Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 9:54:14 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1773
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
Right FG .
Consider Manna's question : Is man the reason for everything ?
Here's Jesus' own words :The sabbath was made for man , and not man for the sabbath .
I would say that man is the reason Jesus came and died . I would say man is the reason for God's grace , and salvation . It certainly wasn't for the angels nor the demons .
Your quote of Jesus focuses on the Sabbath and man, but you then jump to a giant conclusion that man is the reason for God's plan of salvation.
That's a whole lot of man.  (And I assume is the reason that Manna included that question)
As FG has already asked ; who else was included in God's plan of salvation other than man ? Who else did Jesus die for ? Who else is God planning on saving other than man ?
Manna was not asking a question , he was making a snide remark , as is his usual practice .
quote:
But look what Ephesians 3:6-13 says:
"6This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. 13So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory."
Jesus is Lord of all the universe. He came and died as part of a plan to prove that. Our salvation is but a part of his larger plan. By uniting Jew and Gentiles through offering salvation to all nations and no longer just the Jews (the historical context emphasizes what a major task that would be), Jesus displays his wisdom and power and proves that he's the King of Kings. "This was according to his eternal purpose that he realized in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Think about this for a minute :
Which principalities and powers in heavenly places (which references angels) do you suppose did not know before the foundation of the world that Jesus was Lord of the universe ? Since angels were created by Him , why would He have need to prove to them that He is Lord of all the universe ?
This mystery (v. 10) teaches angels (principalities and powers in heavenly places) of God's wisdom in saving both Jews and Gentiles , and making them into one body , the church . And its this salvation of man that angels desire to look into . [Unto whom it was revealed , that not unto themselves , but unto us they did minister the things , which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven ; which things the angels desire to look into .
Since angels are not themselves objects of redemption , they desire to look into mans redemption and salvation ; in essence , it does teach angels of God's wisdom .
But , do you seriously believe that God's redemption and salvation of man is geared more to the purpose of teaching angels something , or more geared to saving man ?
quote:
It certainly wasn't for the angels nor the demons .
quote:
Certainly? Sure, God doesn't save angels and demons, but reread verse 10. In addition to saving us, Jesus also did what I wrote about above. In Ephesians 2:2, Paul calls Satan the prince of the power of the air. We also know that angels are in the heavenly places. Unless you words didn't make it to print as you intended them, your "certainly" claim directly conflicts with what this passage clearly states...
What you wrote above does not change the reason , even a tid-bit , for which Jesus came and died . That was solely for the redemption and salvation of man .
So.......you need to ask yourself this : is the redemption and salvation of man more important to God , or is teaching the angels about His wisdom (which they surely know much about already) more important to God ?
quote:
I hope the inclusion of scripture doesn't make me too rhetorical.  
No , but I'm not overly impressed with the snide intent of the remark 
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:13:18 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: quixote
quote:
No, because it was your free choice. There are plenty of things i dont understand yet about free will position and some thing i find hard to accept, but all due respect Quix, I have to admit it would be nice to see the real FW position criticized, not the imaginary one , a sheer mischaracterization.
The FW version i see you offer critique for is the one i also disagree with :)
Odeliya,
I understand that Arminians don't believe this, nor do I think you or FG believe it. But it's not a mischaracterization of the FW position; it's an ad absurdum argument that puts pressure on the logical extension of the FW position. IOW, not to insult your intellignce, the FW position teaches that God calls all equally.
To butt in here, that is NOT NOT NOT the FW position. At least not mine. The offer is to everyone, yes. Titus 2:11. But, God "invites" or calls only those who have responded to His initial evidence about Himself that He makes evident to everyone per Romans 1. In fact, Rom 1:20 says that His existence, power, nature and attributes are clearly seen so that no one has any excuse for not recognizing and honoring God as God, and being thankful. And we see in the life of Cornelius a Gentile unbeliever who DID recognize God, reverenced Him and was thankful, evident by his many prayers. The result of Cornelius recognizing and pursuing (seeking) God was that God answered his prayers, sent an angel with more evidence, which he believed, and ultimately, Peter, with the gospel.
Why would God "invite" or call one of the fools, noted in Psa 14:1-3 and 53:1-3 and quoted by Paul in Rom 3:10-12 when they claim there is no God? There would be no point. So, He calls those who recognize His existence and have begun to seek Him, as Cornelius did.
quote:
If that's the case, Calvinists naturally wonder on what basis some would choose and some wouldn't, since the foundation of the choice resides within the creature in the FW system.
And since I've just shown you that's NOT the case, you don't need to wonder any longer.
quote:
The problem for the FW position is simply that there's no good answer (unless someone would like to offer one). This does not refute the FW position in itself, but it is a severe difficulty with it. The only answer seems to be an appeal to nescience or to acknowledge the difficulty and state that it is paradoxical. These are both intellectually honest responses and no FW'er should back away from the difficulty--they should embrace it. to act like it isn't a problem, is, well, a problem.
I see no problem, nor have I backed away from any question calvinists have asked me. The same cannot be said of calvinists regarding my questions to them, however. 
The "good answer" that you claim isn't there is found in the concept of choice. When you or anyone is presented with a fact/statement/proposition/promise/etc you are immediately faced with a choice: to either accept it as true (believe it, trust it, etc) or reject it as false.
We know that God has made evident His existence, power, nature, and attributes, so that they are clearly seens from Rom 1. Those are "facts". Now, when He does make them evident to someone (and he does to everyone) they are faced with the choice to either believe He exists as Creator and honor Him and give thanks, or they can deny that evidence, like the fools do who claim there is no God, or they can just ignore the facts, because they aren't interested. I've just given you an example of where 3 choices are created when God makes Himself evident to someone. It is all about choice. God presents Himself, and man is free to choose. This certainly isn't about intelligence, since we are all familiar with the phrase "child-like faith", and we know what it refers to: simple acceptance of facts. Children aren't highly intelligent, certainly not compared with adults. So, please, quit conlcuding that the FW pov leads to the notion that intelligence is a factor.
quote:
In like manner, FW'ers naturally attempt to put pressure on Calvinists by constantly referring to the paradox between God's sovereignty and human freedom. I don't disparage them for this. It's a difficulty and an honest question.
I think the "paradox" is only created in the minds of calvinists. I see no paradox at all. I understand that God is fully in control and sovereign, and I also understand that He, within His sovereignty, created mankind with freedom of thought and choice and He even delegated authority to mankind to subdue the earth and all living things, per Gen 1:26.
Seems to me that the calvinists just cannot accept that God can be in control and yet delegate authority without compromising His sovereignty. What are your thoughts on this?
quote:
I have a real heart for your statement that real versions of arguments should be critiqued, rather than straw men. In fact, I am a staunch Calvinist, but if you would like me to switch sides for a moment and argue the strengths of the FW position to demonstrate a grasp of your real position, say the word and I will be happy to oblige. To be honest, I agree with what I think you are saying: only by truly embracing opposite views, especially in light of Scripture, can one really decide which is correct.
Amen.
quote:
Thanks for a great post. I think I hear you loud and clear. But Odeliya, can a choice really be totally free? I can't think of one that could be :)
Here is my pov on that. If no choice can be free, then we are mere puppets, with our strings being pulled. I haven't read any of that in Scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:25:14 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
Besides, where do you get God "delegated" anything? Was Adam doing a job that God didn't want to do?
Regarding the first question: this might surprise you, kelman, but I got it from the Bible. Gen 1:27,28.
"And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and RULE OVER the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
You don't get your opinion from the Bible....you get THAT from your theology. Where does it say anywhere in that verse that God DELEGATED His authority to Adam?...it doesn't. Which btw, in case you've forgotten, is your original question.
My comment about "getting" from the Bible was NOT my opinion. When God said "and RULE OVER fish/birds, every living thing" that means delegation of authority. Maybe you just aren't aware of what words mean, kelman.
quote:
quote:
Regarding the second question: it is an absurd one. Why would you think God wouldn't "want" to do it? You just cannot cut those strings, can you.
Your ego's too inflated, FG. Just because you don't understand a question doesn't make it an absurd one. Is that not the meaning of "delegate"?...not doing a job you are ultimately accountable for? Besides, as usual, these questions of your's are pointless.
To one who cannot grasp a question, I would expect they would consider it pointless. Probably, even asking a question to one who cannot grasp it is pointless as well.
quote:
Your confusion stems from the fact you cannot grasp that your choice must indeed be certain because God has certain foreknowledge of it.
You misunderstand me. I completely grasp that my choices are certain because God what I choose God already knows. But, your confusion is thinking that His foreknowledge of my choices causes my choices. That is one of the blatant errors of calvinism.
quote:
quote:
quote:
That's the point....there can be no certainty to your knowledge. The only possible way for it to be a certainty is if you stood behind the man and pushed him into the hole.
there you go again; trying to equate "knowledge" with "cause". It's clear that you really can't grasp my example. All you see are strings that are to be pulled.
We've got your number, FG. Your repetitious "can't grasp" simply means someone doesn't agree with you! The fact remains, you gave a silly example which was proven to be such. And it was also proven that your conclusion was erroneous. You resort to what you always resort to...."strings and grasps"...lol
My example was legit. You simply reject it as such. OK. So what? If you saw someone walking in a straight line to an open hole and was distracted by something there is NO DOUBT that if continues he WILL fall into the hole. When he is within 1 step of the hole and is STILL distracted, everyone but you would realize that he WILL fall into the hole.
My point is that your knowledge (or maybe someone who grasps this example) doesn't in any way cause the man to fall into the hole.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:29:20 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
And according to FG, only atheists are fools.....just disregard that part where God says "no, not one"....guess God just made another mistake.
God never makes mistakes, in spite of your weird sarcasm. The mistakes are made by calvinists who fail to understand that Paul was quoting 2 OT passages regarding fools.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:32:16 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1773
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
rwe ,
quote:
Why did Paul say he would become all things to all men to save a few, Bee?
Because he didn't believe in unconditional , irresistable , individual , election to salvation .
quote:
Why did Paul "reason" with the Jews in the synagogue?
Same reason .
quote:
Who was he trying to convince, the elect?
Paul obviously didn't believe in unconditional , irresistable , individual , election to salvation ; since he never taught it .
If he believed it , why did he write he would become all things to all men to save a few ?
Or And they also , if they abide not still in unbelief , shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in again .
Or NEVERTHELESS , WHEN ONE SHALL TURN TO THE lORD , THE VEIL SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY . (Sorry for the caps , not intentional)
Or If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh , and might save some of them .
If Paul truely believed in unconditional , irresistable , individual , election to salvation ; he must have been out of his mind for thinking he could provoke any of the non-elect to jealously and saving any of them .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:42:19 AM
|
|
|
justasheep
Posts: 44
Joined: 5/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now, I suppose if Satan has free-will and can freely snatch sheep out of the hands of God, and God is not capable of controlling and stopping Satan.......he will most likely devour all the sheep.
KJB,
That is one of the better arguments from a pure philosophical postion. If all God's creatures are truly free in a libertine sense then when and where would Satan stop devouring?
_____________________________
Life is wasted if we do not grasp the glory of the cross, cheerish it for the treasure that it is, and cleave to it as the highest price of every pleasure and the deepest comfort of every pain.
John Piper
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:45:16 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
You ought to start a website. You could name it "Presuppositional Definitions by FreeGrace". While work may mean laboring for wages, it ALSO means deeds or acts.
The Bible HAS defined works in Rom 4:4,5, kelman, sicne you are apparently unaware of it. The Bible speaks of "works" as something that creates a debt or earns a wage. Does believing do that? No. That's the difference. [/quote
Of course, believing creates a debt when it is YOUR faith.
Since you think so, can you actually explain HOW believing something/anything created a debt or earns a wage?
When you claim believing is something you can achieve apart from God’s gift it is your faith, your work.
And so what? How does that create a debt for anyone else, or earn a wage?
We see in Rom 3:22 “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: “ those who believe, that is, those who have faith, are saved by or because of the faith of Christ which in turn is evidence by the good works which includes the faith seen in the life of the one who was saved. That’s a faith which earns no wage.
That's my point, kelman. Our faith earns no wage.
quote:
“What must we do, that we may work the works of God? “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent” (John 6:29)" Clearly, we observe that believing is a work. Besides, where is grace when salvation depends upon your belief in YOUR faith?
Your error is found in your words, "when salvation depends upon your belief in your faith". Salvation always depends upon God, who chose to give eternal life to those who believe. But that's a concept that calvinists cannot accept or understand.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Sure I can, FG, because Scripture says that it clearly is a deed or act.
No, you can't and you didn't. I've never claimed that believing isn't something "done", which you want to call "deed" or "act". Fine. You missed my question completely. I asked, "Can you show me in any of these verses where "faith" creates "debt" or "wages" due? You didn't, because you can't, kelman. Which is my point. The Bible has already defined what it considers a "work". In a works salvation system, the one doing "work" is earning salvation.
Which is precisely what it is when you claim that saving faith is autonomous.
Where have I claimed that nonsense? Can you show me any posts? I have NEVER said that saving faith is "autonomous". You keep claiming you understand my posts, but this statement demonstrates that you don't
quote:
quote:
quote:
Since you proudly proclaim that it is YOUR faith - apart from God, the only thing that's too bad is you wind-up justifying yourself.
That's just what it is, kelman, my faith. Jesus clearly acknowledged as much when He chided His own disciples for their lack of faith, and when He praised others for their great faith.
If all faith comes from God, as in "causality", can you explain WHY He didn't chide and praise His own Father instead of those He observed the faith or lack thereof?
It’s very simple, FG. As Scripture declares, God gives saving faith. It is His gift to the one He will save. But Scripture also declares that faith is a fruit of the Spirit which means it can grow. Not everyone has equal amounts of fruit, but fruit they WILL have, contrary to your view.
How does any of this deal with Jesus chiding His disciples and praising others regarding their faith or lack thereof? Your response ignores the issue completely. You claim Scripture declares God gives saving faith, yet you produce NO verse with that clearly stated.
If faith is a gift from God, Jesus HAD NO RIGHT to either chide or praise anyone for the faith they express. That is my point. Can you actually address that?
quote:
Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
This verse is directed to believers and has no relevance to unbelievers being given saving faith. Nice try, but no dice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 10:54:47 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: justasheep
quote:
Now, I suppose if Satan has free-will and can freely snatch sheep out of the hands of God, and God is not capable of controlling and stopping Satan.......he will most likely devour all the sheep.
KJB,
That is one of the better arguments from a pure philosophical postion. If all God's creatures are truly free in a libertine sense then when and where would Satan stop devouring?
What all you seem to forget, or ignore, is Scripture which balances out what Satan is prowling around trying to do. You all sound as though Satan has unlimited power here. But he doesn't, not in the least.
James 4:7 puts everything in proper perspective. "Submit therefore to God. RESIST the devil, and he will flee from you."
Only when we SUBMIT to God can we RESIST the devil. When we do SUBMIT to God, and RESIST the devil, the devil will FLEE from us.
btw, since this passage was written to believers, it is clear that the devil CAN "devour" believers. What say you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 11:03:30 AM
|
|
|
justasheep
Posts: 44
Joined: 5/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I understand that God is fully in control and sovereign, and I also understand that He, within His sovereignty, created mankind with freedom of thought and choice and He even delegated authority to mankind to subdue the earth and all living things,
Sorry to jump in here, but I couldn't resist. Seems like the point of this thread anyway.
FreeGrace,
Seems like you misunderstand words and their meaning. I can understand that, knowing the culture in which we preside. Just how "fully in control" can God be when man's choices take their necessary preeminance in your scheme of free will? Or more simply put - Who is really sovereign if libertine free will be true? Words like predestination have meanings, you cannot circumvent them with your understanding of foreknowledge. Besides, surely you know God's omniscience would preclude any free choice in the libertine sense. This of course is why open theism is a logical outworking of arminianism. Again sorry about jumping in.
_____________________________
Life is wasted if we do not grasp the glory of the cross, cheerish it for the treasure that it is, and cleave to it as the highest price of every pleasure and the deepest comfort of every pain.
John Piper
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 11:40:55 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Dear, you usually get what you pay for
If we talking about consumer goods/services. If we talking about the government taxpayers hired to work for them,no. Wordwide phenomenon.
...I hear you friend. good book is always worthy of a paper copy.
But even the internet version has way, way more pages that I got time to devote ..:) instead of 11 books I got no time to read, now I have 12 wonderful books I have absolutely no time for.
He summarizes the theological point well, though. Thank you for telling me about him, I had no idea, dumbie me, i thought Grudem was a pro-football coach, up until you enlightened.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 11:49:06 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: justasheep
quote:
I understand that God is fully in control and sovereign, and I also understand that He, within His sovereignty, created mankind with freedom of thought and choice and He even delegated authority to mankind to subdue the earth and all living things,
Sorry to jump in here, but I couldn't resist. Seems like the point of this thread anyway.
FreeGrace,
Seems like you misunderstand words and their meaning. I can understand that, knowing the culture in which we preside. Just how "fully in control" can God be when man's choices take their necessary preeminance in your scheme of free will?
Your comment here that you think the FW pov is that man's choices "take pre-eminence" is seriously in error. Please explain HOW freedom of choice takes pre-eminence in anything? And please show over what it supposedly takes pre-eminence.
quote:
Or more simply put - Who is really sovereign if libertine free will be true?
Please define what you mean by "libertine free will", since my definition of free will is simply freedom of thought/choice. That's it. So, if your definition of "libertine free will" doesn't match my definition of free will, then there is no need for further debate or discussion, because we aren't on the same page.
We can't discuss until we are.
quote:
Words like predestination have meanings, you cannot circumvent them with your understanding of foreknowledge.
I'm not circumventing anything. Why do you think that knowing what will happen mean that knowledge causes the happening? God's knowledge of man's free choices are not the cause of them.
quote:
Besides, surely you know God's omniscience would preclude any free choice in the libertine sense.
Until you define what "libertine" means, we have no argument.
quote:
This of course is why open theism is a logical outworking of arminianism. Again sorry about jumping in.
No problem with jumping in. I'm neither arminian or open theist, just to clear that up for you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 12:25:16 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7875
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Yesterday I posted about Matt 14 where Jesus walked on water and Peter joined Him, until he lost his faith and began to sink. To which Jesus responded (chided), "Oh YOU of little faith. Why did YOU doubt?"
calvinism claims that faith is the gift of God. Yet, we read in Matt 14 that Peter actually LOST his faith, with the result that he began to sink into the water.
So, does God, who "gives" faith, also "snatch" it away. Because Peter's actions of his request and then getting out of the boat and actually walking on water for a while demonstrates that he HAD faith before LOSING it. So, what's up with that?
Can anyone from a calvinistic pov explain what all happened?
Now, we KNOW what happened.
- Peter requested from Jesus to walk on water. This denotes he had faith that Jesus could grant that request.
- Peter gets out of the boat and actually walks on water. This also denotes that Peter HAD faith that Jesus would grant that request.
- Peter notes the wind, gets distracted, and LOSES his faith, and begins to sink. Can any calvinist explain WHY or HOW he LOST his faith? Did God simply take it away? That should be the calvinist conclusion.
Jesus' words clearly and directly put the blame on Peter himself. He chided him for his little faith. And then He asks him why he doubted.
Doubting is the opposite of faith. When Peter was sinking, he was doubing that Jesus could/would keep him on the water.
Was Jesus powerless to keep him up? Was his own faith keeping him up as long as it lasted? I say "no" to both questions.
I think the point of the narrative is that man is responsible and accountable for trusting in God. And Jesus provided dramatic evidence of that.
This passage is reminiscent of another passage, Matt 13:53-58. He noted the lack of honor He received in His own hometown, and v.58 notes that "He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief."
Make no mistake. I do not believe that when our faith fails, He fails us. I think the point of these 2 passages, in Matt 13 and 14, is that when we don't trust Him, He lets us "do our own thing". But from Matt 14 is is clear that even though Peter's faith DID fail him, and he began to sink, Jesus didn't let him drown. That's my point. Jesus was in full control the whole time. And when Peter's faith failed, Jesus let him see what happens when that occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 12:57:25 PM
|
|
|
IMA_CHRISTIAN
Posts: 1662
Joined: 1/23/2006
Status: offline
|
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HEBREWS 6: 4-6??????????????
"For it is impossible for those who WERE ONCE ENLIGHTENED and HAVE TASTED of the heavenly gift and WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, and have tasted the ggood word of God and the powers of the world to come, IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY to renew them again unto repentence seeing they crucify to themselves the son of god afresh and put him to an open shame"
i heard a sermon on this today by a Calvinist minister, and he was saying this meant apostates, who once almost had salvation in thier hands, but they hardened their heart and lost it (the wooing of the HOly Ghost).
Now, if salvation is Irresistable, how can this be? I understand that if the Holy Ghost draws you irresistably, you will not be able to refuse Him.
Please explain.
_____________________________
I'm just one of those Calvinistic robots for the Lord :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 1:36:51 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 644
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: justasheep
Sorry to jump in here, but I couldn't resist. Seems like the point of this thread anyway.
FreeGrace,
Seems like you misunderstand words and their meaning. I can understand that, knowing the culture in which we preside. Just how "fully in control" can God be when man's choices take their necessary preeminance in your scheme of free will? Or more simply put - Who is really sovereign if libertine free will be true? Words like predestination have meanings, you cannot circumvent them with your understanding of foreknowledge. Besides, surely you know God's omniscience would preclude any free choice in the libertine sense. This of course is why open theism is a logical outworking of arminianism. Again sorry about jumping in. Go right ahead, jump right in.
Free will is like a man in a building with no way out.
He is FREE to roam about anywhere with in that building, however, he can not go out of the bounds set by the walls.
Free will, we have choices to make. If we don't pray, God does have plan B, which is what He does if He does not find a man to to pray.
Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should build up the wall, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
:31 Therefore have I poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, says the Lord GOD.
See it as God already knowing that HE would not find a man to stand in the gap, but only looked to proove that a man could have if one chose to.
Plan A was to find a man among them, that should build up the wall, and stand in the gap before Him.
Plan B Is to pour out indignation upon as judgment.
Just as Moses prayed, And God kept Plan A (Exodus 32:14)
One could say that is one chooses to sin, God must turn to Plan B an a way.
Could even be this way"
Plan A: Nobody Ever Sin
Plan B: Those who sin can repent and be forgiven through Jesus
Plan C: Those who refuse to repent and are not forgiven through Jesus go to hell as God's last resort.
What I mean by "when time was open" is that before creation, there was a time when nothing was truly decided, confirmed or determind.
I do believe that there was an open periode of eternity to be in existance for relationship to be posible between the Trinity Godhead.
For, without openness(as in undecided), there could not be relationship(comunication for example).
So, when God did plan to create you or me, there was an open time for God not to know what HE will do, or even what man will do for that matter, for we were not yet planed.
If God eternaly knew HE would create, there would have been a finite time of knowing this in eternity until HE actauly crerated.
If there is a such thing as a finite time in eternity, the question comes as; How long did God wait until He undecided to create?
This is why one can not definitly claim full knowledge as being right, because no one realy knows as we are all extrapulating.
Omniscient foreknowlege does not hinders choice.
It is as if we are in control of our choices and He knows what we will choose & do.
Imperical omniscience can not be true, because the future is not yet a reality.
I don't see any problem with God foreknowing each and every man so very well, that HE knows the decisions that we will make, just as I may know the choices my wife makes.
This includes God's perfect & complete wisdom.
God's perfect & complete widom is able to play cenario's of a life, based on His knowledfe of that person, to the end to know if one will or will not do such & such. This is how God's perfect foreknowledge is omniscient.
God may steere and lure a man toward HIS intended purpose with out being decietful.
However, in Pharaoh's example, God wanted him to free HIS slaves(as we know from HIS command) but Pharaoh didn't. God used what Pharaoh gave HIM(disobedience).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 2:01:03 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 644
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: IMA_CHRISTIAN
i heard a sermon on this today by a Calvinist minister, and he was saying this meant apostates, who once almost had salvation in their hands, but they hardened their heart and lost it (the wooing of the Holy Ghost). According to Calves, God hardened their heart as He did Pharaoh.
For Calvs, God is never sincere in His commands.
He knows that what He commands is impossible to comply with, but He condemns them anyway.
quote:
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HEBREWS 6: 4-6??????????????
"For it is impossible for those who WERE ONCE ENLIGHTENED and HAVE TASTED of the heavenly gift and WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, and have tasted the ggood word of God and the powers of the world to come, IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY to renew them again unto repentence seeing they crucify to themselves the son of god afresh and put him to an open shame" This is imposible only for the one who fell away, and those who pray for them.
There is a great sermon on this by David Wilkerson here:
EVERYBODY should listen to it.
Basicaly. it is about a woman who was in full time ministery(HAVE TASTED of the heavenly gift and WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST, and have tasted the ggood word of God and the powers of the world to come) and she fell away in a drunken period of time.
She came to herself knowing that she crucified to herself the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame, knowing that it is imposible to be renewed again unto repentence seeing what she had done.
No one could speak to her concirning the grace of God, the love of God, and His great mercy and forgiveness...
She was hoplessly in despare.
However, GOD brought her back to repentanced, for with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:37, Mat 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luk 18:27.
The thing was is that she didn't blaspheme the Holy Spirit in what she did, therefore, there was hope ONLY WITH GOD.
If she did blaspheme the Holy Spirit, She wouldn't have cared less of God forsaking her.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 2:07:40 PM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 644
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Yesterday I posted about Matt 14 where Jesus walked on water and Peter joined Him, until he lost his faith and began to sink. To which Jesus responded (chided), "Oh YOU of little faith. Why did YOU doubt?"
calvinism claims that faith is the gift of God. Yet, we read in Matt 14 that Peter actually LOST his faith, with the result that he began to sink into the water. Peter didn't "loose his faith"
He still knew that Jesus was the Son of God.
Peter only took his attention of Jesus & onto the roaring sea.
The only way that one may loose his faith is being decieve to another Gosple, which puts one's faith in/on someithng diferent that Christ.
quote:
Can anyone from a calvinistic pov explain what all happened? Sorry, but I'm not from a calvinistic pov, but I hope you will agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 2:52:58 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2364
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
rwe2156,
quote:
The question is why did Jesus chide his disciples for their lack of faith?
If God gives and controls our faith, why let Peter sink?
God is a rational being, the creator of intelligence and reasoning, no?
Well, there is a man I know of that claims faith comes
from within man himself and not from God.
And there is also a man who claims man's faith is given to
him by God but yet is chastised for having little of it!
Does God dole it out in various amounts?
Is there a 'super-elect' who get more than others?
Or is it simply given and the man can determine
how much of it he wants?
You cannot explain why people exercise their
faith differently, nor can you explain why God would
choose to grant more faith to one than another to
one of his elect.
Peter's faith was his own.
Yes, it is a gift, and we can have as much as we desire,
but it, like repentance is not rationed out as God sees fit.
quote:
He can give a person great strength and take away
this same strength in one quick and small breeze.
To prove what?
Sounds familiar.......let the man think his faith is his then take
some away from him and accuse him of having little faith?
Of course that is consistent with holding men responsible
when they have no moral ability to choose.
quote:
These people are humbled and yell out: "Save me Jesus"!
And the purpose is? They must be the elect, no?
God already intends to save them and.....
They can't call out unless they are already saved!!
God is the ultimate rational thinker.
As such he would not chastise a man for something
the man had no control over.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 3:28:49 PM
|
|
|
justasheep
Posts: 44
Joined: 5/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please define what you mean by "libertine free will", since my definition of free will is simply freedom of thought/choice. That's it. So, if your definition of "libertine free will" doesn't match my definition of free will, then there is no need for further debate or discussion, because we aren't on the same page.
FreeGrace,
Libertarian freedom might be a better term and is often defined as such
The belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. This is commonly called "the power of contrary choice" or "the liberty of indifference." This belief does not claim that there is no influences that might affect the will, but it does insist that normally the will can overcome these factors and choose in spite of them. Tltimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is autonomous from outside determination.
Libertarianism is sometimes called incompatibilism, because it is not compatible with determinism. Libertarians believe that only if we have this kind of radical freedom can we be held resposible for our actions.
Scripture never explicitly teaches the existence of LF. Scripture also never grounds human responsiblility (in the sense of accountability) in libertarian freedom, or for that matter any other kind of freedom. We are responsible because God is our creator, He is Lord and has the right to call us to accountability. He is not arbitrary but Holy and Righteous. There are many examples in scripture that call for human accountability, without first requiring human freedom. Judas' betrayal might be the best example.
His betrayal while being the most treasonous act in all of history was planned according to scripture to the definite plan and foreknowledge of almighty God. So FreeGrace How does this definition align with your views of free will?
_____________________________
Life is wasted if we do not grasp the glory of the cross, cheerish it for the treasure that it is, and cleave to it as the highest price of every pleasure and the deepest comfort of every pain.
John Piper
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2008 4:06:48 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2364
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: justasheep
Or more simply put - Who is really sovereign if libertine
free will be true? Words like predestination have meanings,
you cannot circumvent them with your understanding of
foreknowledge.
Justasheep - welcome to the fray, now lets get down to it.
I submit that if you are a true determinist your theology will take
you to a place you really don't want to go. The end result
for determinism is the denigration of the character of God.
If you are a compatibilist you are nothing more than a
"determinist wannabe" who can't stand the thought of what
his philosophy is going to do to God's character.
You decide - you REALLY want a Westminister-type God -
who they think is off the hook simply because they pronounce
him innocent with a "release from liability" statement and
instead put it on the miserable creature who had no choice!?
Look, either God determines everything or he doesn't, including sin.
If he is not the determiner of everything can he still be sovereign? Yes!
Jer 18:7-10 tells us God can limit his sovereignty.
Ex 32:14 tells us God bases some decision on the response of man.
Rev 2:21 tells us God waits on people to decide.
"Foreknowledge of a decision makes the decision certain"
is a philosophical exercise, not a theological proofstatement.
The reality is somehow men are free to choose even though God
knows what choices they will make. A study of Molinism and so-called
"middle knowledge" makes a little sense of it, but in the end
falls apart I think because it leads to open theism. But it does | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
