change the hearts of the stiff-necked people. So much for FGs idea that men seek God. Israel HAD God and sought the gods of the pagans. And rwe doesn’t understand depravity. He thinks we’re only 98% depraved because we were made in the image of God. Total, rwe, as I’ve explained before, is not about absoluteness. It means every part of man is polluted and therefore defiled. What do you guys think the laws of issues are all about, that anything that comes from the inside of man is a stench to God’s nostrils, our faith, our will, our repentance, our acceptance, our seeking, are filthy rags. God is under no obligation to turn when we try to flag him down with our putrifaction.
What you guys don’t understand though is how you have been tainted by the philosophers theologians who have had their heresies filtered down through the seminaries over the last 200 years. You are disciples (you may THINK you’re free thinkers, but no) of Reinhold Nieburh, Karl Barth, Schleiermacher and his empiricists, Hegel’s deterministic freedom, the rationalists, the materialists, Immanuel Kant, and Rousseau. They are the one’s who took Thomism and Arminius and developed them into the paperback Jesus Movement books that transformed the church of the 70s. You are in a movement, and people in a movement are not free thinkers, free believers, or free choosers. In fact, freedom is a pretty irrelevant concept when it comes to man. We only think we’re individuals and can’t stand the fact that we’re members of a herd. The question is not whether we’re members, but of which flock we are members.
Freedom is the god of this age, a strange god that no one can define. The Bible defines freedom, being slaves to righteousness. Sinners don’t naturally take to that, and Christians who forget how helpless they were in that era of their lives when they saw hell looming in front of them, or their sin threatening to eat them alive, or the world so huge and overwhelming they knew they could not resist it, after being blessed came to imagine that they came to Christ with their own ingenuity and superior determination. There are also unbelievers in the churches who simply don’t understand grace and interpret the Bible with a dead mind and come up with the same thing sinners have been believing in for 6000 years, i.e. its all about us, and we can do it.
You guys must stay in a strain , I mean carrying that soap box around all the time .
One thing I do agree with in your post ; its all yadda, yadda .
Thanks for reposting my analysis so that it won't get lost in the shuffle and can be reread. Good man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 10:15:19 AM
|
|
|
HardKnox
Posts: 448
Joined: 11/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
HK - I did read your post. Right off, has anyone called you a "Calvinoid" lately?
I suppose its inevitable. Most of this debate is tit-for-tat.
quote:
1) You discredit yourself with this kind of rhetoric, bro and I am admonishing you
to post in a way that you can still come off at least as being a brother in Christ
and not "the enemy in the other camp".
Your admonition is not taken. I have not accused persons of being in another camp, but Christians do borrow from the world and if you don’t think so, you need to turn your radio on to any given contemporary Christian music station.
quote:
2) How dare you make comments like " Ultimately, this humanistic taste is the doctrine of sinners."!
How dare I not? If Jesus warns his disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, does that not (by your own usage of scripture) presuppose that they are capable of adopting that leaven?
quote:
Might I suggest one who is convinced they are 100% right and everyone else who disagrees
is not only wrong, but believing a "doctrine of sinners" ACCUSES HIMSELF!
I’ll take that this was raised in the heat of emotion.
quote:
{EDIT: Posted too soon}
As the nervous fingers seem to indicate.
quote:
3. Statements like "So much for FGs idea that men seek God" deny Dt. 4:29 and Isa 55:7.
I hate to say it, but I dealt with that already. It may not have been to your satisfaction, but let me put it to you plainly so you won’t miss it: “There is no human ability in those verses.” If God commands men to do the impossible (you deal with the phrase “with all thy heart and with all thy soul”, rwe... that is your blind spot) it is not because he sees their intrinsic ability. Rather, it is to drive them to the source of strength, God himself. If God says, “Seek me with all you heart and all your soul” the inappropriate answer from me is, “O.K. No problem.” The appropriate answer from me is, “Lord, I cannot. Help thou mine unbelief.”
quote:
4. You said "And rwe doesn’t understand depravity", but so what? I think I understand it and have given my POV over the last 3 years of posting here. And guess what? Gifted godly theologians agree with me, and gifted godly theologians agree with you!
you say total depravity means that since we are made in the image of God that concludes that we are not “totally” depraved, you clearly do not understand the doctrine. The total in total depravity is not about the totality of depravity. It is about the totality of man’s parts. Every part of man is polluted (depraved) by sin. Yes we are made in the image of God, and that image is marred with sin like all other aspects of our being. Total depravity teaches that there is no aspect of man that is not depraved.
quote:
I will ask you the same question I have put to Freegrace:
Are you willing to admit your theology is flawed because you have imperfect knowledge?
Of course.
quote:
Are you willing to acknowledge there are tensions in the Bible and we are trying to
understand them with flawed, sinful minds?
No. There are no tensions in the Bible as I understand your use of the term. As for “trying to understand”, that has very little to do with interpretation. We come to truth in scripture because it is taught to us by the Holy Spirit. If he is not teaching, we are ratinalizing what we read in the wrong direction and the direction is always humanistic. That is the natural orientation of sin.
quote:
My final admonition is this: If you are going to lurk and occasionally come on to blast us
with rhetoric like this, please pray about it and hopefully spare us.
Rather than set yourself up as my priest, why don’t you answer what I’ve said. Human ability doctrines can be clearly traced to Enlightenment philosophies, the rise of revivalism, individualism, Industrialism, and several other modernizing movements. It is leaven from worldly philosophy, not biblical doctrine. If that hurts, deal with it. That’s my admonition back atcha, if you want it. As far as your admonition is concerned, not taken. Look, rwe. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
quote:
Lets just say perhaps its more important we know who we are in Christ than arguing
about how we got here, OK? How God saves a man is a mystery, anyway!
In other words, you want me to shut up, is that it?
BTW, rwe,
My long post above contains content. I don't need admonition for writing it any more than you do for holding your "tension" doctrine. Its an argument. You may not agree with it, you may think its baloney, but don't hide behind sanctimoniousness, just answer it, or don't.
< Message edited by HardKnox -- 12/1/2008 10:25:54 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 10:37:15 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheosCentric
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
I notice you didn't comment on my illustration of car makers.
As for your "what ifs" questions, they are just not relevant to discuss. We only know what we know. Just because there is no verse exclaiming that Judas was able to refuse to go doesn't prove anything.
Again, Judas acted freely, and God knew what he would do. Can you accept that? If not, and you must have God be the cause of his actions, you are also agreeing with the notion that God causes sin. Do you?
I should not have to comment on the car makers illustration because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
OK, but it is very relevant to any discussion of what God is the cause of.
quote:
You apparently have God looking into the future to see what man is going to do.
I don't "have Him looking into the future". The Bible proclaims His omniscience. Of course He knows exactly what man will freely do. Why you deny that is a mystery.
quote:
That is open-theism which has been declared a heresy.
Why do you think God's omniscience is a heresy?
quote:
You don't believe Romans 9 when it says that there are vessels of wrath created for destruction.
I belie | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
