What's calvinism? [Archive] - Theology Forum

Clete

March 13th, 2004, 05:35 PM

The best web site I know of that gives hard core historical facts about were the theology that we call Calvinism came from is this one...

Biblical Answers.com (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/)

This link will take you straight to an article by Bob Hill about Calvinism.

Calvinism versus the Bible (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Calvinism%20versus%20the%20Bible.htm)

The title of the article gives away Pastor Hill's anti-Calvinist position but I encourage you to read it with an open mind and weigh the arguments made by their own merits. I think you will find that Pastor Hill is second to none when it comes to intellectually honest and well documented theological positions.

Enjoy and God bless you!

Resting in Him,
Clete

By the way...
WELCOME TO THEOLOGY ONLINE!

Rolf Ernst

March 14th, 2004, 07:29 PM

Sozo! How could you? In the 9th post of this thread, you say that Calvinism is foreign to God. How could you, Sozo? Say it ain't so, Sozo!

In Mark 4:11,12 Jesus says that He speaks in parables SO THAT some men may "see not perceive;" so that they would "hear and not understand LEST THEY SHOULD TURN AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM." (caps mine, of course) For that reason, He did not speak to them without a parable. Then...when they were ALONE He explained all things to His disciples (ver. 34.) Why did He explain all things to His disciples? The answer is above in the 11th verse--because to
them it had "been given to know."

Sozo! What is this? What was Jesus' REAL reason for speaking in parables? What does that teach? Why was there a "world" for which Jesus would not pray in the garden of gethsemane just prior to His work of atonement? Of what world was He speaking?
Did it have anything to do with those whom He spoke to in parables so they would see but not percieve, so they would hear but not understand?

geralduk

March 15th, 2004, 06:10 AM

with ALL the good and "sound doctrin" it DOES have.
nevertheless it is NOT the WHOLE councel of God.

Rolf Ernst

March 15th, 2004, 07:41 PM

Geralduk--If you are speaking of Calvinisn not being the whole counsel of God, no one would agree with you more than a Calvinist.
Calvinism, as generally perceived, is merely a doctrinal view which outlines our perception of God, His dealings with men in general, and His covenants. They are, basically, the underlying principles--not the whole counsel of God. The 5 letter acrostic, TULIP, is, in itself, even further from being the whole counsel of God.

geralduk

March 16th, 2004, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Geralduk--If you are speaking of Calvinisn not being the whole counsel of God, no one would agree with you more than a Calvinist.
Calvinism, as generally perceived, is merely a doctrinal view which outlines our perception of God, His dealings with men in general, and His covenants. They are, basically, the underlying principles--not the whole counsel of God. The 5 letter acrostic, TULIP, is, in itself, even further from being the whole counsel of God.

I would highlight the term 'GENERALLY PERCEIVED'
and THAT is what is most at fault with many budding'theologians'
is that many it would seem have liitle grasp of his 'argument' but rather have taken aboad 'TULIP' and then think by that they understand the scriptures.
I do not believe in those matters most 'debated' about calvin that they can be reduced to 'VEIWS'
But are IMPORTANT issues in their CONTEXT.
You implication of 'tulip' would seem to deny thier tenents?
Im not here to 'argue' them.
but I WOULD 'argue' those "sound doctrins" which he taught.
and which would be BETTER understood if his 'argument' was FOLOWED from the BEGINNING to the END without JUMPING to the CONCLUSIONS before hand.
But for clarities sake as to my statement that Calvanism is not the whole council of God is that in truth they could be taken as the MILK of the WORD for it would seem that those who first heard him at the beginning of the reformation were by them ABLE TO ENDURE a great many things that those who think they know more are less able even to endure "sound doctrin" let alone persecution up to and including being burnt at the stake!

So I have to wonder that they who in some eyes knew LESS WHY then they could so MUCH MORE than those who knowing more do so much LESS!
For in truth if we enjoy ANY religios liberty and political freedom NOW it is BECAUSE they from LUTHOR onwards found the truth and KNEW HIM of whom the scriptures spoke of. and DECLARED BOLDLY before all and were HIS witnesses.
Now in truth God HAS revealed more to the church from that first "the just shall live by faith" and has PROGRESIVLY unfolded His PURPOSES untill the present day.
YET how is it that we who know more cannot do as MUCH as they who knew less?
Nor have the same ZEAL AND COMMITMENT as they did who soem say they believed not the truth!
and have less LOVE for God and the truth then they manifestly had.
and in truth it is TODAY that THE church is once again gettign entangled in those things that they payed so high a price to be free from!?
and we are in a REVERSE reformation.
and are exchanging the HOLY SPIRIT for candles once again.
Truly we are in those days where there is a "great falling away" when men will not " endure sound doctrin"
So I do not discard those things that he taught for I find them in the scriptures.
Not as MEN protray whay he said but as they are so found in all the scriptures.
Nor do I stay there but seek and am "going on to perfection"
Thankfull to God for thier ministery and faithfullness.
and seeking to "contend for THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints"
Not only of CALVIN but of LUTHOR and WESLEY and all those other men of God who " went a little further" even as the Lord bade them go they went.
and who were faithfull witnesses to and of the truth.

In anutshell then a 'catachism' of TULIP or any other doctrin does not by its repertition meen you UNDERSTAND them.
or ahve "come to a KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH" concerning them.
Undersatnding them comes by prayer and the long continual consecutive thinking about them before God.
and allowing the HOLY SPIRIT to LEAD your thinking to that place where you are "fully persauded" of it.
Therefore my faith is NOT in tulip nor in CALVIN but in HIM of whom the scriptures speak of.
and it is HIM that I, by the grace of God folow.
and as I do so I do know the truth and the truth has set me free.

Rolf Ernst

March 16th, 2004, 03:36 PM

Well said, Geralduk. I have no heart to say anything against such a statement of faith. The Lord bless you!

smaller

March 16th, 2004, 03:40 PM

Calvinism=the belief that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them in fire forever and no matter what these people are powerless to change the course of their eventual eternal tortured destiny in fire.

Of course Arminianism and frewillism has the same belief based upon a nearly identical outcome.

helmet84

March 18th, 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by smaller

Calvinism=the belief that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them in fire forever and no matter what these people are powerless to change the course of their eventual eternal tortured destiny in fire.

I've never read a calvinist anywhere that says that is the sole purpose of God creating the majority of humanity.

-- helmet84

God_Is_Truth

March 19th, 2004, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by helmet84

I've never read a calvinist anywhere that says that is the sole purpose of God creating the majority of humanity.

-- helmet84

that's because most of them don't know or understand the reprocussions of their own doctrine.

smaller

March 19th, 2004, 08:47 AM

that (a)version doesn't sell very well helmet84

Apollo

March 20th, 2004, 07:08 AM

Where there is a Law, there is no free will. As soon as God said, "Thou Shalt Not," man's free will was destroyed. If man was not "free" to eat from any tree he pleased (without penalty), and if man is not "free" to reject Christ (without penalty), he is not truly free. Freedom is not freedom if the "freedom" to choose is prejudiced by a threat of punishment for choosing "wrongly."

Clete

March 20th, 2004, 08:26 AM

geralduk

March 20th, 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Apollo

Where there is a Law, there is no free will. As soon as God said, "Thou Shalt Not," man's free will was destroyed. If man was not "free" to eat from any tree he pleased (without penalty), and if man is not "free" to reject Christ (without penalty), he is not truly free. Freedom is not freedom if the "freedom" to choose is prejudiced by a threat of punishment for choosing "wrongly."

God gave man NO liberty to DO EVIL.
But to DO GOOD.

and when men DO EVIL though as then they are promised that THEN they will or are free to do so.
In TRUTH they foind that they are BOUND and the more of THAT 'liberty' THEY TAKE the more BOUND they become.
True it is that men want the 'liberty to DO EVIL.
and by deception and the REJECTION of that which was GOOD AND EVIL in GODS SIGHT.
They did that which was "right in thier own eyes".
But let me ask you a question?

You say men are free to choose good and evil and when God said what was good and waht was evil.
When eve ate of that which was good to eat in her own eyes.
WHO'S WILL did she do?
Hers or the devils?
and was she then free as it seems in your eyes then or as it seems then of men now?

God created men "in His OWN IMAGE"
and therefore the LIBERTY He gave them was HIS OWN.
and therefore He gave them the "LIBERTY of the sons of God"

Which when they rejected the WORD of God they LOST.
Jesus therefore came to seeka nd to save that which was LOST.
AND TO SET THE CAPTIVES FREE.

Swordsman

March 20th, 2004, 03:01 PM

Clete

March 20th, 2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

Good job Apollo! It looks like you received your first POTD in just 3 posts.

I'm kinda bummed. I'll never get a POTD or a high-five from them. But then again, I don't play on their team..... ;)

Swordsman,
I don't think you read my post very closely. :chuckle:

Apollo,

Don't take my jab at you too seriously! I'm just fooling around.
But it is sort of silly to say that we are only truly free when our actions have no consequences. Every action has consequences! The "free" world you suggest couldn't even exist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman

March 20th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Swordsman,
I don't think you read my post very closely. :chuckle:

Ah! An SPOTD! Never got one of those either. I guess I don't hack you OVers off too much then. :chuckle:

Clete

March 20th, 2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

Ah! An SPOTD! Never got one of those either. I guess I don't hack you OVers off too much then. :chuckle:

Keep plugin away at it. You'll get there eventually!

;) Just teasing! :chuckle:

helmet84

March 20th, 2004, 10:01 PM

God_Is_Truth

March 20th, 2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by helmet84

I've never read a calvinist anywhere that says that is the sole purpose of God creating the majority of humanity.

-- helmet84

just remembered, Z Man believes that. we've been discussing it in the do calvinists believe dangerously (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13005&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) thread. read post #86 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=486594#post486594).

smaller

March 21st, 2004, 12:26 AM

In case you freewillers think your end result is any better think again.

The end result of men's supposed freewill is the SAME RESULT as that of Calvinism. God created the majority of mankind only to torture them forever.

I believe in the Sovereignty of God, just not J. Calvins' "limited" version.

God_Is_Truth

March 21st, 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by smaller
God created the majority of mankind only to torture them forever.

i thought you were a universalist :shocked:

Turbo

March 21st, 2004, 12:52 AM

He's saying that's what we non-universalists must believe.

smaller

March 21st, 2004, 01:00 AM

that IS what both of your camps believe....think about it....THE ETERNAL DAMNATION OF THE MAJORITY OF HUMANITY is the only thing YOU ALL have in common.

You can ask "christians" about any number of different theological terms and subjects and find a diversity of views...

but OH on that eternal damnation of others many many have found the "wide path" that leads to destruction....(of others of course)

The unbelievers have not "found" such a thing....

I am more than fully aware that LOVING both your neighbors and your enemies is a difficult thing...too much obviously for the everyday "adherent."

God_Is_Truth

March 21st, 2004, 01:01 AM

oh ok. thanks for the clear up turbo.

in that case, i say that God did not create them for hell. they chose that themselves when they rejected God. why should they be with God when they don't want to be? that's like going against their will, kinda like calvinism.....

Turbo

March 21st, 2004, 01:29 AM

The Universalists' God
"I'm forcing you all to enter the straight gate; there is no gate that leads to destruction. You can thank me later."

The Calvinists' God
"I created these gates and I created you. Before I did any of that I decided who will go where. I'm forcing a few of you to go through the gate that leads to life. I'm forcing most of you to go through the gate of destruction. Deal with it. (After all, I've predestined you to deal with it.)"

The True and Living God
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14

Clete

March 21st, 2004, 08:29 AM

Well swordsman, I hope this doesn't bumb you out too badly but...

Originally posted by Turbo

The Universalists' God
"I'm forcing you all to enter the straight gate; there is no gate that leads to destruction. You can thank me later."

The Calvinists' God
"I created these gates and I created you. Before I did any of that I decided who will go where. I'm forcing a few of you to go through the gate that leads to life. I'm forcing most of you to go through the gate of destruction. Deal with it. (After all, I've predestined you to deal with it.)"

The True and Living God
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14

:first: POTD! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=487969#post487969)

smaller

March 21st, 2004, 09:29 AM

nice try turbo but lying is not profitable for anyone

and excuses for eternally damning your neighbor are worse

Rolf Ernst

March 21st, 2004, 09:37 AM

Clete--Putting words in God's mouth, hmm? Man, from his own corruption, rejects God and His Word, preferring the broad road to destruction.
God, in spite of man's corruption, determined from everlasting that He would have mercy upon certain ones despite their unworthiness, and does so----"Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy."

Those not chosen to salvation have no right to complain because they receive the choice of their own choosing. Neither can the unbeliever blame God for not choosing a greater number which might have included him, because God was under no obligation to choose even one.

helmet84

March 21st, 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

just remembered, Z Man believes that. we've been discussing it in the do calvinists believe dangerously (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13005&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) thread. read post #86 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=486594#post486594).

No. Go read Smaller's post 18 above. He said calvinism claims that the sole purpose of creating the majority of humanity was to torture them in fire forever .

That is not what Z man is saying. That is a false conclusion that you are drawing from his words.

-- helmet84

smaller

March 21st, 2004, 09:52 AM

helmut, it is a simple fact of Calvinism that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of frying them forever and these people cannot do anything about it. They were predestined for this purpose, therefore my RIGHTful observation.

p.s. This is completely abhorrent to me. I cannot express how vile and depraved this belief is.

helmet84

March 21st, 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by helmet84

No. Go read Smaller's post 18 above. He said calvinism claims that the sole purpose of creating the majority of humanity was to torture them in fire forever .

That is not what Z man is saying. That is a false conclusion that you are drawing from his words.

-- helmet84

There, I changed my emphasis for clarification -- in case Zman reads this. Zman, read post 40 above to get the context.

Oh, and Smaller. Some calvinists believe that 'eternal destruction' does not imply 'eternal torture'. Rather, 'eternal destruction' means a destruction that is eternal in its nature, i.e. once that destruction takes place, there will be no resurrection for the participants. Or in other words, it is a 'death' that is eternal. They would say that the smoke from the destruction of the wicked that is described in Revelation is symbolic in meaning, not literal.

smaller

March 21st, 2004, 10:24 AM

You are right helmet...

some are eternal annihilationists rather than eternal torturists...

Clete

March 21st, 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--Putting words in God's mouth, hmm?

What are you talking about? :kookoo:

Turbo

March 21st, 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by smaller

nice try turbo but lying is not profitable for anyone

and excuses for eternally damning your neighbor are worse I don't damn anyone. But you're the one who's lying, giving unbelievers a false sense of security, rather than warning them that they need to repent and accept Christ.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18

Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, "Surely we did not know this,"
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11-12

Rolf Ernst

March 21st, 2004, 05:11 PM

The young lady started this thread by asking what is Calvinism. I notice that a lot of preople who are NOT Calvinists have taken it upon them selves to answer that question and have either out of ignorance or deliberate deceit grievously misrepresented what Calvinism is. I have no recollection of an Arminian making an effort to not misrepresent the doctrines they neither understand nor have any taste for, but I expect that she knows to give no credit to someone's words even if they do not know when they should be silent.

Rolf Ernst

March 21st, 2004, 05:23 PM

Why Smaller, you little wascal, where is your authority for saying that Calvinists believe God created men for the sole purpose of frying them ferever? I ain't never seen 'at in Scripture, an' ain't never heerd any1 say so but you. Play fair now, yawl hear?

Swordsman

March 21st, 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
in that case, i say that God did not create them for hell. they chose that themselves when they rejected God. why should they be with God when they don't want to be? that's like going against their will, kinda like calvinism.....

:confused: How is it at all possible that someone is a Christian when they do not really want to be? Have you ever heard someone say, "Well God, thanks for the salvation so that I will have eternal life, but I really wish I had the option to go to hell."???

That's absurd. Is this something Bob Enyart is teaching these days?

God_Is_Truth

March 21st, 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

:confused: How is it at all possible that someone is a Christian when they do not really want to be? Have you ever heard someone say, "Well God, thanks for the salvation so that I will have eternal life, but I really wish I had the option to go to hell."???

That's absurd. Is this something Bob Enyart is teaching these days?

i'm not saying that about christians. i'm saying that God will save those who want to be saved (thus, christians) and won't save those who don't want to be saved (thus, not christians).

by the way i know nothing of what Bob Enyart teaches. the only place i've ever seen his work was back on this forum a while back on the debate of "does God exist" between him and Zakath.

Apollo

March 21st, 2004, 07:10 PM

Don't take my jab at you too seriously! I'm just fooling around. But it is sort of silly to say that we are only truly free when our actions have no consequences. Every action has consequences! The "free" world you suggest couldn't even exist.

Not a problem. Clete, there are consequences for our actions, negative consequences, assuming a “crime” has occurred. What was Adam’s “crime”? Picking fruit out of season? No. Exercising free will. What was the penalty? Death. We are not talking about the “consequences” of running a stop sign, or walking on the grass, both “limitations” on our “free will.” We are talking about the consequences of rejecting Christianity’s god.

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him? This, I thought, was relevant in a discussion of Calvinism. Calvinism rejects free will. Arminianism embraces free will. Yet, both systems deny free will by denying man the freedom to determine good and evil for himself. The freedom to “choose Jesus” – or else – is a strange sort of freedom.

Clete

March 21st, 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Apollo

Not a problem. Clete, there are consequences for our actions, negative consequences, assuming a “crime” has occurred. What was Adam’s “crime”? Picking fruit out of season? No. Exercising free will. What was the penalty? Death. We are not talking about the “consequences” of running a stop sign, or walking on the grass, both “limitations” on our “free will.” We are talking about the consequences of rejecting Christianity’s god.

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him? This, I thought, was relevant in a discussion of Calvinism. Calvinism rejects free will. Armenianism embraces free will. Yet, both systems deny free will by denying man the freedom to determine good and evil for himself. The freedom to “choose Jesus” – or else – is a strange sort of freedom.

But this misses the point! The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise is another topic. Besides that, it is the consequences of your actions that determine whether they are right or wrong in the first place. You pretend that God's rule against eating of the Tree of Knowledge was an arbitrary one, but you are wrong. The Tree was given as an alternative to God. Adam could have lived for thousands of years in a direct personal relationship with the living God during which he would have learned all there is to know about what it means to be good (and therefore what it means to be evil) but he CHOSE to disobey God and forfeit that relationship. And by the way, his punishment was both just and merciful.
Your thesis presumes God to be arbitrary and therefore unjust. It further is non-sequitur in that it doesn't follow as an argument against either Calvin or Armenius because your definition of ‘freedom’ is totally unrelated to either of theirs. Take your pick, either one of these reasons would be more than sufficient to reject what you've said here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman

March 21st, 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

But this misses the point! The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise is another topic. Besides that, it is the consequences of your actions that determine whether they are right or wrong in the first place. You pretend that God's rule against eating of the Tree of Knowledge was an arbitrary one, but you are wrong. The Tree was given as an alternative to God. Adam could have lived for thousands of years in a direct personal relationship with the living God during which he would have learned all there is to know about what it means to be good (and therefore what it means to be evil) but he CHOSE to disobey God and forfeit that relationship. And by the way, his punishment was both just and merciful.
Your thesis presumes God to be arbitrary and therefore unjust. It further is non-sequitur in that it doesn't follow as an argument against either Calvin or Armenius because your definition of ‘freedom’ is totally unrelated to either of theirs. Take your pick, either one of these reasons would be more than sufficient to reject what you've said here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

God_Is_Truth

March 21st, 2004, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

you can't boast in what all people are capable of :doh:

Swordsman

March 22nd, 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

you can't boast in what all people are capable of :doh:

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

Sozo

March 22nd, 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Swordsman

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

All men are drawn to God, and yet some refuse the gift of life.

Clete

March 22nd, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

This is such a tired and idiotic argument! Is this the best Calvinism has to offer in an attempt to debunk those who disagree with their heresy?

Do you have something to brag about because you said, "I do" when you married your wife?

When someone gives you a gift for your birthday, do you go around bragging about how terrific it is that you accepted the gift?

If you were drowning in a swimming pool and the lifeguard threw a life preserver to you, would you get the big head and start showing off about how you were so great to have grabbed it?

Give me a break!
You (that is Calvinists in general) give people a hard time saying that they have "saved themselves" and at the same time tell people that if they don't tithe that they've stolen from God. In one breath you say that you can do nothing to be saved and in the next you put them under the law and require them to obey.
Calvinist are so internally conflicted that they can't see up from down! If you want to debate Calvinism on its merits then lets get it on, but don't waste my time with this weak crap that's designed primarily to score cheap emotional points with those who don't know anything about the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman

March 22nd, 2004, 01:32 PM

OK. Gonna have to break down your post here.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is such a tired and idiotic argument! Is this the best Calvinism has to offer in an attempt to debunk those who disagree with their heresy?

Its not Calvinism at all. Its Christianity. And just because something isn't open theology doesn't mean it's heresy.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Do you have something to brag about because you said, "I do" when you married your wife?

No. God brought her into my life. I do brag about her though because I'm proud of her. She is my wife. Equally, I like to glorify God, and show and tell others what He's done for me.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
When someone gives you a gift for your birthday, do you go around bragging about how terrific it is that you accepted the gift?

No, I did nothing to "get" the gift. Same with salvation. Any concept of salvation other than salvation by grace really isn't salvation at all.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you were drowning in a swimming pool and the lifeguard threw a life preserver to you, would you get the big head and start showing off about how you were so great to have grabbed it?

No. I sure wouldn't. Good analogy though. I'll remember that one.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Give me a break!

No breaks for you Private Pfeiffer! Now drop and give me 20! ;)

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You (that is Calvinists in general) give people a hard time saying that they have "saved themselves" and at the same time tell people that if they don't tithe that they've stolen from God.

:confused: This doesn't sound anywhere near what a Calvinist might say.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
In one breath you say that you can do nothing to be saved and in the next you put them under the law and require them to obey.

Not it at all. I think you're confusing the law with exercising faith. Two completely different ideas.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Calvinist are so internally conflicted that they can't see up from down!

I would expect a comment like this from an OVer.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you want to debate Calvinism on its merits then lets get it on, but don't waste my time with this weak crap that's designed primarily to score cheap emotional points with those who don't know anything about the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's not a debatable issue really. Salvation by grace is clearly taught in most of the NT. This view of how someone can "choose" God and create his own saving faith is not at all Biblical. I would venture to say that you know where these particular passages are, you just draw your own conclusions to fit your own personal views. Don't do that. That's why there are so many different sects of religion out there. They open their ears to a certain passage and close them for another.

And what's "weak" about John 6:44? No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. That is very clear. No need for your greek dictionary there.

God_Is_Truth

March 22nd, 2004, 01:39 PM

*Acts9_12Out*

March 22nd, 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

Sword,

I ask you also (along with rolf, helmet and lee) to consider the context before ripping a verse out of context and making it a pre-text. Concerning John 6:44, we must also look at verse 45...

John 6:44,45
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Me.

So, what's the point here? Who comes to the Son? "They shall all be taught" refers to everyone. Only those who hear and have learned from the Father come to the Son.

In short, all are taught by God. Those who hear the gospel and respond (have learned) come to the Son. Quite simple, huh?

--Jeremy

Swordsman

March 22nd, 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?

lost anomaly

March 22nd, 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

The young lady started this thread by asking what is Calvinism. I notice that a lot of preople who are NOT Calvinists have taken it upon them selves to answer that question and have either out of ignorance or deliberate deceit grievously misrepresented what Calvinism is. I have no recollection of an Arminian making an effort to not misrepresent the doctrines they neither understand nor have any taste for, but I expect that she knows to give no credit to someone's words even if they do not know when they should be silent.

I must say I am actually surprised at the whole debate that has started because of my simple question and now I'm just confused after reading all of this. I haven't read anything about Calvinism wanting to tortuer all of mankind, but knowing my I might have misread or skipped something about that. All I know is I am more confused about Calvinism now then i was when i asked the question.

*Acts9_12Out*

March 22nd, 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?

That's why I explained John 6:44-45....

The "all" are "all" who hear and have learned who come to Christ...

--Jeremy

lost anomaly

March 22nd, 2004, 02:19 PM

I am hearing much talk of Adam and Eve on this post. Exactly how do they relate to calvinism? I'm a little fuzzy on that.

Swordsman

March 22nd, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Sword,

I ask you also (along with rolf, helmet and lee) to consider the context before ripping a verse out of context and making it a pre-text. Concerning John 6:44, we must also look at verse 45...

You mean rip it out of your context....

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
So, what's the point here? Who comes to the Son? "They shall all be taught" refers to everyone. Only those who hear and have learned from the Father come to the Son.

In short, all are taught by God. Those who hear the gospel and respond (have learned) come to the Son. Quite simple, huh?

--Jeremy

Jesus was quoting from the prophet Isaiah in chapter 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

"All thy children" or all God's children. In other words Christ is speaking of God's elect. Only those who are His elect will be taught.

And the part where you say those who "respond" or "have learned" - that is at the moment salvation takes place in their hearts. That's where they come to the Son.

So, no, this verse wasn't taken out of context as one can clearly see. Verse 45 plainly elaborates verse 44. Its amazing how the Word of God just flows together, isn't it?

*Acts9_12Out*

March 22nd, 2004, 03:31 PM

Sword,

Unfortunately, Christ's quote of Isaiah has a larger meaning...

According to John 1:9, everyone has been enlightened by Jesus Christ,

John 1:9
9 "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world."

The father has drawn everyone who will listen,

John 6:44,45
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me"

The Son draws everyone.

John 12:32
32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself"

The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ.

"But when the Helper comes . . . the Spirit of truth . . . He will testify of Me" (John 15:26).

It is up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since God did not predestinate individuals to be saved, we must be sure we take the opportunities to present the gospel of grace to everyone. We should pray for boldness to open our mouths to present the mystery just as Paul did in Ephesians 6:19,
Eph 6:19
19 "Pray . . . for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel."

In Christ, --Jeremy

God_Is_Truth

March 22nd, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?

yes. all means all.

Swordsman

March 22nd, 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Sword,

Unfortunately, Christ's quote of Isaiah has a larger meaning...

What else can it mean other than His elect are taught by Him? The prophet is very clear, and even Christ thought so. That's why He quoted Him.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
According to John 1:9, everyone has been enlightened by Jesus Christ,

I agree with you in a sense. Christ is the savior, or light to the world. He is the only light or savior that exists. In that sense, all have or will have some perception of the eternal light of Christ.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
The father has drawn everyone who will listen,

The Son draws everyone.

I answered these previously. No need to argue this point anymore. You know what the Scriptures are saying.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ.

Agreed.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
It is up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This response you speak of is God-given faith. The call to salvation is God intersecting in our lives and changing the heart. If you mean that its something you just decide on a whim, then you are implying faith is something developed by ourselves (i.e. salvation by works).

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Since God did not predestinate individuals to be saved, we must be sure we take the opportunities to present the gospel of grace to everyone. We should pray for boldness to open our mouths to present the mystery just as Paul did in Ephesians 6:19,

God did not predestinate individuals to be saved?!?!?!?!?! Romans 8:29-30 says otherwise. And yes, we should be very careful about how we present the gospel of grace. It isn't a gospel that allows one to boast of his salvation. Its a gospel that gives God ALL the glory due to Him. Its all about Him, not us.

Swordsman

March 22nd, 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

yes. all means all.

I thought you were an open theist, not a universalist.

God_Is_Truth

March 22nd, 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

I thought you were an open theist, not a universalist.

Jesus dying for all people does not mean all will be saved. it means that all people have the option of salvation open to them and they must make the individual decision to accept it in order to be saved.

*Acts9_12Out*

March 22nd, 2004, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

What else can it mean other than His elect are taught by Him? The prophet is very clear, and even Christ thought so. That's why He quoted Him.

:confused: Christ didn't "quote" Isaiah. Christ simply stated that the "prophet" made a statement similar to the statement He made.

Let's take a look...

John 6:44,45
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Me.

Isaiah 54:13
54:13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children.

Doesn't look like a direct quote to me??? :confused:

Christ said "It is written in the prophets..." and then goes on to clarify His interpretation of the passage. Christ says everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Him. The point is, all are taught by God. Whoever of the "all" that hears and has learned comes to Him. You continue,

I agree with you in a sense. Christ is the savior, or light to the world. He is the only light or savior that exists. In that sense, all have or will have some perception of the eternal light of Christ.

Sorry. That's not what John 1:9 says. Christ enlightens every man. Christ gives every man enough light to respond to the gospel. The gospel has been preached "in" every creature under heaven.

Colossian 1:23b
1:23b the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached in every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

You continue,

I answered these previously. No need to argue this point anymore. You know what the Scriptures are saying.

No, you misrepresent John 6:44,45. Christ does not "quote" Isaiah. Christ clarifies that all are taught by God. Man must respond to the gospel. You continue,

Agreed.

Good.

This response you speak of is God-given faith. The call to salvation is God intersecting in our lives and changing the heart.

You fail to substantiate this point with Scripture...

If you mean that its something you just decide on a whim, then you are implying faith is something developed by ourselves (i.e. salvation by works).

Um, no... As stated before, Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9). The gospel is preached "in" every creature (Col 1:23). The gospel is written on every person's heart (Rom 2:14-16). The heavens devlare God's handiwork (Psa 19; Rom 10:18,19). God does not predestine men to hell. Man freely chooses to reject the truth that God has put in them. You continue,

God did not predestinate individuals to be saved?!?!?!?!?! Romans 8:29-30 says otherwise.

Actually, it doesn't... Romans 8:28-30 refers to the corporate body of Christ. Another discussion I guess...

And yes, we should be very careful about how we present the gospel of grace. It isn't a gospel that allows one to boast of his salvation. Its a gospel that gives God ALL the glory due to Him. Its all about Him, not us.

Hint, Hint... Paul prays for boldness to preach the mystery. Do you have any idea what Paul is speaking of? Take a look at my siggy for further... :D

--Jeremy

Clete

March 22nd, 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by lost anomaly
I must say I am actually surprised at the whole debate that has started because of my simple question and now I'm just confused after reading all of this. I haven't read anything about Calvinism wanting to tortuer all of mankind, but knowing my I might have misread or skipped something about that. All I know is I am more confused about Calvinism now then i was when i asked the question.

I don't blame you for being confused!

Calvinism basically boils down to one issue, the immutability of God.

Calvinism has been broken down into five major points that give a general outline of its basic teachings. These five points are commonly refered to as the TULIP.
Total Depravity - Man is completely incapable of any good action whatsoever including putting their faith in Christ. Unmerited Favor - God chose to grant you saving faith arbitrarily. His choice had nothing to do with who you are or what you do or what you believe. Limited Atonement - Christ's death atoned for the sins of the Elect ONLY, not for the whole world. Irresistable Grace - You have no choice in the matter. If God decides to have Grace on you then you will believe and you will be saved (period). Perseverance of the Saints - Sort of a repeat of the the last one. No matter what happens, if you are Elect, you will be saved. No one can lose their salvation no matter what.

All five of these points are not derived directly from scripture. They are logically derived from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, that He is utterly immutable. Once the conclusions are drawn then scripture is interpreted in such a way as to prop these ideas up but I submit that reverses the propper order of things. Regardless of how many proof text they site, their entire house of cards crumbles to the ground if God can be shown to change in any way.

And by the way, this is not just my opinion. Calvinism's history can be clearly documented step by step by step. When one goes back far enough you find that Calvinism has its root in pagan Greek philosophy not Scripture.
Bob Hill has done as good a job of documenting this as anyone that I am aware of. Here are a couple of links to articles that thoroughly cover the subject....

Calvinism vs the Bible (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Calvinism%20versus%20the%20Bible.htm)

And...

Augustine on The Absolute Foreknowledge of God (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Absolute%20Foreknowledge%20of%20God.htm)

Pastor Hill has written several more they can all be found here (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestinationindex.htm)

Resting in Him,
Clete

God_Is_Truth

March 22nd, 2004, 09:01 PM

Clete,

i noticed that for the "U" of TULIP you called it "Unmeritted Favor". it was my understanding that the "U" of TULIP stood for "Unconditional Election". have you always called the "U" unmerrited favor or were you just restating what it was in easy to understand terms?

Clete

March 22nd, 2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Clete,

I noticed that for the "U" of TULIP you called it "Unmeritted Favor". It was my understanding that the "U" of TULIP stood for "Unconditional Election". Have you always called the "U" unmerrited favor or were you just restating what it was in easy to understand terms?
I've seen it both ways, I don't really have a preference. It seems that I remember 'unmeritted favor' more easily, I don't know why.
They both are the exact same thing though, sorry if I confused anyone.

Resting in Him,
Clete

geralduk

March 23rd, 2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Jesus dying for all people does not mean all will be saved. it means that all people have the option of salvation open to them and they must make the individual decision to accept it in order to be saved.

Another aspect of the truth is this.

ALL are "DEAD in trespases and in sin"
and God calls ALL men to repent.
Those then who RISE UP as it were in repsonse to the WORD justyfy the WORD and are BORNagain.
Those who do not are STILL dead.
AND UNTILL THEY DO RESPOND will remain as they are.
though in truth will grow worse the longer they reject the WORD of life.
It is NOT in the ability of those DEAD TO RAISE UP by thier own power or will.
But it is by that WORD of God and the SPIRIT of God that so quickens them.
They who RECEIVE the WORD receive LIFE.
They who do not but reject it have no life in them.

Therefore those who think in their heart that there MUST be something in them that saves them. are wrong.
and if God did not SPEAK then NO ONE would rise.

Men are in DARKNESS AND THIER "UNDERSDTANDING is darkened" and they are BLIND.
It is not untill the LIGHT comes that men get A TRUE understanding either of themselves or God.
Therefore it has pleased God by the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" what?
The WORD"the ENTRANCE of which giveth LIGHT"
Men here and elsewhere are seekign to understand the things of God by that carnal mind which understands NOTHING about God. and is in fact CONTARY to Him!
"NEITHER can it ACCEPT the things of God"
And just because we may be BORNagain should not lead us to think we do not need STILL to be LED by HIM who first RAISED US UP FROM THE DEAD!
But soem seem to think once we are BORNagain that we can then rely upon "our own understanding" and the "wisdom of men" which neither now or before brought us any light !
Why then do 'we' who have started in the SPIRIT should think we can finish in the flesh"
No.
as we are BORN of the WORD and the SPIRIT.
We cannot GROW in grace and the TRUE and LIVELY knowldge of God by the WORD only for the "letter killeth" but we MUST have the SPIRIT of truth to LEAD us into all truth " for the SPIRIT giveth LIFE"

Those who seek top justyfy themselves before God and to establish thier own rightousness need to look again at the WORD of God.
For God is not at MENS bidding.
bUT MEN if His are HIS SONS.
as such then should fullfill the "LAW OF CHRIST"
for THEN is it that we show we are the "sons of God" for they who are LED by the SPIRIT of God ARE the sons of God"

Swordsman

March 23rd, 2004, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I don't blame you for being confused!

Calvinism basically boils down to one issue, the immutability of God.

Calvinism has been broken down into five major points that give a general outline of its basic teachings. These five points are commonly refered to as the TULIP.
Total Depravity - Man is completely incapable of any good action whatsoever including putting their faith in Christ. Unmerited Favor - God chose to grant you saving faith arbitrarily. His choice had nothing to do with who you are or what you do or what you believe. Limited Atonement - Christ's death atoned for the sins of the Elect ONLY, not for the whole world. Irresistable Grace - You have no choice in the matter. If God decides to have Grace on you then you will believe and you will be saved (period). Perseverance of the Saints - Sort of a repeat of the the last one. No matter what happens, if you are Elect, you will be saved. No one can lose their salvation no matter what.

All five of these points are not derived directly from scripture. They are logically derived from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, that He is utterly immutable. Once the conclusions are drawn then scripture is interpreted in such a way as to prop these ideas up but I submit that reverses the propper order of things. Regardless of how many proof text they site, their entire house of cards crumbles to the ground if God can be shown to change in any way.

And by the way, this is not just my opinion. Calvinism's history can be clearly documented step by step by step. When one goes back far enough you find that Calvinism has its root in pagan Greek philosophy not Scripture.
Bob Hill has done as good a job of documenting this as anyone that I am aware of. Here are a couple of links to articles that thoroughly cover the subject....

Calvinism vs the Bible (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Calvinism%20versus%20the%20Bible.htm)

And...

Augustine on The Absolute Foreknowledge of God (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Absolute%20Foreknowledge%20of%20God.htm)

Pastor Hill has written several more they can all be found here (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestinationindex.htm)

Resting in Him,
Clete

lost anomaly

As Clete pointed out here of his opinions of Calvinism, I challenge you to seek out the truth for yourself. I've looked over those links provided by Clete and they are of an open theist's view of Calvinism. In other words, you're getting the oppositions' perspective. Nothing wrong with reading it, but try looking at the sovereignty of God and His abounding grace from a Calvinist's perspective. Take a look at http://www.mslick.com/. He has some interesting reading from the Calvinist school of thought. My friend Clete rejects a lot of the truths that Calvinism holds to. And he is wrong in that it is based wholly on Scripture and not of some book author as open theism is.

So I challenge you to seek Him. Pray to Him to show you the truth. The Word is sufficient to show you this as well. Works by Boyd, Sanders, Bob Hill, Chuck Stanley, or any other author are more opinionated at best. Steer clear of false teachers. Seek God for who He is by reading His Word. Read the epistles. Start with Romans. They are full of truths of how God deserves all glory due Him. He is Sovereign above all things. He has chosen whom He pleases for His glory. His grace is irresistable and unattainable by ourselves without His spirit.

Vaya con dios.......

Swordsman

March 23rd, 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

:confused: Christ didn't "quote" Isaiah. Christ simply stated that the "prophet" made a statement similar to the statement He made.

Let's take a look...

Doesn't look like a direct quote to me??? :confused:

I don't feel like jumping through hoops with you today. Call it a quote or a paraphrase, whatever. He brought back that verse in Isaiah to His day.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Christ said "It is written in the prophets..." and then goes on to clarify His interpretation of the passage. Christ says everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Him. The point is, all are taught by God. Whoever of the "all" that hears and has learned comes to Him.

All isn't everybody. Isaiah shows you this. "All thy children" is God's children. Not everybody. You can't really draw semantics into this. There's really no argument at this point.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Sorry. That's not what John 1:9 says. Christ enlightens every man. Christ gives every man enough light to respond to the gospel. The gospel has been preached "in" every creature under heaven.

OK. Whatever. Only God can speak the truth to you. Not anyone else. Only He can open your eyes. He did for me.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
No, you misrepresent John 6:44,45. Christ does not "quote" Isaiah. Christ clarifies that all are taught by God. Man must respond to the gospel.

Didn't we just beat this dead horse??? You've talked yourself into believing this so much you can't see what the passage is really saying. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Good.

I'm happy that you gave me your stamp of approval. :banana:

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
You fail to substantiate this point with Scripture...

Acts 13:48 illustrates when the Gentiles heard Paul and Barnabas preaching, they believed. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This doesn't sound like they got faith on their own perogative does it? Nope. God creates faith. Not you.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Um, no... As stated before, Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9). The gospel is preached "in" every creature (Col 1:23). The gospel is written on every person's heart (Rom 2:14-16). The heavens devlare God's handiwork (Psa 19; Rom 10:18,19). God does not predestine men to hell. Man freely chooses to reject the truth that God has put in them.

No, you mean man rejects the truth that God deserves ALL the glory for everything. And just by you not understanding what I'm saying here proves my point.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Actually, it doesn't... Romans 8:28-30 refers to the corporate body of Christ. Another discussion I guess...

To YOU it doesn't. Another discussion will not get you to open your eyes and ears. Only God can do this.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Hint, Hint... Paul prays for boldness to preach the mystery. Do you have any idea what Paul is speaking of? Take a look at my siggy for further... :D

--Jeremy

Its a mystery alright. Funny how Paul over and over explains the Gospel to the 1st century churches. A lot of them still didn't get it.

Kinda like today.

Clete

March 23rd, 2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Swordsman

lost anomaly

As Clete pointed out here of his opinions of Calvinism, I challenge you to seek out the truth for yourself. I've looked over those links provided by Clete and they are of an open theist's view of Calvinism. In other words, you're getting the oppositions' perspective. Nothing wrong with reading it, but try looking at the sovereignty of God and His abounding grace from a Calvinist's perspective. Take a look at http://www.mslick.com/. He has some interesting reading from the Calvinist school of thought. My friend Clete rejects a lot of the truths that Calvinism holds to. And he is wrong in that it is based wholly on Scripture and not of some book author as open theism is.

So I challenge you to seek Him. Pray to Him to show you the truth. The Word is sufficient to show you this as well. Works by Boyd, Sanders, Bob Hill, Chuck Stanley, or any other author are more opinionated at best. Steer clear of false teachers. Seek God for who He is by reading His Word. Read the epistles. Start with Romans. They are full of truths of how God deserves all glory due Him. He is Sovereign above all things. He has chosen whom He pleases for His glory. His grace is irresistable and unattainable by ourselves without His spirit.

Vaya con dios.......

Interesting the differnece between us. I argue against Calvinism not Calvinists, you argue against Open Theists not Open Theism. :think:

Turbo

March 23rd, 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Swordsman

Didn't we just beat this dead horse??? You've talked yourself into believing this so much you can't see what the passage is really saying. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN.
*Acts9_12Out*,

"God predetermined that we would beat this dead horse. I hope he hasn't predetermined that we will do it again. God has predetermined that you would believe this way, so there's nothing you or I can do about it. Perhaps He has predetermined to open your ears at some point in our future."

Swordsman, if my interpretation of your statement in error, I hope that God has predetermined that you will explain to me how.

Swordsman

March 23rd, 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Turbo

*Acts9_12Out*,

"God predetermined that we would beat this dead horse. I hope he hasn't predetermined that we will do it again. God has predetermined that you would believe this way, so there's nothing you or I can do about it. Perhaps He has predetermined to open your ears at some point in our future."

Swordsman, if my interpretation of your statement in error, I hope that God has predetermined that you will explain to me how.

And you're a moderator. I would expect a little more leadership qualities flowing out of you. Nonetheless, you mock because you do not believe.

Clete

March 23rd, 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Swordsman

And you're a moderator. I would expect a little more leadership qualities flowing out of you. Nonetheless, you mock because you do not believe.
Turbo's point is valid and brilliant! It is a point that I have made to you countless times and you continually ignore it or blow it off (which I suppose you must have been predestined to do, right?)
If Turbo's comments are simple mockery then demonstrate how his logic is flawed. You won't because you can't! Calvinists must all believe that God predestined them to lose debate after debate because according to Calvinism EVERYTHING is predestined.

What did the Calvinist say after breaking his leg?

Boy! I'm glad that's over with! :chuckle:

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I wouldn't have told that corny joke, but it was predestined! :crackup:

Swordsman

March 23rd, 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Turbo's point is valid and brilliant!

Of course you believe this. He is of the same "sheep" you are.

It is a point that I have made to you countless times and you continually ignore it or blow it off (which I suppose you must have been predestined to do, right?)

Its time someone stand up to false satanic doctrine that is infiltrating the Christian community. I am called not to tolerate false teachings. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

I gotta be blunt here - Open theism is pleasure in unrighteousness.

If Turbo's comments are simple mockery then demonstrate how his logic is flawed. You won't because you can't! Calvinists must all believe that God predestined them to lose debate after debate because according to Calvinism EVERYTHING is predestined.

LOL. God doesn't destine His people to debate anything. The truth is not a debatable issue. It speaks for itself. Yet you reject it. Then again, it's man nature to reject God.

What did the Calvinist say after breaking his leg?

Boy! I'm glad that's over with! :chuckle:

:ha: What does God say after an open theist prays to Him?

I'd answer your prayer but I don't know what is going to happen.

Clete

March 23rd, 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Swordsman

Of course you believe this. He is of the same "sheep" you are.
I also believe it because he's right.

Its time someone stand up to false satanic doctrine that is infiltrating the Christian community. I am called not to tolerate false teachings. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
There you go contradicting your own belief system again!
You speak as if your have free will, but Calvinism says that we do not have free will, that everything that happens has been predestined since before the foundation of the world. So which is it?
And by the way, the scripture you quote can be just as easily applied to Calvinism. The difference would be that Open Theism can't trace it's roots back to Aristotle and Plato.

I gotta be blunt here - Open theism is pleasure in unrighteousness.
You are an ignorant fool! Baseless accusations that fly in the face of all reason and logic won't convince anybody. When have I or any open theist taken pleasure in unrighteousness. We haven't and you know it! On the contrary! It is open theist who start threads like 'Nicer than God (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13449)'. A thread which posts an article written by an open theist and a thread which not one single open theist on this board would disagree with in the slightest.

LOL. God doesn't destine His people to debate anything. The truth is not a debatable issue. It speaks for itself. Yet you reject it. Then again, it's man nature to reject God.
Really? Are you sure? Who are you to redefine what Calvinism is?
I suggest you go and do your homework. Calvinism not only teaches that God predestined people to debate but absolutely every single event that takes place! If He didn't then something new would happen that God hadn't already seen and that would be a change in God and God would explode or something because of course God cannot change at all in any way!
If you are going to debate Calvinism, you might at least make sure you are familiar with its teachings.

:ha: What does God say after an open theist prays to Him?

I'd answer your prayer but I don't know what is going to happen.
Nice try, but it just doesn't seem to have as good a ring to it as mine, does it?
Further, at least an open theist would have a logical reason to pray. A Calvinist, on the other hand, has no reason to pray at all! Your prayers can't change anything right? It's all been predestined to happen the way its going to happen regardless of your prayers so why bother?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman

March 23rd, 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I also believe it because he's right.

He's also a sinner and believes in the teachings of man.

There you go contradicting your own belief system again!

You mean I'm contradicting YOUR belief system.

You speak as if your have free will, but Calvinism says that we do not have free will, that everything that happens has been predestined since before the foundation of the world. So which is it?

So does not having free will mean that I have to tolerate any false doctrines? Surely this isn't what you mean. I was very clear in what I said and the passage from 2 Thessalonians. OPEN YOUR EYES CLETE.

And by the way, the scripture you quote can be just as easily applied to Calvinism. The difference would be that Open Theism can't trace it's roots back to Aristotle and Plato.

And then eventually back to the apostles. Calvin didn't write any of the books in the NT. Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians, Hebrews 2, etc.........

Open theism can be traced back to "The God Who Risks". That sounds like some strong delusion sent by God to authors such as John Sanders, the liberal OVer himself.

You are an ignorant fool!

Matthew 5:22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

Then again, you probably are not my brother.

Baseless accusations that fly in the face of all reason and logic won't convince anybody.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It seems Bob Hill has already reeled you in enough.

When have I or any open theist taken pleasure in unrighteousness. We haven't and you know it! On the contrary! It is open theist who start threads like 'Nicer than God (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13449)'. A thread which posts an article written by an open theist and a thread which not one single open theist on this board would disagree with in the slightest.

What do you want me to do? Give you a cookie?

Really? Are you sure? Who are you to redefine what Calvinism is?
I suggest you go and do your homework. Calvinism not only teaches that God predestined people to debate but absolutely every single event that takes place! If He didn't then something new would happen that God hadn't already seen and that would be a change in God and God would explode or something because of course God cannot change at all in any way!
If you are going to debate Calvinism, you might at least make sure you are familiar with its teachings.

Seriously Clete. Do not draw conclusions into something that you naturally reject. Once you begin to know the truth, it is nonsense to argue with the like of yourself. God does not approve of debate. God's Scriptures are not a political platform as the OVers see it. You see what I'm saying? It's pointless. The truth will never be revealed unto God chooses to. Then again, that last sentence completely goes against your belief. Oh well. Its a lost cause.

Further, at least an open theist would have a logical reason to pray. A Calvinist, on the other hand, has no reason to pray at all! Your prayers can't change anything right? It's all been predestined to happen the way its going to happen regardless of your prayers so why bother?

Is that a quote from Enyart? Sure sounds like something he'd say.

LightSon

March 23rd, 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

I gotta be blunt here - Open theism is pleasure in unrighteousness.

Whoa. Bluntness observed, but that's harsh Swordsman. I'm not an Open Theist, but I've observed that they are trying to honor the Lord as best they are able. I haven't seen any predilection on their part towards unrighteousness. I think your charge is unfair.

Why can't we debate this issue without launching personal insults?

Originally posted by Swordsman

LOL. God doesn't destine His people to debate anything. The truth is not a debatable issue.

I was under the impression that, under Calvinism, God ordains (or predestines) EVERYTHING. So is that not true?

God_Is_Truth

March 23rd, 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by LightSon I was under the impression that, under Calvinism, God ordains (or predestines) EVERYTHING. So is that not true?

“Nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which He has fore-ordained” (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect. 3).

i'd say it's true. what say you Swordsman?

*Acts9_12Out*

March 23rd, 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

I don't feel like jumping through hoops with you today. Call it a quote or a paraphrase, whatever. He brought back that verse in Isaiah to His day.

Interesting... Don't you agree that if Christ would have meant "All thy children" He would have said, "All thy children"? Instead, Christ said "All are taught by God," not just "All thy children." There are many examples of OT "quotes" in the NT that have dramatically different meanings. For example, feel free to compare Matthew 2:15 with Hosea 11:1. Matthew "quotes" Hosea 11:1. Is Matthew really "quoting" Hosea or not?

All isn't everybody. Isaiah shows you this. "All thy children" is God's children. Not everybody. You can't really draw semantics into this. There's really no argument at this point.

All is everybody. Christ shows you this because He changed the Isaiah "quote" from "All thy children" to a universal All. It really is quite simple.

OK. Whatever. Only God can speak the truth to you. Not anyone else. Only He can open your eyes. He did for me.

You fail to address the passage yet again. Christ enlightens every man, not just you and your elect.

Didn't we just beat this dead horse??? You've talked yourself into believing this so much you can't see what the passage is really saying. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN.

I simply read the passage. You are the one who attempts to convolute Scripture by importing your own ideas. OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE.

I'm happy that you gave me your stamp of approval. :banana:

You're welcome...

Acts 13:48 illustrates when the Gentiles heard Paul and Barnabas preaching, they believed. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This doesn't sound like they got faith on their own perogative does it? Nope. God creates faith. Not you.

Interesting... If you'd like, I will exegete Acts 13:48. This is also quite simple. Infact, the short version is to back up to verse 46...

Acts 13:46
13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

These Jews "judged themselves" unworthy. Those in Acts 13:48 "appointed themselves" unto eternal life by freely accepting the gospel. I can provide the extended version which deals with the middle voice of the verb if you'd like...

No, you mean man rejects the truth that God deserves ALL the glory for everything. And just by you not understanding what I'm saying here proves my point.

No, I meant what God's Word says. The gospel was "preached in every creature" (Col 1:23). The law was written on every person's heart (Rom 2). The law and the gospel are for everyone, not just your elect supposedly chosen before the foundation of the world...

To YOU it doesn't. Another discussion will not get you to open your eyes and ears. Only God can do this.

Only if God predestined my eyes to be opened. Again, Romans 8:28-30 is corporate. Feel free to establish that it is speaking of individuals....

Its a mystery alright. Funny how Paul over and over explains the Gospel to the 1st century churches. A lot of them still didn't get it. Kinda like today.

What's important is, if you as one of God's elect understands the mystery. Do you share Paul's desire that He states in Ephesians 3:9? How can you if you don't even know what "the mystery" is?

Good Luck,

--Jeremy

Apollo

March 23rd, 2004, 03:11 PM

Clete,

I said…

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him?

…and you replied

The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise.

Adam’s free will decision to eat of the tree was done with full knowledge of the threat, yet, he ate. Odd decision. He had no reason to “doubt” God’s warning, but chose to ignore it. What’s the object lesson of that? That Adam was “dummer’n dum,” or was “outing” latent rebellious tendencies? He was supposedly “perfect.” Yet, the impression remains that we should doubt not only his loyalty, but his reasoning skills.

He ate. He exercised free will. He sided with Eve. He dared question God’s monopoly on “free will.” A possible object lesson is that threats of punishment are insufficient to force a man of principle to commit treason against himself. In that sense, Adam was a patriot of freedom, no different from Patrick Henry. Another possible object lesson is that God is God, and we’re not. How this obvious fact could ever have been lost on Adam, with no biblical explanation, is a mystery.

Was God testing Adam’s loyalty? Or was Adam testing the limits of his freedom? If so, now we know. Man was never free. Not Adam, and especially not us. Free will is the right to say “no,” otherwise our wills are not free. Man has a legal term for threats of destruction. The term is “extortion” -- the modus operandi of the Christian god.

Coerced confessions are not only not admissible in a human court, they are forbidden under biblical law and the New Testament law of love. It appears you have mistaken “God the Father” for God “The Godfather.” Vito would hold a gun to his victim’s head, tell him to sign “or else,” and call that a choice, too. If man does not have the freedom to accept or reject the Christian god without fear of reprisal, we are slaves in the traditional sense. "Blessing" for obedience and "cursing" for disobedience is how you train a dog, not a man.

Someone asked what Calvinism is. This is it: Christian theology’s most vocal opponent of the myth of free will. If you choose to exercise your even marginally "god-given free will” and commit the "thought crime" of thinking for yourself, you will be destroyed. That is not the "Calvinist" god. That is the "Christian" God. Not much of a choice, either.

smaller

March 23rd, 2004, 05:42 PM

It is God's Will and predetermination that people use their freewill to argue with each other, and so shall it be forevermore....

oh, and don't forget to damn your neighbor to burn in torture forever today...

Clete

March 23rd, 2004, 09:08 PM

Apollo,

If you do not repent, you will burn in Hell forever! And, no I'm not making a joke!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. How's that smaller? Oh, and by the way, the same applies to you as well.

Granite

March 23rd, 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Apollo,

If you do not repent, you will burn in Hell forever! And, no I'm not making a joke!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. How's that smaller? Oh, and by the way, the same applies to you as well.

Clete, no offense but this seems like an extremely lazy response to Apollo's post.

smaller

March 23rd, 2004, 11:43 PM

The hand of the accuser upon your's is no surprise Clete. You are it's slave.

Clete

March 24th, 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Clete, no offense but this seems like an extremely lazy response to Apollo's post.

Apollo did nothing but repeat himself with a larger number of words this time. More of a response is unessesary.
The post I gave not only responded to Apollo but to smaller as well. I killed two birds with one stone! What you call lazy I call efficient! ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete

March 24th, 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by smaller

The hand of the accuser upon your's is no surprise Clete. You are it's slave.

It is God's law that convicts both you and Apollo. If you are saying that God's hand is upon me then I'll take that as a compliment and urge you to take it as yet another reason to repent.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite

March 24th, 2004, 08:54 AM

Shrugging off Apollo's posts as a "house of cards" strikes me as a head in the sand approach, that's all.

lost anomaly

March 24th, 2004, 03:34 PM

Swordsman and Clete,

Thank you both for the resources you have provided. Calvinism has been an interesting religion to research. I must say though I am still slightly confused, but with a little more research I think I can solve that on my own.

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom? Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him? We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us? It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father. If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell?

Clete

March 24th, 2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by lost anomaly

Swordsman and Clete,

Thank you both for the resources you have provided. Calvinism has been an interesting religion to research. I must say though I am still slightly confused, but with a little more research I think I can solve that on my own.
Your welcome, and I'm sure you can as well! If you have any questions let me know!
Oh wait a minute...

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom?
Good question! The answer is He wouldn't!

Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him?
Another very insightful question! Again, He wouldn't!

We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us?
A veritable fountain of great questions! He does!

It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father.
Well that's because it doesn't make sense! :thumb:

If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell?
I assume you mean arbitrarily.
He wouldn't of course, God is just and shall not the Judge of all the Earth do rightly?

BRILLIANT QUESTIONS!
It will be interesting to see if Swordsman will be able to deal with them as easily.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete

March 24th, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by granite1010

Shrugging off Apollo's posts as a "house of cards" strikes me as a head in the sand approach, that's all.

granite,

I already responded to Apollo's point the last time he made it. He responded by repeating himself. What else do you want me to say to him that hasn't already been said? The bottom line is that Apollo wants a world where he can do what he wants with no consequences which would render life meaningless and even if that weren't so God is the creator and He didn't set it up that way. Apollo as a member of the creation has no grounds to whine about it. He can either do things God's way or He will be sent to Hell forever. The CHOICE is his.
Feel better now?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo

March 24th, 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by lost anomaly

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom? Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him? We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us? It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father. If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell? Those are great question, lost anomaly! I'm glad to see that you recognize that Calvinism does not accurately describe the True and Living God, who is revealed in the Bible.

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; Deuteronomy 30:19

God_Is_Truth

March 24th, 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by lost anomaly

Swordsman and Clete,

Thank you both for the resources you have provided. Calvinism has been an interesting religion to research. I must say though I am still slightly confused, but with a little more research I think I can solve that on my own.

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. (1)Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom? (2)Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him? (3)We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us? (4)It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father. (5)If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell?

i'm not a calvinist but here go my answers anyways that i believe calvinists would say.

*all answers here are what i believe calvinists would respond with. they are not my own personal beliefs*

1) there are no "certain elect" only the "elect" whom God showed his irresistible grace to.

2) his sovereign right and since all people deserve hell anyways who are we to question God?

3) everything is done for God's glory. God doesn't get lonely so it's not like he created us for fellowship or anything like that. the problem really is that man is totaly depraved and would never want God on his own so God must show him his irresistible grace and save him. God has the right to save whoever he wants and the fact that he has decided to save any is simply amazing! amazing grace....

4) total depravity.

5) God doesn't love everyone and proved it by only dying for the elect. they are the only ones he loves.

well, that's what i believe a calvinist would say. i'll probably get flamed for this but what the hey. :D

In Christ,

God_Is_Truth

smaller

March 25th, 2004, 08:18 AM

Clete

It is God's law that convicts both you and Apollo. If you are saying that God's hand is upon me then I'll take that as a compliment and urge you to take it as yet another reason to repent.

You do know who the accuser of others is Clete? It is not God.

God's Law is very specific. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Anyone who does not do so is LAWLESS. When you condemn others to burn in fire forever you are LAWLESS.

Calvinism and Arminianism adherents are LAWLESS in this respect and as such represent the greatest form of hatred.

Apollo

March 25th, 2004, 08:31 AM

Clete:
I already responded to Apollo's point the last time he made it. He responded by repeating himself. What else do you want me to say to him that hasn't already been said?

You haven’t said anything. All you’re doing is stomping your foot. I said, where there is a law, there is no free will. I didn’t say there was “no” law, or that the law is bad, or that I want a world where I can do whatever I want with no consequences. You are quoting yourself and attributing it to me. Is that how you “win” all your arguments? By pulling the string attached to the side of your neck and squawking, “Repent, or burn! Repent, or burn!” like a Chatty Cathy Doll?

If a will is limited, it’s not free. I said that the law limits man’s will. If limiting man’s will is not the point of law, the law is pointless. I am saying that where there is a law, there can “be” no free will. Threats of punishment are not only the basis of our legal and prison system, it is the basis of the Christian religion. Adam’s will was not “free” if exercising his will cost him his life.

Would you agree that the law is by nature “coercive”? Why is a law necessary? Most laws are obeyed voluntarily. Most of us don’t need a “law” against stealing in order to not steal. If we are obeying the law voluntarily, the law has no affect. Honest citizens are, literally, above the law. The law against stealing only affects thieves. The thief may “choose” to steal, but there is no way his decision is “free’ if the “price” is five-to-ten with no chance of parole. For those contemplating theft, but deterred by the law, obviously their wills have been “hindered” by the law. A will compelled by the force of law, and the threat of punishment, cannot be free. The will is only free if acting without fear of reprisal.

You are implying that if the Godfather holds a gun to my head, and makes me an offer I can’t refuse, that I’m free to choose to submit and live or free to resist and be murdered. The “choice” to live or die is mine, therefore the Godfather’s offer is valid. The freedom to die is not much of an offer, but history is full of heroes and patriots and even martyrs making such “choices” when forced to choose between slavery and freedom. Even Christians can admire those who on principle choose death over life, except when exercising the same “right to choose” when “crossing” the Christian Godfather.

Having a “choice” is not the test of free will. Free will can only exist if choices are made without fear of reprisal. Is the Pepsi Challenge “free” if choosing Coke (perhaps your preferred beverage) is made a capital crime? It is sheer stubbornness to maintain that a law forbidding Coke has not influenced your decision to choose Pepsi. It is likewise folly to insist that Adam was in any way “free” to choose between eating and not eating “forbidden” fruit, any more than you are “free” to choose “forbidden” soft drinks in a Pepsi-controlled police state. Paying our federal income taxes is, supposedly, “voluntary,” too. We don’t “have” to pay our taxes, but we understand that “voluntary” does not mean we are “free” to not pay our taxes. “Voluntary” in this case means we are free to go to jail.

If God’s offer to Adam was legitimate, and Adam’s will was free, Adam’s decision to eat or not eat would have carried no threat of reprisal. True freedom, like true love, is unconditional, or it isn’t free. Did the Christian god create a free man, or a slave? If he created a race of slaves, he is worthy of neither our obedience or our love.

This is not a critique of the nature of the "true" god, but of the mythological "gangster"-god of Christianity.

smaller

March 25th, 2004, 08:41 AM

Most excellent argument Apollo. Most excellent.

I have put up many times in this forum that only God has freewill. If the will of men is LESS then by simple comparative definition it is LESS than FREE.

The Law provides another example of this LESS than free position.

It is also a certainty that FREE will has only been able to produce SIN. If said "wills" were truly FREE they should be able to produce a NON sin effect as well, but these supposedly "free" wills have NOT been able to so produce.

Clete

March 25th, 2004, 02:52 PM

You can play semantic games all day long. The end result is the same.
"Behold I set before you this day, life and death, therfore choose life!"

Whether you like it or not if you do not choose to be on God's side you do choose to be His enemy. If that's the side you want to be on, so be it, just don't blame God for your stupidity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller

March 25th, 2004, 03:15 PM

Semantic games are what people who eternally damn other people for what is also in them use Clete. I need no such games.

Your "choice" is what "saves" you? What are you now? A SELF ATONEMENT believer?

They should put all you guys in a room and, you know, see if you could find agreement.

I suspect the lockup would remain indefinate.

Apollo

March 25th, 2004, 09:31 PM

Not so smug, though. Come out from behind the skirts of your god and fight like a man.

Re: your proof text, as far as I'm concerned, even if taken literally, the God of the Hebrews is not speaking to me, he is speaking, or was speaking, to a band of nomadic goat herders, who at one point spent forty years lost in the desert. As for being an enemy of the Christian god, I do not regard this god as my enemy. Make love, not war.

Why, I wonder, is the Christian god so mad? Well, things didn’t work out. You plan and you plan, and it looks like this. Bummer. Or, things did work out, but god planned for failure, and called his name Jesus. (Is Jesus Plan A, or Plan B? Kinda hard to tell.) Now, his son is dead. Is he satisfied? No. He’s still mad. He got mad, and stayed mad. He is so mad, he has a special day set aside when even the dead won’t be safe. If you happen to p**s this god off – even if you never had the pleasure of actually meeting him, or never heard of the guy – you, and all his other “enemies” (the world), will spend eternity being punished in or near (is lakefront property in demand in hell?) a Lake of Fire, plus other remedial attractions, such as the world famous Isolation Room. If you’re lucky, maybe he’ll only “annihilate” you. I was raised on Marvel Comics, but, I dunno. Sounds like you’re worshipping Doctor Doom.

Apollo

March 26th, 2004, 09:01 AM

It is also a certainty that FREE will has only been able to produce SIN. If said "wills" were truly FREE they should be able to produce a NON sin effect as well, but these supposedly "free" wills have NOT been able to so produce.

Smaller, by "sin" you mean a “tendency” toward moral failure? I think it is fair to say that “some” wills (even at times, “our” wills) are capable of producing non-sin effects. The positive side of the law is that you cannot be charged with a crime if (obviously) no crime has been committed. No broken law, no sin. All thoughts or actions that conform to the requirements of the law do not produce sin effects, and are therefore “holy.”

If you are within the law, the law has no power over you. In that sense, the law protects us (e.g., the police can’t pull us over without reasonable cause). I can definitely say that, as a technical matter, even as a non-Christian, I keep the laws of the Christian god vastly more often than not. When keeping the Christian law, I am immune to, or above, the Christian law. I’m not saying I don’t “sin” (“thought” crime issues), or that I’m “perfect” according to the Christian definition of perfection.

But, hells bells, how hard is it to keep the Ten Commandments? Anybody around here planning on killing anybody? Any of us committing adultery? Not me. Been a good boy for over 25 years. Do I need a law punishing infidelity? No. Faithfulness to my wife is my choice. Much confusion (especially among “Christians) could be avoided if Christianity were understood as an adjective, not a noun.

Clete

March 26th, 2004, 12:42 PM

Apollo,

What alternative would you suggest.
You want a world where there is no consequences to ones actions, please tell me how that would work itself out on a day to day basis.
If I wanted to steal everything you own for example, should I be allowed to do so with no fear of reprisal?
What if I wanted your wife to work as a slave and I had the ability to physically force her to do it. Should I be allowed to that without worrying what you thought about it?
Go on, please tell me how this "I can do what ever I want" world of your would work. I really want to know because I don't believe you've ever thought it through that far. I believe that you hate God and have found a convenient excuse to blame Him for a situation that you find distasteful but that which happens to give life meaning. I believe that life the way you think it should work wouldn't be worth living at all and that for God to have done it any other way would have been a waste of time and energy.
Prove me wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. By the way, I’m sorry about having taken so long to respond. I'll try to better!

billwald

March 26th, 2004, 01:08 PM

The bottom line of Calvinism (somewhat different than Reformed theology) is that God decided who would be "saved" before he created the universe. The problem with both is the unintended consequences of this theory.

If God IS love, then the logical conclusion is that everyone is "grandfathered" into Heaven and those who don't want to be there must opt out. The "question" becomes, "What must I do to become unsaved?" This concept is against human nature because humans like to control other humans and because of the "follow the money trail" concept. I have communicated with some Christians who seem more interested in seeing the people who disagree with them in Hell than getting themselves to Heaven. Particularly Reconstructionists/Theonomists? (Any on this list?)

The basic error of the Reformed confessions is the assumption that the Mosiac Covenant applies to gentiles outside of Israel. The only purpose of the Mosiac Covenant was to provide a social contract for the people living in the land. It had NO eternal consequences. ALL the blessings and curses were temporal.

The Main story line in the Bible is that God has chosen people for himself - for Heaven. The Exodus through Deut event is an incidental sub plot that has NOTHING to do with the main theme. Unfortunately, St Paul didn't understand this.

So under the proper Biblical interpretation <G> The purpose of evangelism is to identify people who are alread chosen by God for Heaven and welcome them into the Church. The Church is God's social contract for his post-resurrection people.

Granite

March 26th, 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by billwald

The bottom line of Calvinism (somewhat different than Reformed theology) is that God decided who would be "saved" before he created the universe. The problem with both is the unintended consequences of this theory.

If God IS love, then the logical conclusion is that everyone is "grandfathered" into Heaven and those who don't want to be there must opt out. The "question" becomes, "What must I do to become unsaved?" This concept is against human nature because humans like to control other humans and because of the "follow the money trail" concept. I have communicated with some Christians who seem more interested in seeing the people who disagree with them in Hell than getting themselves to Heaven. Particularly Reconstructionists/Theonomists? (Any on this list?)

The basic error of the Reformed confessions is the assumption that the Mosiac Covenant applies to gentiles outside of Israel. The only purpose of the Mosiac Covenant was to provide a social contract for the people living in the land. It had NO eternal consequences. ALL the blessings and curses were temporal.

The Main story line in the Bible is that God has chosen people for himself - for Heaven. The Exodus through Deut event is an incidental sub plot that has NOTHING to do with the main theme. Unfortunately, St Paul didn't understand this.

So under the proper Biblical interpretation <G> The purpose of evangelism is to identify people who are alread chosen by God for Heaven and welcome them into the Church. The Church is God's social contract for his post-resurrection people.

Former Reconstructionist. This exact attitude is part of what burned me on CR.

smaller

March 26th, 2004, 09:58 PM

Greetings Apollo

Smaller, by "sin" you mean a “tendency” toward moral failure?

Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness." The Word classifies "lawlessness" as NOT LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR. (multiple texts available.)

I think it is fair to say that “some” wills (even at times, “our” wills) are capable of producing non-sin effects.

Again from a Word perspective what you present is not possible. A. ALL have sinned. B. All HAVE sin. (let me know if you need the texts)

The positive side of the law is that you cannot be charged with a crime if (obviously) no crime has been committed. No broken law, no sin.

Romans 2:12 says otherwise. Paul also said that SIN REIGNED from Adam until Moses. So there was certainly sin without The Law.

All thoughts or actions that conform to the requirements of the law do not produce sin effects, and are therefore “holy.”

Agreed. Glad to see you insert "thoughts." Many equate sin only to acts.

If you are within the law, the law has no power over you.

The Law is not against The Spirit, nor is it against mankind. Quite the contrary.

In that sense, the law protects us (e.g., the police can’t pull us over without reasonable cause). I can definitely say that, as a technical matter, even as a non-Christian, I keep the laws of the Christian god vastly more often than not. When keeping the Christian law, I am immune to, or above, the Christian law. I’m not saying I don’t “sin” (“thought” crime issues), or that I’m “perfect” according to the Christian definition of perfection.

For a professed non you are demonstrating quite a good handle on the concepts.

But, hells bells, how hard is it to keep the Ten Commandments? Anybody around here planning on killing anybody? Any of us committing adultery? Not me. Been a good boy for over 25 years. Do I need a law punishing infidelity? No. Faithfulness to my wife is my choice. Much confusion (especially among “Christians) could be avoided if Christianity were understood as an adjective, not a noun.

As previously stated, the act of "conformance" does not make "immunity." From a Word perspective sin is still present with ALL.

Agreed on the adjective portion.

enjoy!

smaller