|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:30:42 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1781
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Odeliya,
quote:
I am however grateful to you for your posts really support my strong conviction that being a Calvinist or Arminian is not important for spiritual growth of a believer.
It doesn’t help a person to become a better Christian; C or A or any variation of it doesn’t affect our spiritual maturity at all!
Nasty and mean people remain such even after conversion to Calvinism or Arminianism, etc. Being Calvinist, etc doesnt change their bad behaivor.
Your posts reveal more truth about you then about those terrible, wordly, humanistic , heretical anticalvinists that make you so angry and upset.
That is exactly what Calvinoids (Hey......I like kinda that name  ) have been saying for 256 pages.
Your post shows the futility of mere men.
People are unable. Total inability.
God is what makes believers and God is what grows them Spiritually.
(Except for Cornelius of course) 
For some people like myself for example....I need a lot of growth and oh how I know it.
(I bet you would not have to twist the arm of my wife to get her to agree with that  )
I need a lot of God. On my own......I am helpless. All in His time....I have faith.
That is why this following sort of teaching is written;
If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
And this;
My dear children, I'm writing this to you so that you will not sin. Yet, if anyone does sin, we have Jesus Christ, who has God's full approval. He speaks on our behalf when we come into the presence of the Father.
I think through my life on this earth I am going to need other Christians to forgive me.
Take care,
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 8:48:11 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1781
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
rwe2156,
quote:
Election is a biblical doctrine, but they cannot provide one example of a person saved because they were chosen for salvation only - not for a special purpose, too.
For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Probably still not clear enough right?
"A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall."
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
They stumble because they disobey the message......which is what they were destined for.
Oh.....but you on the other hand (yes, in contrast to those destined to disobey) are a chosen people.
You may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Human will 0%......and the mercy of God 100%.
Nothing has changed on my scoreboard.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:01:50 PM
|
|
|
shemaromans
Posts: 3752
Joined: 3/30/2007
Status: offline
|
rwe,
Your previous posts (page 255) really surprised me. I thought that you were earnestly trying to understand the RT pov and that you attempted to avoid the low cuts often posted in this thread.
Instead, I read your posts that grossly mischaracterize the RT pov in an effort to chum up with McCleod, who really doesn't have a handle on RT.
It's disappointing that you would resort to comic, overly-simplified, incorrect representations of what several of us have discussed with you.
I still love you, though, and hope that you'll refrain from posts that don't become you.
And for the record, someone (can't remember who offhand...perhaps Theocentric?) 10-20 pages back did post scripture that shows people being saved simply for salvation. You must have overlooked, which is easy to do with the large number of daily posts.
_____________________________
"But as for me, it is good to be near God." Psalm 73:28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:35:02 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HardKnox
FG and rwe (if you’re listening),
Ooo. I must have hit a nerve.
Nope. Don't think so.
quote:
Is it possible you guys see that the origin of your doctrine is not scripture but worldly philosophy?
Not hardly.
quote:
I’ve just given a skim off the top of my noggin’. I can certainly expand on that theme if you like.
I suggest you save what's left on the top of your noggin'. You may have need of it sometime.
quote:
Intent is revealed in results. If God commands and man disobeys, it is God’s intent to show his power in them by destroying them. Romans 9:17 (Notice how I go to scripture and not just give off my opinions?) “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” Romans 9:22 “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:”
Quoting Scripture is fine, Hnox, but what is your point here?
quote:
Why don’t you take that up with Christ. He told Peter he would deny him [Christ] when the cock crowed. Was that Peter’s intention? Did Jesus want him to deny him?
OK, Hnox, tell us: did God cause Peter to deny His Lord, or did Peter deny Him freely?
quote:
What about Judas, though. (But the easy answer is that Judas is in heaven... right? The “son of perdition”?)
Why would you think the "easy answer" is that Judas is in heaven? He was possessed by the devil. Anyone with any depth on their noggin' knows he is in hell.
quote:
Both sides of regeneration and what happens?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "both sides of regeneration".
quote:
God moving in accordance with his will. BTW, I don’t suppose you guys believe in demon possession, do you? God can’t touch the freewill, but O boy can the devils. Interesting.
Of course men can be demon possessed. But, what is really interesting is your erroneous thought that you think our pov is that "God can't touch the freewill". What makes you say that?
quote:
quote:
HK - don't bother posting back if its just more venomous rhetoric and name calling.
Grow up. 
Interesting response to a reasonable request.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:36:54 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Keep in mind that the pov of the calvinist is that God causes everything. Even their thoughts.
The question is how they can claim God causes everything, including their thoughts, even their sinful ones, yet, God is not the cause of sin.
edited by moderator: responding to deleted post
< Message edited by armydude -- 12/2/2008 9:08:46 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:42:19 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
"Whatever his will is behind a command"? His will is for us to disobey? I don't get it.
That is just one of the many things a calvinist cannot explain intelligently, because their theology doesn't have one.
Free, I have been giving this some thought, and I think there is some aspect of truth in looking to God's will behind a command.
I see three possible motives:
1) his decretive will, which HK and other reformists see as the only
possible choice - God decrees everything, etc, etc.
But if we understand all aspects of God's will such as
2) his prescriptive will, that is what God desires or God puts forth as the ideal (imagine that - God having a desire ) which describes a command with a view toward obedience, a "more excellent way" if you will. Yes, God knows we are going to disobey, but he has set standards and goals. We disobey, but this is not Gods' will.
3) his permissive will, by which sin is allowed to occur. A command can
be given even knowing we will disobey or cannot possibly obey. He
permits us to disobey by our own choice.
Make any sense?
Yep, but don't expect any of the calvinists to follow this.
quote:
Example: We see the command "love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength". Is it possible to obey this command? I think the answer is yes -- IF we are Spirit-filled enough (but of course we will never
be able to perfectly obey it as long as we have sin).
But the reality is will we obey the command? The answer is, of course
no, for the reason given above - we are not completely Spirit-filled,
as long as there is 1% sin in us we will never be completely loving God.
So what kind of command is this? According to HK, God's will is for
us to obey it, so we will obey it. I think it is an example of God's
prescriptive will -- his desire is for us to obey. Making or forcing us
to obey proves nothing but leads us down the path of sinless perfection.
Or, more accurately, puppetry. I really don't know why that ruffles some of their feathers, since their pov is that God causes everything. Isn't that what the puppet master does?
quote:
All this being said, HK could be right in that if God wants us to obey a command of course we will obey it, but this is not the question and I don't know why he makes a statement like this, seeing how overall we are probably more disobedient than we are obedient.
No, he couldn't be right on that, because he refuses to acknowledge that God created mankind with the intellect to think for themselves and choose for themselves. To him and the other calvinists, everything occurs because God caused it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:47:45 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
Salvation is conditioned upon repentance and faith - this is the simple gospel message.
Did Christ die for all sinners................or just some select ones?
Recall Hnox's answer to my question re: "whole world" in 1 John 2:2. He said whole world referred to the universe, without any further explanation.
So, from that, it seems he believes that Christ died for everyone in the universe, plus all the "whats", such as rocks and hills. He won't elaborate further than what little he said.
quote:
Does God desire all men to be saved..........or just a few?
The Bible says all men, 1 Tim 2:4. But the calvinists will twist it to say "alll kinds of men". But, 1 John 2:2 gives them no wriggle room.
quote:
Does God command all men everywhere to repent...........or just a few?
The Bible says everyone. Acts 17:30
quote:
Did God send his son that whosoever believes will be saved.............or just a few?
Whosoever. John 3:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:50:34 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
....But hold on -- there's more! Now the whole picture changes -- the wicked, god-hating, heart of stone, spiritual corpse who was 100% unable to do anything until God regenerated them has been transformed into one who is now 100% able to make all kinds of free will decisions in the context of synergistic sanctification, including choosing to sin, quenching the Spirit, straying from their faith, wandering away from their faith (sorry, Free - no longer believing is not on the list), worshipping idols and denying their faith --- all this is allowed by the same God who
did 100% of everything to save a man, but apparently cannot do 100% of everything it takes to sanctify a man and keep him on the path of holiness and christlikeness!
I don't get it............
rw, why do you keep "no longer believing" off your list, but include "denying their faith"? How are those different? I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:52:09 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1705
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
This means that before a person chooses he does not really have a confident trust and therefore the choice is the foundation of belief or confident trust. This is backwards.
You still have it backwards. You will only put your trust in what appears to be the "best deal", which is a choice.
The "best deal" to a mind and heart always comes first and the choice will always be secondary. What appears to the mind and heart will always control that which will be chosen. What is fundamental is not the choosing but what appears to the mind as the "best deal." When one is convinced of the "best deal" there is no real choice involved, for the "best deal" is obviously evident. If the "best deal" is not obviously evident and one is not convinced of the desirability between two options, and a choice is made, then the choice lacks understanding, is surface and lacks any root of substantive conviction – which is the basis of genuine faith.
quote:
Don't you compare when there is a choice of what to trust? Or, do you just close your eyes and say eeny meeny miny mo?
Neither. If I have a conviction of what is genuinely desirable, choosing it is at the most - secondary.
quote:
quote:
The only reason a person chooses that which he already trusts is because he already trusts.
And just how did he get to that point of "already trusts"? By making a decision. You keep missing part of the process.
No, my friend, you are missing the process. Choice should never be the basis of trust. Convincing evidence is always the foundation of genuine trust.
quote:
quote:
The choosing to trust is a moot point if you really have confident trust.
The confident trust came from a choice between the options.
So, to you choice is the foundation of trust. Interesting. Don’t you understand that you only choose that which you already trust?
quote:
quote:
If you are correct, then trust is based upon the person trusting not the evidence that brings confident trust in that which is trusted.
Your conclusion is not understandable. I am correct.
R I G H T. Great arguement. 
quote:
Trust is based on choosing that which the evidence supports as trusting.
So "choosing that which the evidence supports as trusting" is the basis of trust? Nonsense! Choices always stem from whom you trust.
quote:
quote:
I use it the concept of “root” because it gets across the idea I intend. If your confident trust is based upon your choice, then you have no firm root of trust, because it is based upon your choice and not undeniable evidence that is the root of genuine confident trust.
What you keep missing is that the "undeniable evidence" is the basis upon which you trust.
Quite the opposite, that is exactly what I have been saying all along. Undeniable evidence is not the result of choice, but choice always stems from undeniable evidence. When one is convinced by undeniable evidence the choice is self evident and moot.
quote:
But you yourself make the choice as to what is "undeniable evidence", since we all see things a bit differently, as this thread attests to.
No, choice is not the basis upon which a person sees something as undeniable evidence. A person does not choose to prefer something, he already prefers and therefore chooses.
quote:
What has convinced you as trustworthy re: theology hasn't convinced me at all. And what is undeniable evidence from Scripture which contradicts calvinism hasn't convinced you at all.
Because it does not contradict .
quote:
So, that example alone proves that we choose what we trust.
No, that does not prove anything. The reason I am convinced is not because I choose, but because I see something as true; I’m convinced of it. Because I am convinced of it choosing it is moot. Why? Because I’m already convinced.
Blessings,
SH
< Message edited by SureHope -- 12/1/2008 9:58:10 PM >
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 9:53:44 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
People are unable. Total inability.
God is what makes believers and God is what grows them Spiritually.
For some people like myself for example....I need a lot of growth and oh how I know it.
KJ, how do you grow? Just wait around for God to do it to you? How?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 5:18:44 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
That's odd because you can't find even one verse that plainly says that "those, because of their own innate free will, God chooses to save."
No, what is odd is your demand that only unless you see phraseology that pleases you will you believe it.
Hey, you're the one who first "demanded" even one verse. You said: "If you can find me even one verse that plainly says that "those whom God saves WILL believe" I will change my theology."
You get all huffy when the tables are turned on you. You take offense at the same question YOU ask when it is asked of you. Your posting style resembles your theological style. When you ask a question, it's simply "asking a question". When I ask a question, it's a "demand".
I'm not all huffy. Look at what you posted. You included quotes. I've never demanded any specific phraseology, as you did. I have asked for a verse that clearly and plainly supports your pov. There is a big difference. Huh?...if there's a difference, it's in your mind only and not in what has been written. Have you even read your words in quotes? I'll highlight them for you. Of course you asked for specific phraseology when you said: "If you can find me even one verse that plainly says that "those whom God saves WILL believe"
quote:
quote:
quote:
We are obviously at a standstill, because the Bible places the responsibility of believing on man before God will save him, and you "demand" certain specific phraseology before you will accept it. Hey, you're the one "demanding" that God say He first must regenerate before man can believe.....oops...He already said exactly that in Eze 36:25-27 "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."
OK, where is the word "believe" hiding in this passage? I don't see it. You claim this passage teaches that God regenerates before man believes, but there isn't any mention of believing here that I can see. Where is it? It is "hiding" in the word OBEY. We are commanded to believe and we cannot obey by savingly believe until God(vs 27)"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."
Or, are you claiming believing is not an act of obedience?
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
You failed to address my post on election. If you disagree with anything in that post, can you elaborate please?
I doubt there's anything I would agree with you on concerning election; but, if you have a specific point - elaborate.
Since you indicate that you would disagree with everything, why don't you start with the definitions of "elect" and 'election" that came straight out of the ISBE?
After that, how about commenting on each of the categories of election that the Bible notes, since you "disagree with everything" I post. The definition of elect and election is quite clear. You can actually find them in the Bible.
Could you tell me where? In fact, most of the times I read "elect" it is used as an adjective, which doesn't define anything." When "election" is used, the meaning is found in the purpose of what is being elected. The term "elect" means chosen by God. As pertains to salvation, you understand "elect" to mean God chooses to save people because they believe. But, no, this is not the way God's uses elect in Scripture - He gets to do the choosing - not man. In your method, God does no more than "recognize" the one who believes. Scripture, otoh, tells us God really does do the choosing.
quote:
quote:
You can also find that God not only elects or chooses to salvation, you can see that He elects for other reasons also, such as when He elected Israel. By His Spirit, God also chooses to work in the hearts of non-believers to accomplish His will - such as Saul, Cyrus, Pharaoh, etc.
This is pretty much what I posted in 4445.
So again, since you disagree with everything I post, what, specifically, do you disagree with?
Now, now, FG, as if you don't know what I disagree with. The above explains it pretty well.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 5:24:39 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
So, you see there is no way that what God presents as election is not precisely what He says it is - that He in His sovereignty chooses those whom He will save.
2 Thess 2:13 is about choosing for salvation through belief in the truth, and the verse says nothing about God causing that belief.
We weren't talking about "God causing that belief" here, FG. I was listing verses which prove election - at your request.
My post 4445 also proves election. We aren't debating whether election is true, but rather what it means. There is only one true election as pertains to salvation. And that is the one whereby God chose and predestined all those to whom He would give the Lord Jesus Christ; and this He did "before the foundation of the world". That is what Scripture teaches. anything else is not.
The ONLY choosing as pertains to salvation is found in 2 Thess 2:13, and it is conditional. No, God is the One who chooses, He is the One who "calls", He is the One who is "faithful" thereby making those saved - the elect, the called and the faithful. All the glory and honor goes to God not to man who wants some for himself.
Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
We know for a fact that it is God who chooses each and every individual for salvation:
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
More evidence God chose the elect before the foundation of the world to be saved by the Lord Jesus Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Here we find the blood of Jesus Christ is spent only for the elect of God the Father.
1Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In any event, 2Thes 2:13 say nothing of what you claim. It doesn't say God "chooses for salvation through belief in the truth" as you say. What it does say is this: "because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:" A very far cry from your pov.
It is my pov. How you miss that is amazing. Here is the exact same word order minus some words: "God has...chosen you to salvation through...belief in the truth." Removing some of the words doesn't change the meaning at all, and clarifies the conditional nature of this choosing.
Actually, what is really amazing is that you need to remove words from Scripture in an attempt to make it agree with your theology....and you don't mind doing it! If you keep in the words "sanctification of the Spirit" or salvation by Christ, you can readily see that it is the act of God as He saves, therefore, creating in you a salvific belief.
The phrase "sanctification by the Spirit" does not change anything. We are chosen for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Interestingly enough, what God does (sanctification by the Spirit) almost seems irrelevant - only what you perceive is your domain - belief - seems the most relevant.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your position makes no sense. The "us" are those elected. To be "in Him" is to be saved.
All of this to say "believers". Why do you calvies shy away from that word? Why do you so seldom use it?
All of what, FG? Who has trouble saying believers? You're skimming way too many posts.
When have you answered "believers" in your posts? You want to say "elect", etc.
How do you know what I want to say? Why not read what I do say if you're going to respond? Definitely skimming your way through most posts....that's explains somethings anyway.
quote:
The ones chosen in Eph 1:4 are believers, not unbelievers. No unbeliever can be said to be "in Christ". You keep saying this...why? The verse does NOT say we are chosen BECAUSE we believe. You are really bring your own preconceived ideas to this verse.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 5:26:10 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
rwe,
Your previous posts (page 255) really surprised me. I thought that you were earnestly trying to understand the RT pov and that you attempted to avoid the low cuts often posted in this thread.
Instead, I read your posts that grossly mischaracterize the RT pov in an effort to chum up with McCleod, who really doesn't have a handle on RT.
It's disappointing that you would resort to comic, overly-simplified, incorrect representations of what several of us have discussed with you.
I still love you, though, and hope that you'll refrain from posts that don't become you.
And for the record, someone (can't remember who offhand...perhaps Theocentric?) 10-20 pages back did post scripture that shows people being saved simply for salvation. You must have overlooked, which is easy to do with the large number of daily posts.
Actually, I've posted quite a number of posts of mostly just scripture lately, but they seem to get overlooked in favor of man's opinion. I too have been disappointed in RWE's posts lately.
As far as mccleod and FreeGrace go, they need to knock it off.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 5:32:26 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
Just a gentle reminder for some people:
(Mat 5:22 ESV) But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 5:43:15 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Sure I understand the difference; but, apparently you don't understand the Greek when it says "vain" it means "without success or effort" precisely the case with the 2nd soil and those Paul speaks about in 1Cor 15:2. There is nothing more "unsuccessful" than to believe for a while.
If believing in Christ only for a while is "unsuccessful", then you apparently believe that God takes back salvation when the faith fails. Is that correct? Nope, not what I believe at all. I understand that Scripture demonstrates different types of belief. In the case of the 2nd soil there was nothing to "take away" since they never had saving faith, though, they did "appear" to truly believe - for awhile. But, time showed they had no root, iow, they did not have the Lord Jesus Christ who is The Root. These would be indicative of the tares Christ speaks about.
quote:
We know from John 5:24 that eternal life is obtained the moment that one believes, so if one believes only for a while, their eternal life is taken back, according to your pov. You need to explain HOW short term believing results in not being saved since eternal life is given the moment one believes. Just did.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The concept of believing other than salvificaly is clearly taught in Scripture.
Please show me some passages that clearly and plainly teach that "believing" is ever shown to be not salvific. I've already noted "believed in vain", and noted that "in vain" means without effect, or believing in something other than Christ.
What you've "noted" is not correct or at least not complete. Again "vain" means 1. inconsiderably, without purpose, without just cause 2. in vain a. without success or effort therefore your position is in error. Perhaps you've forgotten, I've repeatedly shown you those who believed but did not savingly believe.
Can you describe what is being believed when it isn't "savingly believed"? And can you provide any verses that demonstrate what is being believed for that "faith" to not be saving faith? The Bible clearly demonstrates a faith that is not saving faith. Now, you've repeatedly said you don't agree with that, which is, of course, your prerogative.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
David wrote this as a believer. Yep, and it also shows that it is God who must create the "clean heart". You don't create your own by your own innate belief. David had become so sinful it was as if he indeed needed to be "born again" again. He knew that only God could "renew" him since he has lost the joy of his salvation(Psa 51:12). What about the other 15 verses which also show that it is God who must first do the work of regeneration before one believes in addition to the work of sanctifying the believer?
I reject your understanding of Psa 51:10. It was about confession of sin, not being "born again" or regeneration. Clearly he said he had lost the JOY of his salvation, NOT his salvation, as you seem to think. And just as "clearly" you're skimming again. I never said or implied David lost his salvation.
quote:
Also, none of the other verses even mentioned regeneration preceding believing. That is your problem. You continue to think that God regenerates before one will believe, but there just isn't any verse in the Bible that says that in a plain and clear way as to be understood that way.
Nope, not my problem since I fully understand what God is teaching in Scripture as it pertains to salvation. We can know for a surety that unrighteous, sinful, deceitful evil man has no ability to savingly believe until God first creates a new heart within him. Besides, I guess we all missed those verses which say God saves BECAUSE man believes....care to share them?
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Yep, and God also plainly says He will give man the new heart so that he will believe.
What verse says plainly that God gives man the new heart so that he will believe? Eze 36: 25-27 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Once more, where is the "believe" word hiding in this passage? It just isn't there, is it. You know what God says...."seek and ye shall find."
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
That's the free will theology - by their will they believe and as a result of their will they are saved.
That 's just plain wrong, and you have no excuse for not understanding this. You just keep applying your "preconceived" ideas of what you think the FW pov is rather than what it really is.
The only thing "plain wrong" is the theology where man chooses and God doesn't.
You've expressed your error again. God chooses to save all who believe, or do you disagree with that? Man believes, God saves. Sure we can say "God chooses to save all who believe"...but that doesn't explain what your theology really means, now does it? It goes on to be unbiblical when it declares God chooses to save BECAUSE of man's belief - you've got the cart before the horse on this one.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your statement "as a result of their will they are saved" is very erroneous. It isn't our will that results in our salvation, as you mis-state here.
It is totally by the will of God that we are saved through faith.
Nothing "erroneous" whatsoever. Choosing to believe something is an act of the will - period. And God insists salvation is by HIS will not by man's will. Therefore, you are stuck in a salvation theology which has at its source the will of man.
Apparently you just will not listen. Believing the gospel is accepting God's will and rejecting my own will, but you don't want to understand that. Oh, I'm "listening" all right...but, it does appear you are not. You just don't seem to get those parts of the Bible which declare man is "desperately wicked and deceitful above all things". You don't get that man "walked...according to the prince of the power of the air". You don't think man fulfills "the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath". You don't think that while man was in this condition of depravity "God ...hath quickened." No need for God to quicken if you already believe and are saved. No need for God to open your eyes, ears and heart since you've already done it for yourself.
quote:
quote:
According to you, God saves everyone who believes. But YOU decide who will believe, therefore, YOU decide who will be saved. This is so elementary that it goes beyond reason for the free willers not to recognize what can only be the very real and only result of their theology.
No, it is just that you won't allow the reality of what believing actually is to enter your mind. To say that because my choice of believing the gospeal means that I "decide who will be saved" is silly. Nope, nothing silly about it. In fact, it is absolutely plain and simple logic....problem is you just can't let it "enter your mind".
quote:
The Bible very clearly tells us it is God who decides who will be saved, and it is only believers that He has already decided who He will save. And YOU decide WHO the believers are - God doesn't.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 6:34:00 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1705
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
quote:
However, why do you think that "honoring God" isn't a form of seeking God?
You appear to base your Rom 1 Theory upon the possibility that "honoring God" is a "form of seeking God." You have no proof that it is. Nothing in Romans 1 leads us to think that he has seeking God in mind.
OK. Then please answer my question above then.
You still have no proof.
This doesn't answer the question, now, does it. Can you answer the question or not?
I did answer it. It was my response to your “question above” to which you chose not to respond.
quote:
quote:
You base your Rom 1 theory upon the conjecture that the appropriate response to God’s revelation of Himself found in creation is seeking Him and that some actually do seek Him based upon creation alone (which is not found in Romans 1 at all).
It is hardly "conjecture". It is actually quite obvious. How do you think man would be accountable and without excuse if God didn't reveal Himself? Can you answer that?
God did reveal Himself in creation and man is accountable and without excuse. I have always said this because this is what Paul says in Romans 1. Your conjecture is that some respond positively to this revelation by seeking God, which Romans 1 says nothing about – mere conjecture.
quote:
quote:
I don’t think he meant “seeking God” at all. What is the appropriate response to seeing and knowing God? It is loving Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. This is the only appropriate response to God.
You keep going to the 'end result', when I'm talking about initial response.
For the second time, I am not “going to the ‘end result’” I am speaking about the initial response. The “initial response” of all men to the revelation of God found in creation is sinful – he does not honor God or give thanks, and his behavior proves this true. He does not love God with all of his heart, mind, soul and strength and he does not love his neighbor as himself. This is the initial response to God’s revelation of Himself found in creation and it is why Paul says that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.
quote:
quote:
The point is, Paul did not say singing or seeking. So to create a doctrine or “principle” upon what you conjecture Paul to mean is not being faithful to Holy Scripture.
Why do you insist upon such "specific" words, when even your own theology cannot support the idea that God causes belief?
Your question does not prove that there is any foundation to your speculation that Paul meant “seeking God” when he stated “honor God.” Your Rom 1/Corn Theory breaks down here. Your theory is based upon speculation alone.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your theory still has no foundation. Paul does not say "seeking God," but "honor God."
But, it should be clear to you that seeking God after He reveals himself is honoring Him as God.
Whether that is true or not is not the point.
It is not only true, but it IS the point. You just won't even consider it, because it contradicts your theology.
Nice try, but I’ll repeat myself. I won’t consider it because it is not in the Bible. You have not shown that it is and cannot show that it is.
quote:
The context of Rom 1:18 to end of chapter is about no one having an excuse for not honoring God and being thankful.
The context is that all need the gospel because all have sinned. All are accountable to God and have no excuse for their sinfulness (ungodliness and unrighteousness).
quote:
What you want to deny is that to be without excuse means being able to. You just won't have that, will you.
I have always and consistently said that natural man is without excuse because he has the faculties needed to obey (he has the heart, the mind, the power of will, etc.) but he has no desire to honor God and give thanks; he has no ultimate desire to love God and love others. Based upon these deep seated desires that go contrary to the desires of God he is unable. Thus, man has no excuse and yet, because of his unwillingness, is unable.
quote:
quote:
No, I am not thinking about the “end result.” I am saying that Paul clearly communicates that all men have been shown enough about God in creation that they should have lived a life that was in accord with who God is. No one has done this; all have sinned.
Yes, all have sinned. We got that from Adam. That isn't the issue whether anyone can or will seek God.
Seeking God is not in Romans 1. Paul is saying that man’s response to the revelation of Himself found in creation is ungodly and unrighteous. All have had this initial response which is called sin.
quote:
quote:
This is the point that the apostle has made; not that some seek God.
He didn't have to. That point is made in Acts 17:27.
Paul’s point in Acts 17:27 was not that some seek God. You speculate that he did, but you can’t find it there either.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Your theory is based upon the premise that God gives more light to those who seek Him, yet Romans 1 is silent on this as is the passage concerning Cornelius.
But Acts 10 isn't silent.
It is silent on the topic of what motivated Cornelius to do what he did. Acts 10 is silent on the topic that God gives more light to those, who on the basis of God’s revelation of Himself found in creation, seek Him.
Here is what is really silent in the Bible. Any notion that God causes man to believe the Bible, and that He chose who would believe.
Making this claim does not prove that anyone seeks God based upon the revelation of God found in creation alone. Your theory has no foundation whatsoever.
quote:
Cornelius was motivated by his knowledge that God existed as Creator of the universe and he began to seek Him. That is so obvious.
Based upon speculation alone. It is only obvious to those who believe that what they choose is the basis of what is true. There is no objective evidence that would point towards your Rom 1/Corn Theory; it is all speculation.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
You have absolutely no basis at all for your so called "Romans 1 Principle."
Because God says no one has an excuse for not honoring Him, that means man can honor Him. If one is unable to do something, they HAVE an excuse.
It all depends upon what you mean by “man can honor Him.”
OK. There is nothing in my pov that contradicts anything in Scripture.
Great argument . What you say is true because you choose it to be true  .
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 7:10:24 AM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1781
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
KJ, how do you grow? Just wait around for God to do it to you? How?
Of course not.
It is me that eats the food but I still blame my wife for being a great cook and I know God gave her to me.
She might as well just shove the stuff down my throat.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 12/2/2008 7:16:59 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2473
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
rwe,
Your previous posts (page 255) really surprised me. I thought that you were
earnestly trying to understand the RT pov and that you attempted to avoid the
low cuts often posted in this thread.
I got aggravated by someone's rhetoric. Sorry for the sarcasm.
quote:
Instead, I read your posts that grossly mischaracterize the RT pov in
an effort to chum up with McCleod, who really doesn't have a handle on RT.
Na, not really. I'll bet we have disagreements.
My post-salvation theology is reformed, as you know.
quote:
It's disappointing that you would resort to comic, overly-simplified,
incorrect representations of what several of us have discussed with you.
I have discussions with you and maybe SureHope, KJ lately. All I get from the
rest of the reformed is "the bible says it that settles it" or I get sarcastically marginized.
I even had to block one person on the thread, so offensive they were.
So please see it from my side, too. Alot of frustration, especially when name-calling.
quote:
I still love you, though, and hope that you'll refrain from posts that don't become you.
Admonishment taken - I will take a deep breath next time, friend.
Back to the issues:
I've tried and tried but still cannot reconcile depravity theology with the fact that man
is created a moral creature with a spirit and with the ability to recognize good and evil.
quote:
Theocentric?) 10-20 pages back did post scripture that shows people being
saved simply for salvation. You must have overlooked, which is easy to do with the
large number of daily posts
Sorry, I must have missed that.
Perhaps TC will read this or you might remember a name.
All I am asking you now is 1) forgive my sarcasm and 2)see my
honest frustration behind the saracasm in my post, and respond.
1) Salvation is justification, sanctification, and glorification, agree?
Why isn't it 100% God, 0% man all the way through, then? Why is
sanctification a distinctly synergistic effort of man and God?
2) How is "saved to believe" a mischaracterization (if you believe
regeneration = receiving Holy Spirit)?
3) I believe determinism is a false philosophy and not even a theology.
Tell me how God can determine everything and not determine evil.
What is your take on God have a precscriptive will?
4) Isn't depravity is more about our condition than our ability.
5) How is it righteous and just for God to hold a man responsible for
not doing what he was created unable to do?
All this being said, I ministered a part of the gospel to one of my employees
a few weeks back and the responses to a few simple questions I got
revealed a person totally clueless about right and wrong and where
morality comes from.
Honestly, I looked into her eyes and saw a deadness and my only thought
at the time was, "Oh my gosh, maybe they're right". So my prayer for her
is that God will open her heart to understand who she is and who God is -
the beginning | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
