glorydaz
Well-known member
Poor baby. I didn't play the game the way you wanted. :chuckle:
Preaching the Gospel !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
- Status
Poor baby. I didn't play the game the way you wanted. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
You can't come to the knowledge of the truth as long as you remain unwilling to be taught.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:mock: zzub
Some much for the 'predestination' theory then! NM
No wonder you have a headache Daz.
However, getting back to the thread after you tantrum:-
For many years, Calvinism was at the heart of my belief system. It was unquestionable that man could not believe the gospel. He had a latent and inborn aversion to all things spiritual. Man, I held, was totally unable even to cry out for mercy.
The Fall had rendered him TOTALLY incapable of receiving its remedy.
This I deemed "sound doctrine." I elevated above the rabble of non-Calvinists all writers and theologians who championed it. Clark Pinnock describes a similar attitude he developed in the course of his faith-journey:
"Certainly most of the authors I was introduced to in those early days as theologically 'sound' were staunchly Calvinistic..
Any Christian who dissented from my soteriology was "an Arminian," regardless of whether that person subscribed to the issues of the Remonstrance (or even heard of them).
The main point at which I first questioned Calvinism was the nature of man in his sinful state. To question this point of the system is to question all of it. The last four points of Calvinism rest squarely upon the first, Total Inability. Once that dogma is removed, the entire superstructure crashes under its own weight.
On reading what the Bible ACTUALLY says, boy, it crashed BIG TIME.
Total Inability is said to arise out of man's sinful state, his complete spiritual ruin in Eden. It has left him incapable of doing anything good, or even desiring it. Hence, he is disabled and can neither will nor obey any spiritual command - even the invitation to receive Christ. John Calvin sums this up in stark language:
"Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness."
Note - hi-lighted in red; man is disabled by God to start with - according to Calvinism. How then can man have any responsibility for his sin which, was not his sin but that sin predestined upon him. Calvinism starts to crumble. And follows is a landslide.
"Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness."
Note - hi-lighted in red; man is disabled by God to start with - according to Calvinism. How then can man have any responsibility for his sin which, was not his sin but that sin predestined upon him. Calvinism starts to crumble. And follows is a landslide.
Two primary texts adduced to prove the doctrine of Original Sin (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15) say nothing about Total Inability.
Nowhere are we told that an invincible tendency to resist God was imparted to the race through the offense of one. If there were a place we would expect to find the doctrine, it would be in one of those passages dealing with the relationship between Adam and his descendants. But there is not a trace of such teaching there.
This is a serious difficulty. The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable. He lost perfection through sin and assumed a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, a nature imparted to all mankind as a curse. But the Scriptural evidence for these contentions is, at best, scant.
A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible. If a theology is based on an unproven philosophic assumption how can the rest of the system be trustworthy?
I have quoted 1 Tim 2:4 many times above.
I have quoted Charles Spurgeon - a respected theologian who slates Calvinism for changing the words of the Bible and denigrating the Holy Spirit as incompetent in saying what he actually means.
I have quoted 2 Peter 3:9 many times as well.
Why is the Calvinist blind to all these ? Perhaps blinded by God? Perhaps predestined never to see ALL of scripture ?
Nowhere are we told that an invincible tendency to resist God was imparted to the race through the offense of one. If there were a place we would expect to find the doctrine, it would be in one of those passages dealing with the relationship between Adam and his descendants. But there is not a trace of such teaching there.
This is a serious difficulty. The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable. He lost perfection through sin and assumed a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, a nature imparted to all mankind as a curse. But the Scriptural evidence for these contentions is, at best, scant.
A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible. If a theology is based on an unproven philosophic assumption how can the rest of the system be trustworthy?
I have quoted 1 Tim 2:4 many times above.
I have quoted Charles Spurgeon - a respected theologian who slates Calvinism for changing the words of the Bible and denigrating the Holy Spirit as incompetent in saying what he actually means.
I have quoted 2 Peter 3:9 many times as well.
Why is the Calvinist blind to all these ? Perhaps blinded by God? Perhaps predestined never to see ALL of scripture ?
Joshua urged the Israelites, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, ...." (Josh. 24:15).
There is nothing in Joshua's entreaty that suggests the Israelites were all unable to choose.
There is nothing in Joshua's entreaty that suggests the Israelites were all unable to choose.
Jesus himself did not believe in Total Inability. We read in Mark 4:11,12 that he spoke in parables as a judgment against the obstinate Jews. The purpose of parables was to keep his message from entering their ears, "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven" (v.12).
Had those stiff-necked people been allowed to hear the truth straight out, they might have turned to receive it.
But how? Calvinism tells us that no one can turn and receive the forgiveness of sins because of Total Inability
Had those stiff-necked people been allowed to hear the truth straight out, they might have turned to receive it.
But how? Calvinism tells us that no one can turn and receive the forgiveness of sins because of Total Inability
In Romans 1, Paul writes of men who are "without excuse" because of the manifest presence of God in the creation. He says, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21).
Note what the text ACTUALLY says: became futile, not predestined that way from the beginning.
Note what the text ACTUALLY says: became futile, not predestined that way from the beginning.
glorydaz
Well-known member
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.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It does appear you do assert "the conditional security of believers..."
Your cited passages for that being what's behind your mis-fire...
Here, I'll just break down the sense of that 1st passage you cited, in hopes of pointing out why you might do well to consider how you might also be off on those other passages you cited...
See the following Spoiler...
Spoiler
And believe it or not, I touched on very, very little of just that much.
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: 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
zzub's Fifteen Minutes Are Up
zzub's Fifteen Minutes Are Up
If you are going to steal from the guy, at least have the integrity to credit him:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Introduction :AMR:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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? 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
zzub's Fifteen Minutes Are Up
If you are going to steal from the guy, at least have the integrity to credit him:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Introduction :AMR:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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? 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
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Would that those who appeal to Spurgeon for their anti-Calvinism, actually understand the man.
"It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that He wills it with the force of a decree or a Divine purpose, for, if He did, then all men would be saved! He willed to make the world and the world was made—He does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved. Terrible as the Truth of God is, yet is it certain from Holy Writ that there are men who, in consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Savior, will go away into everlasting punishment where there shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will, at the last, be goats upon the left hand as well as sheep on the right. There will be tares to be burned as well as wheat to be garnered, chaff to be blown away as well as corn to be preserved. There will be a dreadful Hell as well as a glorious Heaven and there is no decree to the contrary."
As Spurgeon demonstrates in the sermon (1516), God’s wish (per Spurgeon) about man’s salvation is this—that men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth of God. This is the preceptive will of God, the commands/precepts of God. What all should do.
The decree of God, as Spurgeon rightly observes is the decretive will of God, what will happen, what cannot not happen. As Spurgeon states, "And I know, too, that He has a people whom He will save, whom by His eternal love He has chosen and whom, by His eternal power, He will deliver."
Exactly how does one come to the knowledge of Truth described in this sermon? Spurgeon makes it clear: "that we are not to be regenerated by our own actions, but are regenerated by the Holy Spirit who comes to us".
As noted, you have overlooked the intent of Spurgeon in distinguishing between what God preceptively wills, versus what God volitionally wills by ordaining (decretive will). If you read Spurgeon more carefully, as he is very clear, we all wish for this or that. I wish I could lose ten pounds, my preceptive will. My doctor says I should do so (his preceptive will). But I will never lose ten pounds unless I volitionally will it and take the steps necessary (including the means my doctor may provide) to make it not not happen. Hence the distinctions between God's commands (precepts) and God's decree (ordaining).
As demonstrated, we Calvinists actually do read much about those who have come before us; and we actually try hard to understand what we have read. Those that think the saints of old have nothing to teach us or that we are somehow more endued with the Holy Spirit than they were in their time are but chronological snobs. :AMR:
You cannot appeal to Spurgeon for your oddities. You do the man's memory a disservice by your sad attempt to pit him against that which he held dear. I am confident you have not read the man's over 3500 sermons (I have), but merely borrow from the work of others (see my earlier post about your integrity) and cherry-pick.
If you want to read the man at his best and most perspicuous, try this:
http://thekingdomcollective.com/spurgeon/sermon/52/
You are operating outside your weight class and it shows.
AMR
Last edited:
beloved57
Well-known member
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:
The all men He wills, desires to be saved shall be saved, thats all to it !
Anything less is below the Almighty and blasphemy !
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:
- to will, have in mind, intend
- to be resolved or determined, to purpose
- 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.
- to be resolved or determined, to purpose
The all men He wills, desires to be saved shall be saved, thats all to it !
Anything less is below the Almighty and blasphemy !
- Status