|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/14/2008 11:37:14 PM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 135
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
Theophile2,
quote:
FreeGrace -
Actually, that God "Condemns" the "non-elect" is not a technical answer for the RT POV. The technical answer is that God "passes over" those individuals.
The question you are asking in this vein is in practicality, why doesn't God save everyone, assuming everyone has the power within themselves to accept or reject God's invitation (which is a theological fallacy per RT).
The answer that RT would give, is that the question is not why doesn't God save everyone, the question is why does He save any at all.
Your POV assumes an a-priori goodness in man that expects God to allow man his own ability to accept the invitation to salvation.
RT says that everyone begins in a fallen state of estrangement from God with no ability through a dead spirit to do anything about it (for the sake of time, I'm not annotating my statements, but I don't expect you to "just believe" me either).
So RT says, it is actually a wonder that God would save any at all, but through His grace and mercy, He elects to save some (or a remnant - which the Bible is rife with God saving a "remnant" examples).
The Technical Answer from the Westminster Large Catechism:
Q13 Answer "God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;[1 Timothy 5:21] and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof:[Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14] and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.[Romans 9:17-18, 21-22; Matthew 11:25-26; 2 Timothy 2:20; Jude 4; 1 Peter 2:8]"
Q30 Answer "God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,[1 Thessalonians 5:9] into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works;[Galatians 3:10, 12] but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.[Titus 3:4-7; Galatians 3:21; Romans 3:20-22]"
(Westminster Large Catechism)
Blessings!
Very very clear and very very biblical. I am so priviledged to have witness the grace of God through your response. Praise the Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 8:20:51 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2473
Status: offline
|
To all the reformed ones:
Could you explain to me how I can be assured I am one
of God's elect and that I am saved without venturing
into legalism and superficial piety?
You so love the "allness" of God and the "noneness" of man, yet the reality
is that we can only experience our salvation and sanctification in a subjective way, no?
How can any Calvinist explanation of assurance be truly assuring if
repenting is a product of "God's eternal decree", when in fact,
our initial repentance as well as our continuing repentance (sanctification)
is actually the result of a personal decision rather than a predetermined,
unalterable course, as put forth by one of your own?[1]
And it is the response to his universal command and call for repenting that
God enables us to believe, and having satisfied these conditions, He converts us.
Scripture clearly tells us that in doing so we have fulfilled his desire for us
to repent and God, having waited patiently and now being filled with joy,
adopts us as his own and changes our default destiny from hell to heaven -
We have entered through the narrow gate and are on the narrow road -
we are saved!
Does this make man the determiner of his salvation? No more than man
can forgive his own sins by asking forgiveness, nor does a personal
decision to repent give the man credit for responding to God's intiative...........
[1] Systematic Theology, p. 713
_____________________________
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 - 8/15/2008 8:32:04 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theophile2
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
quote:
Reformed theology destroys any meaning from John 8:24. Yet, KJB thinks that the answer to WHY Jesus said what He said is "because they cannot hear".
The WHY is condemnation.
People are told the truth and the truth CONDEMNS people.
Ha! According to you very own theology, God CONDEMNED the so-called "non-elect" to destruction before the foundation of the world. God IS truth, and God condemns the so-called "non-elect" for their inability. Your answer continues to fail to answer my WHY question. Because your theology fails to have an answer.
FreeGrace -
Actually, that God "Condemns" the "non-elect" is not a technical answer for the RT POV. The technical answer is that God "passes over" those individuals.
No offense, but "passes over" is exactly equal to "chosen for destruction". So, regardless of the "technical" answer you want, the fact remains that in your theology, God simply chose to give faith to some, and withheld faith for others. That said, can you explain to me, in light of your theology, WHY Jesus would say to those (technically) "passed over" that they would die in their sins UNLESS they believed in Him, ESPECIALLY since they weren't "chosen" to believe, and, per your theology, Jesus didn't plan on dying for? WHY would He say "UNLESS you believe in Me"?
quote:
The question you are asking in this vein is in practicality, why doesn't God save everyone, assuming everyone has the power within themselves to accept or reject God's invitation (which is a theological fallacy per RT).
No, it's not even close. Seems you are just trying to dodge the very difficult issue that your theology puts you in. I think your error is in your "assumption", since the ONLY reasonable explanation for WHY Jesus said what He did is BECAUSE He planned to die for everyone and He told everyone that salvation was for everyone.
Do you deny that Jesus gave that crowd the solution to their danger?
quote:
The answer that RT would give, is that the question is not why doesn't God save everyone, the question is why does He save any at all.
And, once again, the reformed just want to play dodge ball. Ignoring my question and asking one of your own doesn't answer my question. You keep dodging my question.
But, I'll answer your question. The reason why God doesn't save everyone is because He created everyone to seek Him, and those who do seek Him and believe the gospel are saved, and those who don't seek Him and don't believe the gospel are condemned for their unbelief, per John 3:18, 36. The free will pov doesn't need to play dodge ball.
quote:
Your POV assumes an a-priori goodness in man that expects God to allow man his own ability to accept the invitation to salvation.
Regardless of what you think my pov "assumes", which is wrong, btw, why can't you just answer the question that is actually created by your own theology? All you do is want to change the subject.
quote:
RT says that everyone begins in a fallen state of estrangement from God with no ability through a dead spirit to do anything about it (for the sake of time, I'm not annotating my statements, but I don't expect you to "just believe" me either).
So RT says, it is actually a wonder that God would save any at all, but through His grace and mercy, He elects to save some (or a remnant - which the Bible is rife with God saving a "remnant" examples).
I'm fully aware of the RT pov, which clearly does NOT answer my WHY question.
quote:
The Technical Answer from the Westminster Large Catechism:
Q13 Answer "God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;[1 Timothy 5:21] and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof:[Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14] and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.[Romans 9:17-18, 21-22; Matthew 11:25-26; 2 Timothy 2:20; Jude 4; 1 Peter 2:8]"
Q30 Answer "God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,[1 Thessalonians 5:9] into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works;[Galatians 3:10, 12] but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.[Titus 3:4-7; Galatians 3:21; Romans 3:20-22]"
(Westminster Large Catechism)
Once again, even the WLC seems to be playing dodge ball.
So far, none of the reformed have even come close to answering WHY Jesus would tell a crowd of so-called "non-elect" that UNLESS they believed in Him they would die in their sins. From the calvinist pov, God chooses who will believe or not, so WHY did Jesus tell these poor hapless non-chosen losers that by believing in Him they would not die in their sins?
Please quit playing dodge ball.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 8:45:47 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: balbas
quote:
It is by choice: they simply refuse and rebel, as Isa 1:20 notes. Not actually a description of logical choice if you refuse, isn’t it? It is more of a description of ignorance, rebellion and resistance to God.
The choice is clear in Isa 1:19,20: either consent and obey, or refuse and rebel. Why do you think "logical" is an issue anyway? How many people do you know who are always logical? Are smokers being "logical"?
quote:
but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword."For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
A very clear warning of the consequence of your bad choice.
quote:
The whole nature of a man’s being hates to obey God. The unbeliever is not neutrally described here weighing his options. He is told to choose God only. The verse assumes that man tends to be rebellious and stiff-necked. Man naturally takes an adamant stand against the truth, unyielding to God.
No, the passage clearly gives two options, and the consequence of each option. Your note of "neutrally described" is irrelevant. No one has made that point.
quote:
The ultimatum has been set but man follows his desires blindly against God. If it were a neutral weighing of choices, man would have said “there is no other logical choice but to take the Lord’s offer”.
Once again, the words "neutral" and "logical" are not relevant to this issue.
quote:
“First he is God and he will punish me if I do not yield, then the reward is far better than the punishment if I just believe”. If man’s choices were chosen with such a deliberation and open mindedness, I would bet you that all the time the choice would be towards God.
Actually, there are millions of people who HAVE made that logical choice. The jailer and Cornelius are just two examples. You and I are just two more.
quote:
As an example: It is like telling people to stop walking towards a cliff that are right in front of them. Clear as day their doom is right in front of them, that the only way they can be saved is to turn around and walk away from the cliff. Simple isn’t it? But then it is not so because we see most men not choosing to walk way. We see them falling into the cliff.
This is not a fair comparison. Why? Because in the light of day sighted people can see for themselves there is a cliff, and only one bent on suicide would walk off of it.
But, how about your example being in the night time and the one walking isn't familiar with the terrain. If he is being warned, he simply has to trust what the "warner" is saying. He might, but he might not, to his own peril. In this case, you can see that "logic" isn't even a player. The one in danger must trust the "warner", in this case being God. Those who reject the existence of God, and those who don't care and don't seek Him will walk off that cliff. But, those who recognize that God exists, and have honored Him by seekiing Him, will find Him as Scripoture promises, and won't walk off that cliff.
You see, warnings about eternity aren't as obvious as that cliff in the daylight. So your argument from "logic" isn't viable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 9:17:14 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
Why is this an issue...
Well.....it is just something we have to trust in and about God. Maybe He will tell us many of the "whys" some day, and maybe He wont.
So, you are finally admitting that your very own theology doesn't give you an answer? That was my whole point. Calvinism cannot answer the WHY question of John 8:24, yet the free grace free will pov gives a very clear answer that is makes perfect sense. Jesus warned and gave the solutioin to people who could follow His advice and avoid the danger.
For Jesus to tell them what He told them, He would HAVE TO DIE FOR THEM if He was going to be honest.
quote:
"The natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
This does NOT answer the WHY question. You seem to be saying that since the so-called "non-elect" are unable to hear or understand, it doesn't matter what Jesus told them. Well, KJB, it matters very much what Jesus told them. And you now admit that your theology doens't have an answer.
I think that should give you pause; quit a long one at that.
quote:
quote:
Why do you bring up God's omniscience, when the calvinistic pov is that God in His sovereignty chose who would believe and not? In fact, it is your theology that declares that God determines who will understand and who won't, so WHY WHY WHY do you bring up His omniscience?
Why not? I simply showed you what was going on in Isaiah.
Please relate whatever is going on in Isa with John 8:24 and answer my WHY quesiton.
quote:
You WONDER WHY Jesus would tell people truth if they had no ability to believe the truth.
No, I'm NOT wondering at all. I KNOW WHY He told them what He did. My question is to you to explain WHY He said what He did in light of your theology, which you haven't done so far, and in this post seem to be admitting that your theology doesn't have an answer, which I knew all along.
quote:
You suppose that if Jesus tells or warns people with truth that it must mean they have some sort of magical free-will ability to love and accept it.......otherwise it is some sort of unfair taunt.
If my "supposing" is so not true, can you explain WHY He said what He did?
quote:
I dont say that.
You certainly haven't provided any answers yet.
quote:
God actually SENT Isaiah with a message of truth and his speaking the truth had nothing to do with whether anybody was able to hear it, like it, love it, understand it, or believe it with some sort of magical free-will.
Once again, playing doge ball.
[quoet]He told the truth and whether people were able to turn to the truth is totally insignificant.
You keep missing the most important part of my question. Why would Jesus tell any one He didn't plan on dying for that they would not die in their sins if they believed in Him? Your theology cannot answer that.
quote:
According to your own theology, God is the One who determined who would believe and who would reject, so why do you bother bringing up His omniscience? So, to answer your very own question, yes, by your very own theology, God IS taunting those He "prepared for destruction". The really amazing thing is that you don't even see the point here.
I did not say He was taunting them in my theology.
Correct. I say that the logical conclusion of your theology is that Jesus was merely taunting those poor hapless non-chosen losers.
quote:
The Bible says God determined who would be in Christ.
So, WHY did Jesus tell "non-elect" to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins?
quote:
all those appointed to eternal life believed.
So, WHY did Jesus tell the "non-elect" to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins?
quote:
all those that were not appointed to eternal life did not believe.
So WHY did Jesus tell the "non-elect" to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins?
quote:
I know......you dont like the meaning of that text.
Because of your interp of that verse, WHY did Jesus tell the "non-elect" to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins?
quote:
We have been through that before. 
And we have YET to see any answer from the reformed set.
quote:
Ha! According to you very own theology, God CONDEMNED the so-called "non-elect" to destruction before the foundation of the world. God IS truth, and God condemns the so-called "non-elect" for their inability. Your answer continues to fail to answer my WHY question. Because your theology fails to have an answer.
They will be just as condemned in the past as in they will be in the future.
What does that have to do with anything? Since God chose to condemn them, WHY did Jesus tell those poor hapless condemned non-chosen losers to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins?
quote:
quote:
No, the so-called "non-elect stumble because God determined that they would. The reason they meet "the fate that was planned for them" is because God planned for them to stumble and He "prepared them for destruction".
The non-elect are what as known as the condemned.
Right. Condemned before the foundation of the world. So, WHY did Jesus tell those non-chosen condemned losers to believe in Him in order to avoid dying in their sins, especially since He didn't plan to die for them, per your theology?
quote:
quote:
How does this verse explain the "why"? Because He chose many for destruction, you haven't answered WHY He told them they would not die in their sin if they believed in Him.
Because it is truth.
Yes, we all agree that Jesus ONLY spoke truth. But that doesn't answer the WHY question. But you have already indicated that reformed theology just doesn't have an answer\, which should give you a very long pause.
quote:
quote:
In spite of your post, you failed to answer the question of WHY Jesus would tell the so-called "non-elect" that they would die in their sins UNLESS they believed in Him. What Jesus said contradicts and condemns your theology.
John 8;23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." Look what they ask;
25"Who are you?" they asked.
He answers that He has much to say in judgment of them.
He doesnt start telling them about their free-will and their ability.
None of this answers the question.
quote:
There is a reason that some people believed Him. It is because God saved them.
You got that backwards. Your theology's failure to be able to answer the WHY question should give you pause, but apparently you don't even see the problem.
quote:
When are you going to stop seeing "able" in "unable"?
When are you going to realize that your theology is inadequate to answer the WHY question?
quote:
Why is my language not clear to you?
Because you are unable to hear what I say.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? I I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says.
The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
It appears you think that just because they were "unable to hear" or "unable to understand" what He said doesn't matter. But it does matter, and the whole pooint is that your theology cannot answer the WHY question.
Yet, FW easily answers the question, but you reject it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 9:21:00 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1705
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
The glitch is in your refusal to see that honoring Him as God and being thankful are HOW people seek God.
Show me that “honor Him as God or give thanks to Him” has to mean seeking God. It is easy to say that you are right and I have a ‘glitch,’ but quite another thing to show without a doubt that honoring God has to mean seeking God, when honoring God and giving thanks mean so much more.
I'm not arguing that it doesn't mean "more". But you haven't proven that "without a doubt" that it doesn't mean to "seek God".
There is great doubt that 'honor God' does mean 'seeking God', especially in light of the 3 lexicons I quoted for your reading pleasure. The burden of proof is upon you, not me.
Let's get this straight, please. my pov is that "honoring God" as well as "being thankful" is included in what one doesd when one seeks God.
Someone could as easily say that “honoring God” as well as “being thankful” is included in what one does when one “sings to God”. There is a multitude of things you can say “honoring God as well as being thankful” is included in; you have merely chosen “seeking God” to try to prove a point. Just as “singing to God” is not found in the text, but could be a way people honor God and give thanks, in the same way “seeking God” not found in the text. It is just as absurd to fabricate and reconstitute “honor God and give thanks” into meaning “seeking God” as it is to fabricate and reconstitute “honor God and give thanks” into meaning “singing to God.”
quote:
Since you refuse to define what you may think "seeking God" looks like, the burden of your proof lies on you, since you won't even venture an idea of it.
Since Romans 1 doesn’t use any terms that come close to the concept of “seeking God” I find no reason to get sidetracked in the discussion to define what seeking God looks like. Why not define what “singing to God” looks like; it makes just as much sense to do that.
And, no, the burden of proof is not upon me because I won’t define what seeking God looks like. It would make as much sense to say the burden of proof is upon me for not defining what “singing to God” looks like.
I know you can’t prove that Paul meant “seeking God” when he wrote “honor Him as God and give thanks” as anyone would be unable to prove that Paul meant “singing to God”.
You are the one that has made the claim that “seeking God” is what Paul meant, not me, so it is up to you to show that is what he meant. It is not up to me to show that is not what he meant. Especially when he does not say what you claim he said. The burden of proof is still with you.
quote:
Seems your pov is so stuck on the idea that no one can seek God, there is no way to even imagine what it would look like. You are just dodging the issue.
No, I have been addressing the issue head on. It is you who refuse to prove your claim that Paul meant “seeking God” when he instead wrote “honor Him as God and give thanks.” It is you who are dodging the issue and continue to do so.
quote:
quote:
It might men seeking God as much as it might mean telling others about Him or singing or praying or a number of other things that catch your fancy.
How does witnessing count as "seeking God"? Seems to me that one who witnesses HAS ALREADY FOUND GOD. Please elaborate.
You have to remember FG, that Paul did not write “seeking God,” but wrote “honor Him as God and give thanks.” So the question should not be “how does witnessing count as ‘seeking God?’ but instead, How does witnessing count as “honoring Him as God and give thanks?”
quote:
quote:
The fact remains there is no proof that honoring God means seeking God.
Rather, you have no proof to deny that honoring God doesn't include seeking Him.
As much as I have to prove that honoring God doesn’t include singing to God. When anyone claims that someone meant something other than that which he stated, then the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, which is you. So, prove to me that Paul meant “seeking God” when he wrote, “honor Him as God and give thanks”.
The fact is, I have given proof that "honoring God . . . and giving thanks" does not mean "seeking Him" when I quoted the 3 lexicons. None of them include "seeking God". I have disproved your claim and you have given no proof to prove your claim. This is your fabrication and thus you need to show that your claim is true.
quote:
quote:
quote:
And you won't even make a guess as to what "seeking God" might look like. So, you have no case.
You've got to be joking. . . . I have no case because I "won't even make a guess as to what 'seeking God' might look like"? LOL! There is no logic to that whatsoever. I have a case because I have shown that which the apostle Paul wrote and have backed up what I have said with 3 lexicons. What more proof would a thinking person need.
A thinking person would realize that men do seek God. You are unwilling to even accept that.
If men seek God or not is not the issue here. The issue is did Paul mean seeking God when he wrote, “honor Him as God and give thanks.” The 3 lexicons I quoted are enough to prove my case and disprove yours.
quote:
quote:
Honoring God means living in a way that shows adoration, praise, worship and honor to God, not seeking God.
I believe one who recognizes the existence of God, and doesn't show adoration, praise, or worship certainly wouldn't seek Him. What is your point?
My point is that the apostle Paul was not speaking of seeking God at all. He was not speaking of seeking God as much as he was not speaking of singing to God or any number of other things. What Paul was speaking of was that in spite of the fact that God has revealed Himself through creation, man has not honored Him, adored Him, praised and worshiped Him. They should have, but did not and thus are without excuse and under the wrath of God.
There is no mention of “seeking God” in Romans 1 and therefore the normal sense of the words used should dictate the interpretation of the passage
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
When someone honors someone else it does not have to mean that the person is seeking the other.
But it certainly CAN, which you seem to just want to reject, deny, and refuse.
You have been basing your Cornelius doctrine on the possibility that "honor God" CAN mean "seeking God"? It CAN mean singing, or sharing, or whatever else you want to make it. I think it honors God best to take His word in Rom 1:21 for what it says and not try to read "seeking" or "singing" or "sharing" or anything else into it.
If it "can", then my point is valid. And honoring God certainly CAN include seeking Him.
You point is still not “valid”. Just because there is the possibility of someone seeking God does not prove that any have actually done it in and of themselves.
But my point was that if “honor God” could possibly mean “seeking God” then it could also possibly mean “singing to God” or “sharing” or whatever else you want to make it to mean.
quote:
When one becomes aware of His existence, that one's first response would naturally be to seek Him. To a thinking person.
If you were writing Romans 1 I imagine that is what you would write. But Paul wrote Romans 1 and that is not what he wrote. So, any thinking person would take Paul’s words for what they actually say, such as those who wrote the 3 lexicons that I quoted for your reading pleasure.
What the apostle Paul wrote is that all whom God made Himself evident to did not give Him honor (worship, praise, adoration) or give thanks. Seeking God is not found in the text and if you think so it is because you have imposed it upon the text. You have not shown otherwise.
_____________________________
-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 - 8/15/2008 9:29:15 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: balbas
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Diolectic
Does God want all mankind to repent and to have faith?
Does God want all mankind to be saved?
Reformed theology says "no" to both questions.
This assertion couldn't be more false.
If Calvin did not believe in God's desire for all men to repent, he would have been fatalistic and never would have used Geneva as the hub for missions. In that Geneva was very successfully used by God in calling men from darkness to light.
Then please explain all this in light of your your theology that classes all people as either "elect" or "non-elect", which choosings occurred before the foundation of the world.
iow, how could God "desire that all men repent and be saved" IF He "passed over" are chose NOT go gift faith to those "non-elect"?
quote:
Those who hold Reformed Theology, evangelize as if all can be saved because they know that it is God who changes the heart. We also evangelize with humility because we know that it is not by our wisdom or ability that the Lord will save people.
But all of God's "choosings" occurred from before the foundation of the world. so, is it a "done deal" or not? Please explain.
quote:
Calvin said:
"Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, IT BEFITS US SO TO FEEL AS TO WISH THAT ALL BE SAVED.
Here Calvin speaks from the human pov that we aren't omniscient, yet Jesus was fully omniscient. So, WHY did Jesus tell the "non-elect' to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins IF He didn't plan on dying for them?
Further, Calvin says "it befits US to feel as to wish that all be saved". How is what he "feels" important or even relevant? Only what God desires and wants is relevant, and we know from Scripture exactly what He wants. Your theology fails to answer my questions.
quote:
"God certainly desires nothing more than for those who are perishing and rushing toward death to return to the way of safety. This is why the gospel is today proclaimed throughout the world, for God wished to testify to all the ages that he is greatly inclined to pity."
If Calvin was serious about this, how did the calvinistic concept of "election" ever surface?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 9:29:26 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1705
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
To all the reformed ones:
Could you explain to me how I can be assured I am one
of God's elect and that I am saved without venturing
into legalism and superficial piety?
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, (Romans 8:16 ESV)
_____________________________
-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 - 8/15/2008 9:34:59 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
SH,
I'm done arguing with you over Rom 1 and Cornelius. We've both made our points. Now, it's up to whoever is truly seeking the truth to read our views and decide for themselves which view seems more believable and Biblically based. At this point, we're just wasting thread space.
Now, let's move on. I don't recall that you've ventured an answer as to WHY Jesus told a group of "non-elect" to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins, given the RT pov that He didn't die for the non-elect anyway.
So, why did He tell them what he did?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 9:51:44 AM
|
|
|
balbas
Posts: 135
Joined: 8/3/2008
Status: offline
|
On the subjet of prayer.
When you pray do you say "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."? Or do you say, "My will be done."?
Just as James writes in James 4
13Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. 15Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." 16As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 10:05:36 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1705
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
SH,
I'm done arguing with you over Rom 1 and Cornelius. We've both made our points. Now, it's up to whoever is truly seeking the truth to read our views and decide for themselves which view seems more believable and Biblically based. At this point, we're just wasting thread space.
If you do not want to respond to my last post that is fine with me; I can understand why you would bow out at this point. With your method of interpretation (example: forcing "honor God and give thanks" to mean "seeking God") and style of argumentation I find it fruitless to continue any discussion with you.
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 - 8/15/2008 10:39:10 AM
|
|
|
Diolectic
Posts: 795
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote:
Actually those works which are of the criteria of election are not contrary to salvation, they are the obedience of repentance & faith in Christ, which is our reasonable service. Works... Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does THE evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
...upon every soul of man that does the evil...
The evil is willfully, stubbornly rejecting the truth and not repenting, despising Christ.
Rom 2:10 But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works THE good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
...to every man that works the good
The good is acknowledging the truth to act upon it, repenting and putting faith in/on Christ for eternal life.
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
There is no undue bias of mind towards anyone with God.
Romans 2:7 is how God is not partial.
God does mot have an undue bias of mind towards the ones He elects, for they have obeyed the command to repent and put their faith in/on Christ. The ones which HE does not elect, have not obeyed.
Being arbitrary and partial (having undue bias toward man IS PARTIALITY)
Choosing someone who has done nothing different than the next person is the meaning of partiality, undue bias on/toward the favored.
One must meet the set requirements for salvation to be elect.
Doing that which one is responsible to do is not meritable.
Obedience is not meritable.
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Matthew 7:21, Matthew 7:24; Luke 6:47 James1:22
Actually these "works" are of the criteria of election, they are not contrary to salvation, they are the obedience of repentance & faith in Christ, which is our reasonable service.
Luke 17:10 Thus, you also, whenever you should be doing all these things that are prescribed you, be saying that 'Useless slaves are we. What we ought to do we have done."
quote:
quote:
Yet, your view actually has God being partial.
According to your theology/doctrine, God has an undue bias of mind towards the ones He elects, for they have done nothing different than the ones which HE does not elect.
Being arbitrary and partial (having undue bias toward man IS PARTIALITY)
Choosing someone who has done nothing different than the next person is the meaning of partiality, undue bias on/toward the favored. It is? Normally there is reason behind someone be partial... Generally when people receive favoritism it's because of something about them like their color, of if they are family... The Bias that God has toward the elect, according to your theology/doctrine is undue, unwarranted, inappropriate; unjustifiable; improper.
Since you don’t accept the truth of what I told you, then why does God elect, if it is not undue bias?
What are the factors that God goes by in election?
How are the elect due the election?
quote:
quote:
Fact is, God elects those who meet His set requirements which He has set for all mankind, obedience to His mandated command to repent and to have faith in Christ.
These certain requirements which one must meet in order to receive eternal life are the criteria in which God uses to elect those for eternal life.
The requirements/criteria are repenting and faith in Christ.
The requirements/criteria are the commands which He has mandated all mankind to obey on their own.
This is how God stays impartial in personal election.
I can't make it any clearer You layout the works based salvation very well... Tell me How these “works are contrary to election?
How are the contrary to salvation?
If God commandes the to the unsaved, why should they be save if obeyed?
Don't God say that if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.(Rom 10:9)
Is Rom 10:9 a work?
Is seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life a work?(Rom 2:7)
< Message edited by Diolectic -- 8/15/2008 11:13:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 12:18:52 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
I want to apologize for an inaccuracy that I'm guilty of. I've been referring to calvinism as "reformed theology", or RT for short.
However, the reality has been stated by none other than one of the premier defenders of calvinism, TurretinFan. If you return to post #1, and click on the "humungo thread" link, and go to page 1, scroll down to post #24. In his own words, "Calvinism" is a philosophy in which God determines history".
So, there you have it, from one of calvinism's most staunch supporters. Calvinism is not a theology at all, but a philosophy.
So, in the future, if I, through habit or forgetfulness, use "RT" or say "reformed theology", please excuse me for the slip. I do agree with the esteemed TF that calvinism is a philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 12:37:37 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8251
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
The question that I've posed to the reformed "philosophists" (  ) is why in John 8:24would Jesus tell those for whom He wouldn't die to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins. This question is most legitimate, in light of the calvinistic doctrines of "election" and "reprobation".
KJB has offered several possibilities: such as Jesus may have had some "secret motives". But what in John 8:24 was "secret"? The warning was quite clear. The solution also was quite clear.
Then, KJB opined from John 8:43 that the "why" question is answered by the fact that they could neither understand nor hear what He said. I suppose that means that because they could neither understand nor hear, it didn't matter what Jesus said to them. But how does that make any sense, much less address and answer my question of WHY Jesus would tell the so-called "non-elect" to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins.
It now appears that KJB has come up with his "final answer", which is:
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Why is this an issue...
Well.....it is just something we have to trust in and about God. Maybe He will tell us many of the "whys" some day, and maybe He wont.
So, he now faces the fact that his "philosophy" cannot answer the question. But what does he mean by "we have to trust in and about God"? How does that help in trying to understand John 8:24?
Of course we must trust God for everything He says. That should go without saying. But that doesn't address my question, nor does it answer my question.
There is only ONE reason WHY Jesus said what He did to the so-called "non-elect".
He told everyone to believe in Him to avoid dying in their sins, BECAUSE He died for everyone and salvation is for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/15/2008 12:40:29 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
