Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread

Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine

Message

Fritzpw_Admin -> Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 12:30:56 PM)
Discuss the issues surrounding the teachings of Calvin. From Odeliya: quote: [;)]C/A thread “survival kit” : Keep it short, sweet, honest and from the heart. As laconic and precise as possible. I would discourage posting long excerpts from any authors. Not everybody here is FW, but all are very free spirited – any authorities outside of the Bible is usually cringed upon and dismissed. Don’t sell yourself short -you can do a better job addressing the point then Piper or McArthur, mainly because you are right here and they are not! As a result you will get a great debate, ensure that your posts are read and taken seriously, and get tons of love from brethren/sistren plus a healthy dose of adrenalin as a bonus. For indefinite period of time that is,for just as diamonds, taxes and other things that are claimed to last forever, C/A thread will never end, God bless the administration/owners richly! Good sailing! Click Here to read the old humungo thread WARNING: Violations of the Terms of Service may result in being banned from the Community without further warning. THIS IS YOUR WARNING Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

SureHope -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 1:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace You missed my question. I know what David did. You didn't answer what "wholy devoted" means to you. From 1 Kings 11:4. That would be an interesting topic, but I am staying focused on and not being sidetracked from the topic of discussion. No man has been man able to do that which God has created him to do and commanded him to do. David is another example of a man who did not fulfill God's purpose and command to love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. OK, end of debate on this topic, then. I see being "wholly devoted" as equivalent to loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you don't want to answer what being "wholly devoted" means to you, OK. I answered enough to show that David did not fulfill God’s command to love Him with every fiber of his being. I find it very interesting that you don’t see this obvious fact. At this point, all I'm asking is what "wholly devoted" means to you. I still don't know. As far as this debate goes, it does not mean loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. quote: quote: You are the only one in control of your sinning or not sinning. You can’t blame it on Adam or say, “the devil made me do it.” If you were more than willing to stop sinning you would stop sinning. I blame my sin nature for my sin, as Paul did in Rom 6 and 7. Your last statement here indicates you do not understand the sin nature. I don't want to sin, but my sin nature does. There is a constant battle between my sin nature and my human spirit, as Paul noted. Paul did not blame sin on sin nature in Rom 6, What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Rom 6:1-2 ESV) We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. (Rom 6:6-7 ESV) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (Rom 6:12-15 ESV) Paul was calling on the will of Christians to stop sinning and live righteously. He is not saying that Christians have an excuse for their sin, quite the opposite. No one makes you sin but yourself. You have free will, remember? quote: quote: When you sin you are doing the opposite of loving God. What you just admitted is that you are unable to fulfill God’s command to love Him with every fiber of your being. Just thought of something. Are you suggesting the command must be continuous? If not, then it is certainly possible to do it at times. If it is possible for a person to be sinless for one minute does in no way mean that he is fulfilling the purpose for which God created him. God created man to love Him all the time, not for a few moments of a day with God dishonoring, God belittling sin in-between. quote: quote: quote: Actually, your pov is rather silly: God created mankind to seek Him, yet "forgot" or "didn't know how" to create the "preference" needed to seek. The very fact that God created mankind to seek Him should be obvious to anyone with on open mind and desire to seek truth that God would NOT create man without the "necessary preference" to do what He created him to do. That is your assumption. But if you think my position is silly than you don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Man is free to do that which he prefers to do; that which he wants to do. Well, did God "forget" to add the ability to seek Him or not? If He created man to seek Him, man HAS the ability to do so. Many don't, and many have. Did God forget to give you the ability to love Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? Did God forget to give you the ability to be sinless and perfect even though he commands us to be perfect? quote: quote: Sin is the issue so it must be mentioned. So you don’t think that sin is diametrically opposed to loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? That is the position that your are putting forth. David was dependent upon the grace of God. He offered sacrifices to God to cover his sin. David knew that he was a sinner before God and had failed to fulfill God’s moral law. David is a great example of one who did not fulfill that which God had created him for and that which God commands. Because of this David was reliant upon the grace of God alone. Did David sin continuously? When he wasn't sinning, but being dependent on the grace of God and offering sacrifices to God to cover his sin, was he loving God with every fiber or not? Please explain. The reason that David and all other OT saints offered Sin Sacrifices to God was because they sinned continuously enough to have to offer the sacrifices. A person that loves God with every fiber of his being will not love anything else above God. That will only happen when we are in heaven with God. God did not make man to love Him some of the time. So even if a person managed to love God with his complete being for a few moments he has not fulfilled the reason for God creating him. quote: Ah, and my point is that no believer sins continuously. So, what are believers doing when they aren't sinning? Why can't you accept that when believers aren't sinning, they are able to love God with every fiber? Again, God created man to love Him continuously, not in starts and spurts. quote: This isn't an "all or nothing" deal, as you seem to think. It is to God. God has created us to love God with every fiber of our being and all of us have refused to do so. The only reason any will end in eternity with God is being justified by faith alone and not because our affections are solely God’s. The genuine Christian who is growing in grace will always see new depths of his sin and, thank God, new depths of God’s grace. With all your heart, mind, soul and strength does not mean spurts of loving God with sins in between. This shows a person with a divided heart. quote: quote: Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. (Ecclesiastes 7:20 NASB95) Exactly my point! It isn't "all or nothing". We all sin, but we don't sin continuously. What are we doing when we aren't sinning? We can be thankful for God's grace alone. God's Law requires 100% obedience, which translates into continously loving Him. What are we doing when we [think] we aren't sinning? Writing posts with sinful attitudes. Exalting self, harboring grudges, self-pity, covetous, etc, etc, etc. . . . . In other words, when are you acting perfectly? Never until we are in heaven. quote: quote: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 NASB95) Yes. Do you sin continuously or occasionally? The more that I grow and grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ the more I know I sin continuously. Sinning is not merely outward actions, but attitudes, thoughts, affections, desires, etc. The exhortation to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus, the fact that we are being transformed from glory to glory, and the fact that we are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God shows us that we are not perfected as of yet. Therefore, we do not love perfectly as God deserves and God requires. Thank God we are justified by faith! quote: quote: Sin is the opposite of loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Sin shows that the heart is divided; that there are preferences to things other than God Himself. Job was someone who sinned and who repented, showing that he too is an example of someone who did not live up to God’s purpose and command to love Him with all your being, but trusted God’s grace and mercy. Again, do you sin continuously or occasionally? see above

steve7150 -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 1:24:24 PM)
quote: Discuss the issues surrounding the teachings of Calvin. I think Calvinism is dead wrong. The few verses that speak of the elect in Christ can mean that it is Christ who is elected from before the foundation of the world and by being in him is how we are elect of God.

umcbee -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 1:54:24 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond SureHope, I am glad you wanted to stay on track with the topic. You have given good solid answers TOO many times to list. The POV FreeGrace tries to give on Romans 3:11......there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.........is something he always points back to Psalms 14 as he claims it only applies to a specific group called fools as non-fools seek God on their own. Psalm 14; 1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. FreeGrace has a very bad habit of never reading further to find out more. Psalm 14 continues; 1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. I guess the text should be clarified? Maybe one day it will be when some free-will translation team writes the free-will edition of the Bible. It might be more like; 1Only the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The fools are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is no fool that doeth good. 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God, and He saw Cornelius seeking. 3They are all gone aside except for Cornelius and all the other people that are not fools, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one, except for Cornelius and all those with a good natured free-will. I am not trying to say things out of line here......so is that SORT of how his POV comes across to you? I am certainly not looking forward to such a translation. KJB We don't need a new translation ; but a little more clarifing seem's in order . Why do you always stop at verse 3 ? Pa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge ? who eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord . Verse 4 carries on the thought of verse 1 and clarifies v.s 2 & 3 . Psalm 53 says exactly the samething . The translation of the KJV is sufficient in explaining both Psalm 14 & 53 to be talking about fools . Psalm 14 also references Psalm 10 , which gives further clarification of who Psalm's 14 & 53 are refering too . FG's POV comes across real clear as to what these Psalm's are refering too : a simple reading of all the texts above instead of just three selected verse's should make it abundantly clear . 14 Thou hast seen it ; for thou beholdest mischief and spite , to requite it with thy hand : the poor committeth himself unto thee ; thou art the helper of the fatherless . 17 Lord , thou hast heard the desire of the humble : thou wilt prepare their heart , thou wilt cause thine ear to hear . _____________________________ kingbee Never let your education get in the way of your learning.

umcbee -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 1:58:14 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond balbas, quote: This Lord's day is shaping out to be a very blessed one. Amen to that! The devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour and it is no wonder; for even Satan himself is able to take the form of an angel of light. KJB Maybe you can explain too me , why under Calvinism is the above Scripture meaningfull ? After all , it serves the devil no purpose in prowling around in seeking anyone to devour : he can't deceive the elect ; there is no need to deceive the reprobate ; God has already condemned them to hell before the foundation of the world . God filled hell with souls even before Satan entered the Garden of Eden , heck , even before the foundation of the world . And since the elect (individually elected before the foundation of the world) are guaranteed salvation , the devil can have no affect on their salvation whatsoever . Under Calvinist theology , God has already done all the devil's work for him : the reprobate don't need deceiving because there's no way they can ever be saved to begin with ; and the elect can never be deceived out of salvation . So what can possibly be the devil's point in seeking anyone to devour ? Or maybe he just don't believe in Calvinism either ? _____________________________

umcbee -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 2:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: steve7150 quote: Discuss the issues surrounding the teachings of Calvin. I think Calvinism is dead wrong. The few verses that speak of the elect in Christ can mean that it is Christ who is elected from before the foundation of the world and by being in him is how we are elect of God. Welcome steve7150 , and Amen !

umcbee -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 2:04:08 PM)
Its no longer a One-Stop Thread : its a two-stop thread now [:o]

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 2:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope As far as this debate goes, it does not mean loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. I asked in a recent post, do you sin continuously, or occasionally? When one is NOT sinning, why can't they be loving God with every fiber? As I said, this isn't a "all or nothing" issue. quote: quote: quote: You are the only one in control of your sinning or not sinning. You can’t blame it on Adam or say, “the devil made me do it.” If you were more than willing to stop sinning you would stop sinning. I blame my sin nature for my sin, as Paul did in Rom 6 and 7. Your last statement here indicates you do not understand the sin nature. I don't want to sin, but my sin nature does. There is a constant battle between my sin nature and my human spirit, as Paul noted. Paul did not blame sin on sin nature in Rom 6, What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Rom 6:1-2 ESV) Why did you stop at v.2? What about v.11-13? Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore (conclusion) do NOT let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do NOT go on presenting the members of your body to sin...". Do you see who is the "cause" of sin here? It is when we "go on presenting our bodies to sin". We are commanded to "not let sin reign" in our bodies. And we are not to continue presenting ourselves to sin. Then, continue to 7:15, "For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do (obedience), but I am doing the very thing I hate (sin)." Where does one's sins come from? The sin nature. quote: We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. (Rom 6:6-7 ESV) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (Rom 6:12-15 ESV) Paul was calling on the will of Christians to stop sinning and live righteously. He is not saying that Christians have an excuse for their sin, quite the opposite. No one makes you sin but yourself. You have free will, remember? Are you saying Paul's command cannot be obeyed by believers? He said to not "go on presenting our bodies to sin". quote: quote: quote: When you sin you are doing the opposite of loving God. What you just admitted is that you are unable to fulfill God’s command to love Him with every fiber of your being. Just thought of something. Are you suggesting the command must be continuous? If not, then it is certainly possible to do it at times. If it is possible for a person to be sinless for one minute does in no way mean that he is fulfilling the purpose for which God created him. God created man to love Him all the time, not for a few moments of a day with God dishonoring, God belittling sin in-between. Why do you insist that man is unable to fulfill the command even some of the time? What Scripture supports that? quote: quote: quote: quote: Actually, your pov is rather silly: God created mankind to seek Him, yet "forgot" or "didn't know how" to create the "preference" needed to seek. The very fact that God created mankind to seek Him should be obvious to anyone with on open mind and desire to seek truth that God would NOT create man without the "necessary preference" to do what He created him to do. That is your assumption. But if you think my position is silly than you don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Man is free to do that which he prefers to do; that which he wants to do. Well, did God "forget" to add the ability to seek Him or not? If He created man to seek Him, man HAS the ability to do so. Many don't, and many have Did God forget to give you the ability to love Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? Did God forget to give you the ability to be sinless and perfect even though he commands us to be perfect? No, He didn't and my point is that when believers aren't sinning, they are able to love Him with every fiber. quote: quote: quote: Sin is the issue so it must be mentioned. So you don’t think that sin is diametrically opposed to loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? That is the position that your are putting forth. David was dependent upon the grace of God. He offered sacrifices to God to cover his sin. David knew that he was a sinner before God and had failed to fulfill God’s moral law. David is a great example of one who did not fulfill that which God had created him for and that which God commands. Because of this David was reliant upon the grace of God alone. Did David sin continuously? When he wasn't sinning, but being dependent on the grace of God and offering sacrifices to God to cover his sin, was he loving God with every fiber or not? Please explain. The reason that David and all other OT saints offered Sin Sacrifices to God was because they sinned continuously enough to have to offer the sacrifices. Hold on. your words "continuously enough" is self contradictory. The word "continuously" doesn't leave room for "enough". We either sin continuously, or we sin less than continuously. Certainly we sin "enough" that we must regularly confess them to God. But you seem confused on the concept by saying "continuously enough". It is either continuous or it isn't. "enough" isn't part of the issue. There is no such thing as "continuously enough". quote: A person that loves God with every fiber of his being will not love anything else above God. That will only happen when we are in heaven with God. God did not make man to love Him some of the time. So even if a person managed to love God with his complete being for a few moments he has not fulfilled the reason for God creating him. You've offered your opinion. Thanks. But I'm interested in what Scripture says. I find nothing that suggests that God is expecting continuous holiness. The command to be holy doesn't demand continuously. We can be holy, and God expects us to be holy. And, as we grow in grace, we WILL sin less and less. That IS God's expectation. I believe that is the point of 2 Pet 3:18, "but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." As the believer grows spiritually, he spends more time being holy than being sinful. That's the point. quote: quote: Ah, and my point is that no believer sins continuously. So, what are believers doing when they aren't sinning? Why can't you accept that when believers aren't sinning, they are able to love God with every fiber? Again, God created man to love Him continuously, not in starts and spurts. For that, I need Scriptural support, not an opinion. quote: quote: This isn't an "all or nothing" deal, as you seem to think. It is to God. God has created us to love God with every fiber of our being and all of us have refused to do so. The only reason any will end in eternity with God is being justified by faith alone and not because our affections are solely God’s. The genuine Christian who is growing in grace will always see new depths of his sin and, thank God, new depths of God’s grace. With all your heart, mind, soul and strength does not mean spurts of loving God with sins in between. This shows a person with a divided heart. Kind of like Paul's "divided" life from Rom 7:15-21. quote: quote: quote: Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. (Ecclesiastes 7:20 NASB95) Exactly my point! It isn't "all or nothing". We all sin, but we don't sin continuously. What are we doing when we aren't sinning? We can be thankful for God's grace alone. God's Law requires 100% obedience, which translates into continously loving Him. I've never seen the phrase "100% obedience" in Scripture. Where do you find it? I think you are injecting your opinion here. quote: What are we doing when we [think] we aren't sinning? Writing posts with sinful attitudes. Exalting self, harboring grudges, self-pity, covetous, etc, etc, etc. . . . . In other words, when are you acting perfectly? Never until we are in heaven. So you are saying that believers sin continuously? Is that your pov? quote: quote: quote: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 NASB95) Yes. Do you sin continuously or occasionally? The more that I grow and grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ the more I know I sin continuously. Apparently so. [sm=popsigh.gif] quote: Sinning is not merely outward actions, but attitudes, thoughts, affections, desires, etc. The exhortation to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus, the fact that we are being transformed from glory to glory, and the fact that we are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God shows us that we are not perfected as of yet. Therefore, we do not love perfectly as God deserves and God requires. Thank God we are justified by faith! This issue is not about perfection "yet". Of course that occurs in eternity. But on earth, we are commanded and expected to spend less and less time in sin, and more time being holy. Your apparent pov that believers sin continuously is not supported in the Bible. If you can show clear support for that, please do. I think the reformed pov fails to understand the spiritual life of the believer. quote: quote: quote: Sin is the opposite of loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Sin shows that the heart is divided; that there are preferences to things other than God Himself. Job was someone who sinned and who repented, showing that he too is an example of someone who did not live up to God’s purpose and command to love Him with all your being, but trusted God’s grace and mercy. Again, do you sin continuously or occasionally? see above Even though you apparently do sin continuously, that is not what the Christian life is about. I think you need to study the issue quite a bit more until you realize that the growing believer will sin less and less. Though all of us are corrupted with sin, that doesn't mean that we continuously sin. Until you can show me very clear Scriptural support for that, I cannot accept it as anything other than your opinion.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 2:17:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: umcbee quote: quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond balbas, quote: This Lord's day is shaping out to be a very blessed one. Amen to that! The devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour and it is no wonder; for even Satan himself is able to take the form of an angel of light. KJB Maybe you can explain too me , why under Calvinism is the above Scripture meaningfull ? After all , it serves the devil no purpose in prowling around in seeking anyone to devour : he can't deceive the elect ; there is no need to deceive the reprobate ; God has already condemned them to hell before the foundation of the world . God filled hell with souls even before Satan entered the Garden of Eden , heck , even before the foundation of the world . And since the elect (individually elected before the foundation of the world) are guaranteed salvation , the devil can have no affect on their salvation whatsoever . Under Calvinist theology , God has already done all the devil's work for him : the reprobate don't need deceiving because there's no way they can ever be saved to begin with ; and the elect can never be deceived out of salvation . Excellent point, Bee! quote: So what can possibly be the devil's point in seeking anyone to devour ? Or maybe he just don't believe in Calvinism either ? Obviously, he doensn't, or he wouldn't bother "seeking whom to devour". Also, from John 8:24, Jesus doesn't believe in Calvinism either, or He wouldn't have bothered warning the "non-elect" and even giving them the potential solution to their problem!

tdd1975 -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 4:26:28 PM)
quote: We don't need a new translation ; but a little more clarifing seem's in order . Why do you always stop at verse 3 ? Pa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge ? who eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord . Verse 4 carries on the thought of verse 1 and clarifies v.s 2 & 3 . Psalm 53 says exactly the samething . Have you ever been in the class of men described as "workers of iniquity"? If you answer yes then you were one of those fools the bible is describing. You were not seeking God and did not deserve more light to be revealed to you as Free erroneously asserts. To claim other wise is to say that you were never a worker of iniquity. It is to deny being a sinner.

tdd1975 -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 4:33:12 PM)
quote: So what can possibly be the devil's point in seeking anyone to devour ? Or maybe he just don't believe in Calvinism either ? quote: Obviously, he doensn't, or he wouldn't bother "seeking whom to devour". Also, from John 8:24, Jesus doesn't believe in Calvinism either, or He wouldn't have bothered warning the "non-elect" and even giving them the potential solution to their problem! Guys, I don't think I would brag to much about having the same theology as the Devil. [;)]

kelman -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 4:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: kelman I disagree with your pov on an issue - only in your world does that make it "too difficult for me to grasp". This is the same ploy you continually use on anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you do grasp my pov, why haven't you been accurate when you attempt to characterize it, then? It certainly appears that you haven't grasped it. You use the same disparaging remarks so often you don't even realize in what context. One of your "latest" snipe was the following: FreeGrace said quote: You fail to recognize the fact that God created creatures, both angelic and mankind, with freedom to act and choose. That means that what is chosen by man or angel was caused by man or angel. I suspect that is too difficult for you to grasp. So who was mischaracterizing your pov here, FG?...no one, that's who. Nope, you just took another opportunity to snipe and imply stupidity about someone who disagrees with your pov - your usual ploy. Gotta tell you something, all this does is speak volumes about YOU - no one else. quote: quote: And, btw, more disingenuousness on your part. There isn't the slightest indication anywhere of KJB not knowing the difference between a narrative and a parable - that's just more of your "stupid" insinuations. He said whether John 8:24 was a parable or not was not important. What does that mean to you? What it means is obvious to anyone without a "stupid" agenda. Whether something is or is not a parable does not mean you don't know the difference between a parable and a narrative and you know darn well it doesn't. He was simply indicating that the principle is the SAME because Christ preached to those He KNEW would not believe when He taught in parables as He was doing in John 8:24; and, I might add in many other passages as well. quote: quote: It was obvious to anyone, without your agenda of insinuating other people are stupid, what he was saying. He made his point using the example of Christ speaking in parables: "Some of these people were given no understanding and yet He still spoke to them in parables that He knew they were not grasping." But the point is that Christ told His elect disciples that they were given understanding. So, why haven't any of the elect reformed ones been able to understand WHY Jesus said what He said in John 8:24? Hasn't Jesus given you the understanding of that verse? How cute, FG. The "understanding" of Jn 8:24 is plain and simple - apparently, though, it looks like Jesus didn't give you the understanding.

shemaromans -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 5:06:33 PM)
FG, Why do you insist on repeating that the RT view can't answer you question regarding John 8:24? I answered it below, and Kelman replied with support. That's two RT posters that have answered your question. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: shemaromans Thank you for reposting the information and your questions, FreeGrace, and thank you for bringing up this passage. I enjoyed spending time with it this afternoon. Please, please, please do not chop up my post and write twenty times "WHY haven't you answered the question?" I share my conclusion at the end of the post. In the meantime, I tried to explain what I think about the scripture since you've said that you appreciate such commentary (hopefully I was successful). John 8 I Am the Light of the World 12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true." 14Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. 17In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. 18I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." 19They [the Pharisees] said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also." 20These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come. 21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." 27They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father. 28So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. 29And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him." 30As he was saying these things, many believed in him. Jesus is reminding them (“I told you…”) of the times that he did tell them about himself and his purpose on earth. They didn’t believe him or get it. They immediately respond by asking who he is. They still don’t get it. He responds, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” So we see that he’s already told them in the past who he is and what the consequence will be for not believing in him. ****** Why did Jesus warn this group? I don’t see it as a warning. Instead, what Jesus is doing is reminding them about what he went around telling everyone during his ministry. To have eternal life, they must believe in him. Let’s look again at the text before and after the verse: 21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." He’s telling them what will happen. 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" They don’t understand what he’s saying. 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." He’s reminding them of what he’s already told them--that he’s God. 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Evidence that they still didn’t understand. Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. This sentence shows that Jesus really had been telling them all along. Another reminder. (I have no idea how he could be that patient!) 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." Declare to the world. That last bit shows me that Jesus repeated himself to the scribes, Pharisees, and the Jews in general on multiple occasions so that the external call of salvation—the gospel—would be made known to everyone. The Jews heard it, and the writers of the gospels recorded it for both the Jews and the Gentiles. I still want to study this more, but for now, I see that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world. If I've written clearly but you disagree, then I suspect the problem might be in that you consider Jesus' comment to be a warning and I do not. I'll answer your other questions probably tomorrow of the next day. I'm sleepy! quote: We see similiar action on the part of Christ in John 6. He is teaching the multitudes and disciples in Capernaum as He explains that He is the "bread from heaven" and that they must believe on Him. He teaches all these knowing precisely those who will not believe - still He teaches "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." It is exactly as you say "that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world." Christ teaches and explains the Gospel even to those whose eyes are blind, whose ears are not opened and whose heart is stony. You asked why and we gave you a Biblically supported reason: Jesus repeated to the Jews that they had to believe in Him in order to receive salvation. He did this because (the reason why) his ministry included revealing God's plan of salvation, establishing the gospel, and declaring it to the world. Why do you think that we haven't answered the question? How did we not answer it. Instead of making accusations that all RT pov'ers can't answer the question and from that erroneous claim proclaiming unto the entire forums that RT is seriously flawed, please counter with your reason(s) for why you think we haven't answered that question. I know there are a couple of more specific questions that you've asked that I still need to address, but how have kelman and I not answered the original, first question?

Eric B -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 5:10:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman quote: ORIGINAL: Eric B quote: God "scripted" the Crucifixion, we see this in both the OT and the NT. Yet, God still says the evildoers are accountable. How do you explain that? We see God “scripted” the exodus from Eygpt. Yet, God still held Pharoah accountable. How do you explain that? That does not say He "chose" the individual, and shut out any chance of him being saved, because he happened to be the one God "needed" for that act. With enough wicked in the world, including people being hardened for persistant sin and refusal to repent, God would not have to preordain individuals to engage in the crucifixion or any other prophetic wicked act. And like Pharaoh, their "blinding" that Christ spoke of beforehand was in part to give them the courage to carry it out. You say God "wouldn't have to" but the point is He did. We see the prophesy concerning Judas in the OT(Psalm 41:9). Obviously, none of the other wicked would qualify. If a prophecy is certain to happen then it must be ordained. That actually doesn't specify the individual soul Judas. Anyone could have fallen into that place. quote: quote: quote: Do you think God has changed how He deals with man? I hope so. Wouldn't want to be still under the Law! Cute...but not responsive to what I actually said. Unless, of course you do think that God no longer punishes sin. Not about punishing sin, but the fact that this is called "the Gospel" means that if God did everything the same as in the OT, we would all be lost. quote: quote: But then again, accountability for man would have no meaning. Actually, God insists that man is accountable. God determined the crucifixion of Christ, the evildoers chose to sin according to their nature and inclinations and God holds them accountable. And then life is just a ploy of God to condemn most people to Hell and say it was their fault, but calling them "accountable", when they were really "helpless". quote: quote: quote: Yes, I agree they were representing the nations; but, still as individuals they were chosen. Esau represents the nations which God hates, those who are not elect and Jacob represents the elect that which God loves. They are, as you say, “representative” obviously God saves people in all nations. But, we still can’t get passed the fact that Jacob was individually elected and Esau was not. But you're jumping things from one thing to another. This passage has been used to prove that God hates individuals, and then scripts a sequence of events to justify burning them in Hell. The personal "election" of either Jacob or Esau is nowhere mentioned. Because; it's about the use of the nations springing forth from them to bring forth the Savior; not about personal salvation at that point. That's what that Savior would be for). The fact that the passage says that "before either had done good or evil" is clear indication God is speaking of individuals. No one is "scripting" a sequence of events to justify anything; but, it does appear you are attempting to "script" your way out of what is very clear - the election of individuals. And now you've jumped back again. For "before they were born" says nothing about them going to Heaven or Hell. It is about them being chosen to bring forth the nation of God's people and the Messiah. The passage is describing two individuals, from whom would come two nations, which would symbolize the elect and the unsaved. We all started out in the non-chosen nation, and crossed over to the chosen nation at one point. You're taking the individuals as being elected to Heaven or Hell, and jumping this to the symbolic groups of people using the "before they were born", but that referred to those two individuals only, and what it means for the spiritual nations is that Israel is not being declared "not my people" and the Gentiles "my people" because of any sin or righteousness they did. (After all, they all sinned). Paul is not describing any group or category called "all who shall be in Hell" at that point, so you can't switch the language to that end. quote: quote: quote: They're probably deciding that because of the explosion of the carnal Christian doctrine. A doctrine gone so far astray of Scripture it teaches that if a man once "believed" it makes no difference if were to walk away from God even so far as to die an atheist - still he is saved. Yea; but that does not give anyone the license to up the ante and demand a certain amount of works, else, you are not saved. We warn people about faking and examining themselves, and that's it. I agree no one has a right to demand "enough" works; but, tell me, do they have a list or something? Check the Washer thread. People did claim he listed a bunch of sins as the basis of them not being saved. quote: quote: quote: How does unconditional election and limited atonement depend upon God supposedly giving a "false faith"? I don't see the connection. Because that is to explain people "falling away"; who seemed genuilely saved at one point. Still, I don't think generally God gives "false" faith. Man does a good enough job of that himself. I say generally because we do see God sends a false delusion in 2Thes 2:11. And that isn't to people who "thought" they had faith. quote: quote: quote: I’m not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying it wasn’t God’s plan that Adam would sin? Scripture speaks of Christ as the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world and believers’ names being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. Please explain this if you don’t think it was God’s plan that Adam should sin? And, if all this is true, and it is, then how is God “not” the primary cause of sin? So now, you're saying He is the primary cause of sin? I though most [non-hyper] Calvinists denied that. Then you are mistaken. That God is the primary cause of sin is not disputed by Reformed Theology. OK; well I'm used to debating with "Calvi-Baptists", then. They dress it up more to look like nonreformed theology, and deny stuff like "double predestination", "supralapsarianism", "God as cause of sin", etc. As for this ongoing circular debate on John 8:24, the reformists might as well just end it by going on and confessing that God is in fact taunting the non-elect. (part of the "condemnation for His glory" as per Rom.9; just like Pharaoh). One of you has even come close to admitting that. Luther did say that part of God, in commanding what man cannot do was "deservedly taunting and mocking...His proud enemies" (Bondage of the Will). Goes right along with Calvin's "God giving false faith", and now people say he was wrong on that. Why do the Reformists seem to be avoiding owning up to all of this? Perhaps the same reason non-Calvinists reject the entire doctrine altogether?

SureHope -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 5:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope You have major problems with you statement, “since you continue to think that it is ‘sin’ that dishonors God.” I guess you think “sin” honors God? You seem to be having "major problems" understanding my statements. Your silly conclusion is baseless, that I think that sin honors God. The issue from Rom 1 is that ignoring and not seeking God is what dishonors Him, in spite of His making His existence clearly seen to everyone. I was merely commenting on you statement which was inferring that I was wrong in thinking that sin dishonors God. So my conclusion was not silly or baseless. The issue from Rom 1 is not seeking God at all. There is no comment about seeking God and anyone who thinks so has to add it to the text. quote: quote: Seeking God denotes that someone does not know Him. No, seeking God denotes that the person has become aware of the existen ce of god and His power, nature, and attributes and wants to know more. You disagree with me that seeking God denotes that someone does not know Him? Why would someone seek that which he already knows? Our sin has separated us from God, thus we don’t know God in truth and thus the need to seek Him. It is only sinners (all of us) who have a need to seek God. Romans 1 speaks of God revealing Himself in creation and man choosing not to honor Him as the God that He has revealed Himself to be and give thanks to Him. Your seeking theory is not found in Romans 1 whatsoever. quote: No one seeks that which they are unaware of. Such as fools, who claim there is no God. Such ones do not seek Him, as Psa 14 and 53 state. All are aware of God because He has made himself evident to all. That is why all are without excuse for their God dishonoring sin. All are fools for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. quote: quote: Why is it that someone does not know God? The reason men do not know God is because of sin. The ONLY reason people don't know God is because they fail to seek Him. Because, if they did seek Him, as the Scriptures promise, they WILL find Him. I agree with that statement from the responsibility of man vantage point. But I will add – the only reason that people do know God is because God has given them light to see the glory of Christ in the gospel. quote: quote: Even though God has revealed Himself in creation, man has chosen not to honor Him as God (many believe that God exists, but do not honor Him as the God that He has revealed Himself to be in creation) or give thanks. All are without excuse for Sin. The essence of sin is being God dishonoring. No, all are without excuse for not seeking Him. Since you and completely disagree on what we are without excuse, there is no reason to continue this endless discussion. Romans 1 does not say all are without excuse for not seeking Him, but all are without excuse for not honoring Him as God and giving thanks. There is a very big difference between the two.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 5:44:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tdd1975 quote: So what can possibly be the devil's point in seeking anyone to devour ? Or maybe he just don't believe in Calvinism either ? quote: Obviously, he doensn't, or he wouldn't bother "seeking whom to devour". Also, from John 8:24, Jesus doesn't believe in Calvinism either, or He wouldn't have bothered warning the "non-elect" and even giving them the potential solution to their problem! Guys, I don't think I would brag to much about having the same theology as the Devil. [;)] You mean you don't think the Devil is more knowledgable than the rest of us as to God's plan for mankind? Recall what James noted about the demons: "the demons also believe, and shudder". Frankly, the point that Bee and I have made should make you shudder, in light of your theology.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 5:55:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace He said whether John 8:24 was a parable or not was not important. What does that mean to you? What it means is obvious to anyone without a "stupid" agenda. Whether something is or is not a parable does not mean you don't know the difference between a parable and a narrative and you know darn well it doesn't. He was simply indicating that the principle is the SAME because Christ preached to those He KNEW would not believe when He taught in parables as He was doing in John 8:24; and, I might add in many other passages as well. What he "indicated" is not relevant to my question of WHY Jesus would warn the "non-elect", nor WHY He would even say to them, "unless you believe that I am He", since, if reformed theology were true, Jesus would have clearly known they were NOT chosen for the gift of faith. Why can't YOU explain that? quote: quote: quote: It was obvious to anyone, without your agenda of insinuating other people are stupid, what he was saying. He made his point using the example of Christ speaking in parables: "Some of these people were given no understanding and yet He still spoke to them in parables that He knew they were not grasping." But the point is that Christ told His elect disciples that they were given understanding. So, why haven't any of the elect reformed ones been able to understand WHY Jesus said what He said in John 8:24? Hasn't Jesus given you the understanding of that verse? How cute, FG. The "understanding" of Jn 8:24 is plain and simple - apparently, though, it looks like Jesus didn't give you the understanding. Well, I'm glad that finally somebody from the reformed side says the understanding is plain and simple. Since it is to you, why haven't you explained it? I've sure asked enough times for someone from the reformed side to. Just to make sure: please explain WHY Jesus would bother telling the "non-elect" that they are going to "die in their sins", since they have been "prepared for destruction", per Rom 9:22. Also, explain WHY Jesus said to the "non-elect", "unless you believe that I am He". If they are not of the "elect", explain WHY Jesus even brought up the potential of them believing, by the phrase "unless you believe". Finally, please explain WHY Jesus would tell a group of "pre-faith elect" that "unless you believe in Me you shall die in your sins". Do you think that one of the elect is EVER in danger of dying in their sins? If not, then WHY would Jesus say that to one of the "pre-faith elect"? btw, we know that from v.30 and 31, many actually did come to faith in Christ during His speaking to them, so it should be apparent to all that Jesus was addressing both "non-elect" and "pre-faith elect". Now, can you explain WHY would say what He did to either group, in light of your own theology? Thanks.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 6:06:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shemaromans FG, Why do you insist on repeating that the RT view can't answer you question regarding John 8:24? I answered it below, and Kelman replied with support. That's two RT posters that have answered your question. {I deleted the bulk of the post to "save" screen space} You asked why and we gave you a Biblically supported reason: Jesus repeated to the Jews that they had to believe in Him in order to receive salvation. In spite of your insisting that you have answered my question, this does NOT andwer it. I asked a WHY question, and you gave me a simple statement, "Jesus repeated to the Jews that they had to believe in Him in order to receifve salvation". OK, fine. He sure did say that. But my question was WHY He said what he said to the group he said it to. You need to explain WHY He told the "non-elect" that must believe in Him to receive salvation, when the reformed pov is that they are "prepared for destruction" per Rom 9:22. Why the potential of believing when the reformed claimed that Christ never died for them. So why tell them to believe, if Christ hadn't died for them? Can you explain this? Or, WHY did Jesus tell the "pre-faith elect" they were going to die in their sin, since the reformed pov is that the elect CANNOT ever be in danger of dying in their sins, since Christ DID die for them. Can you answer and explain these questions? So far, none of the reformed have. quote: He did this because (the reason why) his ministry included revealing God's plan of salvation, establishing the gospel, and declaring it to the world. I'm fully aware of that. But that does NOT answer the WHY questions, in light of reformed theology. Can YOU explain it? quote: Why do you think that we haven't answered the question? How did we not answer it. Instead of making accusations that all RT pov'ers can't answer the question and from that erroneous claim proclaiming unto the entire forums that RT is seriously flawed, please counter with your reason(s) for why you think we haven't answered that question. I say you haven't answered it because, well, how do I put this gently: you didn't answer it. I asked WHY questions. None of you have answered the WHY. Several of you have given statements, but none of them address the WHY. quote: I know there are a couple of more specific questions that you've asked that I still need to address, but how have kelman and I not answered the original, first question? My "original question" regarding John 8:24 has always been WHY did Jesus say what He said to either the "non-elect" or to the "pre-faith elect". Can you address both groups and explain WHY He said what He said, in light of your own theology? As I try to understand John 8:24 from the reformed perspective, I just cannot imagine WHY Jesus said what He said. From our human perspective, none of us know who the elect are, so we cannot speculate on who is or is not the elect, but Jesus, being fully God, and fully omniscient, clearly knows who the elect and non-elect are. So, in light of that, and your theology, please explain WHY Jesus said what He did to both groups.

kelman -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 6:13:45 PM)
quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace Does Acts 13:48 address the "cause" of the Gentiles believing? It does say they were "tasso", which has a rather wide usage. But, since God isn't in the text, what support do you have for God being the "cause" in Acts 13:48? Do you see how silly your defense is in Acts 10 about "cause"? Then this has you ordaining yourself for eternal life....don't think even you can do that. No, since "tasso" doesn't have as its root meaning "to ordain/appoint". The rroot meaning is "to line up, to set up in a line", and comes from a military usage. What the Gentiles did was "line up" to hear about eternal life. This is very clear from the text, esp note v.43 and 44. The text clearly supports the idea that they were very interested in the words (gospel) of Paul and of eternal life. Yes, it does have you ordaining yourself to eternal life. After all, the verse doesn't say they are lined-up "to hear". It says they are tasso'd TO ETERNAL LIFE. quote: quote: Please pay attention to what Christ said concerning the second soil "and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have". Whyever would you make such a comparison? Clearly there are believers and some who only think they are...Christ is perfectly clear on that in Scripture. Your answer fails to address what John actually wrote. There is NO HINT of these believers "only thinking they had believed". And I have paid attention to what Jesus said in Luke 8:12,13. He equated believing with being saved, and said the second soil believed. The "for a while" is irrelevant to being saved. True, in your theology it is irrelevant - but not to Christ since He took the time to explain about the second soil "and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have". In addition, you continually ignore Christ told us that the second soil has NO ROOT. Don't you realize that Christ is the "Root"?...therefore, the second soil did not have Christ, iow, they were NOT saved. quote: quote: You remind me of a dog with a bone. What's the big deal? Christ taught this way throughout His ministry. You're not making any great theological point as you seem to think you are. Christ often said very similar things in a number of different settings "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" is very similar to John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,". Why can't you give a simple explanation of WHY Jesus told the "non-elect" that they would die in their sins unless they believed in Him? I have, you just don't recognize an answer when you see it. This is how Christ taught. He preached the Gospel to the elect and to the NON-elect just as we are to preach the Gospel to everyone even, though, we UNLIKE Christ do not know who the non-elect are. Now, you can go ahead and make a free will interpretation all you want; but, the fact remains, Christ does not speak of their free will. He is simply teaching the Gospel to ALL in Jn 8:24 as He does the same elsewhere. quote: quote: As KJB pointed out when Christ spoke in parable those people didn't understand His teaching either. This is simply more of the same - preaching to people who don't understand. But, WHY would Jesus use "potential" with the "non-elect"? From your perspective, that doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to understand your theology, but you aren't helping. And there are NO parables in John 8, so that is no defense. No matter how many times you insist, the facts say differently than you - no one SAID there was a parable in Jn 8. This is how Christ taught throughout His entire ministry - it's just that simple. Really no reason for you to force your theology upon the verse. quote: You need to face the fact that the phrase "unless you believe that I am He" is a potential. iow, IF they believed in Him, THEN they wouldn't "die in their sins". Rather, it is you who need to face the fact that all you're doing is forcing your theology on verses with your opinions about "potential". quote: WHY would Jesus say that to the "non-elect" who the reformed consider to be "prepared for destruction" anyway? You seem to think that Christ was going about separating the "sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares" every time He preached...why is that? Don't you realize He does this on the "last day"?

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 6:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope You have major problems with you statement, “since you continue to think that it is ‘sin’ that dishonors God.” I guess you think “sin” honors God? You seem to be having "major problems" understanding my statements. Your silly conclusion is baseless, that I think that sin honors God. The issue from Rom 1 is that ignoring and not seeking God is what dishonors Him, in spite of His making His existence clearly seen to everyone. I was merely commenting on you statement which was inferring that I was wrong in thinking that sin dishonors God. So my conclusion was not silly or baseless. The issue from Rom 1 is not seeking God at all. There is no comment about seeking God and anyone who thinks so has to add it to the text. quote: quote: Seeking God denotes that someone does not know Him. No, seeking God denotes that the person has become aware of the existen ce of god and His power, nature, and attributes and wants to know more. You disagree with me that seeking God denotes that someone does not know Him? Why would someone seek that which he already knows? Knowing that someone exists cannot be equivalent to "knowing the person". You and I are aware of many people, but do we "know" them? If you are married, were you aware of your (future) wife's existence before you pursued her? Of course you had to have been aware of her existence before you pursued her. How could even pursue her if you weren't aware of her existence? Your points are not making any sense. quote: Our sin has separated us from God, thus we don’t know God in truth and thus the need to seek Him. It is only sinners (all of us) who have a need to seek God. That's true. And that's why God made Himself evident to us; so we would seek Him. quote: quote: quote: Why is it that someone does not know God? The reason men do not know God is because of sin. The ONLY reason people don't know God is because they fail to seek Him. Because, if they did seek Him, as the Scriptures promise, they WILL find Him. I agree with that statement from the responsibility of man vantage point. But I will add – the only reason that people do know God is because God has given them light to see the glory of Christ in the gospel. I fully agree with this. God gives "initial" light in the form of His existence, so men will be aware of Him, and "perhaps" seek Him, per Acts 17:27. Those who respond to that are given more, as we have seen from Cornelius and the angel. quote: quote: quote: Even though God has revealed Himself in creation, man has chosen not to honor Him as God (many believe that God exists, but do not honor Him as the God that He has revealed Himself to be in creation) or give thanks. All are without excuse for Sin. The essence of sin is being God dishonoring. No, all are without excuse for not seeking Him. Since you and completely disagree on what we are without excuse, there is no reason to continue this endless discussion. Romans 1 does not say all are without excuse for not seeking Him, but all are without excuse for not honoring Him as God and giving thanks. There is a very big difference between the two. That's why this discussion must end. I am convinced that "honoring Him as God and giving thanks" is what seeking God is all about. Just what Cornelius demonstrated.

kelman -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 6:34:37 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace ORIGINAL: kelman If you're so willing why don't you stop sinning? No one's forcing you to....whatever. Nope, you're simply doing what you desire to do. With a "new heart", no less. I am willing to stop, but my sin nature isn't. LOL....nope, your sin nature isn't "forcing" you to sin. You sin for one reason, just like everyone else does, because AT THAT TIME you choose sinning over obedience to God. quote: quote: quote: Actually, thanks for pointing this out. I have been the one to repeatedly ask the reformists about the next 6 verses that Paul quoted from the OT after v.10-12. Since the reformed pov is that 3:10-12 speaks of no one in the human race seeking God, what do you do with the other 6 quotes from the OT. Do ALL of them also refer to the entire human race? And you have repeatedly been given the answer. Not. So, you apply each and every verse from 13 to 18 as applying to each and every person in history? Are your feet "swift to shed blood"? Wow! Christ says they are, why don't you believe Him? I am guilty of murder when I've been angry at my brother. In addition, have you not heard if we commit one sin we are guilty of them all? So, yes, FG, if you've committed one sin, and I assume you have, you are guilty of being "swift to shed blood".

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 6:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kelman quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace Does Acts 13:48 address the "cause" of the Gentiles believing? It does say they were "tasso", which has a rather wide usage. But, since God isn't in the text, what support do you have for God being the "cause" in Acts 13:48? Do you see how silly your defense is in Acts 10 about "cause"? Then this has you ordaining yourself for eternal life....don't think even you can do that. No, since "tasso" doesn't have as its root meaning "to ordain/appoint". The rroot meaning is "to line up, to set up in a line", and comes from a military usage. What the Gentiles did was "line up" to hear about eternal life. This is very clear from the text, esp note v.43 and 44. The text clearly supports the idea that they were very interested in the words (gospel) of Paul and of eternal life. Yes, it does have you ordaining yourself to eternal life. After all, the verse doesn't say they are lined-up "to hear". It says they are tasso'd TO ETERNAL LIFE. I wish you would read more closely. I addressed that, kelman. Did you bother reading v.43 and 44? What do they say? Those verses show that the Gentiles were very interesting in eternal life, which is what Paul was preaching. By their literally begging him to return the next Sabbath, and "nearly the whole town turned out", I think it's quite safe to conclude that they were very interested in eternal life. THAT is what they were "lining up" for. quote: quote: quote: Please pay attention to what Christ said concerning the second soil "and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have". Whyever would you make such a comparison? Clearly there are believers and some who only think they are...Christ is perfectly clear on that in Scripture. Your answer fails to address what John actually wrote. There is NO HINT of these believers "only thinking they had believed". And I have paid attention to what Jesus said in Luke 8:12,13. He equated believing with being saved, and said the second soil believed. The "for a while" is irrelevant to being saved. True, in your theology it is irrelevant - but not to Christ since He took the time to explain about the second soil "and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have". In addition, you continually ignore Christ told us that the second soil has NO ROOT. Don't you realize that Christ is the "Root"?...therefore, the second soil did not have Christ, iow, they were NOT saved. Are you still going to use your defense of "no root"? Read all 3 parables. If you agree that plants #2 and #3 demonstrated initial growth out of the ground, you HAVE to conclude they had a root. The phrase "no root" is understood by NASB translators as "had no firm root". Unless you claim to be smarter than them, you have no point. Further, the very parable shows that they sprouted out of the ground. How can a plant sprout out of the ground if there is NO ROOT? quote: quote: quote: You remind me of a dog with a bone. What's the big deal? Christ taught this way throughout His ministry. You're not making any great theological point as you seem to think you are. Christ often said very similar things in a number of different settings "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" is very similar to John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,". Why can't you give a simple explanation of WHY Jesus told the "non-elect" that they would die in their sins unless they believed in Him? I have, you just don't recognize an answer when you see it. This is how Christ taught. He preached the Gospel to the elect and to the NON-elect just as we are to preach the Gospel to everyone even, though, we UNLIKE Christ do not know who the non-elect are. I always recognize a non-answer. Where do you address the WHY. You haven't. I'm sure you see your dilemma and you cannot answer the WHY question. Jesus is fully omniscient. Explain WHY He would tell the "non-elect" the solution to dying in their sins is "unless you believe that I am He". What point was there? They were "prepared for destruction", remember? And WHY the potential of "unless" since he would have fully known they were of the "non-elect" and wouldn't be given the gift of faith. Also, your theology says that Christ didn't die for them. So even if they believed, they would still die in their sins. You have NOT answered that. Nor have you answered the WHY question of telling "pre-faith elect" that they will die in their sins, since Christ died for their sins. Can it really be said that the "pre-faith elect" are in danger of dying in their sins? Can the elect die in their sins? Your theology says "absolutely not". Therefore, WHY would Jesus say that to the "pre-faith elect"? quote: Now, you can go ahead and make a free will interpretation all you want; but, the fact remains, Christ does not speak of their free will. He is simply teaching the Gospel to ALL in Jn 8:24 as He does the same elsewhere. Why, though, in light of your reformed theology. As humans, we cannot know who is elect or not, so we "preach to every creature". But He certainly knows who is and isn't. Can you answer WHY He said what He said to both groups? quote: quote: quote: As KJB pointed out when Christ spoke in parable those people didn't understand His teaching either. This is simply more of the same - preaching to people who don't understand. But, WHY would Jesus use "potential" with the "non-elect"? From your perspective, that doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to understand your theology, but you aren't helping. And there are NO parables in John 8, so that is no defense. No matter how many times you insist, the facts say differently than you - no one SAID there was a parable in Jn 8. Fine. Now, can you answer the WHY questions that are created and demanded in light of your own theology? quote: This is how Christ taught throughout His entire ministry - it's just that simple. Really no reason for you to force your theology upon the verse. Why can't simply apply your own theology to the verse and explain WhY Jesus said what He did to the "non-elect" and to the "pre-faith elect"? [quyote] quote: You need to face the fact that the phrase "unless you believe that I am He" is a potential. iow, IF they believed in Him, THEN they wouldn't "die in their sins". Rather, it is you who need to face the fact that all you're doing is forcing your theology on verses with your opinions about "potential". So, you deny that the phrase "unless you believe" suggests a potential for avoiding the problem of dying in your sins? Please explain why you deny that "unless" isn't a potential. Jesus basically gave them options. They could die in their sins. Or, they could avoid it by believing in Him. How is that NOT a potential? quote: quote: WHY would Jesus say that to the "non-elect" who the reformed consider to be "prepared for destruction" anyway? You seem to think that Christ was going about separating the "sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares" every time He preached...why is that? Don't you realize He does this on the "last day"? You still haven't answered the WHY questions. We humans do not know who the elect and non-elect are, but Jesus certainly does know who He died for. So, in light of your theology that Christ died only for the elect, WHY did He say what He said to either group? From your theology, I see no point or purpose. From your theology, I DO see a mean and cruel taunt to the "non-elect", who cannot believe and whom Christ did not die for. otoh, telling the "pre-faith elect" that they will die in their sins unless they believe in Him seems rather meaningless, since, being the elect, from your pov, they cannot die in their sins, and they WILL believe.

KingJamesBond -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 7:10:13 PM)
umcbee, quote: Maybe you can explain too me , why under Calvinism is the above Scripture meaningfull ? After all , it serves the devil no purpose in prowling around in seeking anyone to devour : he can't deceive the elect ; there is no need to deceive the reprobate ; God has already condemned them to hell before the foundation of the world . God filled hell with souls even before Satan entered the Garden of Eden , heck , even before the foundation of the world . And since the elect (individually elected before the foundation of the world) are guaranteed salvation , the devil can have no affect on their salvation whatsoever . Under Calvinist theology , God has already done all the devil's work for him : the reprobate don't need deceiving because there's no way they can ever be saved to begin with ; and the elect can never be deceived out of salvation . So what can possibly be the devil's point in seeking anyone to devour ? Or maybe he just don't believe in Calvinism either ? Like I posted; 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. and' 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." KJB

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 8:00:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond umcbee, quote: Maybe you can explain too me , why under Calvinism is the above Scripture meaningfull ? After all , it serves the devil no purpose in prowling around in seeking anyone to devour : he can't deceive the elect ; there is no need to deceive the reprobate ; God has already condemned them to hell before the foundation of the world . God filled hell with souls even before Satan entered the Garden of Eden , heck , even before the foundation of the world . And since the elect (individually elected before the foundation of the world) are guaranteed salvation , the devil can have no affect on their salvation whatsoever . Under Calvinist theology , God has already done all the devil's work for him : the reprobate don't need deceiving because there's no way they can ever be saved to begin with ; and the elect can never be deceived out of salvation . So what can possibly be the devil's point in seeking anyone to devour ? Or maybe he just don't believe in Calvinism either ? Like I posted; 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. and' 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."KJB As usual, there is no answer to the question. Bee asked a very clear question of WHY the devil would prowl around seeking whom to devour, since, according to reformed theology, God already separated the goats from the sheep "before the foundation of the world". The so-called "non-elect" cannot believe, and already are under Satan's control, and the so-called "elect" are totally protected from Satan's grasp. It seems real clear that Satan is totally unaware of calvinism. Yet, instead of answering Bee's question, KJB decided to quote some verses that do not answer the question, and he fails to provide the source, other than verse #s. As if that identifies the passage. KJB, do you have any idea as to WHY Jesus would tell those for whom He did NOT die, according to your theology, that they would die in their sins UNLESS they believed in Him"? If a "non-elect" WERE to believe in Him, for whom Christ did not die, would they avoid dying in their sin? Seems clear to me that Jesus was giving these unbelievers an opportunity to believe in Him. But your theology claims He didn't die for everyone, so WHY would He say that to a crowd, since not everyone in that crowd believed in Him? For a theology to be credible it MUST be able to answer the questions that it creates. To date, reformed theology hasn't answered the WHY questions. It is not a credible theology.

KingJamesBond -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (8/12/2008 9:26:51 PM)
FreeGrace, Did you even read the Scripture text or did you just skip over it as fast as you could so you could post a quick rebuke to me even though I provided clear text? There is simply no pleasing you at all. I provide Scripture text and I am rebuked for it. When I provide my own comments I am rebuked for those also. When I provide the comments of others like from the WCF I am rebuked for those also. Do you suppose the text I gave shows that the devil is going to devour His sheep? There is just no way you could read my response that was given with Scripture text and say; "Hey Bond.....Amen to that.....great text!" Everything to you has to be an instant battle for some reason. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. and' 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." It is a figure of speech He was using and some people do not understand what He was saying. If you do understand what He was saying, dont you think that His sheep are in pretty good hands? Would you think Satan is going to devour them? Cant you even try to understand the point of my post? I can read that text and gather quite a bit of information out of it. A few things; 1. When He brings out His own.....they follow Him because they know His voice. If He brought them out it must have been out from somewhere. 2. His own will never follow a stranger and will actually run away from the voice of a stranger. 3. Jesus tells people things but they do not believe. 4. The things He does show actual evidence of who He is. 5. Some people still do not believe and the reason why is because they are not His sheep. 6. His sheep listen and follow Him and He knows them. 7. He gives His sheep eternal life and they shall never perish. 8. No one can snatch them out of His hand. These are just a few things that I can grasp out of the text. One thing I can be quite sure of is that His sheep are in some pretty good hands. Now, I suppose if Satan has free-will and can freely snatch sheep out of the hands of God, and God is not capable of controlling and stopping Satan.......he will most likely devour all the sheep. I doubt Satan would leave anyone standing if he had the opportunity and power to devour freely. [:)] KJB

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI