Preaching the Gospel !

[zzub]

There is more in life than dissing the Calvinists.

There is such a thing as maturing in the Lord....as growing in Grace...as getting off the milk of the word.

Go on then.

 

[zzub]

amr



Of course He wills it with decree and purpose, Hes God ! The word will here 1 Tim 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Its the geek word thelō and means:

1. to will, have in mind, intend
   
   
   
   1. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
      
      
      
   2. to desire, to wish
      
      Furthermore even the thing the Almighty desireth that He doeth Job 23:13
      
      ¹³ But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
      
      
      
      The all men He wills, desires to be saved shall be saved, thats all to it !
      
      Anything less is below the Almighty and blasphemy !

1. 1. 
      
      
      REALLY!!! My word. You accuse Charlse Haddon Spurgeon of blasphemy.
      
      Do you understand anything about calvinism?

 

[Danoh]

REALLY!!! My word. You accuse Charlse Haddon Spurgeon of blasphemy.

Do you understand anything about calvinism?

Certainly - its just a matter of applying Augustine's same old pagan manner of "wisdom" of the Greeks - the same old self-deception depicted in Eve, way back in Genesis 3.

The same old same old "well, what this means to me is..."

That has always been an approach ever lending itself to easily reading what ever one "feels led to" come up with on the spot, into one isolated passage or another.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Never mind Proverbs 3:5's "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

Nevertheless - and thank God for - Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[beloved57]

According to Paul in Gal 1:8-9 what is a believer enjoined to do to anyone preaching a different Gospel from the one he preached which was the Gospel of Christ Rom 1:16?

 

[Danoh]

According to Paul in Gal 1:8-9 what is a believer enjoined to do to anyone preaching a different Gospel from the one he preached which was the Gospel of Christ Rom 1:16?

Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

But you Calvinists refuse to go away. :chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[zzub]

LONG post. I have responded in red and blue.

If you are going to steal from the guy, at least have the integrity to credit him: WHAT, STEAL!!! ANY READER CAN SEE, I HAVE QUOATED HIS NAME OVER AND OVER.
SHAME ON YOU TULIPBUM

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Introduction

If Adam was not any different, why would we need to be renewed in the image of God (Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10)? When Paul tells us in what the image of God consisted and says we are renewed in that, it's not hard to see that when Adam begat a son in his own image, the image of God in which Adam had been created was not transmitted to Seth in its original glory (Gen. 5:1-3). As in your frequent snippets of others' efforts, there's a lot more assertion than demonstration in the article. YEAH SO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, HUH

The decree of God establishes the free will of the moral creature: the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment they so choose. This is the liberty of spontaneity, not the libertarian free will claimed by the anti-Calvinist. In fact, had God not established free will in His decree there would be no free will at all. TROUBLE IS THAT THE CALVINIST DENIES ANY FORM OF FREE WILL AND MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. As for anti-calvinist, more accurately the vast majority of Christendom,throughout the last 2000 years, anti those who pull out half a dozen verses and build a false dogma

Unfortunately, most complaints about free will are actually attempts to determine how God pulls off being wholly sovereign and holding man responsible. Scripture provides no special revelation about the how, only what is. When God shuts His mouth, so should we. Absolutly right, AMEN. Even Calvin said as much in Intitutes book 3 chapters 25, but then spent the next 3 chapters ignoring his own advice. The rest is history.

Some argue that God should be fair and impartial in the distribution of His grace. But what do the Scriptures say, “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad... [Rebekah, their mother] was told, 'The older will serve the younger'” (Romans 9:11-12).

Those that would argue for "fairness" ignore the fact that throughout the scriptures we find God choosing over those that should, if things were “fair”, “impartial”—according to our feeble mortal reasoning—be chosen: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and Judah over Joseph. In virtually every example of God's sovereignty in the scriptures we see Him choosing the unmerited over whom we would assume the merited. Yet, why then would some appeal to God that He should be "fair" in His dealings and "give" everyone something? The very breaths we draw are more than fallen man deserves from our Maker, yet we continue to demand He give us more, for after all, we are made in His image.Yep, except what you say about fairness is often the calvinist straw man, granted - not always. As for the very breaths... tell that to a mother who has just lost a new born baby. Tell her that, per Calvin (book 1 chapter 1) that who dead baby "left her womb obnoxious and odious in the sight of God". Let me know how you get on.

Persons have frequently used the image of God within us, the ability to know some things about God, to reason away God's kingship, preferring to cast Him as a “fair” God, where the standards of fairness are defined not by God, but by His creatures. Yet, as God has continually shown throughout the history of His recorded revelation, God's ways are not our ways, and He will do as He judges rightly, not making Himself subject to our own notions of how or why He should act in relationship to us.
the 'fairness' straw man is not in question.
Persons on the one hand, while claiming that “God is love”, forget that He is also a consuming fire. Any belief system which omits or under-emphasizes either of these or other truths will be a mutilated system, no matter how plausible it may sound to men. To formulate the doctrine by giving preeminence to, say, 1 John 4:8, is a classic unwarranted example of using a locus classicus to interpret the rest of Scripture.

Now some will no doubt claim that while God did not base His choice on anything that they had already done, that perhaps God based His choice on foreseen faith or works Yes, and significantly this is not "Arminian teaching. It is a mainstream view yet the mainstream Christian knows nothing of Arminius (there agane neither do many calvinists. Such foolish reasoning was anticipated by God, for Paul clearly writes that God announced His decision before the twins were born “in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls” (Romans:11-12). By denying that election was based on something that the twins had already done, Paul does not leave open any possibility that election was based on something that the twins would do. Instead, Paul explicitly denies that election was based on anything in them, but that it was based upon "him who calls" and "God's purpose."

Moreover, in Ephesians Paul relies on the same argument. God chose certain individuals not because of any foreseen faith or works in them, and not because of their decisions or merits, but election to salvation is based solely on his will (Ephesians 1:5), his pleasure (Ephesians 1:5), his grace (Ephesians 1:6-7), his purpose (Ephesians 1:11), and his plan (Ephesians 1:11). Again, the emphasis is that God's choice of individuals was done completely apart from anything foreseen in the individuals themselves. It was God “who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,” (2 Timothy 1:9).

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:27-30, “But God chose ... so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” Paul speaks directly against any foolish reasoning that implies that only Christ is the object of election, and that whoever comes into Christ becomes God's elect. Read the passage again, "It is because of him"—i.e., because of God—that we are in Christ Jesus. God decides, not us, who becomes "in Christ," and God is the one who then puts us in Christ by His will and power.

Finally, from Ephesians 1 no matter how hard one may try, one cannot interpret “in him” (vs. 7, 11, 13) to mean that somehow we are able to place ourselves “in him” (Christ) anymore than one can claim they chose to be “in Adam”, the federal head of mankind, through whom all entered into sin (1 Cor. 15:22).

Some apparently find in their “freedom” a warrant to question everything more from the post-modern ethos of relative truth than a desire for Biblical accuracy. But where does it say that God owes anyone the stimulation and satisfaction of their mind? Did Job receive any direct answers?AH, yes he did if you read the whole book God tells me to love Him (that is, to obey Him) with my mind and at some level that has to mean subjecting my mind to His revealed Truth. No matter how much others mutilate the text, Paul meant what he said when he wrote (Romans 9:20) to the Romans concerning election, “who are you, O man, who answers back to God?”


AMR

The main point of Spurgeon's sermon, which I have quoted over and over, is that man is responsible for his own sin. The calvinists of his day claimed that, no it was not, rather God made them sin in the first place -predestination.

Spurgeon also claims that the Holy Spirit CAN, DID and STILL DOES say what he means and means what he says. The ignorant calvinist, just like in Spurgeon's day says no, the Holy Spirit means e.g "not all" instead of "all" and so on. Twisting scripture and blowing it up with grammatical gunpowder (Spurgeon's on words).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The main point of Spurgeon's sermon, which I have quoted over and over, is that man is responsible for his own sin. The calvinists of his day claimed that, no it was not, rather God made them sin in the first place -predestination.

Spurgeon also claims that the Holy Spirit CAN, DID and STILL DOES say what he means and means what he says. The ignorant calvinist, just like in Spurgeon's day says no, the Holy Spirit means e.g "not all" instead of "all" and so on. Twisting scripture and blowing it up with grammatical gunpowder (Spurgeon's on words).

No one can respond to poorly formatted posts. Try making proper use of the quote function so that the reader may follow the context being quoted accurately. Don't be lazy.

AMR

 

[zzub]

No one can respond to poorly formatted posts. Try making proper use of the quote function so that the reader may follow the context being quoted accurately. Don't be lazy.

AMR

I am working on it. I was editing it as you read it.

 

[beloved57]

Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

But you Calvinists refuse to go away. :chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

Did u want to answer the question?

 

[zzub]

"who are you, O man, who answers back to God?"

Exactly. Who is the Calvinist to tell God it must be that he predestines the elect, and the reprobate, otherwise God would not be God.

This is bringing the mind of God DOWN to the mind of man. Rediculous.

 

[Danoh]

Did u want to answer the question?

I did - but threw in a ribbing while I was at it. :chuckle:

For the freedom of spirit that is...Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am working on it. I was editing it as you read it.

Your edited version is no better.

Do you even understand how to use the quote function?

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?71504-Quotes-in-threads&p=2542516&viewfull=1#post2542516

The link above gets to the heart of the matter, albeit the attachments therein have been purged from a previous TOL database update.

AMR

 

[zzub]

After I tantrum. :chuckle:

I am humbled by your honesty. Well done GD.

 

[zzub]

It does appear you do assert "the conditional security of believers..."

Your cited passages for that being what's behind your mis-fire...

.........

I have enjoyed your take on Calvinism, by the way - lots of great passages you brought great points out of. :thumb:

That aside, you would do well to get clear on...

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: .....

Many thanks Danoh

I am editing on the move and without a mouse at the moment so I have just quoted the salient points in your post to me.

Conditional Security - A big subject of which I have changed positions on many times. A good preacher convinces me one way, later another good preacher says different. All using abundant passages from the Bible.
What first ruined things for me was being told I might be the seed thrown on rocky ground - predestined to think and believe I was saved, predestined to think I had faith, etc. Only one day in the future I might find, that like the seed predestined by God to rise up and then die, I might rise up and flourish in the faith only to find out this was just fate, as was my future salvation being scorched out.

This ruined my assurance. I later found out this was a common problem for many believers over the centuries. Which is why I have spent may years researching soteriology. My conclusion is similar to Spurgeon; how God is sovereign but man has free will to be responsible for his own sin is an incomprehensible mystery.

Which is why, though NOT an Arminian, I am against the dogmatic calvinist position that cast man's sin on God's pre-programming of that man.

To your last point

Many verses flatly deny calvinism. "All" does mean "All. "Not wanting any to perish" means just what it says.
Yet the Calvinist, as seen on this thread if no where else, ignores them, or changes them. How then can there be peace between men? We are called to go out and preach THE gospel, not a system that ignores a lot of plain verses.

I am glad you found that quoting a lot of passages brought great points out.

 

[zzub]

Certainly - its just a matter of applying Augustine's same old pagan manner of "wisdom" of the Greeks - the same old self-deception depicted in Eve, way back in Genesis 3.

The same old same old "well, what this means to me is..."

That has always been an approach ever lending itself to easily reading what ever one "feels led to" come up with on the spot, into one isolated passage or another.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Never mind Proverbs 3:5's "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

Nevertheless - and thank God for - Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

Looking back, I missed this post. I think you are spot on.

 

[zzub]

You are operating outside your weight class and it shows.

AMR

Yeah, I am trying to lose a few pounds as well.

I am glad you brought up the 'wills' of God: Decretive, permissive and so on. I have observed most calvinists do not know about this.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Trouble is that the calvinist denies any form of free will and makes god the author of evil.

No. The Calvinist readily affirms that the self-determination of the creature is established by the decree of God. That is we choose according to our greatest desires and the moment we so choose.

If you want to claim what I believe, then you must get it right. Avail yourself of the summary of Scripture's teachings here:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

And for an exposition of the above to make sure you actually understand what you have read, see this fine one:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/

If you want to draw arguments about what Calvinism believes, then draw upon the formal statements of our beliefs (see above), summarizing the teachings of Scripture. They are available for all to review, unlike what passes for non-Calvinism today.

Spoiler

From my post here (<--viewable by paid subscriber's only):

Simply put, free will is that by which the mind chooses any thing. That sounds reasonable, does it not? Before one can choose to do anything, he must first have some idea of what he is choosing. Our mind must first accept or reject a notion before we can choose. The mind shapes our inclinations and desires, just as the reader’s mind shaped his or her desire to read this post. To put it another way, free will is the ability to choose for ourselves—according to our strongest desire at the moment. In fact, we must always choose what we most strongly desire in order to choose at all. Every choice we make, therefore, is the result of the greatest inclination at that precise moment. Again, the very fact that anyone is reading this letter is an example that their desire to read this letter was greater than their desire not to read this letter. Their choice was not spontaneous but was in fact a deliberate act following their greatest urge when the opportunity presented itself.

Now some might object and insist that we can be coerced against our wills in some extreme instances. But I think even this is going too far. I offer, for example, the outrageous scenario of a thief who wields a gun and demands your money or your life. Now granted, your options have been severely restricted, but his instrument of persuasion still cannot coerce your will. You still maintain the freedom to deliver your money to him or to stubbornly refuse, risking loss of your life. If you give over your money then your strongest inclination at that moment is to live, but you still retain the freedom to refuse and risk losing your life. This, of course, is an extreme example but it illustrates the point that we always make a choice according the strongest inclination at the moment—even in unlikely cases. Now compare this to our daily struggles against sin. The same principle applies. We as Christians have a love for God but yet when we commit sin, it is because the desire to please ourselves is greater than our love and obedience to God at that moment. How can it be otherwise? If it were so, then we would be able to claim we were forced to sin. “The Devil made me do it!” Naturally, we know this is not the case.

Every decision you and I make is made for a reason without coercion from anyone else or from God. Not even almighty God, once he has given me this faculty of choice, can make me, coerce me, force me to choose. If God forced the will it would no longer be a will. Just as if God squared the circle it would no longer be a circle.

Yep, except what you say about fairness is often the calvinist straw man, granted - not always. As for the very breaths...

All in Adam are born deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2), must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5), cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2-1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2-3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14), and is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:15-20). Your issue is not with me, but with what Scripture teaches us about the dire state of the unbeliever. We are born sinners, not morally neutral, only to become sinners when we sin. You can make emotional appeals to dead infants all day long. That may incite the mob, but it is not dealing with the teachings of Scripture. We may hope all infants that die in infancy are elect infants, but we may not demand.

AH, yes he did if you read the whole book

Indeed the answer received was the bracing of Job to marvel at the sovereignty of God over all His creation, leaving Job speechless as he should be when it comes to foolishness like your own.

The main point of Spurgeon's sermon, which I have quoted over and over, is that man is responsible for his own sin. The calvinists of his day claimed that, no it was not, rather God made them sin in the first place -predestination.

No one disputes we are responsible for our sin. We are self-determined moral agents. Review the discussion above carefully. If there were "calvinists" of his day that claimed God made them sin, they were in the minority and in gross error, as all hyper-Calvinists are today and were yesterday. So seeking to use some genetic fallacy to impute this nonsense upon all Calvinists is the wrong tactic.

Spurgeon also claims that the Holy Spirit CAN, DID and STILL DOES say what he means and means what he says. The ignorant calvinist, just like in Spurgeon's day says no, the Holy Spirit means e.g "not all" instead of "all" and so on. Twisting scripture and blowing it up with grammatical gunpowder (Spurgeon's on words).

You have cobbled a few snippets here and there and presume you now understand the man's full corpus of beliefs. Nothing in what Spurgeon stated in the sermon in question is disagreeable to me or to the orthodox Calvinist.

As I suggested previously, try Spurgeon's thinking about "free will" on for size here:
http://thekingdomcollective.com/spurgeon/sermon/52/


AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yeah, I am trying to lose a few pounds as well.

I am glad you brought up the 'wills' of God: Decretive, permissive and so on. I have observed most calvinists do not know about this.

Name them. What is the total number you know that makes up the "most" you claim?
You must be hanging around some very immature Calvinists, still in the cage-stage of their walk of faith.

How about you cease the broad mis-characterizations? The majority of Calvinists understand the distinctions when speaking about the will of God. We all affirm there is but one will of God, that which springs forth from His volition, just as our own will. We all wish this or that, but that is not our volitional willing. For if it were, then it would be so...or we would change our willing. This also points out the difference between our will and God's, for our will is a never ending sea of change, while God's will is never changing, always what He has revealed in His special revelation, Scripture, and always what He has not revealed (Deut. 29:29).

AMR

 

[beloved57]

I did - but threw in a ribbing while I was at it. :chuckle:

For the freedom of spirit that is...Rom. 5: 6-8.

You want to play childish games, dont have time !

 

[zzub]

Name them. What is the total number you know that makes up the "most" you claim?

I think you are asking me who the most are who are not Calvinist. Please correct if Iv'e got that wrong.
Orthodox; Eastern, Russion Egyptian... all of them. They never accepted the teaching of Augustine way back in 385BC based on his Latin translation. Instead they had authentic Greek Texts.

Catholics: Obviously not Protestant and opposed to Reformers.

Protestants are a mixed bunch: Brethern are generally anti-calvinist( I used to be one); Baptist - some are some are opposed. Lutheren believe.. actually, I am not sure. History documents the war of words between Luther and Calvin. Would a Lutheren on this forum kindly help out here?

So I do not have a total number though I believe I can rely on 'most'. Especially as Calvinism came back on-line only 500 years ago and many of them conflict with each other - 5 point, 4 point etc.

You must be hanging around some very immature Calvinists, still in the cage-stage of their walk of faith.

Arn't they all ? (one of them is actually a University Professor (also a Mason)).

How about you cease the broad mis-characterizations? The majority of Calvinists understand the distinctions when speaking about the will of God.......
AMR

While there is much in what you said I have no axe to grind with, I do not think you are correct on the 'wills' of God. Not that I claim this is a Calvinist only phenomena. The problem I have had with many Calvinists is that they seem to only know of the decretive will. Every thing, they say, is decreed by God, even every evil. No, cannot agree, ever. That God can handle a bit of random free will makes, to me, a much bigger God than the one who has had to pre-set every event (reminds me of Deism).