by Dr. Leighton Flowers
God’s choice of Israel and even specific individual Israelites was not to the neglect of the rest of humanity, but to their benefit!
God’s original promise to Abraham was that through him “all the families of the earth would be blessed” (Gen 12:3).
God’s choice of one of Abraham’s sons or grandsons wasn’t at the expense of another son or grandson. It was for the good of them all, because it was through that chosen lineage that the Messiah and His message of hope for all peoples would be delivered:
But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.” -Luke 2:10
Learning that most people are destined for eternal damnation for reasons beyond their control (ie total inability of all, unconditional election/irresistible grace for a relative few) isn’t a cause for great joy. No more so than if God told Abraham that He would hate and damn his first born son and grandson so as to demonstrate His justice. This is not good news!
Israel (and some Israelites) are chosen to be the mouthpiece and lineage through which the Word would come to BLESS all people!
God often picks servants from among His people (namely Israel) to bring warnings, rebukes and good news. His choice of these messengers should not be interpreted soteriologically (ie as if the messenger is being uniquely picked out for effectual salvation to the neglect of the rest). Instead, the messengers are picked out to bring a message to the rest which is to their benefit, if they listen.
Sometimes the messengers are rebellious (like Jonah or Saul) and God may use external means (like a big fish or a bright light) to persuade them to go where He wants them to go so as to ensure the message is delivered. This does NOT mean God has pre-chosen who will or won’t believe their message by some kind of inner effectual means. Nor does it mean that His unique choice of a messenger is to the neglect of others. In fact, it’s just the opposite, His choice (and persuasion) of messengers is to the benefit of all people everywhere!
That is GOOD NEWS which would bring great joy to all people!
Amen. May all who read this be assured that the good news of which the angels spoke was indeed intended for you – and all people.
TS00 (posted this one)
NOVEMBER 14, 2019 AT 12:51 PM
Amen. May all who read this be assured that the good news of which the angels spoke was indeed intended for you – and all people.
——Here’s My Response—–
1. This good News did not work effectively with Judas Iscariot. Jesus Christ identified him as the “son of perdition” and the one whom Christ did not keep from His fold. So… is it really intended for all people on earth?
2. The Residents of Canaan with the exemption of Rahab: All of them has been annihilated including sucklings under the command of God to Joshua and his army without first providing them that “good news”/any bit of chance. They were considered as enemies, vessels for dishonor intended to be burned in hell. Are they people/human beings too for whom Christ died for as the Universalist claim?. So… is it really intended for all people on earth?
3. The false prophets during OT times are also human beings, but the command is to stone them to death. Where are they now? Would they get a free ticket in heaven even if they don’t know Jesus Christ at all at the time of their death? There is no more chance in “Post Mortem”. The dividing line to eternal destiny is Physical death on earth. They have No more chance to be saved after physical death. So… it really intended for all people?
4. How about the wicked woman in the Bible – Jezebel? Did Christ offered His life for her? Was she in heaven now?. Was there a free pass given to her (by whom?) also to enjoy her residence in heaven? So… is it really intended for all?
If it is really intended for all, then why there is still people thrown to hell? Because of their unbelief to Jesus Christ that made them tormented in hell? – I don’t think so… The Sin of unbelief has been paid already by Christ at the cross of Calvary and still have no effect on them? while it only works to those who genuinely recognize Christ as their Savior – the elect.
“If it is really intended for all, then why there is still people thrown to hell? Because of their unbelief to Jesus Christ . . .”
This is exactly what scripture teaches. People perish not because God does not love them, but because of their unbelief in his love for them. Which is why it is so wicked for Calvinism to declare that God does not love nor desire to save someone.
TS00 writes, “People perish….because of their unbelief in his love for them.”
This is what Scripture (and Calvinism) says–
“…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…”
“…Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;…So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
“…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
rhutchin
This is what Scripture (and Calvinism) says–…….etc
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote
“It needs to be kept in mind that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture.
An interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
When one’s INTERPRETATION leads one into this sort of Cul-de-sac (i.e. A LOGICAL DEAD END), it is a good idea to reasses whether one has indeed rightly interpreted scripture.
– Four Views on Divine Providence –
br.d quotes William Craig, ““It needs to be kept in mind that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture.”
Perhaps br.d could provide us with Craig’s “interpretation” of the following verses to see if he disagrees on them.
“…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…”
“…Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;…So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
“…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
rhutchin
br.d quotes William Craig, ““It needs to be kept in mind that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture.”
Perhaps br.d could provide us with Craig’s “interpretation” of the following verses to see if he disagrees on them.
“…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…….etc
br.d
I don’t have Dr. Craig’s interpretation of those specific verses.
However since Dr. Craig can think RATIONALLY – which requires the ability to choose between multiple options (i.e. a RATIONAL option vs an IRRATIONAL option) then it LOGICALLY follows Dr. Craig in order to do so – must have Libertarian Freedom which is defined as the ability to choose between multiple options.
This is confirmed by Dr. John Searle – Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley
-quote
“Rationality only makes a difference where there is the possibility of irrationality.
And all rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.” End quote – Rationality in Action.
Now since the liberty to choose between multiple options is the quintessential definition of Libertarian freedom, it LOGICALLY follows – where Libertarian Freedom does not exist, neither does the ability to think rationally.
Based on the this LOGIC – I would assume Dr. Craig’s interpretation of those verses would NOT be predicated upon Universal Divine Causal Determinism – a scheme in which humans are NOT permitted the liberty of RATIONAL thinking.
Now how in the world is Theological Determinism (in which RATIONAL thinking does not exist) – going come up with a RATIONAL interpretation of those verses. :-]
br.d writes, “I don’t have Dr. Craig’s interpretation of those specific verses.”
If you come across Dr. Craig’s interpretation of those specific verses, it would be helpful for you to provide citations. I have not found any in my searches on his website.
rhutchin
If you come across Dr. Craig’s interpretation of those specific verses, it would be helpful for you to provide citations. I have not found any in my searches on his website.
br.d
I can understand how you don’t feel able to address the LOGIC it that post.
Since as a Theological Determinist – Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT you the ability to chose between a RATIONAL vs IRRATIONAL interpretation of scripture.
Which means you wouldn’t be able to address any citation RATIONALLY either :-]
br.d writes, “Now since the liberty to choose between multiple options is the quintessential definition of Libertarian freedom, it LOGICALLY follows – where Libertarian Freedom does not exist, neither does the ability to think rationally.”
Only God has absolute Libertarian Freedom and this by virtue of His infinite understanding of all things. People have a lesser freedom to choose among options as their have limited options from which to choose. Absent infinite understanding, their freedom is influenced by what they do not understand as much as it is by what they understand. In addition, a person who lacks faith will have options not available to a person without faith. Additionally, a person with a corrupt nature would have one set of options while a person without a corrupt nature would have a different set of options. Your explanation of LFW would seem to apply to a choice between a hamburger with mustard and one without mustard but not much else.
rhutchin
Only God has absolute Libertarian Freedom
br.d
Your use of the word “absolute” here serves to make a little wiggle room for Libertarian Freedom for the creature. Which Theological Determinism totally excludes. The only freedom compatible with Determinism is “Compatiblistic” freedom.
rhutchin
People have a lesser freedom to choose among options as their have limited options from which to choose.
br.d
FALSE
In Theological Determinism the creature has ever only ONE UNIQUE option from which to choose – that option which Calvin’s god DECREES that person will choose.
Peter Van Inwagen:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
So here it becomes obvious the Calvinist has a need to SMUGGLE IN the very thing his theology rejects.
rhutchin
their freedom is influenced by what they do not understand as much as it is by what they understand.
br.d
FALSE
Creaturely freedom is TOTALLY determined by the DIVINE DECREE.
The creature is ONLY free to be/do what Calvin’s god DECREES
Nothing more and nothing less is PERMITTED or made available
rhutchin
Your explanation of LFW would seem to apply to a choice between a hamburger with mustard and one without mustard but not much else.
br.d
Since all of your comments above have been proved to be fallacious – this comment simply follows in that direction.
The closest a Calvinist can come to having Libertarian Freedom – is a computer SIMULATED world of it – with Calvin’s god as the computer programmer of course. :-]
I understand that Calvinist Matt Slick agrees with A.W. Pink in his assertion that Calvin’s god does not love everybody.
br.d writes, “I understand that Calvinist Matt Slick agrees with A.W. Pink in his assertion that Calvin’s god does not love everybody.”
Pink said that God does not love those whom He does not save because He has the power and authority to save anyone He wants. Not all would define God’s love for a person in these way. Others might say that God only has to demonstrate His love toward a person by bringing a person under the preaching of the gospel.
Thank you for confirming my post about the two schools of thought – A.W. Pink vs D.A. Carson who says that Calvin’s god does love everybody – you just can’t tell anyone what KIND of love he has for the non-elect. Because it is the KIND of love that will DESIGN them for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
Looks like SADISTIC love doesn’t it.
br.d writes, “you just can’t tell anyone what KIND of love he has for the non-elect.”
Per Pink, the “love” God has for the non-elect does not lead God to save the non-elect – in Pink’s mind this is not love (i.e., agape love). DA Carson may have in mind a “love” that is not agape love.
rhutchin
Per Pink, the “love” God has for the non-elect does not lead God to save the non-elect
br.d
DUH!
Calvin’s god is not going to “be lead” to save the non-elect – unless he is a house divided against itself.
Once he DESIGNS a person for eternal torment in a lake of fire – if he is then “lead” to save them – he would be even more DOUBLE-MINDED than we already know he is.
rhutchin
– in Pink’s mind this is not love (i.e., agape love). DA Carson may have in mind a “love” that is not agape love.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin! – this alerted me to the fact that this serves as another example of the GNOSTIC “Good-evil” DUALISM found in Calvinism.
How so many things appear in Calvinism in the form of “Good-Evil” pairs.
Calvin’s god has two kinds of love.
A “Good” love and an “Evil” love.
It fits the DUALISM pattern perfectly.
Oh My!
It just occurred to me to add R.C. Sproul into the mix on the topic of Calvin’s god having a “good” love and an “Evil” love.
Since R.C. Sproul sees in Calvinism that “Evil is good” – then it LOGICALLY follows in Calvinism – Calvin’s god’s “Evil” love is seen as “good” by the Calvinist (or at least by the Sproul Calvinist).
So now I wonder if the inverse is also the case – where Calvin’s god’s “good” love is actually “Evil” love?
I’ll have to ponder that – or perhaps look for some more Sproul quotes.
Or maybe I’ll find the answer in some ancient GNOSTIC text. :-]
Jtleosala wrote;
“If it is really intended for all, then why there is still people thrown to hell? Because of their unbelief to Jesus Christ that made them tormented in hell? – I don’t think so… The Sin of unbelief has been paid already by Christ at the cross of Calvary and still have no effect on them?”
SPS: Here is a classic example of circular reasoning and a belief revolving around in its own self-centred echo chamber. This argument he has raised here is precisely the argument I addressed I. my earlier point that jtleosala uses the standard “logic” and argumentation of John Owen, who says the same thing in his 1648 book ‘The death of death in the death of Christ’. Yet he didn’t favour my bringing it up beforehand. But this tired argument is void and should go back to the 17th century where it came from.
Owen assumed that because Christ died for a sin, it makes that sin covered. Yet Christ died for every sin, murder, adultery, theft, lying, coveting, and so forth, yet Revelation 21: 8 says that people who do them “shall have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone.”. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 also confirms this.
So if people continue in unbelief, whether it be a sin or not? It does not mean that because Christ may or may not have died for it, that it makes the guilt of continuing in that sin automatically forgiven. Christ paid for all sins at the cross, yet Scripture says that those who practice such things will perish.
Owens argument is bald and illegitimate.
Great post SPS
GA: The more I studied Calvinism the more I understood the root of determinism and the root of a Continually wrathful God who desire wrath and Judgment more than Love, Grace and Mercy.
On balance the Calvinist systematic sees God as primarily a devouring, wrathful being, Who desperately needs to be continually expressing His wrath, condemnation and judgment to be most fulfilled and glorified. Scripture, on the other hand, would show God as reluctantly expressing His wrath and judgment, and showing love, grace and mercy to All of His creation.
In their system, I came to realize, God on purpose and irresistibly created only a few people to be LOVED by Him but in stark contrast He irresistibly created a vast multitude to be the Objects of His HATRED with NEVER an option to be LOVED by Him.
This HATRED of man is NOT an outcome of man’s free choice it is totally by God’s purposeful and deliberate design, man had nothing to do with this. All of this was decided by God alone in eternity past before any man existed.
Yes, a few are created to be Loved BUT many, many more people are on purpose created to be HATED by God and have always been HATED by Him. In Calvinism HE already hates them in eternity past before He fashions them into objects of wrath. He created this vast majority FOR no other purpose except damnation, judgment and wrath.
In Calvinism, God deliberately created and designed these two groups, they were irresistibly created differently by God, one group was ALWAYS created to be “Special” and the other group was ALWAYS created to be “despised and hated”. Once again it is important to understand God’s eternal hatred of this vast multitude of mankind is NOT an OUTCOME of man’s free choice it is totally by God’s purposeful, deliberate and Sovereign design alone. In Calvinism, this is what it means for God to be Sovereign. In Calvinism this is what it means for God to be Glorified. HE needs vast multitudes on which He can continually pour out HIS wrath and judgment. This is the God of Calvinism But not the God of the Bible.
I appreciated this post Simon – very well said.
I didn’t know what the reference to Owen specifically was referring to in previous posts – so this clarifies.
Thanks
JTL writes: 3. The false prophets during OT times are also human beings, but the command is to stone them to death. Where are they now? Would they get a free ticket in heaven even if they don’t know Jesus Christ at all at the time of their death?”…
4. How about the wicked woman in the Bible – Jezebel? Did Christ offered His life for her? Was she in heaven now?. Was there a free pass given to her (by whom?) also to enjoy her residence in heaven? So… is it really intended for all?
GA: As others have pointed out you make the mistake of believing that if something is genuinely offered to ALL then ALL MUST accept the gift that is offered. But even in our interactions with fellow human beings we realize that is often not the case. If I prepare a big Christmas dinner and genuinely invite you to come over and partake yet you decide you have something better or more important to do. Does your choice of not coming over and enjoying the dinner negate the fact that 1. A Dinner for you was prepared and 2. That you were genuinely invited and called to come over? NO of course not — on my side it was all genuine and provided for, on your side was the choice to refuse the genuine invitation. That is a picture of Salvation. God is 100% authentic and Genuine. For God so loved the World that He gave His Only Son that whosoever believes on Him should not perish.
Simon,
I completely agree with you. Its like he’s experiencing “ground-hog day,” going around in circles, and spouting the same mantra day after day.
Maybe he’s thinking in terms of the special elite, the special elect, all the time; that Jesus’ sacrifice covers their ‘unbelief’? In his mind why would it matter? They’ll be saved one way or the other! And yet, after all that Jesus did on the cross, He still told the Jews, and by extension the rest of us (Acts 17:30-31); that our salvation is conditioned upon our repentance.
Here’s what Jesus said in Luke 13:3 and 5; “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Note: “UNLESS” you repent you “WILL PERISH.” Now that statement is an impossibility from a Calvinist point of view. Because if you are an “elect” you can’t perish, you won’t perish. And if you are a reprobate “non-elect” you can’t repent, you won’t repent. So there you have it; one CANNOT PERISH, and the other CANNOT REPENT to save his life.
So, what’s Jesus talking about? He’s telling us that the Calvinist is talking through his hat!
Aidan
Aidan McManus writes, “after all that Jesus did on the cross, He still told the Jews, and by extension the rest of us (Acts 17:30-31); that our salvation is conditioned upon our repentance. ”
We also read,
“…do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,…”
“…godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation,…”
“…a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.”
It should be noted that a person’s salvation is dependent on being born again by the Holy Spirit, being drawn to Christ by God, being given faith by God, and belief in the truth as well as as repentance.
jtleosala
1. This good News did not work effectively with Judas Iscariot.
br.d
Of course in Theological Determinism – Judas’s every neurological impulse was determined – NOT by Judas – but by Calvin’s god who DESIGNED Judas (along with the vast majority of the mankind) for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
How is that not ROBOTIC functionality?
jtleosala
So… is it really intended for all people on earth?
br.d
Obviously – according to Theological Determinism – the answer would be no.
jtleosala
2. The Residents of Canaan……..etc… is it really intended for all people on earth?
br.d
Second verse – same as the first
jtleosala
3. The false prophets…..
br.d
Wash – rinse – repeat
jtleosala
4. How about the wicked woman in the Bible – Jezebel?
br,d
Same deal – Calvin’s god DESIGNED Jezebel for the lake of fire – for his good pleasure
What a lovely THEOS John Calvin conceived!!
jtlesala,
You had said:
“This good News did not work effectively with Judas Iscariot.”
My response:
Didn’t Jesus say something to the effects of, “FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO”.
I’d also like to introduce you to the following:
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
What does WINK mean in THIS context?
Does it apply to the false prophets of the OT? Did it apply to the Apostle Paul when he was known as Saul? Did it apply to Jezebel?
If Jesus is judge, and he doesn’t judge until AFTER one dies, WHO ARE WE to say whether they are in hell or not?
But, outside of Judaism, those who DIDN’T KNOW GOD, IN THE DAYS OF THE OT, what happened to them?
Calvinism is playing judge. That’s the job of Jesus.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Paul said THAT about himself.
Paul said the following about the Jews. The word “THEM” is the Jews. The word “all” is the Jews in THIS context, too.
Romans 11:32
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Ed Chapman
Simon,
Here’s a few more “elect,” full blooded Hebrew Christians this time, being warned about losing their ‘eternal rest.’
“Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus.”(Heb 3:1) Notice how these were “elect” Christians. He calls them “HOLY BRETHREN” and “PARTAKERS OF THE HEAVENLY CALLING” and Jesus the High Priest of “OUR CONFESSION,” which expression includes the writer of the book. These were fully fledged “elect” Christians.
To whom he says, “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;..For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,” (Heb. 3:12,14). Notice that these “elect” few were told, …partakers of Christ “IF,” if what? IF WE (the author includes himself) HOLD….STEADFAST TO THE END! Seems like these elect could “perish” through developing an evil heart of unbelief.
“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain” (1 Cor 15:1-2). Here’s another group of Christians, Gentile Christians. Notice again, the gospel was preached to them, they received it, they believed, and they stood in that gospel. Then Paul says, “by which also you are SAVED, IF – IF WHAT? – [IF] you hold fast that word which I preached to you.”
Yet again, here we have those who are “elect” who will only be ultimately saved, IF they hold fast that gospel which had been preached to them, which they had believed.
Now it makes sense, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
Aidan
RH, wrote:
“…godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation,…” And,
“It should be noted that a person’s salvation is dependent on being born again by the Holy Spirit, being drawn to Christ by God, being given faith by God, and belief in the truth as well as as repentance.”
Aidan writes:
“…godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation,…” is written to the sinning “elect.”
Not that I agree with everything you said, but it should also be noted that Paul said: “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain” (1 Cor 15:1-2).
Here’s another group of Christians, Gentile Christians. Notice again, the gospel was preached to them, they received it, they believed, and in which they stood. Then Paul says, “by which also you are SAVED, IF – SAVED IF WHAT? – SAVED [IF] you hold fast that word which I preached to you.”
Yet again, here we have those who are “ELECT” who were told to HOLD FAST that word TO BE ultimately SAVED.
Aidan writes, “Here’s another group of Christians, Gentile Christians. Notice again, the gospel was preached to them, they received it, they believed, and in which they stood.”
Paul is clarifying the definition of a believer – a believer is one who persist to the end. This excludes the first three conditions described by Christ in the parable of the seed. That Paul labels all those in the Corinthian church as brethren does not necessarily mean that he considers them truly saved. After all their is the warning by Jesus, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” The reality is that not everyone who claims to be a believer is really a believer.
JT wrote:
“If it is really intended for all, then why there is still people thrown to hell? Because of their unbelief to Jesus Christ that made them tormented in hell? – I don’t think so…”
Aidan writes:
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY LOST BECAUSE OF THEIR SIN!
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23
“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
To JTLEOSALA’s response:
Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
When you can answer all of God’s questions He asks Job CORRECTLY Job 38:4-Job 42:3, then you can judge God.
Amen! This is Good News about THE Good news! Selah!
Amen! It is indeed good news “to all people”. Our God offers salvation freely to all. Our Lord and Saviour died on Calvary, as the greatest offering of salvation to mankind that this world has ever seen or ever will see. To say that He died only for individuals who were predestined and elected before the earth was made is to make the cross of Christ of no effect. It makes individual predestination and election our saviour rather than Christ. It denies the power of the cross to save.
May God save us from accepting such a doctrine!
I am not saved because I was predestined and elected, neither am I saved because I sought God. I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Sutherland writes, “I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.”
You were saved by the grace of God through a faith in Christ given to you by God without which you could not have been saved.
“So then [salvation] is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
As Jesus said, ““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
Hi Roger! These past months I’ve been reading your comments here on soteriology101 and I can say you have been blessed with knowledge and wisdom. I was wondering if there was a way I could contact you (maybe via email) and ask you 1 or 2 questions. I’d be so grateful. Also thanks for the work you’ve done here on this page. I assure you your thoughtful replies have been a blessing, not just for me, but also for people who are trying to understand Calvinism.
Julioduvereg,
rhutchin1948@yahoo.com is my throwaway email address (I tend to use it when I respond to spam), Reply to me there and I will send you a response from my regular email.
SPS writes:
“To say that He died only for individuals who were predestined and elected before the earth was made is to make the cross of Christ of no effect. It makes individual predestination and election our saviour rather than Christ. It denies the power of the cross to save.”
This was the realization that smacked me in the face one afternoon while talking with my then (Calvinist) pastor. It wasn’t even directly related to what he was saying, but all of a sudden it hit me like a ton of bricks:
If God selected who was to be saved and who was not, then the cross was a sham. If Calvinism were true, I could not be saved by believing that Jesus lived, died and rose again for my sake. I could be saved if, and only if, I was one of the lucky chosen few; cross or no cross. If Jesus did not die for me – and all men – there is nothing for the ‘nonbeliever’ to not believe. How can anyone be condemned for not believing in what God did not offer them? Calvinism was not a ‘possible’ truth that I personally could not yet accept. It was the antithesis to everything scripture declares about God, Jesus and salvation!
My journey away from Calvinism was a long and often painful one, and continues yet, but it began with that eye-opening revelation out of the blue. Calvinism negates the gospel message of the cross.
TS00 writes: “If Jesus did not die for me – and all men – there is nothing for the ‘nonbeliever’ to not believe. How can anyone be condemned for not believing in what God did not offer them?”
GA: Your post was so well written. You are so correct in Calvinism The important thing is NOT Jesus Christ and Him crucified or even Faith. The ONLY thing that REALLY matters is (Were you one of the lucky few!!! ) Preaching the gospel and exhorting people to believe is simply pretending that something else matters. It is simply trying to LOOK like an In-determinist. As BR.D likes to say A Calvinist is “A Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism” NOTHING beyond the question – are you one of the ones chosen FOR salvation or are you one of the ones Chosen for Hell? actually matters. Everything else is 100% irrelevant if one understands what Calvinism actually teaches.
GraceAdict writes, “Preaching the gospel and exhorting people to believe is simply pretending that something else matters. It is simply trying to LOOK like an In-determinist.”
In the absence of faith, any exhortation to believe the gospel would be fruitless. In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.
rhutchin
In the absence of faith, any exhortation to believe the gospel would be fruitless. In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.
br.d
Of course this AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes that a person doesn’t have the FUNCTIONAL ABILITY of said faith.
And everyone knows the ability to believe is a part of normal human FUNCTIONALITY.
What is different from one person to the next is the OBJECT of faith – rather than the FUNCTIONALITY of faith.
Of course the Calvinist really doesn’t know if he has TRUE faith or FALSE faith – because Calvin’s god determines his every perception.
IF the Calvinist doesn’t end up in the lake of fire – then he’ll know Calvin’s god gave him a TRUE faith.
And the vast majority of Calvinists are DESIGNED to end up there.
MAN! I just want to run right out and get some of that faith right now! :-]
br.d writes, “Of course this AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes that a person doesn’t have the FUNCTIONAL ABILITY of said faith.
And everyone knows the ability to believe is a part of normal human FUNCTIONALITY. ”
Paul, in 1 Corinthians, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,…” Apparently, Paul doesn’t know that “the ability to believe is a part of normal human FUNCTIONALITY.” (At least, not as it pertains to the gospel.)
Then, “What is different from one person to the next is the OBJECT of faith – rather than the FUNCTIONALITY of faith.”
You may nitpick object vs functionality, but Hebrews says simply, “without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
br.d
Of course this AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes that a person doesn’t have the FUNCTIONAL ABILITY of said faith.
And everyone knows the ability to believe is a part of normal human FUNCTIONALITY. ”
What is different from one person to the next is the OBJECT of ones faith.
rhutchin
Paul, in 1 Corinthians, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…..etc
Apparently, Paul doesn’t know that “the ability to believe is a part of normal human FUNCTIONALITY.”
br.d
This is called a NON-Sequitur.
Just because a person in Orvil and Wilbur wright’s day doesn’t believe that man can fly – doesn’t AUTO-MAGICALLY prove that man has no FUNCTIONAL ABILITY to believe it.
rhutchin
You may nitpick object vs functionality, but Hebrews says simply, “without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
br.d
For you it may be nitpicking – for me its simply RATIONAL thinking.
But I understand how RATIONAL thinking can get in the way of an IRRATIONAL belief system. :-]
Additionally – nobody is going to “seek him” unless Calvin’s god DECREES that person do so.
So here we have Calvin’s god – who rewards people for what he MAKES them do
DOES NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise
DOES NOT make any alternative available to them.
IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data.
Whether that data is scripture or not.
Rh writes:
“In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.”
Aidan writes:
How did that FAITH come?
RH: “In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.”
Aidan: “How did that FAITH come?”
Paul explains this in Romans 10. “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
RH wrote: In full,
“In the absence of faith, any exhortation to believe the gospel would be fruitless. In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.”
“Paul explains this in Romans 10. “..And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?..“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, ..So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Aidan writes:
If faith in the gospel can only come by hearing the gospel, how pray tell, do you have faith coming before a person even hears the gospel? As seen in you first statement above.
Aidan writes, “If faith in the gospel can only come by hearing the gospel, how pray tell, do you have faith coming before a person even hears the gospel? As seen in you first statement above.”
The gospel is the source of faith and that faith then exercises belief in the gospel. We have no faith without the hearing of the gospel. The gospel produces faith. That faith is then fueled by the hearing of the gospel to believe in Christ. So Paul in Ephesians 1, “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth [received faith], the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,…”
Th gospel is the means by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.
rhutchin
The gospel is the MEANS by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.
br.d
Hey rhutchin – you got that one right!
So we have the gospel, being born again, and faith as MEANS which Calvin’s god uses to bring about his end.
And as we’ve established – if any specific MEANS is LOGICALLY NECESSARY – then it LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s god lacks the omnipotence to bring about his ends with any alternative MEANS he chooses.
Bottom line if Calvin’s god DESIGNS a person for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure – then everything else is pretty much window dressing.
br.d writes, “And as we’ve established – if any specific MEANS is LOGICALLY NECESSARY – then it LOGICALLY follows – Calvin’s god lacks the omnipotence to bring about his ends with any alternative MEANS he chooses.”
Why don’t you provide the logical argument by which you conclude, “it LOGICALLY follows.”
rhutchin
Why don’t you provide the logical argument by which you conclude, “it LOGICALLY follows.”
br.d
In LOGIC, NECESSITY entails a “conditional” or “implicational” relationship between statement objects.
For example the conditional statement:
IF [Q] then [P]
In this statement [Q] and only [Q] is NECESSARY for [P], because [P] cannot be true unless [Q] is true.
In other words where [Q] does not exist – then [P] cannot exist.
So now we use the following statement:
rhutchin is NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism.
It thus LOGICALLY follows that if rhutchin does not exist – then the representation of Calvinism cannot exist.
However if Calvin’s god is omnipotent – then he can use any person he chooses to represent Calvinism
Thus Calvinism can be represented without the existence of rhutchin
And thus it LOGICALLY follows – rhutchin is NOT NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism.
I made that statement backwards – it should be IF [Q] then [P]
br.d writes, “So now we use the following statement:
rhutchin is NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism.
It thus LOGICALLY follows that if rhutchin does not exist – then the representation of Calvinism cannot exist.”
If rhutchin did not exist, it is because God did not have bring rhutchin into existence, so God would not have made rhutchin necessary for the representation of Calvinism. Your logic is screwball. If God makes rhutchin necessary for the representation of Calvinism, then God will bring rhutchin into existence, so rhutchin could not not exist.
However, this has nothing to do with God not being omnipotent if He makes rhutchin necessary for the representation of Calvinism.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
rhutchin
If rhutchin did not exist, it is because God did not have bring rhutchin into existence, so God would not have made rhutchin necessary for the representation of Calvinism.
br.d
Which affirms the fact that rhutchin is NOT NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism – since Calvin’s god can bring anyone into existence he wants to – to represent Calvinism.
rhutchin
Your logic is screwball.
br.d
You affirm it and then call it screwball – that would be expected :-]
rhutchin
If God makes rhutchin necessary for the representation of Calvinism, then God will bring rhutchin into existence, so rhutchin could not not exist.
br.d
Sorry – rhutchin its your logic that is screwball
If Calvin’s god makes rhutchin NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism – than that representation of Calvinism is NOT POSSIBLE without rhutchin. And that would LOGICALLY entail Calvin’s god is not omnipotent enough to bring someone else into existence for the representation of Calvinism.
IF Calvin’s god is sufficient in himself – then he is the only thing that is NECESSARY.
So he’s not going to make rhutchin NECESSARY for anything.
rhutchin
this has nothing to do with God not being omnipotent if He makes rhutchin necessary for the representation of Calvinism.
br,d
FALSE
You obviously don’t’ know the difference between NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT
And after you previously affirmed Calvin’s god is omnipotent enough to use whatever MEANS he chooses to bring about his ends.,
Now you want to argue he’s going to make it the case that he can’t accomplish his ends without rhutchin?
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
br.d
You’re just saying that because I told you – you don’t know what your talking about with Middle-Knowledge.
Tit for tat is a children’s game. :-]
br.d writes, “If Calvin’s god makes rhutchin NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism – than that representation of Calvinism is NOT POSSIBLE without rhutchin. And that would LOGICALLY entail Calvin’s god is not omnipotent enough to bring someone else into existence for the representation of Calvinism.”
You need to link God’s decisions to his loss of omnipotence. You don’t do that.
Then, “Now you want to argue he’s going to make it the case that he can’t accomplish his ends without rhutchin?”
Sure, if that is God’s decision. That God chose to flood the world in the time of Noah did cause God to lose His omnipotence.
Then, “You’re just saying that because I told you – you don’t know what your talking about with Middle-Knowledge.’
How about enlightening me about the “truth” regarding middle knowledge.
br.d
If Calvin’s god makes rhutchin NECESSARY for the representation of Calvinism – than that representation of Calvinism is NOT POSSIBLE without rhutchin. And that would LOGICALLY entail Calvin’s god is not omnipotent enough to bring someone else into existence for the representation of Calvinism.
rhutchin
You need to link God’s decisions to his loss of omnipotence. You don’t do that.
br.d
Did that in the statement below
Now you want to argue he’s going to make it the case that he can’t accomplish his ends without rhutchin?
rhutchin
Sure, if that is God’s decision.
br.d
And he can just as easily make the decision to to bring it about with someone else.
Guess what!
That makes rhutchin NOT NECESSARY.
So the bottom line is – the only thing that is NECESSARY is himself.
rhutchin
That God chose to flood the world in the time of Noah did cause God to lose His omnipotence.
br.d
TRUE – but he didn’t need to accomplish that end with a flood – and he could have used someone other than Noah.
Thus the water and Noah were SUFFICIENT for Calvin’s god to bring out his end – but NOT NECESSARY.
rhutchin
How about enlightening me about the “truth” regarding middle knowledge.
br.d
You need to start with discovering that Libertarian Free will is mutually excluded in a world governed by Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
A year or so ago you declared Libertarian Free will incoherent. At that time you were advocating compatiblistic free will – which is LOGICALLY coherent for a Determinist. Now you’ve apparently switched and are trying to figure some form of Libertarian Free will for creatures – in a world where your every neurological impulse is determined by an external mind.
You’ve also wanted to distance yourself from Calvin’s teaching on “mere” permission which is also LOGICALLY coherent with Theological Determinism. You’ve wanted to argue Calvin’s god “merely” permits you to make a choice that he himself did not determine you to make.
I suggest you start at Monergism.com and read their article “11 reasons to reject Libertarian Free will”
And then go to Paul Helm’s website and read his article “Some Challenges for Libertarian Calvinism” where he argues that Libertarian Free will is incoherent in Theological Determinism
BR.D.
I have noticed that as well RH makes radical Deterministic statements but then he walks them back in other subtle statements that infer permission or that man has free will to a degree.
This is a case of: “If reality disagrees with theory TULIP, reality wins. Always.” or as you state it: “A Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points.”
I trust and hope RH is truly open to understand how his position is messed up at best…
Yes I agree – its the rocking horse effect that ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely describes in his book “Calvinism a closer look”
-quote
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.” -end quote
I believe Calvinists are so in love with their Calvinism – they don’t have the ability to see the DOUBLE-MINDED it forces them into.
Its like the classic case of a woman who allows herself to be brutally beaten by her boyfriend
She makes-believe she is the one who is responsible – she tells herself she makes him do it.
Counselors try to get her mind to a reasonable state so she can recognize his sickness
But she refuses – in order to keep believing what she has is normal.
Rh follows the same thinking pattern when he punts to the circular-thinking of human attributes causing human attributes into infinite regress.
I don’t think RH has any capacity to get beyond that mental state – without divine intervention.
And JT is simply less subtle and doesn’t use sneaky language tricks to hide his DOUBLE-THINK like RH does.
So it would appear RH has some degree of awareness of it.
But the fact that he works to hide it behind deceptive language tricks tells us he would never allow himself to acknowledge it.
And I’m sure he fully justifies the use of misleading language.
That is why they employ Mystery, Paradox and Tension so often…because even they know something is amiss.
You will find statements like this one to cover over multitudes of Contradictions: “The lack of information allows the two true statements to form a paradox that has a mystery behind it. The paradox is only possible because of the mystery. If the mystery were revealed, the paradox would no longer appear contradictory. And yet the mystery and the paradox do not in any way obscure the Truth”
Absolutely correct!
And I also notice how couched behind that appeal to mystery there is a hidden claim of speak ex-cathedra.
Just like the “who are you oh man to question” what I’m telling you because I am the divine mouthpiece of god.
Its funny – years ago I sat under some lectures from a Christian professor of sociology. He was also an expert on ancient Egypt.
His lectures included pictures of stone statues Egyptian priests would have craftsmen make.
Some of the statues had a hinged mouth that would move up and down by someone underground below the statue.
And with a hole drilled in the throat a priest down below would speak through a kind of megaphone up through the throat.
The Egyptian people weren’t smart enough to realize it was a trick.
That always reminded me of Revelations where it says the dragon gave power to the beast – the power to speak great things.
And I wonder if the author of the wizard of oz used that idea in his depiction of the great wizard machine.
But in any case – I see Calvin playing the same game.
Sadly this use of ‘mystery’ and ‘tension’ is how many have been persuaded to leave logic and consistency behind, with no qualms. Yes, they initially see the galling facts and the unavoidable inconsistency – but over time are reconciled to its inevitability. They know that the ‘uninformed’ (non-Reformed) won’t be able to maturely deal with it as they do, so they attempt to stay away from the tensions as much as possible by deflecting and focusing on other aspects of less debatable quality.
Rh proves and excellent example of how they keep their own sanity and attempt to ignore the challenges of thoughtful outsiders by compartmentalizing and ignoring the inconsistencies. It is like a child in a truly abusive home. He only knows the realities that have been his, and accepts each crime against him as ‘the way it is’. It is only upon growing up, and being exposed to non-abusive situations that he comes to realize the wrongs of which he was once completely accepting.
The Calvinist becomes accustomed to the traumatic abuses of his manufactured god, and eventually no longer winces at the unjust blows, but cites the justifications he has learned.
TS00
They know that the ‘uninformed’ (non-Reformed) won’t be able to maturely deal with it as they do, so they attempt to stay away from the tensions as much as possible by deflecting and focusing on other aspects of less debatable quality.
br.d
Yes – George Bryson’s book “The Dark Side of Calvinism” is downloadable for free now as a PDF and I’m reviewing it.
He talks about Calvinists pastors being coached to “keep the hard stuff away from the new-bees until they are committed enough to swallow it”.
TS00
Rh proves an excellent example of how they keep their own sanity and attempt to ignore the challenges of thoughtful outsiders by compartmentalizing and ignoring the inconsistencies.
br.d
I agree!
TS00
It is like a child in a truly abusive home. He only knows the realities that have been his, and accepts each crime against him as ‘the way it is’. It is only upon growing up, and being exposed to non-abusive situations that he comes to realize the wrongs of which he was once completely accepting.
br.d
Excellent analogy!
TS00
The Calvinist becomes accustomed to the traumatic abuses of his manufactured god, and eventually no longer winces at the unjust blows, but cites the justifications he has learned.
br.d
Yes! I agree its a mental state which requires a commitment to making a radical belief system APPEAR normal.
RH sometimes reminds me of the “shape-shifter” in the Deep Space 9 episodes
Now a Calvinist – shape-shift to Molinism – then Arminianism – sometimes Open Theism – then back to Calvinism. :-]
It’s called MPD or now, dissociative disorder, in the secular literature.
YES! I can see that!
I need to do some research on “dissociative disorders” – I’m sure I will see some insightful corollaries!
Thanks for that!
I will have to reread Bryson’s book. I had been wondering if that was where I had come across the Sproul quote of ‘hiding the scary stuff’. If you find it there, let me know.
I read the book in my early stages of coming out of the world of Calvinism, and found it to be very consistent with my personal experience. I was flabbergasted that my pastor hid ‘the scary stuff’ for over a decade. In speaking with other former longtimers from my church they also sense that the teaching gradually changed from hopeful into something very dark over the years. The last sermon I heard about – I was already gone – was the one in which he used the salvation analogy of a burning orphanage from which God deliberately only rescued a few, when he could have saved all. That one cleared out all of the rest of the troublemakers who were asking hard questions – as the pastor knew it would.
Here is a snippet from page 22
The truth is, some Calvinists do not want non-Calvinists to know the full implications of Calvinism until after they have become committed
Calvinists. …..some Calvinists think it unwise to introduce a new believer to the TRULY DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES of Reformed Theology…..it raises serious questions.
Loraine Boettner explains at least one of the reasons (or rationalizations) behind the reluctance of some Calvinists to initially lay
it all out on the table early on: – quote “At that early stage little need be said about the DEEPER TRUTHS which relate to god’s PART.”
Some Calvinists are not only less than totally up-front, but they are NOT even being altogether HONEST with the non-Calvinists whom they are targeting. In the promotion of doctrines, what is held back or not expressed (relative to those doctrines) can be VERY MISLEADING.
One Reformed Southern Baptist pastor, in an article entitled “Instructions for Local Church Reformation,” advises other Calvinist pas-
tors as follows: – quote “Don’t tackle the whole church at one time…….In the pulpit….avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you.”
We see the same example of sequential introduction to DEEPER TRUTHS in the mystery religions and white witch-craft etc.
Jesus calls this entering the sheep-fold through a back-door. The TRUE shepherd comes in the front gate.
Excellent. Many Calvinists complain about the charges of deception made against them, but this is not an exception. My former Calvi-pastor NEVER, EVER laid out the full system of Calvinism, even when new members frequently requested a class or bible study to discuss all of the issues. Never happened, in over 12 years. As he commented about another viewpoint he preferred to leave unsaid, ‘If I said that from the pulpit, they would all leave’. That was my first clue to wonder what else he was ‘not saying’. Proved to be much.
The bottom line here is how LOGIC differentiates between NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT
Even Calvin’s god cannot “decide” to make a square-circle or a married bachelor
If he is LOGICAL then his nature coincides with LOGIC.
In LOGIC – the only thing that will make any specific option NECESSARY – is if there is no other option.
Or in the case of Calvin’s god – his omnipotence is limited such that he cannot bring into being any other option.
So accordingly in LOGIC:
Where Calvin’s god is not limited to one single option – and he decides to utilize one option out of many – LOGIC classifies that option as a SUFFICIENT option. But not NECESSARY because there are other options.
Conversely
If Calvin’s god IS LIMITED to one single option (for any reason) to accomplish an end – then that one option is classified as not only SUFFICIENT but also NECESSARY.
Now I can understand why a person will not want to subject himself to the standards held by LOGIC.
Being held in subjection to standards is self-limiting – and one cannot simply make up any argument one wants to.
That is in fact why I love LOGIC and why it is so powerful for discerning TRUE from FALSE.
But because compliance to a standard is self-limiting – we can understand why anyone would be keen on evading it.
On those suggestions leading up to the Middle Knowledge question:
On the off chance that you’ve been persuaded that Libertarian Free will does exist – and you are leaning towards a Molonistic form of Calvinism – then you can in fact adopt that position and still be a Calvinist. There are Molinist Calvinists. What Paul Helm’s calls “Libertarian Calvinists”.
However to adopt that position and be RATIONAL – you then have to reject *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism – and in its place adopt a *PARTIAL* Divine Causal Determinism.
You will then have a belief system that allows for Libertarian Free will and all of its RATIONAL benefits.
But the cost is giving up a form of Divine Causal Determinism which is *UNIVERSAL* in scope.
That would be giving up what Ravi Zacharias calls “Absolute” Determinism = Total Subjection.
Now that in fact should feel natural for a Calvinist – because most Calvinists are uncomfortable biting the bullet and being LOGICALLY consistent with the *UNIVERSALITY* of Divine Causal Determinism found within strict Calvinism.
The vast majority of Calvinists are constantly trying to escape the *UNIVERSALITY* found within Calvin’s system anyway.
They are always trying to SMUGGLE IN some form of “mere” permission.
So deliberately moving into Molinistic Calvinism would relieve a Calvinist of having to do that – and it would be a much more comfortable position for theodicy.
br.d writes, “On the off chance that you’ve been persuaded that Libertarian Free will does exist – and you are leaning towards a Molonistic form of Calvinism – then you can in fact adopt that position and still be a Calvinist.”
When LFW gets sorted out, perhaps I will agree that it does exist. That hasn’t happened yet. For example, it doesn’t seem to me that LFW applies in most situations. For example, without faith LFW doesn’t apply for salvation decisions.
Molinims and Calvinism are mutually exclusive systems. Molinism deals with a pre-creation decision by God. Calvinism deals with the post-creation world God created.
Then, “However to adopt that position and be RATIONAL – you then have to reject *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism – and in its place adopt a *PARTIAL* Divine Causal Determinism.”
Universal Divine Causal Determinism means that God is omniscient knowing all that happens before He creates the universe and by creating the universe, God determines all that follows.
Then, “You will then have a belief system that allows for Libertarian Free will and all of its RATIONAL benefits.”
For now, I recognize that LFW is not in play for any but trivial decisions.
br.d
On the off chance that you’ve been persuaded that Libertarian Free will does exist – and you are leaning towards a Molonistic form of Calvinism – then you can in fact adopt that position and still be a Calvinist.”
rhutchin
When LFW gets sorted out, perhaps I will agree that it does exist. That hasn’t happened yet. For example, it doesn’t seem to me that LFW applies in most situations. For example, without faith LFW doesn’t apply for salvation decisions.
br.d
Excuse me?
You just got done posting that man has limited Libertarian Free will – and only Calvin’s god has “absolute” Libertarian Free will
Those statements are INCOHERENT unless you are asserting some degree of Libertarian Free will for creatures.
And now you don’t agree it exists?
Should I be surprised at flip-flop?
And on the idea that it applies to a salvation decision – you are going to have to do some serious validation home-word to prove that!
That idea is totally off the reservation – and found nowhere in any Christian literature I know of – especially Calvinist literature.
I won’t even bother to touch that with a ten-foot pole its so far off.
rhutchin
Molinims and Calvinism are mutually exclusive systems. Molinism deals with a pre-creation decision by God. Calvinism deals with the post-creation world God created.
br.d
That is funny – your last statement was that they were similar and essentially confirmed one another.
Now you’re claiming they are mutually exclusive.
Ok – I’ll log that as your latest position – but I’m guessing it will change again.
rhutchin
Universal Divine Causal Determinism means that God is omniscient knowing all that happens before He creates the universe and by creating the universe, God determines all that follows.
br.d
Where you get ideas from is a real mystery!!!
There is an orthodox doctrine on Omniscience that deals specifically with *knowing* all that happens.
Separate from that is:
Universal = Everything without exception
Divine = A THEOS
CAUSAL = The principle of cause and effect – with the emphasis on cause
Determinism = The Thesis of Determinism which stipulates that things are determined by external factors
Therefore Universal Divine Causal Determinism = A THEOS determines everything without exception – leaving ZERO left over for anyone else to determine – and determined by factors external to creature.
There may be a corollary in that to omniscience – no absolutely one ever describes Universal Divine Causal Determinism the way you just did.
rhutchin
For now, I recognize that LFW is not in play for any but trivial decisions.
br.d
And where you get that idea – nobody knows – for if in fact you embrace *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism – then Libertarian Free will in that system is held by all adherents to not exist. You can try to convince yourself it does but you’re in very small company.
Paul Helm’s for example:
-quote
The WCF’s statements about God’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus rule out libertarian free will (since libertarianism, on standard definitions, entails that determinism is false).
Did you get what he said?
Libertarian Free will – on standard definitions logically entails that determinism is false.
Now I know Calvinists are always looking for ways to SMUGGLE Libertarian Free will in for exculpatory purposes.
But if you are going to publicly assert you embrace both determinism and Libertarian Free will – be prepared for other Calvinists labeling you as inconsistent and having an unorthodox form of Calvinism.
br.d writes, “You just got done posting that man has limited Libertarian Free will – and only Calvin’s god has “absolute” Libertarian Free will
Those statements are INCOHERENT unless you are asserting some degree of Libertarian Free will for creatures.
And now you don’t agree it exists? Should I be surprised at flip-flop?”
I think your confusion results from your inability to define the term, “Libertarian Free will.” Let;s assume you mean no more than that LFW means: “the ability to choose among options.” If this is LFW, then one’s ability to choose among options depends on one’s knowledge of options, one’s understanding of the impacts of options, one’s desires, and external factors that influence one’s choice. As God has perfect knowledge, infinite understanding, is immune to outside influence, and makes choices according to the counsel of His will, His “freedom” is much greater than a person who has less knowledge and understanding, is subject to internal and outside influence. LFW exists becuase God exercises LFW. That which is attributed to people as LFW is not different from Compatibilism which says that people make decisions based on all these factors with the person’s desire being the final determiner of the choice. Does the LFW attributed to people raise above Compatibilistic Free Will? Doesn’t appear to do so me. If you have a definition of LFW that differentiate if from Compatibilistic Free Will, it would be nice to see your definition.
Then, “And on the idea that it applies to a salvation decision – you are going to have to do some serious validation home-word to prove that! That idea is totally off the reservation – and found nowhere in any Christian literature I know of – especially Calvinist literature.
I won’t even bother to touch that with a ten-foot pole its so far off.”
I said, “…without faith LFW doesn’t apply for salvation decisions.” You seem to agree with this as salvation without faith is truly off the reservation.
Then, “That is funny – your last statement was that [Calvinism and Molinism] were similar and essentially confirmed one another.
Now you’re claiming they are mutually exclusive.”
I don’t see the problem. They are mutually excusive as one applies pre-creation and the other post-creation. They are similar in that both deal with God’s decision regarding the creation of the universe. One complements the other in my opinion – at least, I don’t see where they conflict.
Then, “Therefore Universal Divine Causal Determinism = A THEOS determines everything without exception – leaving ZERO left over for anyone else to determine – and determined by factors external to creature. ”
Then God is omniscient and knows everything He has determined. Thus, because God is omniscient, then everything has been determined and by your regress argument, everything traces back to God.
Then, “Did you get what [Paul Helm] said?
Libertarian Free will – on standard definitions logically entails that determinism is false.”
What is his definition of LFW? He must define LFW as excluding God being omniscient.
br.d
“You just got done posting that man has limited Libertarian Free will – and only Calvin’s god has “absolute” Libertarian Free will
Those statements are INCOHERENT unless you are asserting some degree of Libertarian Free will for creatures.
And now you don’t agree it exists? Should I be surprised at flip-flop?”
rhutchin
I think your confusion results from your inability to define the term, “Libertarian Free will.”
br.d
FALSE
Your flip-flop on whether you assert something as existing or not doesn’t have anything to do with my definition of it. :-]
However you define it in your own mind – It either exists for you or it doesn’t
rhutchin
Let;s assume you mean no more than that LFW means: “the ability to choose among options.” If this is LFW, then one’s ability to choose among options depends on one’s knowledge of options,
br.d
Why you go off on weird off the reservation rabbit trails is a mystery!!
I gave you a statement from Paul Helms who is a Calvinist philosopher – and he certainly knows the standard definition.
What he stated in the quote I provided to you is affirmed by all Christian philosophers.
If you want to have your own deviant definition – so that you can have both determinism and Libertarian Free will – then you are on your own – rabbit holes and all.
I think you don’t want to connect with how determinism rules out Libertarian Freedom – as Paul Helm’s clearly stated – because you want to find some kind of escape in appealing to “internal factors” – which requires you MAKE-BELIEVE those factors are not themselves determined in every part by an external mind.
As John Calvin states it: “Every part of everything”
And you can go to any number of resources to get the standardized definition of compatibliistic freedom.
Now I’ve clearly stated hundreds of times the limitations to compatiblistic freedom – which I know you don’t like the implications of.
rhutchin
I said, “…without faith LFW doesn’t apply for salvation decisions.” You seem to agree with this as salvation without faith is truly off the reservation.
br.d
Here I’m not sure if your simply trying to deflect.
You either believe some degree of Libertarian Freedom exists with determinism or you don’t.
Paul Helm’s and Monergism.com speaking on behalf of Calvinism – say no.
If you want to develop your own customized theory then again your on your own – and I won’t be chasing that rabbit anywhere.
rhutchin
I don’t see the problem. They are mutually excusive as one applies pre-creation and the other post-creation. They are similar in that both deal with God’s decision regarding the creation of the universe. One complements the other in my opinion – at least, I don’t see where they conflict.
br.d
Well you’re the only one I know who can declare two things to be mutually exclusive – which means if one exists the other doesn’t – and at the same time say they compliment each other.
Good luck with that one!
rhutchin
Then God is omniscient and knows everything He has determined. Thus, because God is omniscient, then everything has been determined and by your regress argument, everything traces back to God.
br.d
You can hold to that customized representation if you want to – I think its just an ad-hoc strategy that gets you something you think you need for the sake of some argument.
But like I said – there is absolutely no one who describes Universal Divine Causal Determinism – the way you have here.
rhutchin
In regard to Paul Helm’s statement on determinism rules out Libertarian freedom –
He must define LFW as excluding God being omniscient.
br.d
Not according to the standard understanding of determinism.
Whether or not one is talking about a THEOS as the determiner or nature as the determiner within the scheme of determinism is irrelevant.
Determinism by its very nature – with our without omniscience – rules out Libertarian Freedom
But don’t take my word for it – go to Paul Helm’s web-site and read it for yourself.
br.d writes, “However you define [LFW} in your own mind – It either exists for you or it doesn’t?”
Apparently, you cannot define LFW. Yet. you complain about my definition. Until, you can define LFW, it seems we can go no further.
Then, ” I know who can declare two things to be mutually exclusive – which means if one exists the other doesn’t – and at the same time say they compliment each other.”
Molinism is a pre-creation theology; Calvinism is a post-creation Theology. thus, they are mutually exclusive. Nothing prevents Molinims complementing Calvinism.
Then, “But like I said – there is absolutely no one who describes Universal Divine Causal Determinism – the way you have here.”
Use your logic and see if you can tie omniscience to Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Seems obvious to me that the one begets the other.
br.d
However you define [LFW} in your own mind – It either exists for you or it doesn’t?”
rhutchin
Apparently, you cannot define LFW. Yet. you complain about my definition. Until, you can define LFW, it seems we can go no further.
br.d
This is just another deflection strategy.
I’m sure you’ll let me know what your next flip-flop will be on whether it exists for you or not.
Your latest statement was that it does – for trivial things only.
Which leaves it open for you to say it exists for anything you want it to.
How convenient! :-]
You are the only one I know who can declare two things to be mutually exclusive – which means if one exists the other doesn’t – and at the same time say they compliment each other.
rhutchin
Molinism is a pre-creation theology; Calvinism is a post-creation Theology. thus, they are mutually exclusive. Nothing prevents Molinims complementing Calvinism.
br.d
That depends on whether or not one asserts the existence of Libertarian Freedom now doesn’t it?
Because Molinism is dedicated to the proposition that Libertarian Freedom does exist.
So if you read Paul Helm’s where he affirms that determinism (in any form) rules out determinism (which is the standard understanding) -then you’re left trying to explain how something which cancels out the existence of something else can be a compliment to it.
But I leave that to you – as its such an off the reservation rabbit chase – I have no interest in it at all.
Then, “But like I said – there is absolutely no one who describes Universal Divine Causal Determinism – the way you have here.”
rhutchin
Use your logic and see if you can tie omniscience to Universal Divine Causal Determinism. Seems obvious to me that the one begets the other.
br.d
There is a connection – in that omniscience provides a compliment to Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
But Universal Divine Causal Determinism can exist on its own without omniscience depending upon how one defines the term “DIVINE”.
If a being can exist as DIVINE without omniscience – then so can’t Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
If however you assert that DIVINE requires omniscience – then you have the obligation of providing a citation to that effect.
On the omniscience DIVINE topic- refer to all of the times John Calvin attributes a given Divine Determination simply to Calvin’s god’s -quote “good pleasure”.
Calvin assumes omniscience exists
But he doesn’t make omniscience a requirement for every Divine Determination.
If he did – he would have stated that rather than making the basis of a Divine Determination “his good pleasure”
If the gospel is the source of faith, as you declare, what was this gospel to Abraham?
Jesus hadn’t died for his sins. So where did Abraham go after he died?
Ed Chapman
TS00, it hurts doesn’t it, the journey.
Yes, particularly when you are leaving family and other loved ones behind.
Rhutchin says: “In the absence of faith, any exhortation to believe the gospel would be fruitless. In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.”
Interesting! Because Calvinists believe that faith is given to elected people because they were predestined to be saved before time began. Election/salvation came first.
So basically, the elect are saved first, but then they are supposedly given faith to believe the Gospel so that they can be saved!?! Even though they were already counted as saved before time began!?!
Yep, that totally makes sense!
So then, what good is the Gospel? If the non-elect CANNOT respond to it because they aren’t given the faith to believe and if the elect have the faith to believe only because they were already saved before they ever heard the Gospel?
(It’s a rhetorical question, rhutchin. I don’t want your answer.)
I think a typical Calvinist answer to this would be to differentiate between “effectual” and “non-effectual”.
So then – the preaching of the Gospel where faith is not present will be classified as “non-effectual” because Calvin’s god did not ZAP the person with faith either during or before that preaching.
Or metaphorically speaking – take out the invisible floppy drive from the person’s brain – and replace it with a new one. :-]
What then becomes ironic about that is Calvin’s interpretation of the wheat and the chaff.
Calvin believes Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of Calvinists as chaff.
Calvin states:
quote
“He holds it [salvation] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation” ( Institutes, 3.24.8. )
-quote
“He causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he ….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes vol 2)
So on their doctrine – Calvinist churches are full of FALSE Calvinists who APPEAR to have been ZAPPED
Calvin’s god is actually giving them the majority of them a FALSE perception of salvation.
These Calvinists will go through their whole lives being deceived by thousands of FALSE perceptions firing in their brains – believing themselves to be Christians – only to eventually wake up in the lake of fire.
Now who wouldn’t call that “good” news! :-]
Excellent article Eric…keep up the good work.
This is one everyone should read.
Blessings
Well put Eric.
This is truly good news for ALL the people. It’s news we can speak to any individual or group of unbelievers, confidently proclaiming that it really, truly is God’s will and desire that they be saved (with no opposing “secret” will) and that God loves them (with not just a temporary provisional love, but a true salvific love). So much so that He died for their sins and will respond in saving grace if they place their faith in Him.
Amen! Very wonderful article Eric!!
The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light – to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet in the way of peace. This is the light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.
The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.
test
Eric,…. persuasive. I shared on my twitter feed.May God use the heart and mind of what you shared to bring His people closer together under His wings.
Hello Tammy and welcome
Test. Not receiving notifications of new comments.
Dear all, here is another New Testament verse to refute the unbelief argument (that I raised earlier) from John Owen which has been recycled by modern 5 point Calvinist preachers and writers, about Christ dying for unbelief, thus making unbelief automatically atoned for:
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8: 24.
May God grant deliverance to the hearts and minds of those believers who are brainwashed by deceived and deluded preachers, false teachers and false teaching.
Excellent verse Simon. We can add this verse too:
“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”(Rev 21:8). this would have to include those who rejected His call in John 8:24.
Yes. Which according to the 5 point Calvinist mindset, they rejected Him and continued in sin because God never chose them in the first place. Thus, God eternally judges sinners for rejecting Christ and then punishes them for all eternity for doing what they were predetermined by the judge to be.
That would be like a scientist creating a rat and then recreating it to go on living while punishing the rat and burning it for being a rat in the first place.
sps writes, “God eternally judges sinners for rejecting Christ and then punishes them for all eternity for doing what they were predetermined by the judge to be. ”
Under Calvinism, sinners are judged for their sin. That they reject Christ prevents them escaping their sin.. However, if a person never hears about Christ – therefore does not reject Christ, he is still judged for his sin.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, sinners are judged for their sin.
br.d
Which Calvin’s god DESIGNED them to commit and DOES NOT PERMIT them to refrain from.
That is Simon’s point :-]
rhutchin
That they reject Christ prevents them escaping their sin.
br.d
Which Calvin’s god DESIGNED them to not escape from and DOES NOT PERMIT them to be/do otherwise. That is Simon’s point!
rhutchin
However, if a person never hears about Christ – therefore does not reject Christ, he is still judged for his sin.
br.d
In Calvinism if one is DESIGNED for eternal torment in the lake of fire as their fate – whether that one hears or not won’t make a bit of difference. And whether that person sins or not won’t make a bit of difference either.
The only thing that is relevant to one’s eternal fate is the fate Calvin’s god DESIGNS one for.
Therefore in Calvinism – sin, hearing, and all other human attributes simply function as peripheral window dressing.
Speaking of sins BTW:
Every specific sin Calvin’s god DESIGNS/DECREES and RENDERS-CERTAIN a specific Calvinist commit – represents a DECREE from which there is no escape.
Thus after a Calvinist’s sin comes to pass – he knows it must have been RENDERED-CERTAIN.
He knows he has no escape from whatever is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And if he is is RATIONAL enough to connect those dots – he knows he had escape from that sin.
Simon,
I’m Irish and still living in Ireland. Am I right in thinking that you said you are English? If so, are you still living there; and, do you have Brexit fatigue?
Correct me if I’m wrong in regard to Calvinism, but it seems like they negate the need for a Christian to repent of future sins, including unbelief. If this is the case, do you know how they deal with such passages as 1 Jno. 1:6-10? I’ve seen you do this, namely, call for scripture each time. That’s always a good start.
Thanks,
Aidan
Aidan to sps writes, “Correct me if I’m wrong in regard to Calvinism, but it seems like they negate the need for a Christian to repent of future sins, including unbelief.”
How do you get to that conclusion? Even you say that Christ died for all sin, past, present, and future, on the cross, don’t you? If not, what did His death accomplish?
Aidan to sps writes,
“Correct me if I’m wrong in regard to Calvinism, but it seems like they negate the need for a Christian to repent of future sins, including unbelief.”
rhutchin
How do you get to that conclusion? Even you say that Christ died for all sin, past, present, and future, on the cross, don’t you? If not, what did His death accomplish?
br.d
If they are elect – what is the consequence if they don’t repent?
rhutchin and Aidan,
I’m still trying to figure out which of the 613 commandments in the law of Moses indicates that unbelief is a sin. Haven’t found it yet.
Maybe it’s in the 15 commandments in the 3rd stone that Moses dropped, but left behind.
Last I recall…
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I’m still trying to figure out which of the 613 commandments in the law of Moses indicates that unbelief is a sin. Haven’t found it yet.”
Read the NT. Jesus said, ““He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Then, Paul, “And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” It is because of sin that a person is condemned making unbelief a sin.
rhutchin tells me to read Jesus’ statement about those who do not believe in Jesus, yet ignores Romans 11 about MERCY. Interesting.
But rhutchin also ignores
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of THE LAW [of Moses]
and
Romans 3:20
THE LAW [of Moses] is the KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.
and
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law
So now we have Jesus INVENTING sin ON THE SPOT that isn’t even in the law of Moses.
Really rhuthin?
Paul, about himself:
1 Timothy 1:12-13 (KJV)
12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious:
*****but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.*****
NOTE: SEE THE WORD “MERCY” AND “IGNORANTLY” AND “UNBELIEF”?
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
NOTE: SEE THE WORD “MERCY” AND “UNBELIEF”?
Side bar NOTE: The words “them all”, in the above is, in context of the Jews, not the Gentiles.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS, rhutchin
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
I’m wondering if you could acknowledge the spiritual blindness of the Jews? There are several references to that.
If so…
John 9:39-41 King James Version (KJV)
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
That discussion is about spiritual blindness, not physical blindness.
Blind=no sin, no matter the sins.
Claiming they can see… sins remain.
Then we go to Romans 11. Then we see why Paul got mercy, and he is no different than all the rest of the Jews, and God does not show favoritism.
I’m not a Calvinist, but what I see is that Calvinism takes what is meant for Jews, and makes it a doctrine for all mankind, i.e., regeneration, elect, and much much more. But I also discover that this is also how a lot of reform non-Calvinists see it that way too, cuz to both, there is no diff between Jew, Gentile.
And since Jesus is the judge, and he judges after death, Jesus can still save at that time, too.
Romans 2:14-16 tells me that, too. People who never heard of a JESUS, or God, that live according to their God given, I stress GOD GIVEN conscience, are judged by that conscience, and it is considered GOD’S LAWS written on their heart already, and we’ve all got that, whether we are Christians or not.
The Jews are under a written code, but the rest of us are under the our conscience, and if or conscience doesn’t convict us, we are fine.
In the Gospel, it states that The Law of Moses convicts a conscience. Eating shellfish, illegal for Jews, not illegal for anyone else.
Lastly, Abraham. Did he, or did he not sleep with his sister? And if so, is that a sin, in the book of Leviticus? I think it’s mentioned about 3 or 4 times there. And if both are true, why didn’t God inform Abraham of this grievous sin? But God gave brother and sister a son instead, as a promise, yet never informed Abraham of three sin, nor even condemned Abraham, either.
Abraham never had the written code, either. So his conscience had no clue about this sin, therefore he had no guilt for the sin.
So if you have no idea that something is a sin, yet it is a sin, you can’t be judged of the sin, even if, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
Joseph gave his brothers mercy. Joseph is a spiritual depiction of Jesus, Joseph’s brothers are a spiritual depiction of the blind Jews.
Aren’t they?
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman, Thank you.
Those verses are very intriguing. John 9: 41 has intrigued me since I was a boy. I first heard it in a dramatisation and it has stayed with me ever since.
As to it’s meaning, I cannot be certain. I have often thought that it could have been a reference to Eden and how man was created perfect, but then sinned because man ate from a fruit that he could see, thus if he (man) had not sight in the first place, he would be without sin. However, now, knowing context and overview I think it probably relates to the Pharisees seeing who Jesus was yet rejecting Him and thus, there sin remains. Our Lord seems to have been using the condition of the man born blind (9: 1) and then when the healed man visits the Pharisees they excommunicate him (9: 13-34) and then Jesus uses both the physical and spiritual to reveal the sin of rejecting Him. It could be that it would have been better for them to have been blind and ignorant, than to have sight and yet reject Jesus. 10: 1 seems to affirm this, since He points to Himself as being the only way for the sheep to enter in. But if they go and try to enter some other way, is a thief and a robber.
I try not to interpret a text with any axe to grind, if I do that I will possibly distort the meaning. But the Lord certainly seems to say that it is an unpardonable sin to reject Him. But it never reads in any way as though the reason they rejected Him was because they were not predestined and elected to begin with. If determinism were true, it would make what Jesus said and did to be little more than a performance artist.
If I am understanding you correctly, I do actually think that Calvinists have wrongly applied the chosen people of the Old Covenant and taken that and shadowed themselves in it. The Scottish Covenanters of the 17th century certainly believed there was an exact parallel between themselves and the Jews of the Old Testament. These Scottish Presbyterians were Calvinists.
There would be more of case to argue a form of Limited Atonement from the Old Testament than the New. The New Testament does not teach 5 Point Calvinism and even though I would affirm total depravity, I would not claim that total depravity implies total inability. If total inability were true, there would have been no reason for God to have blinded the eyes of the Jews in the first place. It would naturally follow that they or all mankind were blind already. But it certainly seems to me that God did blind the eyes of the Jews so that the Messiah would suffer and be killed. But it was a judgement that God foreknew.
I gave a lecture on John 9: 1-12 which can be viewed on Youtube. I wont add a link since I do not know what policy Soteriology 101 holds on links, but if you want to view it you can.
If I have misread anything or not answered your main point or points, if you could re-clarify I will respond.
Simon Peter,
Thanks for your reply. You seem very well versed in this stuff, from a reasoning aspect. It’s great to listen to what you have to say, and how you present it.
However, from where you come from, regarding man, in general, as being blind due to sin, that’s not how I read Deuteronomy in how Moses explained it.
When I studied the 7th Day Adventists, not to be one, but to find out why they insist on a Saturday Sabbath, I discovered things that many do not look at, or look for. But… while many don’t, many do.
We have to separate Jew from Gentile.
We have to give 2 different meanings to righteousness.
One, by the written code, reserved for the Jews only, called SELF righteousness, and the second, BELIEVE, without the law, and righteousness is free, a gift, no work, just like Abraham… before circumcision.
The promises made to him were unconditional.
Lastly, I don’t believe one iota regarding original sin, and I take “in the day that you eat” as the same day (24 hour day), and that the death is not discussing a bodily death, but a spiritual death. But now take that to Romans 5, Romans 5 is not discussing spiritual death, but physical death. Then see Romans 7, we all die a spiritual death at the knowledge of sin, not the sin itself, hence, the name of that tree in the garden.
I Deutetonomy, see the words, “no knowledge of good and evil”.
In any case, God told the Jews, thru Moses, to obey. Knowing full and well that they can’t. Nobody can. But God blinded them to not see Jesus as messiah, and that makes sense, since Jesus had to be killed. How else was Jesus gonna get on that cross?
A few years ago, a previous Pope wrote a book, exonerating the Jews for killing Jesus. I guess when Jesus said, FATHER forgive them, that three Pope thought he was talking to a future Pope?
So, is it a sin to steal? Yes. Is it a sin to commit adultery? Yes. So, to the 7th Day Adventists, it’s a sin to not remember THE SIXTH DAY, Saturday, no different than the day that the Jews observe.
Are we under the law? Last I heard, we are not.
Love fulfills the law.
Basically, I don’t believe in either side of the soteriology debate, as both sides never ditched Catholic teaching, and both sides have had a bad history with the Jews, so they kinda dismiss the Jews the, “NO DIFFERENCE” category.
But there is a reason that the Jews are blind, and remain blind to this day. They are not finished revealing Jesus to the world yet. They are three light to the Gentile, revealing someone (Jesus) to us, a person they reject, not due to any sin, or fault of their own, either.
I’d like to see your video.
Br. d can pass on your link if you give it to him. He has my email address.
Ed Chapman
sps writes, “the unbelief argument (that I raised earlier) from John Owen which has been recycled by modern 5 point Calvinist preachers and writers, about Christ dying for unbelief, thus making unbelief automatically atoned for: ”
Calvinists include “unbelief” as among the sins for which Christ died. Thus, unbelief would not exclude a person from heaven if Christ died for the sins of that person. However, if Christ died for the sins of any person, then that person would be included among those in John 6 who are given to Christ by God.
rhutchin
Calvinists include “unbelief” as among the sins for which Christ died.
br.d
But only for those creatures whom Calvin’s god has not DESIGNED for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
And that represents the vast majority of his creatures – and thus the vast majority of Calvinists.
That’s a very interesting thing to do with the creatures one DESIGNS isn’t it! :-]
Regarding God designing People made in His own image FOR one purpose ALONE, Eternal wrath and damnation with no hope of ever being loved by there creator.
BR.D That’s a very interesting thing to do with the creatures one DESIGNS isn’t it! :-]
Calvinism is hideous and what makes it even worse the Calvinist says that is all true for the vast majority BUT God designed me Special to be loved not like the rest of you people… it is narcissim put on public display and proudly of course.
Leighton’s latest short video knocks it out of the park it is labeled: Why do Most Christians resist Calvinism” it is short but Good.
Thank you GraceAdict – for posting that video link!
TOTALLY WONDERFUL!
He is so absolutely correct in all of it.
That video gives more examples of how Calvinists are DOUBLE-MINDED
I just love Dr. Flower’s ministry!!
Hey mods, any idea why the notifications are not working?
Can you try another TEST post?
Make sure you put your email in and make sure you check off the 3 notification option boxes below
The system should send you a confirmation of participation.
Please let me know if that doesn’t work for you.
Well, I got this notification, so perhaps it is now working. 😉
3 notification boxes? I only see 2, and only one is working. I also do not see where one would enter in one’s email. I did recently change my password, as I was on another device and could not recall my old one. I received the usual notification upon my first comment to allow notifications, which I ‘allowed’, but until this one have not received notification of any comments.
Right below the field that you post your comment in, there should be three other data entry fields.
The first one is for your email – for the system to return posts to you.
The second one is where you put your name
The third field is for a possible website – but none of us use that field.
Below that you should see 3 square boxes.
The first one applies to the 3 fields I just mentioned
You check this box to “Salve my name, email and website in this browser….etc”
The second check box is “Notify me of new comments via email”
The 3rd check box is “Notify me of new posts via email”
Perhaps you are logging into WordPress in most of your activity?
Try making a post without logging into wordpress.
Simply go to the SOT101 page and make a post.
I believe you should see those fields and check boxes I described.
Yes, to WordPress.
Dear CHAPMANED24,
You can find the lecture on YouTube, just type in my name and add lecture or John 9: 1-12.
I am not quite convinced that the Jews are born blind, but that God blinded their eyes at a certain point. The majority of believers in Acts and even in the Gospels were Jews.
Of course there certainly is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Scripture seems to me to continuously make that distinction. But In Christ, their is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but of course that is distinctly referring to those who are IN CHRIST.
I totally reject Replacement Theology, so I have no issues studying the distinctions with the Law of Moses and the Gospels and how it all works.
However, you’ll have to forgive me if I pass on any debate concerning ‘Original Sin’. It’s not that I am closed minded, its just that at this point I have seen too much debate and it hurts. So much so that cannot see that much point in a Christianity anymore where “Christians” or people who think differently debate all the time. I see a world falling apart and souls suffering and pain everywhere, and I cannot justify it when I see the poor and needy and homeless people lying on the streets while rich preachers preach that knowledge pays and then they hide behind their gates. It is not true religion (James 1: 27).
Simon Peter,
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not discussing replacement theology at all. I don’t believe in it either.
But at what point has Gentiles ever been under the law of Moses? Never. So there is a distinction right there.
And, if you read the book of Deuteronomy, and Romans 9-11, you see that the Jews were blinded by God, not the Gentiles. There is another distinction.
Romans 9-11 references Deuteronomy, and the subject of Romans 9-11 is… the Jews.
Christianity is an extension of Judaism, not a replacement of. So I don’t believe in replacement theology.
I see the explanation that Paul gives for why he, himself got mercy. Then I see the same exact reasoning in Romans 9-11 for those blind Jews.
And the reason? Ignorance in UNBELIEF.
Ignorance is BLISS, cuz you can’t be held to account for what you don’t know, hence the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.
Hopefully, I’ve clarified.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24, “…the subject of Romans 9-11 is… the Jews. ”
The subject of Romans is Israel (I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh), the children of promise/remnant (those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God;…), and the gentiles (What if God,…that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
rhutchin,
Call ’em what ya want. I prefer JEWS. Just don’t call them late for PASSOVER.
Paul’s brethren, countrymen, etc., are Jews. According to the…FLESH, not according to… the SPIRIT. DISTINCTION, man!
If you really read ROMANS 9-11 more slowly, then you will see that the Jews show God’s power, and BECAUSE OF THAT, they get mercy for God using them for destruction, etc.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
Do you not see the story of JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS being a spiritual depiction of Jesus and the Jews? in the end, the brothers got mercy. You don’t see anything here? Just a history lesson about how not to treat your brother is all I’ll bet you see from that…a story about MORALITY, but not a spiritual story about Jesus giving mercy to the Jews? Why did Paul get mercy? Is the Jews any different than he used to be?
Does God show favoritism?
Why Paul, and nobody else in the Jew family?
Ed Chapman
I believe that all of the apostles were of Israel, along with all of the original followers of Jesus.
How do you explain the unblinding of some? How do you explain Paul’s teaching that Israel (in large part) stumbled upon the Law, not due to God-induced blindness.
Nor do I see the logic of the Pharisees being blinded, but supposedly guilty of the sin of rejecting Jesus because they ‘said’ they were not blind. So, were they blind or not? If not, how is it that they gained sight taken from all others of Israel – except for the many who did put their trust in Jesus?Just see a lot of holes . . .
TS00,
How do I explain the unblinding of some? It’s explained in Romans, something to the effect of, “I HAVE RESERVED FOR MYSELF 7000 WHO HAVE NOT BOWED DOWN TO BAAL” which is a reference from the OT, and you can clearly see that if you used an NIVr bible version.
The OT reference is considered PROPHESY, but those that espouse EXPOSITORY preaching ONLY, never acknowledge this kind of stuff being prophesy.
The Jews DID STUMBLE AT THE LAW, but that’s because GOD is the one who told them to get righteousness thru the law to begin with.
They stumbled because that’s what God wanted them to do.
Do you think that God wanted Jesus to live a long and healthy life? Maybe get married, have some kids? Why did Jesus come here? To die on a cross.
And are you gonna blame the Jews for stumbling?
If they didn’t stumble, YOUR SINS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.
THANK THE JEWS for killing Jesus, instead of blaming them, and that is also a summary of Romans 9-11 (don’t be high minded). Thru their unbelief, you stand…BUT…
And that’s a huge but, bigger than yo… nevermind. Just kidding!
Ed Chapman
You failed to explain why some of the nation of Israel believed, including not only the apostles, but whatever number of men and women were among his followers. How did they, and not the rest, happen to recover their sight? Oh, and not just your imagining – where does scripture describe or explain such a thing?
TS00,
No, I did not fail to explain why. I did explain why. Didn’t I say something about 7000 not bowing down to Ba’al? That was the explaination.
You gotta GO BACK to where that is the OT reference if you want more information. But that is where it’s coming from.
This is where HOMEWORK on your part is done when you ask ME to TELL YOU where to find such and such. In 6th grade terminology, READ THE BOOK AND I EXPECT A BOOK REPORT DUE ON MY DESK IN TWO WEEKS.
Do you know what I see? I see that NO ONE reads the BIBLE as a NOVEL anymore. They read certain places only, make a doctrine out of it, and away we go.
Kinda like how I did book reports in the 6th grade. I’d take a book, and NOT READ IT, and write down word for word the words on the front cover flap, and the back cover flap, turn it in, and get an “A” on my book report.
But here is a hint, AGAIN. USE THE NIVr VERSION and it REFERENCES everything that PAUL references from the OT.
For example:
Here is Romans 11:1-16 NIRV, which gives REFERENCE to what he is saying from the OT
NOTE: In verse 8 is the reference to the BLIND JEWS BEGINNING from DEUTERONOMY.
NOTE: verses 1-4 explains what you say that I didn’t explain.
Romans 11 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
The Israelites Who Are Faithful
11 So here is what I ask. Did God turn his back on his people? Not at all! I myself belong to Israel. I am one of Abraham’s children. I am from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God didn’t turn his back on his people. After all, he chose them. Don’t you know what Scripture says about Elijah? He complained to God about Israel. 3 He said, “Lord, they have killed your prophets. They have torn down your altars. I’m the only one left. And they are trying to kill me.” (1 Kings 19:10,14) 4 How did God answer him? God said, “I have kept 7,000 people for myself. They have not bowed down to Baal.” (1 Kings 19:18) 5 Some are also faithful today. They have been chosen by God’s grace. 6 And if they are chosen by grace, then they can’t work for it. If that were true, grace wouldn’t be grace anymore.
7 What should we say then? The people of Israel did not receive what they wanted so badly. Those Israelites who were chosen did receive it. But the rest of the people were made stubborn. 8 It is written,
“God made it hard for them to understand.
He gave them eyes that could not see.
He gave them ears that could not hear.
And they are still like that today.” (Deuteronomy 29:4; Isaiah 29:10)
9 David says,
“Let their feast be a trap and a snare.
Let them trip and fall. Let them get what’s coming to them.
10
Let their eyes grow dark so they can’t see.
Let their backs be bent forever.” (Psalm 69:22,23)
Two Kinds of Olive Branches
11 Again, here is what I ask. The Israelites didn’t trip and fall once and for all time, did they? Not at all! Because Israel sinned, the Gentiles can be saved. That will make Israel jealous of them. 12 Israel’s sin brought riches to the world. Their loss brings riches to the Gentiles. So then what greater riches will come when all Israel turns to God!
13 I am talking to you who are not Jews. I am the apostle to the Gentiles. So I take pride in the work I do for God and others. 14 I hope somehow to stir up my own people to want what you have. Perhaps I can save some of them. 15 When they were not accepted, it became possible for the whole world to be brought back to God. So what will happen when they are accepted? It will be like life from the dead. 16 The first handful of dough that is offered is holy. This makes all of the dough holy. If the root is holy, so are the branches.
———————————–
In your previous comment to my, you had said:
How do you explain the unblinding of some? How do you explain Paul’s teaching that Israel (in large part) stumbled upon the Law, not due to God-induced blindness.
My response to that:
Study what a STUMBLING BLOCK does, AND TO WHOM.
Leviticus 19:14
Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind,
Jeremiah 6:21
Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people
If they COULD see, they would WALK AROUND the block, so as not to stumble. But since they can’t see, they stumble.
So how can you say that they are blind BECAUSE they stumbled? That’s a little BACKWARDS, to me anyway.
If there is a hole in the ground, BLIND PEOPLE will fall in the hole. Those who can see, GO AROUND.
Logic, right?
Ed Chapman
TS00,
In short, yes, they did stumble due to blindness. It’s in DEUTERONOMY.
GOD HAS NOT GIVEN THEM A MIND TO UNDERSTAND, EARS TO HEAR, OR EYES TO SEE, UNTO THIS DAY (NEVER).
rhutchin,
In order to understand Romans 9-11, you should get extremely familiar with Genesis thru Deuteronomy, first. Then Romans 9-11 will make sense, because Romans 9-11 makes references of Deutetonomy. You see that clearly using the NIVr version of the bible.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “In order to understand Romans 9-11, you should get extremely familiar with Genesis thru Deuteronomy, first.”
It doesn’t hurt to read Romans 9-11 and take what it says to be true.
I do take Romans 9-11 to be true. I don’t take what you interpret it to be true.
I’ve read the whole book. I’ve got the inside scoop. It’s possible that your bible begins with Matthew. Or as some say, John.
But my bible begins with Genesis. Numbers is kinda boring, and chronicles seems a bit redundant, but, I’d give the advice that it’s always best to follow the yellow brick road… from the beginning. Genesis. And don’t stop reading until you get to the end. Just like a Harry Potter novel.
But… at least 5 times.
Then, and only then will you see Romans 9-11 in a different light than the one that John Calvin explains to you.
Ed Chapman
CHAPMANED24. Thank you,
Yes I do understand what you are saying. By my writing “I totally reject Replacement Theology, so I have no issues studying the distinctions with the Law of Moses and the Gospels and how it all works” I am merely stating that I have no issues with this discussion. Many who hold to R T, often dismiss the topic of the Jewish matters and Gentile distinctions as unimportant and claim there are no distinctions anymore. Hope I have clarified that.
I accept the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. I agree that Gentiles were not blinded at all. It is vital to view Romans 9 in light of Deuteronomy and indeed the Pentateuch. Calvinists are good at making claims, but they are not very good at consulting the Old Testament co-texts.
Yes, and thank you, as well. Simple clarifications from both of us. And I agree with what you’ve said.
I gotta say, you are a breath of fresh air here. I like how you present your case.
RHUTCHIN,
RHUTCHIN wrote; “sps writes, “God eternally judges sinners for rejecting Christ and then punishes them for all eternity for doing what they were predetermined by the judge to be. ”
Under Calvinism, sinners are judged for their sin. That they reject Christ prevents them escaping their sin.. However, if a person never hears about Christ – therefore does not reject Christ, he is still judged for his sin.”
SPS: Yes, but the problem is that their sin is original, and the reason they sin (as in committing sins), is because of the condition of Original Sin. Original Sin (which I accept) is a sin condition that they were born with, without any consent whatsoever. This condition does not enable them to stop sinning. Then “Under Calvinism” God judges them for their sin, and yet in reality “God” would know that they can do nothing else. The none elect cannot even respond to the offering of Salvation because “God” never truly offers salvation to them in the first place. The general dispensation of the Gospel is just to bring in the full number of the elect, while the none-elect are offered the Gospel, and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, yet in reality, He was never truly available to the none elect in the first place. What a load of baloney. It’s nonsense. Total nonsense. It’s like a dr diagnosing a man with a sickness, and offering the diseased man a cure, knowing the man would refuse it because in reality the cure was never truly available for him in the first place.
Bah humbug.
Simon Peter,
I’m curious as to how you conclude your belief of Original Sin. Is it based on your own study, or someone else’s dictates that it’s supposed to be believed, all due to some Catholic Church “father” preaching about it?
I look at VARIOUS things, EVENTS of Genesis 2-3, Romans 3, 4, 5, 6, and ESPECIALLY chapter 7.
Chapter 7 of Romans shows that PAUL IS INNOCENT “until” he discovered what sin was…BY THE LAW. Before he KNEW (what was the name of that tree in the garden again?), SIN WAS DEAD, and Paul was “ALIVE”. This is SPIRITUAL. Spiritually alive. Can I get an AMEN?
So, before he knew, NO SIN can be imputed to him, because SIN WAS DEAD while he was alive. He DIED a spiritual death at he knowledge of what sin was, therefore, he was not born spiritually dead, as Calvinists preach.
NOW…talking about DISTINCTION as we were earlier, there is a difference between SPIRITUAL DEATH, AND DEATH OF THE BODY.
Many who buy off on ORIGINAL SIN like to equate Romans 5, that we all INHERITED SOMETHING. What was that something again? Death? WHAT KIND OF DEATH?
The answer to that is the difference between those who believe in Original sin, and me.
I say that Romans 5 is about death of the body, not spiritual death. I say that Romans 7 is about spiritual death, not the death of the body.
But one final thought is…THAT OTHER TREE IN THE GARDEN THAT NO ONE TALKS ABOUT…the Tree of Life.
Adam STILL STILL STILL could have eaten of that tree, AFTER THE FALL, and STILL would have GAINED eternal life in a fallen state. TRUE OR FALSE?
So, last point: Was Adam FORMED on the Earth with an ETERNAL BODY ALREADY, and LOST it? Or, was he FORMED on this earth ALREADY DESTINED TO DIE IN THE BODY ALREADY, and just didn’t GAIN eternal life?
I get my answer from 1 Corinthians 15:36-50. If you could, do TWO COLUMNS. In one column, title it: PLANTED/SOWED. And in another column, title it: RAISED. Then list what is said in the proper columns. You will discover that Adam was GONNA DIE A NATURAL DEATH ANYWAY, because is ONLY BODY was a NATURAL BODY, not a SPIRITUAL ONE.
That which is natural came first, including Adam, then after that is what comes SPIRITUAL. We are talking about a body here.
The topic is about the resurrection, but it gives a lot of info on the CURRENT body and state of the body, and it’s ORIGINATION in Adam LONG BEFORE HE ATE OF A SPECIFIC TREE.
So, these are the reasons that I do not believe in original sin, but I’m curious as to how you concluded your belief in it.
Ed Chapman
Hello Ed, I am very weary of people using Paul all the time to promote ideas and theologies. Peter warned believers to be cautious of that (2 Peter 3: 15-16) Every a major sect of ‘Christianity’ has probably used Paul at one point or another to advance their positions. So I don’t want to go heavy into this topic for the simple reason it is not directly linked to the topic of this article and ‘I confess’ I am not particularly interested in revising any orthodox position. I believe that ‘Original Sin’ is an orthodox position and is the state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, Any arguments relating to Genesis that are prior to the fall are both unfounded and not authentic to the discussion. ‘Original Sin’ relates to the condition of man after the fall not prior to it.
In the English version the first direct use of the word “sin” is in Genesis 4: 7, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”
Notice that sin already existed as the condition prior to the ability to do well. In other words when he says that if Cain did not do well, sin remains at the door. It implies that an animal proper to be offered as an atonement for sin is now couching at the door of the fold. This implies that the most characteristic feature of sin is that it is directed against God, This is also affirmed in Psalm 51: 4.
According to the law of first mention, Genesis 4: 7 may well be that direct reference.
When 1 John 3: 4 says “sin is the transgression of the law” we must note that the law is the perfection of God, so since “all” have sinned (Romans 3: 23) refers to “all” that is every man, woman and child, there must be a reason for the transgression in the first place. Thus, the problem must be the nature of man after the fall. When Paul says that he would not have known sin but by the law, he is referring to his awareness of sin, which the law presents. He was saying that he would not have known what sin was if the law had not revealed it. He himself states in that verse that the law itself was not sin, but the transgression of it must be sin, which begs the question, where does transgression come from if not from the fallen nature. Jeremiah 13: 23 appears to equate sin with the nature of the beast rather than just the doing of it.
Simon Peter,
You had said:
“I am very weary of people using Paul all the time to promote ideas and theologies.”
My response:
YIKES, really? Since Paul is the Apostle to the GENTILES and Peter is the Apostle to the Jews, I’d think that using Paul to promote ideas and theologies would be MORE THAN WELCOMED.
But from what I have learned from Paul is that sin has ALWAYS EXISTED, even before the fall.
The question is, HOW IS SIN “IMPUTED”.
My conclusion is that sin is NOT IMPUTED until you first KNOW of the sin, and that is my point. Ignorance is bliss.
My position is to DITCH the orthodox way of thinking, and start from scratch, beginning again at the drawing board. When you do that, you will see that YOUR CONCLUSIONS will definitely be different from orthodox.
And, you will finally see that your positions actually are in agreement with others that also have ditched the orthodox way of thinking.
And this is where we have had our problems with such people as John Calvin, when anyone disagreed with him about HIS INTERPRETATIONS, so they did NOT have freedom of thought regarding a matter. Same with the Catholics in general, too.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “My conclusion is that sin is NOT IMPUTED until you first KNOW of the sin, and that is my point. Ignorance is bliss. ”
This seems to be what Paul says in Romans 5. “For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” However, Paul then says, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,,,,” Why did death reign if sin was not imputed? Adam’s sin had consequences. People were still born with a nature corrupted by Adam’s sin, so no one goes to heaven just because they had not sinned – they are still unrighteous and no unrighteous person can enter heaven. As Jesus declared to Nicodemus, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
rhutchin,
Just by you quoting Romans 5:13, that is a WONDERFUL start to the understanding of it all. Now couple that with Romans chapter 7.
But then you SKEW, regarding the REST of Romans 5. I keep telling you that the only thing that we INHERITED was NATURAL DEATH OF THE BODY, because Adam never ate of the TREE OF LIFE, hence, DEATH REIGNED.
You seem to think that Romans 5 is discussing SPIRITUAL death. NO NO NO.
Adam’s sin did have consequences, BUT THAT’S ANOTHER TOPIC ALTOGETHER. A different topic.
Adam’s sin, by way of KNOWLEDGE, the consequences was SPIRITUAL DEATH, and 99 per cent of Christendom defines that as…
Separation from God. Right?
So, SEPARATION FROM GOD, ADAM WAS SEPARATED FROM GOD. What brought GOD BACK INTO A RELATIONSHIP WITH ADAM?
A SACRIFICE. SKINS TO COVER THEIR NAKEDNESS, BLOOD TO COVER THEIR SIN.
That’s Christianity 101, buddy.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “You seem to think that Romans 5 is discussing SPIRITUAL death.”
When Romans 5 begins, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,..in due time Christ died for the ungodly…while we were still sinners, Christ died for us…we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” I think it easy to conclude that Paul is speaking of salvation.
rhutchin,
You have to keep in mind that the conversation that Paul was having was ONCE CONTINUOUS thought pattern that continued from Chapter 4, chapter 3, etc.
The topic…RIGHTEOUSNESS, and how it is OBTAINED. Abraham was imputed RIGHTEOUSNESS without the law (SIN EXISTED PRIOR TO THE LAW, BUT SIN NOT IMPUTED). The Jews, or Israel as you say, were given the law by God thru Moses, and God told them to OBEY, knowing full and well that they can’t, and THAT is the righteousness that God told them to achieve, yet we have people today that bad mouth the Jews for NOT getting it by faith like Abraham did? They couldn’t, because Abraham didn’t have the law, and they did.
Before the law sin was in the world, but SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHERE THERE IS NO LAW.
That’s in Romans 4. But like you said, take that to a courtroom and see what the judge states about that.
Ed Chapman.
rhutchin,
Notice in my last, that I said the word “COVR”. Not to TAKE AWAY, but to COVER…until Jesus could die on the cross.
rhutchin,
How much do you REALLY know what sin is?
1 John 3:4 states, explicitely that sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20 states that the law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
Let me break it down like this:
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
NOTE THE ABOUT IN ROMANS 4:15? Note the below in Romans 4:8? Romans 4 is about Abraham!
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Simon Peter,
You acknowledge 1 John 3:4, in that sin is the transgression of THE LAW [of Moses].
I’ve asked this question before, without a response:
Did Abraham sleep with his sister? Was it a sin?
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister a promised son.
Abraham had NO KNOWLEDGE of THE LAW, no knowledge that this was a sin, and God never informed him, either.
So, even tho Abraham sinned (FOR ALL HAVE SINNED), THAT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED TO HIM, FOR HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, and the title of that tree in the garden included the word “knowledge”.
NOW take it back to Romans 7. Then look at:
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
WHEN DO PEOPLE IN THOSE DAYS GET KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL?
WHY DIDN’T ABRAHAM HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE? ESPECIALLY ABOUT HIS SISTER? You would have thought that God would have at least mentioned it to him in passing, right?
Ed Chapman
chapman24ed to sps writes, “I’ve asked this question before, without a response:
Did Abraham sleep with his sister? Was it a sin?
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”
Sleeping with his sister was not a sin for Abraham. That activity did not become a sin until the time of Moses.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Sleeping with his sister was not a sin for Abraham. That activity did not become a sin until the time of Moses.”
Ohhhhhh. So, God INVENTS sin at his leisure? Maybe tomorrow sleeping with your wife will be a sin? I guess we have to wait Jesus makes ANOTHER REVISION?
You are funny!
My conclusion is, is that sleeping with your sister has ALWAYS been a sin, it’s just that God did not REVEAL that as a sin until the Law of Moses.
Based on Leviticus 20:17, “it is a wicked thing”.
So, it wasn’t wicked in the days of Abraham, but later it was? Hmmmm. I’d say that it was ALWAYS wicked, but IGNORANCE keeps people INNOCENT.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Ohhhhhh. So, God INVENTS sin at his leisure?”
Yep. Prior to God telling Adam, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,” Adam could have eaten all the fruit he wanted from that tree without penalty. When Cain murdered his brother, his punishment was, ““So now you are cursed from the earth…When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.” Only later was the death penalty imposed for murder.
You say, “My conclusion is, is that sleeping with your sister has ALWAYS been a sin, it’s just that God did not REVEAL that as a sin until the Law of Moses.” That is your opinion (your eisegesis) and you are entitled to it. No one else is required to agree with you until you get the Scriptures to confirm your opinion.
Then, “So, it wasn’t wicked in the days of Abraham, but later it was?”
That is what the Scriptures tell us. Perhaps, God, knowing how mutations were beginning to build up in the DNA, determined that those mutations should be slowed down by limiting intercourse within the family. We don’t know why God only made it a sin beginning with Moses because He doesn’t tell us.
rhutchin,
My problem with your explanation is that you think that the ONLY SIN that Adam and Eve did was to EAT of a tree that God told them not to eat from, and you neglect to tell us ABOUT that tree as well, and you COMPLETELY ignore the OTHER tree, and what it’s intent was all about.
You leave out a TON of information.
Regarding Abraham, YES it was wicked when Abraham did it, too. My point is that Abraham had NO KNOWLEDGE of it, and BECAUSE HE DIDN’T KNOW, it’s the same exact thing as saying INNOCENT, sin NOT imputed, NOTHING TO ANSWER FOR.
You can’t be convicted of a crime that you have NO KNOWLEDGE OF. Sin is NOT IMPUTED, which is a MAJOR reason that I do NOT believe that ANYONE is born spiritually dead, because as I have shown, YOU HAVE TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL BEFORE ANY SIN IS IMPUTED TO YOU.
Abraham had NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, for it is BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN (Romans 3:20).
God did not sit Abraham…or Adam down PRIOR TO THE FALL, to GIVE ‘EM THE LAW. THEY got knowledge of good and evil SUPERNATURALLY by eating from the tree of….WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT TREE AGAIN?
I conclude that eating of that tree was NOT THE ONLY SIN COMMITTED. But, what say you? Can you LIST THE SINS, (MORE THAN ONE)?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “My problem with your explanation is that you think that the ONLY SIN that Adam and Eve did was to EAT of a tree that God told them not to eat from, ”
Eating the fruit was not the sin or only sin. The desire to eat was the sin as James explains, “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” We read of Eve’s desires, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise,…”
Then, “You can’t be convicted of a crime that you have NO KNOWLEDGE OF.”
LOL!!! Use that defense next time you go to court. Once a law is enacted, the citizen is presumed to know it. God can certainly grant mercy to those who do not know the law but otherwise, “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them…”
rhutchin,
I’m not discussing CARNAL STUFF HERE, I am discussing Bible stuff. Big difference.
rhutich,
To the Jews, it is a SIN to eat SHELLFISH, and BACON.
Jews don’t sell Ham Sandwiches in Jewish Deli’s.
But to jtleosala, we, or at least I, KNOW that jt eats shellfish, as most Filipino’s do in the Philippines. They roast a pig for various celebrations, too.
Do you think that YOUR use of Romans 2:14-16, the law written on our hearts, will CONVICT the Filipino’s for eating shellfish, or me eating bacon with my eggs?
613 commandments in the law of Moses, and if you break just ONE, you have broken them ALL, and that includes the food violations.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “To the Jews, it is a SIN to eat SHELLFISH, and BACON.”
So!!!
rhutchin states,
“SO?”
Well, you referenced Romans 2:14-16, right? Are YOU convicted in your heart for eating bacon, knowing full and well that in the law it is a sin? For by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Why do you eat bacon if it’s a sin?
Your response will probably be, IT’S NO LONGER A SIN, right?
Wrong. It’s ALWAYS A SIN. We are not under the law. Based on 1 Cor chapter 8, I believe, we can even BE IN PAGAN TEMPLES, AND EAT MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS, which is also a sin, but WHY can we eat in pagan temple the meat offered to idols? Because it’s no longer a sin? No, because that idol is NOT real, it doesn’t exist, therefore, the meat is just meat having no significance.
Ed Chapman
Then, “Why do you eat bacon if it’s a sin?…WHY can we eat in pagan temple the [bacon] offered to idols? Because it’s no longer a sin? No, because that idol is NOT real, it doesn’t exist, therefore, the [bacon] is just meat having no significance.”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
rhutchin asks:
I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
I’m trying to say…I am HUNGRY.
Seriously, what I am saying is that sleeping with your sister has ALWAYS BEEN A SIN, but Abraham didn’t KNOW IT to be a sin in the first place, and God never informed him that it was a sin.
Eating bacon is STILL A SIN, but we do it anyway. WHY? Did God not make it a sin anymore? What you had told me was that sleeping with your sister didn’t USED TO BE a sin, but later God added it. But then YOU discovered Romans 5:13, which kinda changes your perception a bit.
Sin is IMPUTED to a person that KNOWS what sin is, but Paul states that we are DEAD to sin, SIN IS DEAD, and we are alive.
Remember Joe Biden saying that Bin Laden is Dead, GM is Alive? If we are dead to sin, then we are alive to Christ.
To summarize, we are FREE FROM THE LAW, and we can eat what is sinful under the law of Moses.
Jews are STILL under the law of Moses, for that is an everlasting covenant (the law of Moses). The law of Christ supersedes the law of Moses, but it doesn’t replace it.
We, we have a conscience however about sleeping with our sisters. So to us, that is a sin, whether we see it in the law or not. So we would NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
But for those who have no conscience about it, such as Abraham…it’s NOT A SIN TO HIM, and God didn’t impute the sin to Abraham, even tho it is classified as a sin.
THESE are the things to SERIOUSLY ponder about THE LAW and those NOT UNDER THE LAW, and that one word called, “RIGHTEOUSNESS”, and another one word called “SIN”, coupled with the procedure of WHEN SIN IS IMPUTED (CHARGED AGAINST) to you, and when it isn’t.
Now, what I said above is NOT MUMBO JUMBO. It’s DEEP THINKING that needs to be done by Calvinists such as yourself, or anyone for that matter.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
br.d
Of course that statement in INCOHERENT in Theological Determinism – in which there is no such thing as “his own desires”.
The creature has no say in the matter of what desires Calvin’s god will activate within his brain
Calvin’s god is the ONLY one who determines every desire – the creature is NOT PERMITTED to determine anything.
The creature is simply a canvas upon which Calvin’s god paints desires.
He has no more say in the matter of them than he has about the day he is born.
br.d writes, “Of course that statement in INCOHERENT in Theological Determinism – in which there is no such thing as “his own desires”.”
Even under Theological Determinism, a person’s desires arise from their nature and those desires are unique from the desires of all other people.
Then, ‘The creature has no say in the matter of what desires Calvin’s god will activate within his brain”
Under Calvinism, a person’s desires result from a person’s knowledge, experience, understanding, etc. God does not need to activate desires within a person. He created the person with the ability to desire. Adam desired to eat the fruit without God having to activate that desire in his mind.
Then, “Calvin’s god is the ONLY one who determines every desire – the creature is NOT PERMITTED to determine anything.”
The creature is able to desire many things. God determines whether those desires will manifest as action.
br.d
Of course that statement in INCOHERENT in Theological Determinism – in which there is no such thing as “his own desires”.”
rhutchin
Even under Theological Determinism, a person’s desires arise from their nature and those desires are unique from the desires of all other people.
br.d
Here we go again with the infinite regress
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature – caused an attribute of the creature – and on in to infinite regress.
*AS-IF* that is RATIONAL!
Trying to get a Calvinist to follow his causal chain back to its SOURCE/ORIGIN – the closer you get the more terrified he gets. :-]
It follows the creature has no say in the matter of what desires Calvin’s god will activate within his brain
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, a person’s desires result from a person’s knowledge, experience, understanding, etc.
br.d
Same evasion as we see above.
The creature has NO SAY in any matter *ANY ATTRIBUTE* Calvin’s god activates in his person.
That fact that Calvin’s god activates chained events within a person – is nothing more than a red-herring.
Dr. Neal Judisch – International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion
-quote
“Whether or not the control Calvinists imagine exerted by Calvin’s god is immediate or mediated through secondary causes, is ultimately an irrelevant red-herring.
For the ethical problem remains: The CONTROL IS THERE. And that CONTROL IS INTENTIONAL, SUPER-OPERATIVE, AND UNREMITTING.
In the Calvinist scheme it isn’t within one’s power to alter, affect, or to “do otherwise” than what one is being controlled to think, choose, be or do.” end quote
Calvin’s god is the ONLY one who determines every attribute – the creature is NOT PERMITTED to determine anything
rhutchin
The creature is able to desire many things.
br.d
But only Calvin’s god can determine what any attribute will be – and the creature has no say in that matter.
rhutchin
God determines whether those desires will manifest as action.
br.d
TRUE – Calvin’s god determines *ALL* and leaves ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
Therefore in Theological Determinism – there is no such thing as the creature having “his own desires” in the sense that the creature has any say or control over any attribute.
Its just that simple
rhutchin,
You had said:
“The creature is able to desire many things. God determines whether those desires will manifest as action.”
I desire a nice big fat juicy steak, baked potato, and tossed salad, blue cheese dressing.
Now I gotta wait and see if God will manifest dinner?
While I wait, IN FAITH, I’ll go get some BBQ briquets, and start the BBQ.
Ed Chapman
sps writes, “The general dispensation of the Gospel is just to bring in the full number of the elect, while the none-elect are offered the Gospel, and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, yet in reality, He was never truly available to the none elect in the first place. What a load of baloney. It’s nonsense. Total nonsense.”
The non-elect are still the non-elect. No matter how you “offer” them the gospel, they reject it. Their condition never changes. If it did, they would be the elect.
Then, “It’s like a dr diagnosing a man with a sickness, and offering the diseased man a cure, knowing the man would refuse it because in reality the cure was never truly available for him in the first place. ”
Good example except not “never truly available” but “never truly acceptable.” Per Paul, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”
As Paul also said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.” then, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
rhuthcin
The non-elect are still the non-elect. No matter how you “offer” them the gospel, they reject it. Their condition never changes. If it did, they would be the elect.
br.d
Because Calvin’s god DESIGNS them specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure. Does NOT PERMIT them to be/do otherwise – does not make any alternative available to them.
simon peter
It’s like a dr diagnosing a man with a sickness, and offering the diseased man a cure, knowing the man would refuse it because in reality the cure was never truly available for him in the first place. ”
rhuthcin
not “never truly available” but “never truly acceptable.” …etc
br.d
FALSE
Since Calvin’s god determines every neurological impulse – and not the person – Calvin’s god does NOT make available salvation to the non-elect – and DOES NOT PERMIT or make available any choice for salvation to the non-elect
RHUTCHIN,
Rhutchin; “The non-elect are still the non-elect. No matter how you “offer” them the gospel, they reject it. Their condition never changes. If it did, they would be the elect.”
SPS: The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1649 and 1690, chap. X. 1V says this;
“Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion is very pernicious, and to be detested.”
Note: This passage begins with the conclusion or assumption that they (the so-called none-elect) were not “elected” to begin with. Yet, they may be called, yet they never truly come to Christ and thus CANNOT be saved. But the first cause of that is that they were not elect to begin with, yet they are “called”.
This does not mean that they are not elect because they do not believe, but that they do not believe because they are not elect. So who did not elect them and why? The answer is; “God” did not elect them, therefore made them unable to ever be saved because they CANNOT ever ever, in a million years ever truly come to Christ. So again, it makes “God” the one who offers a cure, but in reality, “God” never granted or permitted them to embrace the cure in the first place.
5 Point Calvinism is like unto a man who offers bread to a homeless man, who is laying face down, only when he turns to look, the bread bearer finds that the homeless man has no mouth. So he leaves him that way. Calvinism offers a man bread only to give him a stone.
The true Gospel however would show Christ as the One who offers bread and if the man has no mouth, Christ heals him and gives him a new mouth and feeds him. Thus enabling him to receive.
5 Point Calvinism accepts a virus, but deactivates the antivirus. It presents and reveals a disease, but only truly offers a cure to those who believe, yet makes “God” out to be the first cause or determiner of their unbelief. It presents “God” as the one who judges sinners and unbelievers for being sinners who could never truly come to Christ in the first place. All because they were never foreknown, or predestined. Thus, the reason they do not believe or truly embrace the Gospel is because they are none elect.
Show me a single verse in the Bible where the term “none elect” is ever used?
Simon Peter,
You had said:
“The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1649 and 1690, chap. X. 1V says this; …”
My question would be:
What do YOU say?
Let’s dismiss what dead people already decided FOR you, and let’s move on to what YOU conclude on your own study.
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect
Now, you say that you don’t believe in replacement theology, right?
And we know that Israel has rejected Jesus, right?
My conclusions are based on Isaiah 45:4, in that there is NO GENTILE at any time that is considered the elect, whether that gentile is saved or not.
In short:
Gentiles (all Gentiles) are NOT the elect at all.
Christian Gentiles are NOT the elect. Non-Christian Gentiles are NOT the elect.
Christian Jews are the elect. Non-Christian Jews are the elect who WILL BE SAVED by MERCY (no different than the mercy that Paul got…ignorance in unbelief due to blindness that God put on them…story of Joseph and his brothers).
So, how can any Gentile be elect in light of those circumstances? They can’t be at all. Another major distinction between Jew and Gentile. The common denominator is that Jesus saves, for there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Jesus will save the blind Jews, for it is NOT THEIR FAULT that they are blind. Yet, I see that many say, such as TS00, that they are blind because they stumbled, when I see that it is the exact opposite, that they stumbled because they are blind.
How is Paul, who got mercy DUE TO IGNORANCE IN UNBELIEF any different than your average Jew?
1 Timothy 1:12-13 (KJV)
12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious:
*****but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.*****
NOTE: SEE THE WORD “MERCY” AND “IGNORANTLY” AND “UNBELIEF”?
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
NOTE: SEE THE WORD “MERCY” AND “UNBELIEF”?
Side bar NOTE: The words “them all”, in the above is, in context of the Jews, not the Gentiles.
So, why break out the Westminster Confession? What about YOUR OWN confession? Isn’t the Bible SUFFICIENT? Do we not hear SOLA BLAH BLAH all the time, yet we have SOLA AND AND AND? Just curious.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chpman wrote;
“You had said:
“The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1649 and 1690, chap. X. 1V says this; …”
My question would be:
What do YOU say?
Let’s dismiss what dead people already decided FOR you, and let’s move on to what YOU conclude on your own study.”
SPS: I think you have shown something very peculiar here: For a start off, you have shown that you do not read replies properly and in context. I have not quoted the Westminster Confession of Faith as though I agree with it, but that I disagree with it. I am showing one of the original sources of the doctrine of Limited Atonement and the idea of a none elect and am defusing it. No dead person has decided anything for me. These conclusions are drawn up from my studies of Scripture after 32 years of being a Christian.
However, If you have the desire to over look history and start again, then such an idea will not get you far with me. Those methods are how cults develop and a massive amount of them can be found on American soil.
I am an orthodox Christian. I believe the Bible as the rule of faith and practice. I affirm the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed and the 39 Articles of the Church of England. I came to these conclusions before I embraced the creeds. There I stand.
sps writes, “But the first cause of that is that they were not elect to begin with, yet they are “called”. ”
This the call of the preaching of the gospel – Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” The “call” of the preaching of the gospel is different from that call of God identified in Romans 8, “Moreover whom God predestined, these God also called; whom God called, these God also justified; and whom God justified, these God also glorified.”
Then, “The true Gospel however would show Christ as the One who offers bread and if the man has no mouth, Christ heals him and gives him a new mouth and feeds him. Thus enabling him to receive.”
This is what Calvinism says and for bread, we can substitute faith. The gospel is proclaimed to all, and God gives faith to receive the gospel to His elect. That explains why some accept the gospel and others do not.
Then, “yet makes “God” out to be the first cause or determiner of their unbelief.”
People are born in unbelief. God is the determiner of this condition by enforcing the judgment on Adam’s sin. So, people are born with a corrupt nature and without faith. It is only as a person comes to hear the gospel that they can receive faith and thereby believe.
In Ephesians, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,…For we are His workmanship,…” Then in Philippians, “He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” So, Jesus can say in John 6, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
Then, “Show me a single verse in the Bible where the term “none elect” is ever used?”
The “none elect” are those who are perishing – “the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (the none elect),” Immediately Paul offers a contrast, “to us who are being saved (the elect) it is the power of God.”
To make that point – you could have just as easily said “many are called few chosen”
rhutichin,
NO ONE is born in unbelief. In order to fall into the category of “unbelief”, one has to be PRESENTED the facts FIRST, and then they make a FREE WILL decision as to if they believe the information given.
If they THEN do not believe the information given, THEN THEY ARE IN UNBELIEF.
Your stomach is NOT FULL until after you put food in your mouth, not before.
You can’t be an UNBELIEVER until you are given information about a matter first.
Ed Chapman
I am afraid to enter this discussion but I must tell you all what has happened to me. As a child I was raised Catholic and then turned to become a Non Denominational Christian going to prayer meetings where people spoke in tongues and regularly came away healed, saved and delivered. I was married, had three beautiful children a wonderful husband and business. 15 years ago I was diagnosed with a birth defect and started taking opiods where I became addicted and was spending in excess of 5,000.00 a month on these drugs. I stole, lied, cheated, committed adultery, neglected and abandoned my children and threw my then husband and children on the street with literally the clothes on their backs. I spent another year in the house alone basically living on opiods and sleeping pills and alcohol. I fired everyone at the office, went into the mental ward twice after having (what I was told by a psychiatrist) a bipolar episode. I was 50 years old and never had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder before. My soon to be ex-husband came to pick me up from a hotel I was living at because I called him and told him I needed his help. He took me home and then went on my cell phone to find out that I had been having an affair on him. He brought the evidence before me and after seeing what he was reading I denied that I had the affair. I went so far as to say “MAY GOD STRIKE ME DEAD IF I AM LYING” and I was lying. The second those words came out of my mouth I heard a pop inside my body and God left me (he struck me Dead) I have no feeling whatsoever. I don’t have any emotion or feeling except the pain I feel when standing or walking.
How am I dead if I am writing this – you would naturally ask? I have asked that too but I have no answer except that I am reaping what I have sown in this life and when God is finished with me I will burn in the lake of fire for eternity. Every day feels like a 1,000 years and you have no idea how long a second is. There is no beginning and no end meaning that yesterday does not feel any different than today and 52 years ago feels no different than right now (There is no time in eternity) When this happened to me I immediately stopped using all drugs, alcohol, and sleeping pills started going to church, got prayed over, received a spiritual warfare bible and picked up my Prayers that Avail Much book and read and spoke the words daily out of that book.
Fast forward two years, and I am divorced, lost custody of the children and have no visitation, have lost every material possession I owned, my home, furniture, business, husband, children, health and I am left with literally the clothes on my back. Everything is gone even my shoes. I was once very wealthy and had a large mansion with furniture stored that could fill three houses and a car to drive for every day of the week. I begged for an answer from God and was led to Romans 9. I had never heard of Calvinism before and certainly would never believe a loving God would not choose some people but that is now what I believe. The bible says that God created evil just as He creates good. It also says He will bless who He blesses and curses who He curses. I am one who is cursed by God. When I spoke those words “MAY GOD STRIKE ME DEAD IF I AM LYING” I swore an oath that I was not lying when I was. I have been studying the bible for over two years and have been reading about Calvinism because I don’t know what else to believe. I have been to pastors, teachers, deliverance ministers, psychiatrists and counselors who have all told me this could not happen from a God who sent His son to die on the cross for me so that all would be saved – but I am here to say that He only saves His elect (those He predestined before the foundation of earth). This is not something I want to believe, but it is true. I am not saying I don’t deserve eternal damnation because I know I do. I have committed the worst sins imaginable. I have murdered two babies (abortion), lied, stole, committed adultery, cheated, and brought the Living God’s wrath upon my head. The result of my actions are that my three children hate me and have been left abandoned by a verbally abusive, drug addicted, lying, cheating mother. They all are suffering from eating disorders and anxiety. It says in the Bible that everyone who is in hell knows why they are there and that is true. I know why I am going to Hell and I deserve to go there for what I have done but that does not mean I want to go there. I want the sacrifice of the cross to atone for my sins. I want Jesus’s death to satisfy the wrath of God but it only does so for Gods’ elect. I had always believed Jesus died for my sins and spoke Gods word over my children when they were young. I believed all my riches were gifts from God. I was wrong. I am a vessel of wrath.
Romans 9 starting with verse 10 says that God hated Esau before he was born, before he did anything wrong. Why? Why would a loving God hate something before it is born I asked? Because God knew what Esau would do before the foundation of the world and God is the potter and we are the clay. He chose Jacob not Esau and the word for Esau is definitely HATE. Paul says God made vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and this I now know to be true because I am a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction that God is waiting patiently to take His wrath out upon me. I have asked God why and this same verse says who am I to question God. The potter can make whatever He wants from the clay. I am just a piece of clay that God is going to throw in the lake of fire.
I pray and ask God every second of the day to please remove this curse from me and let me repent from all the evil I have done. I still have time to change and be a vessel of mercy and grace, I am not in the grave yet. God has left me and has not returned. When I continue to ask Him why, I am reminded that I threw God out of my house just like I did my ex husband and children and they do not want to return to me either. I did not know how evil my heart was until the blinders were taken from my eyes when I spoke those horrible words. Then I knew everything I had done even as a child that was against God’s commandments.
I hope by reading this that you all know just how much grace God has extended you just to be called one of His elect. He chooses you, you do not chose HIm. That is in the scriptures too. You can’t choose Him unless He draws you. Jesus says that He takes all that the Father gives to Him indicating that some people the Father does not give to Him. These words are in the Bible for a reason. They are true. I keep reminding God that Jesus died for the whole world not just a few but then am taken to the scripture that many are called but few are chosen and there is that word again. CHOSEN.
Hell is for eternity and it is unbearable even for a moment to be without God. I have been living since June of 2017 without Him and it is the most unbearable pain imaginable but I am sure it can’t compare with burning in the lake of fire so I continue living this miserable existence hoping that maybe my interpretation is wrong and that God will forgive me for what I have done. I know this sounds completely unbelievable to all of you except for the people who believe in Calvinism but it is true and I would never have believed it either if had not have happened to me. I know the difference between right and wrong and the choices I made were my own. God did not force me to make those choices but now that I want repentance, redemption and a chance to change and be a Godly woman and mother, it is too late for me. God does not change His mind.
Either God is omniscient of He isn’t. I can assure you He is.
Lisa
I have been studying the bible for over two years and have been reading about Calvinism because I don’t know what else to believe.
br.d
Lisa I’m very sorry to hear about your current distress – and will be praying for you that the Lord will bring you out of it.
His all powerful love can do that
In the mean time I strongly suggest you stop reading anything from Calvinist authors.
There is an almost sick element of “Good-Evil” Dualism found in Calvinist doctrine which I think is influencing your thinking.
Cleansing yourself of that influence will be a step towards walking with the Lord out into the light.
Please consider this!
Lisa, my heart goes out to you. Satan comes to steal kill and destroy and you have experienced some of that already. Now Satan is trying to steal from you once again the ultimate opportunity to experience Forgiveness, Grace and Total acceptance by your creator God. GOD really does LOVE you with an authentic Love. Jn 3:16 For God so loved the World that He gave His only son (for you). Satan wants you to believe this love is for others BUT not for me. That is a trick and lie of the evil one. Do NOT believe him.
What does God say to you? Just let some of the scriptures chase out the lies in your head, read them slowly and over and over again until the darkness is chased away by light.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.
Ezek. 33:11 As surely as I live declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. niv
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL. (that includes you Lisa)
I Jn. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (The whole world includes you Lisa)
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for ALL. (For ALL includes you Lisa)
Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. ( Lisa Do you thirst? Then this includes you)
Jn.3:16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
( Lisa you are part of the world for whom Christ died…Jesus did not come to condemn but that YOU might be saved…Believe it Lisa)
Lisa don’t let Satan steal from you anymore…he has stolen enough…he wants to steal the greatest gift by blinding your eyes to the truth that GOD genuinely loves you and Jesus already paid the greatest price for you. God is genuinely not willing that any should perish… Lisa included.
Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Lisa if you are asking the same question as the Jailer then do as the Jailer did.
Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Act 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Lisa, I am praying that the light of the truth of God’s word would take away the darkness that has come over you…Please read and reread these verses and let God’s love overwhelm you. God is Glorified in saving wretches like you and I. He is pleased to save us wretches who so desperately need His Grace and Mercy.
Wonderful! Thank you GraceAdict!
Amen! Lisa, I would encourage you to know that many, many people who once thought the gotcha verses of Calvinism were unchallengable evidence of God’s predetermining choice of who shall be saved have come to see that there are other, better interpretations. Indeed, were there not, the majority of christians would not have continued to reject Calvinism all these years.
I have what is good news and bad news for you. The good news is that there is nothing you can do to put you out of reach of God’s love and forgiveness. The bad news is that puts the onus on you. Not to earn or deserve his love and mercy, but to believe in it and act accordingly. Which means seeking forgiveness where you have sinned against others, and walking in ways that are healthy for you and those around you.
Please seek counsel and help from a non-Calvinist pastor, perhaps Anglican, who understands the gospel and the needs of sinful men. In my city the Anglican/Episcopal church ministers to the most needy in the community, and most have a non-Calvinist view of God’s grace. I would make sure, because the destructive lies of Calvinism are the last thing you need to hear right now.
I will be praying for you. Please let us know what else we can do.
Augmenting what GraceAdict said, “Just let some of the scriptures chase out the lies in your head, read them slowly and over and over again until the darkness is chased away by light.”
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
1 Cor 1 ..the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…
Joh 6 44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Phil 1 to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
Joh 6 no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.
Joh 6 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.
Matt 7 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, each one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL.
Joh 10 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own.
Joh 10 you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
oh 10 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
I Joh. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Rom 1 I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Rom 3 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
Eph 3 God made known to me the mystery…which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:…that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for ALL.
Joh.3:16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Joh 3 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
Joh 5 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.
2 Cor 4 if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
Lisa you are going to have to ignore the lies of Satan that are even preached here…. Satan is the one that wants people in hell NOT God… Satan uses even religious people to slam the door shut in our faces and have us believe there is no hope for us. For some people this is just a game because their understanding of God is soo twisted. They think God is playing a game where He wants people in hell. In this day and age there are many people just like those Jesus faced in Matt 23.
Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Mat 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
To them it is game and because they think they are the “Special ones” and you are not, they have no problem slandering God’s genuine gift extended towards you. Lisa Please do not listen to those lies, they are evil, from the pit of hell. Inspired by Satan himself.
Luk 11:52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
Read a book like “God’s Provision for ALL” or Charlie Bing’s book “Simply by Grace” Don’t listen to anyone who is shutting the kingdom of heaven in your face…that is a sure sign they are not of God.
Jesus himself said He and the Father had genuinely sent prophets to turn Israel but the “Religious elite” rejected God’s genuine invitation and because the Elite rejected it others followed them in their rebellion. There may be smart people on this site but some do NOT have the heart of our Loving Creator God they turn folks away from the gospel by their words.
Lisa, Jesus genuinely desires an intimate relationship with you. Much like He genuinely desired Israel to believe on him…
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Lisa don’t listen to that same group who stone the prophets…Listen to Jesus invitation. It is genuine…believe it.
GraceAdict to Lisa writes, “Don’t listen to anyone who is shutting the kingdom of heaven in your face…that is a sure sign they are not of God. ”
I recommend not listening to anyone who gets upset with people who present additional Scriptures for you to consider. Let the Scriptures (therefore, God) reveal truth to you.
rhutchin,
With all due respect to you, rhutchin, I think you may want to stay out of this with GraceAddict and Lisa. If our commandment is to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, GA is doing it, and your advice is hindering that. It’s fine and dandy to listen to scriptures, but scripture tells us to GRIEVE WITH THOSE WHO ARE GRIEVING, etc. In other words, be a listening ear and SHUT UP. This is no time for rhutchin’s LECTURES.
Just my advice.
Ed
Amen and amen. Talk about cruel and heartless . . . This is the exact reason this theology is so dangerous. Telling a deeply hurting person with no hope ‘Hey, you just might have been predestined for this’ is the most despicable, unChristlike thing I have ever seen. When the rubber hits the road, Calvinism is toxic and dangerous. Stay out of it, Rhutchin, and don’t make yourself responsible for bringing despair or worse upon a hurting, needy person. Calvinism is worse than useless; it is perverse, damnable lies.
I agree, RH has put on display Calvinism worked out in real life. What you believe has a direct affect on what you will do. This is exactly the same type of treatment I saw Calvinist leaders practicing and this is the same thing I experienced from their theology…Calvinism does NOT reflect the God of the Bible.
Why show God’s love towards the hurting, why evangelize if you are a Calvinist? just kick people when they are down, God wanted them kicked anyway. That is the Lord’s command is it not? Thank-you Calvinism.
I agree – Lisa didn’t come here for that
lchapmaned24 writes, “With all due respect to you, rhutchin, I think you may want to stay out of this with GraceAddict and Lisa.”
Lisa is dealing with things that you don’t know about and perhaps doesn’t know herself. God knows what He is doing. Lisa has a fantastic testimony, I didn’t see Lisa saying that the gospel is foolishness. She seems to know more than GA who could learn from her.
Dear Ed,
You wrote;
Ed Chapman: “My position is to DITCH the orthodox way of thinking, and start from scratch, beginning again at the drawing board. When you do that, you will see that YOUR CONCLUSIONS will definitely be different from orthodox.
And, you will finally see that your positions actually are in agreement with others that also have ditched the orthodox way of thinking.”
SPS: I’m not interested. Thanks.
Ed Chapman: “And this is where we have had our problems with such people as John Calvin, when anyone disagreed with him about HIS INTERPRETATIONS, so they did NOT have freedom of thought regarding a matter. Same with the Catholics in general, too.”
SPS: Anyone can present a massive amount of texts to enforce a view, but dealing with those texts and exploring them one by one, verse by verse would could take a long time.
Your freedom of interpretation and thought regard this matter is entirely your right as a human being, as it is mine to entirely reject a revision of this matter.
Let’s just agree to disagree on this.
Simon Peter said:
I’m not interested. Thanks.
My response:
GOOD TO KNOW.
simon peter,
Yesterday you had said:
“SPS: Anyone can present a massive amount of texts to enforce a view, but dealing with those texts and exploring them one by one, verse by verse would could take a long time. ”
My response:
Yes, it does take a LONG TIME to explore the texts that I provided. It’s not an easy task.
But let me indulge to say that there was a reason that I wanted to explore in the first place.
I am an inquisitive kind of person when it comes to Christiandoms conclusions on things. I want to know WHY people believe what they do, because with all sorts of denominations out there, we see a HUGE difference on MAJOR topics between them. As you noted from your own web site, the Baptist need to be baptized again in the Baptist church kinda bothered you, as it would me, too.
But I like to ask the WHY questions, and do the research.
I had just got done studying the Jehovah’s Witnesses (did this for about 6 years), not to be one, mind you, but to find out what makes them tick. I now have NO PROBLEM regarding inviting them in my house to have a discussion. They think that they are proselytizing me, but I am in full mode debate with them without them realizing it.
After them, I became intrigued with the study of the 7th Day Adventists, and wanted to find out WHY they insist on going to church on Saturday, condemning other Christians to hell for stepping one foot in church on a Sunday. Their reasoning is NOT THAT SIMPLE, and it takes a bit of time to explore that. Both the JW’s and the SDA believe in soul sleep. Both originated from the same Baptist church, then split from that Baptist church. They were known as MILLERITES.
So this became INTERESTING to me.
But I wanted to find out WHY the SDA were what we would call LEGALISTS.
I found it. ONE WORD: Righteousness, and the two DIFFERENT means to get it.
1. The Law of Moses-WORKS (earn/self righteousness)
2. The Law of Christ-FAITH
Then I started to be even more inquisitive, by wondering WHY the Jews had the law, and no one else did. Then if no one else did, what happens to them when they die? Then I discovered Romans 2:14-16 to answer that (a Paul doctrine).
So then I became curious about not just the OBVIOUS distinctions between Jew/Gentile, I found other distinctions that a lot of Christendom dismisses, all because of a simple sentence that states FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE, and I’m like, THAT SENTENCE DOES NOT SAY WHAT IS BEING INTERPRETED.
Bottom line, this exploring took a few years.
I have indeed concluded, from my study, that once saved always saved is indeed true, but I do not use the same reasoning as the Calvinists do. I have found that Original Sin is NOT TRUE, etc. I found that SOUL SLEEP is not true. I found that people who have no clue who Jesus or God is, is judged by their conscience. I found that we can go to church on Sunday, and the reason. I found so much stuff, and it is confirmed by many, so it’s not JUST MY OWN weird interpretations.
The Catholic religion, and that of the REFORMERS, created an anti-semetic view of the Jews, and I couldn’t stand that at all. I learned of that in my study. Both Luther, and Calvin had DISDAIN for the Jews.
Then I met my best friend, a Christian, who’s history is Judaism, a Jew who became a Christian. Isaiah 9:6 is what convinced him.
He told me of when he actually spoke in tongues. He was by himself, and the language he spoke was FLOWING out of him, non-stop for about an hour, and he couldn’t stop it, and he was laughing cuz he thought it was cool.
This Jew buddy of mine is a nobody, but knows many Hollywood types, producers, directors, actors, etc.
So I started studying many things that are EXCLUSIVE for the Jews, that has nothing to do with Gentiles at all. I discovered a LOT OF STUFF, some of which I have mentioned to you, and those on this blog.
But, ya’ll reject it. I find that fascinating, but it’s expected, given the history of Christendom badmouthing the Jews since it’s CATHOLIC roots. Christendom takes what is meant for the JEWS ONLY, and makes it their own, creating doctrines that were for the Jews only, hence, ELECT.
My point, I stay away from CONFESSIONS, including the Apostles Creed. I remember reading Benjamin Franklin’s take on God, and he began, “THIS IS MY CREED…”.
I’d rather hear YOUR creed, than that of the Apostles Creed, cuz I don’t remember reading their creed in the Bible. Besides, I do NOT believe in a holy catholic church, even if the c is not capitalized. And why must I confess that to begin with?
Anyway, after studying those things, I moved on to the Herbert W Armstrong clan, then to the Iglesia ni Cristo, then I discovered Calvinism, about 10 years ago. Never heard of it before ten years ago, and I find that Calvinism is the MOST DANGEROUS of them all, which is really why I am here on this blog.
Respectfully,
Ed Chapman.
Ed writes:
“. . . I find that Calvinism is the MOST DANGEROUS of them all, which is really why I am here on this blog.”
On this we can agree. There are a lot of things we can get wrong – and I personally believe none of us have it all right – that will have little significant impact upon our life. Believing the Calvinist assertion that God loves only some, and cruelly created masses of people deliberately for nothing but destruction cannot help but have an extremely negative effect upon your heart, mind and soul. In my experience, the more a person marinates in Calvinism, the colder and less compassionate they become.
TS00,
Exactly! I’m finding that the differences that you and I have are minor disagreements that have no bearing on anything, it’s just a matter of having fun at debate. But Calvinism…YIKES.
The very first time that I had heard, from a friend, mind you, the term, “irresistible grace”, I knew something was off, based on my previous studies of the other cults, cuz they all have some kind of catch phrase exclusive to themselves.
Then he started talking about “God’s in CONTROL”. I knew something was off about that statement, too. He was talking about the Calvinists Sovereign God. Little did I know at the time how major that was.
Then he started talking about the word CHOSEN, and that’s when I lost it with him in ANGER.
Then a couple years later, I discovered on Yahoo News about a church in Oregon of a pastor that was suing a former church member for 1/2 million dollars for negative Google reviews. I was able to contact that person, and she now has her own spiritual abuse blog, and lo and behold, the pastor is a CALVINIST, and 99 percent of the people that comment on her blog are FORMER CALVINISTS that have been abused, both spiritually, and physically, and sexually, all because of Calvinism.
Now we are seeing it played out in the Southern Baptists who doesn’t mind having BOTH Calvinists and non-Calvinists in it’s same church’s TOGETHER co-existing. I’m like, WHAT? Who’s bright idea was that? Then we wonder why the Southern Baptists have problems.
Oh, Matthew 18 is a MAJOR distortion for Reform folks, too, including the Calvinists. They think it’s about church discipline, but it’s NOT.
When I see Matthew 18, I see a habitual sinner, that all he has to do is say, “My Bad”, and BOOM, forgiven. No discipline there.
He’s kicked out if he denies it 3 times, but that’s not discipline, either. Discipline only applies to those you KEEP, not those you kick out.
And I don’t see discipline for those you KEEP either. But I’m seeing that they have a major problem calling 911, thinking that they can handle FELONIES in-house, and that the Pastor/Elders have ALL THE AUTHORITY from heaven to decide, when what I read, that is the responsibility of the whole congregation, NOT TO BE DELEGATED to the Pastor/Elders.
Then they tell the victim that they must quickly forgive, so, out of FEAR, they forgive, meaning that they didn’t really forgive in the first place, and Matthew 18 gives the victim OPTIONS, because the perp, if not forgiven by the victim, still has to answer to God for that sin, but if they forgive, it’s forgiven in heaven, too.
So, major distortions of Matthew 18 is going on. And Calvinists take FULL ADVANTAGE of that!
Ed Chapman
It doesn’t come up much here, but, yes, I am fully versed in the spiritual and other abuse problems within Calvinism. As well as having experienced it personally. It seems that embracing a tyrannical, controlling caricature of God turns people into mirror images of that false deity. In my 5+ decades in churches of all stripes I had never witnessed someone being ‘disciplined’ or excommunicated. Until my former Calvinist church, where it was practically a bi-monthly event. Tragic. And destructive. I saw so many walk away, not only from the church, but from their faith, in disgust. Eventually I couldn’t ignore the body count, and broke out of my spell.
TS00,
You had said:
“Eventually I couldn’t ignore the body count, and broke out of my spell.”
My reply:
I’m glad that you did, and that you are on this blog. Now if only rhutchin and jtleosala would break out of their spell.
But, me, as an outsider, I still find that many who have broken away, STILL CARRY THE BAGGAGE of SOME of the same doctrines of Calvinism when they leave. Matthew 18, as a discipline doctrine, being one of them. I got extremely testy at one pretty high up preacher, FORMER CALVINIST pastor Southern Baptist that posted several articles about church discipline on SBC Today, now defunct, who not only endorses church discipline, but TEACHES IT. I was pretty ticked off at his article about it, cuz he still sounded like a Calvinist.
So, this church discipline thing is STILL in the reform world, Calvinist or not, and the congregations still tolerate it. I’m like, WHY? It’s the nuttiest doctrine that I have ever heard of, and it makes me very angry.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Now if only rhutchin and jtleosala would break out of their spell. ”
You would have to deal with God’s omniscience to start with.
rhutchin states:
“You would have to deal with God’s omniscience to start with.”
My response:
Why? Do you have the INSIDE SCOOP of what God knows? Did you sit down with him for an interview?
rhutchin: “You would have to deal with God’s omniscience to start with.”
Ed: “Why? Do you have the INSIDE SCOOP of what God knows? Did you sit down with him for an interview?”
By omniscience, God knows all that happens, past, present and future. Thus, when God created the universe, He knew who would be saved and who would not be saved (regardless how one thinks they come to be saved).
rhutchin,
Well, God knowing doesn’t mean that God DIRECTED. You are trying to equate the two. So, that means that don’t have to deal with what God knows…AT ALL.
chapmaned24 writes, “God knowing doesn’t mean that God DIRECTED. You are trying to equate the two.”
I can deal with that. Let’s agree that God knows all things without regard to how all things come about. As I originally said, “when God created the universe, He knew who would be saved and who would not be saved (regardless how one thinks they come to be saved).” Can you agree to that?
If you (or anyone else) really want JTL or myself to break free from Calvinism , then you have to deal with this. It’s a key point for Calvinists.
I’m not so sure I can agree to that. Why? Several years ago, there were certain Jews that discovered BIBLE CODE. Have you heard of that?
In the bible code, they have found that the bible actually has scenarios of if/then choices that man kind has options to make. Option a, and option b.
Just humor me and when you have time, Google bible code. Not saying to believe in it, but it’s interesting. But it’s like God knows the options available, but let’s us decide. I think that God has no clue who is gonna be saved or not, and the reason is that he wants us to make that decision our selves. God is omni-whatever you call it, but I think that God allowed himself to not know who is gonna be saved and who isn’t. Personal opinion only.
chapmaned24 writes, ” I think that God has no clue who is gonna be saved or not, and the reason is that he wants us to make that decision our selves. ”
Sounds like your complaint against Calvinism begins with omniscience. At least, we resolved that issue.
I don’t think a Calvinist is going to go anywhere with that
Some things done come out but by prayer and fasting! :-]
br.d,
Yes, that’s why I quickly changed the subject back to BLOT OUT, where I had originally was gonna go in the first place, but decided to try Bible Code first. Not a good idea with a Calvinist. I’m not exactly convinced yet with Bible Code, but it is indeed interesting to look at.
Ed
Who said these things can’t be fun! :-]
rhutchin,
This is an extension to my last comment, unrelated to “Bible Code”.
This comment will deal with…THE BOOK OF LIFE.
Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
KEY WORDS, “BLOT OUT”
Why would there be a NEED to BLOT out something if it was already KNOWN from the beginning?
There is also a book called book of the living that is mentioned several times, too, and that pertains to THIS LIFE, in which God BLOTS peoples names from. Moses once asked to be blotted out of that book.
Do a word search for BLOT by itself, and another word search for BOOK and LIFE at the same time.
So, no, I don’t think that God knows who is NOT gonna be saved, because of those two words, “BLOT OUT”.
That Book of Life, the way that it is worded, it’s telling us that EVERYONE’S NAME is written in it, but those who FAIL THE TEST, God has to use an ERASER to BLOT OUT the name, and in order for that to happen, certain criteria must be me by the individual, of course. THE INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL FREE WILL CHOICE.
So, no, I don’t have to deal with God’s Omni-whatever that word is. No need to blot out a pre-determined result!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Why would there be a NEED to BLOT out something if it was already KNOWN from the beginning?…So, no, I don’t have to deal with God’s Omni-whatever that word is. No need to blot out a pre-determined result!’
God knows whose name will be blotted out and knew this when He created the universe. It sounds like God would actually blot out the names of His elect. Jesus assures us that this will not happen in John 6 while Paul gives us this assurance in Philippians 1, “od who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
In Revelation, Jesus says, “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.” Thus the P in TULIP.
rhutchin states:
God knows whose name will be blotted out and knew this when He created the universe.”
If that be true, then WHY IS THE NAME IN THE BOOK OF LIFE TO BEGIN WITH IF IT WAS KNOWN BEFORE HAND THAT HE WAS GONNA BE BLOTTED OUT.
Your logic makes no sense.
Then you add…
” who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
My response to that is that the BEGINNING of that GOOD WORK IN YOU began at the moment that you got saved, NOT AT THE WRITING OF THE BOOK OF LIFE.
My conclusion, BASED ON LOGIC, is that everyone’s name is written in the book of life, and it is DEPENDENT ON YOUR FREE WILL CHOICE before a decision by God is made to blot you out. God must MAKE A DECISION. He hasn’t already decided like you conclude.
If God knew before hand, there would be NO NEED to blot out, because his name would not have been written there to begin with.
LOGIC. You don’t use logic.
Ed Chapman
Ed
If that be true, then WHY IS THE NAME IN THE BOOK OF LIFE TO BEGIN WITH IF IT WAS KNOWN BEFORE HAND THAT HE WAS GONNA BE BLOTTED OUT.
br.d
Its called DIVINE SADISM :-]
Firstly:
Calvin’s god CREATES the sum total of all human souls in the world
He then labels them all REPROBATE
However – for a few of them – REPROBATE is a FALSE label
Because he really didn’t CREATE them to be REPROBATE in the first place
He CREATED them to be ELECT
Secondly
Out of the REPROBATES – he selects the FALSE REPROBATES
He then labels this process a divine rescue.
But again that is a FALSE label
Because he really never CREATED them to be REPROBATE in the first place
He CREATED them to be ELECT
So he really can’t TRUTHFULLY say he rescued them from what he originally CREATED them to be.
So in this case the term “rescue” is just another FALSE label.
Since Calvinism follows this pattern of FALSE LABELS
The business of blotting out someone’s name from the book of life is really just another FALSE label.
chapmaned24 writes, “If God knew before hand, there would be NO NEED to blot out, because his name would not have been written there to begin with.”
I agree, when Jesus said in Revelation 3, ““He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life;” He was telling the truth – “He who overcomes…I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life;” Obviously, a person overcomes with the help of the Holy Spirit.
rhutchin,
You are SO FUNNY!
You had said:
“Revelation 3, ““He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life;” He was telling the truth – “He who overcomes…I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life;”
My response:
And yet you NEGLECTED to indicate anything regarding those who DO NOT OVERCOME.
Those who DO NOT OVERCOME ARE BLOTTED OUT.
Then you said:
Obviously, a person overcomes with the help of the Holy Spirit.
My response to that:
The last reference below is what it takes to overcome, and based on the rest of the references, WE ALREADY HAVE OVERCOME. Yes, DEATHBED confessions have also already overcome, too. Cuz all ya gotta do to overcome is the last reference.
1 John 2:13
I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
1 John 2:14
I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1 John 5:4
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1 John 5:5
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Ed Chapman
Amen. But you and I both know that those wedded to an illogical, sadistic theological system will never give it up. They have no compassion for those who feel lost and believe themselves to be unloved by God; just encourage them to read up on how God doesn’t choose everyone. They will have the blood of these lost ones on their hands. I am praying that Lisa will reject these lies and hear the voice of the One who made her and even now desires and seeks her redemption.
Who in the world, but a screwed up mindless ideologue would tell some poor woman whose whole life has fallen apart that it just might be because God didn’t choose her for anything better? Only someone whose heart has been totally deadened by a faulty belief system that finds it perfectly acceptable to think God would cruelly torment and destroy people, with no compassion or remorse. These people become like their false idol.
Thank all of you for your encouraging words. I regularly read all of your comments and enjoy learning from what I have read. GraceAdict thank you for the scriptures and I will continue to read them. As for RHUTCHIN, those are the very passages that tell me Calvinism is real. I must say that prior to May of 2017, I would have argued with you regarding the grace and mercy of God but after having all of this happen to me I agree with the doctrine of Calvanism. It is of no comfort to me, in fact it extremely agonizing and beyond what someone can bear to know what their fate is. I don’t know if you can personally understand how hopeless and desperate you are without the love and mercy of God but the only thing that keeps me alive is knowing burning in the lake of fire is far worse than this. GraceAdict, there is no time in eternity and that is what I am experiencing. There is no difference between day and night and 24 hours feels like 1,000 years. I do not know how to describe it better than that and a minute feels like eternity. I do not have a concept of what day it is. The minute I said MAY GOD STRIKE ME DEAD IF I AM LYING, that pop went off and I became like this. I used to be well kept with nice clothes , hair and smelled good. I am now disabled and smell no matter how much I shower. I can’t take back those terrible words I spoke and the horrible sins I have committed. I immediately read Romans 9 where it talks about God HATING Esau. I would ask anyone on this site to give me some different interpretation of Romans 9. To me it reads that God has an election process and He makes vessels of wrath for destruction so that He will be glorified.
Thank you for reading my story
Lisa Hughes writes, ” I would ask anyone on this site to give me some different interpretation of Romans 9. ”
In Romans 9 God says, ““I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” This tells us that God is in control and in your case, God has you constantly thinking of Him and wondering what He is doing with you. One thing God has been doing is sharpening your understanding of His word. Given this, I would conclude that you are most likely one of God’s elect – the non-elect assume that God is unfairly cursing them and they tend to hate God. You seem to know that God is not mistreating you as you have earned everything you have, and are, experiencing. Job suffered many things but he did not do the things you have done. Paul killed believers and threw them into jail. You have not been reduced to that despite having aborted two of your children. Peter denied Christ with a curse, Have you done that? Ephesians tells us, “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” I believe that is true for you despite all the terrible things you have done. When you start to curse God, and only then, you might be justified to think that you are among the non-elect. Until then, you can marvel at what you used to be and what you are now and know that only God could have brought that about. You assume that you are one of the non-elect because you deserve it. If that were true, I think Satan would have killed you long ago, but God would not let him. Paul said, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” This is your testimony also.
I must admit that after first reading Romans 9, I cursed that God would make me like this and I would rather have never been born. Did the feeling of hate come over me. Yes it did but mostly for what I am and what I did. After a few weeks of intense study and counseling I began to remember all the sins I committed. I realised that God was just to punish me and I completely deserved everything that has happened to me.
I would not choose me either. I am hopeless and terrified of the wrath of God being upon me and can only conclude that He did not strike me physically dead at that moment so I could reap what I have sown.
I have read about Job and he never blamed God. I, at one point, did blame God but came to realize that God did not make me choose the things that I did. I was given a free choice even though for many years I was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. I still made those choices and God knew I would make them. In regards to Romans 9, when I first read about the election process and that God waits patiently to take His wrath out upon you, it hit me that He was speaking to me in those passagess. I desperately want forgiveness and mercy from God but do not believe I deserve it and that God hates me. I still am looking for clarification that my interpretation is wrong about the elect of God.
Lisa,
I do not concur with rhutchin, and you, regarding Romans 9. Calvinism has a totally different take on Romans 9 than the REST of all Christendom. So, PLEASE explore other denominations views of Romans 9 before you conclude Calvinism’s Romans 9. You will see a HUGE difference.
Ed Chapman
Thank you Ed. I have been listening to some teachings from Andrew Wommack and, in particular that God is not angry but when I do I am reminded that Jesus did not come to bring peace but a sword. I am also reminded that those promises are for God’s elect. In Romans 9 Verse 11 is states that before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God’s purpose in electuon might stand not by works but by him who calls. Is also says God Hated Esau and it does use the word Hate.
Lisa,
You keep saying that Jesus did not come to bring peace. So, what was it that was said regarding his birth? Peace on Earth, good will towards men?
Anyway, there is a CONTEXT regarding the so-called SWORD, and you need to explore what that context was all about.
Believers are NOT MEANT FOR WRATH.
Little Children coming to Jesus, disciples wanted to SHEW them away, Jesus said…what did he say?
Was Jesus mean, and upset with the children?
YOU ARE THOSE CHILDREN.
My goodness, stop beating yourself up.
Ed Chapman
What does Context mean about the Sword? I am quoting Matthew 10:34-37 where Jesus says I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
Up until two years ago, I believed I was a child of God. I am still trying to understand what has happened to me and I believe that the wrath of God is upon me. I am praying that this curse will be removed from me and God will restore my life and let me be with him when I leave this earth.
Read the previous prior to the statement about a sword. To the Jews, Jesus is the stumbling block, where some will believe, others won’t. Arguments galore. Pitting families against one another. Liken that to today’s TRUMP. Facebook unfriending due to Trump supporters. Without looking at the reference myself, cuz I’m about to fall asleep, that’s what I remember.
Lisa, I am taking what you have said at face value, although I cannot help but wonder if you might be having us on a bit. If you are serious, ditch the Calvinist lenses and read the bible. You will find countless words of love, hope and grace – a multitude more than the few Calvinist prooftexts which can and have been interpreted quite differently by many godly men and women for centuries. If you read your bible, you will not be able to say that you have never heard how much God loves you – it is declared and demonstrated again and again. What I see you doing is holding up Calvinist prooftexts to claim that God does not love you. That is your choice, but it will never lead in the direction you claim to desire.
Not believing in the truth of God’s proclamations and generous offers is what unbelief is. Nothing will change who and what God is, but only you can decide what you choose to believe about him. It’s all there in black and white. I have come across many good non-Calvinist explanations of Romans 9 simply by googling it, which accord with how I have always understood it. The same is true of any other Calvinist prooftext.
The vast majority of believers have always rejected Calvinism, attesting to the fact that there are good alternative explanations to be had, if you truly wish to seek them out. If you have been reading here for long, you will have seen many of the spelled out quite clearly, both in the posts and in the comments.
Thank you very much. I will continue to study and read the scriptures that GraceAdict and others have pointed out to me. As I said before, I never had even heard the term Calvinism before two years ago. I am not as well versed as most of the people on this site and was looking for some insight as to what possibly happened to me.
Good morning Lisa I saw others responding to you, but for some reason your posts did not come in to my email until last night. My heart does out to you for you for the way you’re feeling😔 I too have been through a similar situation no servants nor a vehicle for each day, no drugs involved and I’ve not been in the hospital, but I lost everything!!!!! But for me it was when I came to Christ and I count it all as lost compared to knowing Him and the beauty of His love!!! Also this was back in 2008 & He’s brought things back into my life NOT because I deserve ANYTHING but because He is a loving Father He isn’t a hypocrite who pushes to be first rather He left heaven to live in flesh & substitute His life for mine!!!!! And not just mine, but for all who believe, that is not forced love!!! I truly hated calvinism when I first learned of it because the end trail was sooooo obvious to me actually any ism bothered me.. I can tell you I’ve had dreams & different experiences, but NONE of that matters I’m trusting the One who unveiled my eyes above my feelings and absolutley above what “man says” about Him!!! He can be trusted and if you continue to look at this site you will find your questions that are in debate add to whether or not God is a puppeteer who chose you for wrath…. But I also suggest you continually seek Him🙏 yes there are consequences for sin and He does discipline His children, but there is NO before the foundation of the world stamp on your head☹ to be a child of God is a unmerited gift that is the tAMAZING good news part!!! He does not need to orchestrate from both sides of the chess board to win in the end.. Keep it simple Jesus loves you don’t listen to lies and I will pray for you. Never forget God is recognizably good🌻
Reggie writes, “I’m trusting the One who unveiled my eyes…”
Why do those who hate Calvinism insist on using Calvinist language?
rhutchin
Why do those who hate Calvinism insist on using Calvinist language?
br.d
I didn’t see DOUBLE-SPEAK in that statement – so I didn’t classify it as Calvinist language
Interesting you say this… I honestly don’t follow your logic.. emphasises “your logic” of course we know God ultimately did this for me I didn’t save myself, but I reject your version of how this happened!! you don’t know me nor what He has done for me, nor do you know my testimony!! you seem to have a loathing of anything non calvinist maybe you should ponder that… for me this site and what I’ve gleaned from it & Leighton is not to venomously despise those who need to cling to an add on to the gospel mysteriously needing more than what we’ve been given… We rather stand on the provision of God for every man, woman, boy and girl instead of standing on the falsehood He really doesn’t mean what He says I’m not rejecting the evidence and yes He changed me and still is from the inside out… But in my desperation I humbly cried out and fyi not every person comes to Him in the same way obviously you would agree He is Creator… I’m not up to debating your staunch position but other more qualified people on here can.. But you do seem to contradict yourself as Br.d has pointed out don’t be prideful & at least consider or else why are you here??? To persuade??
Reggie writes, “I reject your version of how this happened!! ”
My version is your version – “…we know God ultimately did this for me I didn’t save myself…”
Then, “you don’t know me nor what He has done for me, nor do you know my testimony!!”
I know what you said, “I’m trusting the One who unveiled my eyes…”
Then, “you seem to have a loathing of anything non calvinist maybe you should ponder that… ”
What loathing, I simply pointed out that you, a non- Calvinist, use Calvinist language.
Then, “yes He changed me and still is from the inside out… ”
More Calvinist language that you seem to acknowledge by saying “yes.”.
Then, “in my desperation I humbly cried out…”
A Calvinist would presume this happened after “…[God] unveiled my eyes…” Of course, as a non-Calvinist you should argue that you humbly cried out after which God was able to unveil you eyes. Do you?
Rutchin
We may have similar words that sound good to your ear, but I know God loves all without partiality; Deuteronomy 10:17 NASB — “For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
He offers salvation to all and we all do have a genuine response to His revelation! (response….. able) Your not trying to take away from the Gospel to a broken & hurting world are you or adding a mysterious irresistible force that forced me to have faith? Are you showing favoritism to calvin??
James 2:1 NASB — My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.
And let’s never forget;
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)
“For God So Loved the World” – Understanding the Meaning of John 3:!6
https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/what-does-it-mean-that-god-so-loved-the-world.html
Reggie writes, “I know God loves all without partiality;…”
I agree as you say, “He offers salvation to all and we all do have a genuine response to His revelation! (response….. able).” Where we seem to disagree is my contention that the response by those without faith is rejection of salvation and the response of those with faith is acceptance of salvation. I don’t see how a person without faith can be response….. able. Then, I don’t see how a person with faith can be other than response….. able.
Then, ““For God So Loved the World” – Understanding the Meaning of John 3:!6”
John 3:16 tells us that only those who believe get eternal life. Those who don’t believe get eternal death. Yet God loves both.
I say that God has a higher level of love that causes Him to bring some to belief thereby giving them eternal life.
rhutchin
I agree as you say, “He offers salvation to all and we all do have a genuine response to His revelation! (response….. able).”
br.d
Since Calvinism entails the synchronization of GNOSTIC DUALISM – where so many things appear in “Good-Evil” pairs – I can see how this applies to Calvinism’s “so-called” OFFER of salvation.
There is “Salvation” offer of Salvation
And there is a Non-Salvation offer of Salvation
Or we could call them:
– FALSE Salvation offer
– TRUE Salvation offer
or for those Calvinist who think about it as an offer of condemnation
– Condemnation offer of Salvation
– Non-Condemnation offer of Salvation
or for those Calvinists who think about it in terms of effectual
– Effectual offer of salvation
– Non-Effectual offer of salvation.
In any case – we can see the “so called” offer as following the GNOSTIC DUALISM.
However – a Non-Calvinist is going to call it a NON-OFFER Offer
Reggie
Then, “in my desperation I humbly cried out…”
rhutchin
A Calvinist would presume this happened after “…[God] unveiled my eyes…” Of course, as a non-Calvinist you should argue that you humbly cried out after which God was able to unveil you eyes. Do you?
br.d
Actually the Calvinist version of that would be:
Calvin’s god made the Calvinist cry out and implanting into his brain the PERCEPTION of it being a cry of humility
Since Calvinist psychology don’t allow him to acknowledge that Calvin’s god controls his every neurological impulse – he goes about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god “merely” PERMITTED him (as an autonomous entity) to cry out – even though his doctrine totally tells him that as an impossibility – because it would require a minimal degree of mental autonomy which doesn’t exist in Theological Determinism where people are DESIGNED to function ROBOTICALLY.
Sorry for grammatical errors earlier I’m swipe texting from a phone😊
Psalm 70:4 NASB — Let all who seek You rejoice and be glad in You; And let those who love Your salvation say continually, “Let God be magnified.”
Galatians 5:6 NASB — For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
TS00 writes, “only you can decide what you choose to believe about him.”
That decision is easier, and predictable, after God gives a person faith.
rhutchin
That decision is easier, and predictable, after God gives a person faith.
br.d
I find it humerus how much Calvinists work to make a Deterministic belief-system *APPEAR* IN-deterministic
In Calvinism people are NOT PERMITTED to have their own decisions – as that would entail Libertarian functionality
Decisions APPEAR in their brains – having been determined to be there by Calvin’s god.
Basically Calvin’s god implants PERCEPTIONS into a person’s brain – making the person perceive them as his own.
br.d writes, “In Calvinism people are NOT PERMITTED to have their own decisions – as that would entail Libertarian functionality.”
Under Calvinism, people do make their own decisions – people act independently and are self-determining. If a person receives faith, that faith results in acceptance of salvation.
br.d
In Calvinism people are NOT PERMITTED to have their own decisions – as that would entail Libertarian functionality.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, people do make their own decisions – people act independently and are self-determining. If a person receives faith, that faith results in acceptance of salvation.
br.d
FALSE
That would be “mere” permission – and it doesn’t exist in Calvinism
Calvin’s god leaves ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
You keep wanting to forget – rhutchin – the term *UNIVERSAL* within Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Its not SEMI determinism
Its not PARTIAL determinism
Its not NATURAL determinism
its UNIVERSAL Divine Causal Determinism.
Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit NATURE to determine anything.
And as Calvinist Paul Helm’s says:
-quote
“Determinism rules out Libertarian Freedom”
Therefore the only thing you’re left with is “compatiblistic” freedom
And “compatiblistic freedom is ONLY the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god has determined you to be/do.
There ain’t no such thing as “Independent” in that!
As Ravi Zacharias says
-quote
“Here me carefully.
If you are totally determined, then you are pre-wired, to think the way you do.
Your nature is that you are hard-wired to come out to a single conclusion.
What is input into the computer is what ultimately comes out.
This is the bondage of total subjectivity.”
br.d writes, “That would be “mere” permission – and it doesn’t exist in Calvinism”
Apparently, God gives br.d false perceptions also.
br.d
That would be “mere” permission – and it doesn’t exist in Calvinism”
rhutchin
Apparently, God gives br.d false perceptions also.
br.d
rhutchin – you’re not thinking LOGICALLY again.
Calvin’s god doesn’t exhaustively determine my perceptions like he does yours.
Now:
A FALSE perception – by definition – is a perception that one does not know is FALSE
And where Calvin’s god determines you to have a FALSE perception – he’s certainly not going to let you know its FALSE now is he?
So lets say Calvin’s god has determined half of your perceptions to be TRUE and the other half FALSE
And as I’ve shown above – you don’t have the ability to know which ones are FALSE – because that would negate what Calvin’s god determined.
Calvin’s god determines you to believe all of your perceptions are TRUE perceptions – even the FALSE ones.
Now think about that
This means you’re not given to discern which perceptions are FALSE.
And if you aren’t given the ability to discern which ones are FALSE – then you can’t differentiate them from the ones that are TRUE.
Bottom line – you don’t have the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE.
However
Since Calvin’s god doesn’t determine my perceptions – I’m not in that boat.
br.d writes, “Since Calvin’s god doesn’t determine my perceptions – I’m not in that boat.”
Boy, another false perception. This doesn’t look good for you.
br.d
Since Calvin’s god doesn’t determine my perceptions – I’m not in that boat.
rhutchin
Boy, another false perception. This doesn’t look good for you.
br.d
I don’t make the mistake of superimposing the Calvinist belief system onto non-Calvinists.
And on top of that – this statement coming from someone who says people are self-determining – and thus self-determine their perceptions!
Calvinists do love their square-circles.
What a hoot! :-]
br.d writes, “Calvinists do love their square-circles.”
Another false impression imposed on br.d by God. br.d is on a roll.
rhutchin,
You had said:
” If a person receives faith, that faith results in acceptance of salvation.”
NO ONE “RECEIVES” FAITH. They either believe (faith), or they don’t believe. NO ONE superimposes belief on anyone, not even God.
Do a WORD SEARCH, and you won’t find any verse reference regarding RECEIVING FAITH.
What Bible version do you use, and can you show me EVIDENCE from the version that you use that indicates that faith is RECEIVED?
I use the KJV…can’t find it.
Oh, and by the way, the bible TELLS YOU how you know that you are saved.
I am saved. How do I know? It’s for ME TO KNOW, AND FOR YOU TO FIND OUT HOW I KNOW.
I believe that Jesus is the Savior. I have overcome the world, JUST BY THAT ALONE. I believe that God promised ETERNAL LIFE (THE PROMISED LAND, which is HEAVEN, AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWS) to Abraham, and the PROMISED SEED (Jesus, as well as Isaac).
What more is needed? NOTHING MORE, except to LIVE what you believe, because FAITH (belief) WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.
That’s how.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “NO ONE “RECEIVES” FAITH. They either believe (faith), or they don’t believe. NO ONE superimposes belief on anyone, not even God.”
Paul, in Romans 10, says, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Everyone in the world, except Ed, understands Pual to mean that a person receives faith by hearing the word (the gospel). As Paul emphasizes in Ephesians, “In Christ you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” Faith comes by the word and a person trusts in Christ after hearing the word. It seems obvious to mean that the truth of the gospel does superimpose belief on a person. Doesn’t truth always superimpose belief on people (unless the person is in denial)?
Lisa –
There is a thing called – Syncretism – the combining of different beliefs.
The children of Isreal had problems with this consistently in their history – mixing for example the religion of Baal into God’s.
God warned them not to do that – but these other religions have a way of being very convincing.
If you review Dr. Flower’s article here “Did the early church fathers teach Calvinism” you may start to get an understanding that Calvinism is a mixture of three religions. Christianity – Gnosticism – and NeoPlatonism.
Both Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism teach that the universe is “Good-Evil”.
In those systems – Good and Evil are “Co-Equal”, “Co-Necessary” and “Co-Complementary”
As Calvinist R.C. Sproul says “Evil is good”
The way to identify this is to notice that a large number of things within Calvinism appear in “Good-Evil” pairs.
Now the Calvinist learns to embrace a deity who is a “Good-Evil” god.
It is the “Evil” side of the doctrine that you are so focused on at this point in your life.
Please consider the possibility that that construct of a god who is “Good-Evil” is what is influencing your thinking.
Calvinists have to deal with the same ideas of a “Good-Evil” god that you are currently facing.
But they are able to mentally block out all notions of divine “Evil” intent and put their focus on the “good”.
For example they call it “Doctrines of Grace” – as a way of hiding its “Evil” half.
The fact that you are focused on Romans 9 tells me you’ve been overtly influenced by Calvinism.
The whole business of “evil” hangs in the back of every Calvinist’s mind – just as it does in yours right now.
The way they learn to live with it – is to mentally block it out.
Please allow yourself to consider the possibility that Calvinism is an unhealthy belief system and is doing you more damage than good.
I believe you may be right that I have been overly influenced. I have been trying to focus on some scriptures from GraceAdict today as well as a teaching on Romans 9 from Brian.
Thank you Lisa
Yes – I hope you’ll consider what I mentioned about how Calvinism incorporates a “Good-Evil” god.
Some of the comments you’ve enunciated about the ideal that god could be condemning, or punishing you are historically understood as a psychological byproduct of Calvinism.
Dr. Erich Fromm – Ph.D Social Psychologist performed research on this which he called “Escape from Freedom” – with parts of it dedicated to an examination of what he classified as a prevailing sense of psychological dread historically observed by believers of Calvinism.
Here are a few snippets:
The psychological significance of the doctrine of predestination is twofold. Firstly, it expresses and enhances the feeling of individual powerlessness and insignificance. No doctrine could express more strongly than this, the worthlessness of human will and effort. The decision over man’s fate is taken completely out of his own hands and there is nothing man can do to change this decision. He is a powerless tool in God’s hands.
At first glance [taking it to its logical conclusions] the doctrine of predestination seems to enhance that doubt rather than silence it. Must not the individual be torn by even more TORTURING doubts than before, to learn he is predestined either to eternal damnation or to salvation before he was born?
In Calvin’s conceptions of his god, he made numerous attempts to create SEMBLANCES of divine justice and love. But all of these revealed the features of a tyrant, without any quality of certain or predictable love or justice.
In blatant contradiction to the language of the New Testament, Calvin denies the supreme role of divine love, and says “For what the Schoolmen advance concerning the priority of charity to faith and hope, is a mere reverie of a distempered imagination…”(Op. cit., 3-2-41). Almost no one stricken in fear would be able to relax, enjoy life, and be indifferent with a foreboding uncertainty of what happens in the after-life.
One possible way to escape this unbearable state of uncertainty and a paralyzing feeling of one’s own insignificance, is the very trait which became so prominent in Calvinism: the development of a hyper-activity and striving for productivity.
Activity in this sense assumes a compulsory quality: the individual has to be active in order to subdue underlying feelings of doubt and powerlessness. This kind of effort and activity works to promote a sense of confidence and conciliation.
However, human effort in Calvinist doctrine has yet another psychological meaning. The fact that one did not tire in that unceasing effort, and the one succeeded in one’s moral as well as secular work, functions as a more or less distinct sign of being one of the chosen ones.
The irrationality of such compulsive effort is that the activity is not meant to create a desired end, but merely served to indicate whether or not something will occur which has been determined beforehand, independent of one’s own activity or control. This mechanism is a
well-known characteristic of compulsive neurotics.
Calvin himself was, of course, concerned with the obvious objections which could be made against this conception of God; but the more or less subtle constructions he provided, to uphold a picture of a just and loving god, do not sound in the least convincing. This picture of a despotic god, who wants unrestricted power over men and their submission and humiliation.
Hello again Lisa. Here’s an overview of mine of Romans 9 that might help show how Calvinism has read the wrong view of God’s sovereignty and mercy into it. I have some other explanations of specific verses if you’re interested.
Overview of Romans 9
It would help if the context of Christ-like love for all the lost, demonstrated in Paul from verses 1-3 were recognized before reading the rest. Paul wished he was accursed for the salvation of his countrymen of Israel… not just any so-called elect among them.
It would also help to note that no verse in the whole chapter mentions election before creation, but that there is a “seed” in Paul’s day that is currently being reckoned (present tense), according to verse 8.
It also would help if it wouldn’t be skipped over so easily that God’s purpose in hardening Pharaoh is clearly stated that God’s Name would spread over ALL the earth, according to vs 17.
And it would be helpful to know the phrases “on whomever I will have mercy” and “on whomever I will have compassion” are literally translated as “on whom I should have mercy and… on whom I should have compassion” in verse 15. And God has mercy on whom He “wants to” in verse 18.
That should lead the reader to wonder on whom then “should” God have mercy or on whom does God “want” to have mercy. It is easy to discover that He wants His mercy to be on a people who were not His “people” or “beloved” before (9:25).
This excludes the idea of a loved elect individual person before creation (besides Christ) being read into verses 25-26. But God will have mercy on those whom He grants His righteousness which they pursued and came to possess through faith (vs 32). In fact He will have some kind of mercy on all (11:32), giving all sufficient opportunity to hear His call to them to seek Him (10:18).
The biggest confusion a Calvinist has is in not seeing that God’s sovereign choice of individuals according to Romans 9 was indeed to help fulfill His promise of salvation in Christ, but those choices of individuals did not guarantee their personal salvation or damnation.
The prophecy – Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated – did not guarantee the salvation of Jacob or of everyone else in Israel, nor did it guarantee damnation of Esau or of everyone else in Edom. Just like Amon being in the seed of David as a king of Judah didn’t guarantee his personal salvation (2Chr 33:22-23).
Here is evidence that Esau later became a believer and that any Edomites were welcome to become believers also.
Gen 33:4, 10 But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept…. “No, please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably.”
Deut 23:7-8 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.
Who does Esau remind you of in 33:4? Hint Luke 15:20.
Hello Brian, I am still searching for answers to what has happened to me. Thank you for the Romans 9 explanation. Would you help me with Verse 11 where it states that, “Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls.” Also, why did God say he hated Esau if that is not what he meant?
Lisa, both the Hebrew and Greek word “hate” have the basic meaning of “reject”. This does not automatically have the idea of despise or loathe, though sometimes those emotions are mentioned in the same context with “hate”.
But in this context those emotions are not there. Did you even read what I said about Jacob and Esau? I would be interested in your comments on exactly what I said about them. Please.
Paul says Jacob was loved, chosen along with his posterity to unconditionally receive covenant promises, and Esau was hated, rejected along with his posterity to unconditionally be excluded from covenant promises. This had nothing to do with whether they or any of their family would believe in those promises and become “children” of those promises through personal faith. It only meant the blessing of witnessing the messianic outworking of these promises would be Israel’s and not Edom’s.
Israel/Jacob was chosen to be light to the Gentiles, including to Edom. Edom/Esau was chosen to be an illustration of rejection of God’s covenant. But Esau and any Edomite were free to follow the light to join Israel, and Jacob and any Israelite were free to follow the darkness of Edom.
Individual salvation and individual damnation is not eternally immutably set. That is a lie from Satan. And I pray you will reject it.
brianwagner writes, “Paul says Jacob was loved, chosen along with his posterity to unconditionally receive covenant promises, …”
In context, v9-13, is the support for Paul’s statement in v8 that “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Consequently, Jacob being loved, is chosen to unconditionally receive covenant promises for Jacob is a child of promise and “it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham;” This provides the basis for Paul to say “at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
Roger you are missing “being counted as seed” indicates becoming children of promise through faith in the covenant promises given through Jacob and his lineage. It is happening (present tense) Paul says.
No-one is eternally immutably “children of promise”. Those who are “not my people” God says become His people, children of promise through faith.
Promise then faith then imputation/regeneration making one a child of promise through faith. Faith in the promise first… then the saving grace of life goes through it.
Romans 4:20-22 NKJV — He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
brianwagner writes, “…you are missing “being counted as seed” indicates becoming children of promise through faith in the covenant promises given through Jacob and his lineage. It is happening (present tense) Paul says.”
I don’t think I am but it seems we agree that the children of promise are a subset of the nation of Israel and then, the gentiles are grafted in.
On the order of regeneration and faith, I think this boils down to the way we understand John 3 and being born again to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. We understand “kingdom of heaven” differently. Maybe that will be resolved in the future.
brianwagner writes, “The prophecy – Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated – did not guarantee the salvation of Jacob or of everyone else in Israel, nor did it guarantee damnation of Esau or of everyone else in Edom.”
You are correct that v1-3 tells us that “Paul wished he was accursed for the salvation of his countrymen of Israel…” This leads in to v6-8 where Paul identifies “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Paul explain what he means by “children of promise,” in v9-13 ending with ““Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” In context, we understand that Jacob is the child of promise and Esau is of the flesh. That leads into the objections beginning in v14. This also sets up later references to the “remnant.
Lisa Hughes writes, “I am hopeless and terrified of the wrath of God being upon me and can only conclude that He did not strike me physically dead at that moment so I could reap what I have sown….I desperately want forgiveness and mercy from God but do not believe I deserve it and that God hates me.”
This is not language that the non-elect are prone to use.
Then, “I still am looking for clarification that my interpretation is wrong about the elect of God.”
I think your interpretation is correct. Your problem is God’s application to you. This concern will disappear as you persist in seeking God.
Lisa Remember that Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost. Are you lost? For God so loved the World, He did not come to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. (That is you) He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. ( You are included) All we like sheep have gone astray we have each turned to our own way but the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL. (You are part of the ALL)
Keep looking to the Lord Lisa, and remember that God is truly good to ALL. Your mind has been conditioned by false teaching that God is NOT good to ALL. That is lie.
Psa 145:5 On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate.
Psa 145:6 They shall speak of the might of your awesome deeds, and I will declare your greatness.
Psa 145:7 They shall pour forth the fame of your abundant goodness and shall sing aloud of your righteousness.
Psa 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
Psa 145:9 The LORD is GOOD to ALL, and his mercy is OVER ALL that he has made.
Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, GRACE ABOUNDED ALL THE MORE
Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Psa 86:5 For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving, ABOUNDING IN STEADFAST LOVE TO ALL who call upon you.
Lisa I would suggest you go to http://www.Soteriology101.com and read the articles there. Let God’s truth sink into your heart and cleanse your heart of the false beliefs that have penetrated your thinking. As others have stated here on this site… elect is either talking about Israel or for a specific service. NOT about salvation.
You have mentioned Jacob and Esau…but please look closely at the verses. It does NOT say Esau will burn in hell. It only says the Elder will SERVE the younger. NOT the Elder is damned to hell.
Rom 9:12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
Rom 9:13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
You asked about Romans 9 here is a link that would be awesome to read.
https://soteriology101.com/2015/05/07/line-by-line-through-romans-9/
Then go to http://www.soteriology101.com and read the articles there…let truth cleanse your mind of error. Read the articles and see if they match up with the Word of God.
Paul in speaking to even pagans said:
Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Act 17:27 that THEY SHOULD SEEK GOD, and perhaps FEEL THEIR WAY TOWARD HIM and FIND HIM. Yet HE IS ACTUALLY NOT FAR from each one of us,
Lisa, trying to figure out if you are what the Calvinist calls “Elect for God’s love and salvation” is totally the wrong thing to be thinking about. That is a satanic deception. The only thing that matters is the Gospel. What is the Gospel and do you believe the gospel…will you rest in what God says. God the Father is satisfied with His Son’s sacrifice on your behalf will you rest in that? Jesus said it is finished, the Father agrees. Will you agree?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
That is the only thing that matters.
Everything else is a distraction and a rabbit trail and sometimes even a satanic trap.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Lisa Salvation is not because you were good enough or avoided certain sins, salvation, mercy and grace are for the needy. It is not of works it is by trusting that HIS works were good enough.
Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Lisa, Grace is mind blowing…it is out of this world. It comes from the “God of ALL Grace”. This God is LOVE. That is His essential nature. He loves you not because you are good but because HIS nature IS LOVE and He cannot deny His own nature.
Now Lisa, it is up to you to believe the gospel. God will NOT do that for you. His invitation is Genuine, His Provision covers ALL of your sins and His command is clear “Believe it”.
GraceAdict,
Thank you for the scriptures and the teaching on Romans 9. It sheds a whole new light on what I thought it meant. I have focused on these scriptures today and fell a little better. However, I have read about defiant sin or high hand sin and when you commit this type of sin God will cut you off.
A sin of this nature is literally showing a defiant fist to God as if to say, “Try and strike me dead, I am doing my own thing.” Hebrews 10:26 which reads, “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment …” What we can be sure of is that this sin is not accidental and is done in a flaunting, defiant and open-eyed, unremorseful manner which effectively tells Yahweh that He is irrelevant.
But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.” (Num. 15:30-31)
I fear that I have done this because of what came out of my mouth and what I have experienced the last 2.5 years with the time element (no concept of time and 24 hours feels like 1,000 years)
Thank you, any thoughts would be most welcome.
rhutchin,
As you are well aware, I have a totally different take on Romans 9. JEWS JEWS JEWS. Regarding the Pharaoh, he got MERCY, all because God USED the Pharaoh for destruction (in this life) to show his power. And God did NOT HATE Esau, as a PERSON.
Regarding the Pharaoh again, HE WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHO HE WILL HAVE MERCY ON. Those he USES, to reveal his POWER, he gives mercy to.
BUT THAT’S PROPHESY STUFF having nothing to do with EVERYDAY LIFE for ANYONE, except for the blind Jews, who STILL have a job to do regarding God, aka BUILDING A TEMPLE, GATHERING IN ISRAEL, USHERING IN THE ANTI-CHRIST, etc.
And you people DISTORT Romans 9. Romans 9 CONTINUES thru chapter 11, in that God will have MERCY ON THE IGNORANT SLEEPING BLIND JEWS, due to their IGNORANCE, just like Paul got mercy for his IGNORANCE.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
You had said:
“Who in the world, but a screwed up mindless ideologue would tell some poor woman whose whole life has fallen apart that it just might be because God didn’t choose her for anything better?”
My response:
That’s the interpretation that I was seeing, too. It’s one thing to debate back and for between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist, but it’s another thing to see actual Calvinism put in practice towards another human being right in front of our eyes like rhutchin did today, knowing full and well the HURT that he is projecting to that person. HEARTLESS. NO LOVE.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
A continuation from my last…
You had said:
“. It sounds like God would actually blot out the names of His elect.”
My response:
You and I have a difference of opinion as to who the ELECT are.
My conclusion…THERE IS NO GENTILE AT ALL WHO IS THE ELECT.
Gentile Christians are NOT ELECT. You equate ELECT as ALL WHO ARE SAVED, OR WILL BE SAVED. That’s not how I see it.
The blind Jews are the elect, AND, the remnant (Christian Jews) are the Elect.
The Jews who CAN SEE (not blind), AND also reject are NOT the elect.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24
Why would there be a NEED to BLOT out something if it was already KNOWN from the beginning?…
No need to blot out a pre-determined result!’
rhutchin
God knows whose name will be blotted out and knew this when He created the universe.
br.d
More precisely – Calvin’s god knows whose name HE DESIGNED to be blotted out.
John Calvin
quote
“By the eternal good pleasure of god, though the reasons do not appear, they are NOT FOUND, but *MADE* worthy of destruction.”
(Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
quote
“Accordingly as each has been *CREATED* for one of these ends, we say he has been predestined to life or death.”
(Institutes)
br.d
“quote
“Accordingly as each has been *CREATED* for one of these ends, we say he has been predestined to life or death.””
Which is why they must use Romans 9, the word “DESTRUCTION” for them is equated to the word “hell in the afterlife”, rather than the events in THIS LIFE only.
Ed
rhutchin
If you (or anyone else) really want JTL or myself to break free from Calvinism , then you have to deal with this. It’s a key point for Calvinists
br.d
Middle Knowledge was the answer for William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.
But they didn’t have to break free from Calvinism to understand it
chapmaned24 writes, “Now if only rhutchin and jtleosala would break out of their spell. ”
rhutchin
You would have to deal with God’s omniscience to start with.
br.d
Breaking someone out of a spell requires divine intervention.
Ed can pray for that at least.
br.d
Breaking someone out of a spell requires divine intervention.
Ed can pray for that at least.
My response:
Or a chicken bone.
OH that is funny!!
I fell out of my chair Ed!
br.d writes, “Breaking someone out of a spell requires divine intervention. Ed can pray for that at least.”
Ed can also argue from the Scriptures to show how Calvinists have misunderstood the Scriptures. After all the Scriptures resulted from divine intervention.
br.d
Breaking someone out of a spell requires divine intervention. Ed can pray for that at least.”
rhutchin
Ed can also argue from the Scriptures to show how Calvinists have misunderstood the Scriptures. After all the Scriptures resulted from divine intervention.
br.d
The last time I heard of someone trying to argue a demon spirit out of someone – it didn’t go very well for them! :-]
Some people get off on power trips – sounds like that may be the case for this pastor
br.d
You had said:
“Some people get off on power trips – sounds like that may be the case for this pastor”
My response:
Ronnie W Rogers. He’s written books ON SALE ON AMAZON about church discipline. Dude is MAKING MONEY off this garbage.
Ed Chapman
I’ve seen similar – there was a non-Calvinist fellow a few years ago with a book where he was calling anyone in an church that did not obey everything his/her pastor said – as having a Jezebel spirit.
Those teachings do DEVASTATING DAMAGE to the body of Christ!
They need to be sent back to the pit where they came from.
br.d,
“Those teachings do DEVASTATING DAMAGE to the body of Christ!
They need to be sent back to the pit where they came from.”
My response:
Yes, they do indeed!
One fine Sunday morning my Calvi-pastor stated, ‘When I speak from the pulpit, I speak for God.’ Now that got me pretty worked up, but the pastor, who was oh so clever, had ensured that I would never challenge him by constantly telling my spouse and I how we were ‘the only ones’ who didn’t call and harass him every week about his sermon. So, of course, I felt too guilty to ever raise any concerns. My spouse and I argued over it for days, and convinced ourselves that he didn’t really mean what it sounded like, and had simply spoken unwisely.
The other longest term elder’s wife went to the pastor and asked, ‘You aren’t saying that we must agree with everything you teach, of course?’ He responded, ‘That is exactly what I am saying. If you disagree with what I deliver from the pulpit, you are in rebellion against your God-given authority.’ Sadly, I did not hear about this interaction until years later, after I left the church. It did cause the elder and his family to leave, which led to the pastor trying to put them under ‘discipline’.
We were still a church plant at the time, and our overseeing church, with whom this other elder had started this outreach, stood up for him and refused to let the pastor harass him. Half the church left, and I wanted to also, but my spouse was ardently loyal. I only ever heard the pastor’s side of the story until much later, which was that the woman was in love with him. Sheesh. It took me years to work out my anger towards that guy, to whom I had been so trusting and loyal for years. Yeah, I got one of those letters asking me to come before the elders – and laughed. I responded with a polite refusal which said, ‘I’ll send you a copy of my book.’
Well I’m sorry to say I’ve heard similar stories TS00!
There seems to be a few strange doctrines that really seduce some pastors – and authority doctrines tend to be on the top of that list.
It was the Lord’s blessing that got you out when you did!
King Saul was a ministry of death,
There was a group of men who departed from Saul’s authority and went over into the wilderness to be with David.
Saul would have called them rebellious and killed them if he could have.
Scripture does not call those men rebellious – it calls them “David’s mighty men”.
So leaving a ministry of death is not rebellion – its following the right path
King Saul then led the rest of his men into a battle where almost all of them were massacred.
And yet we hear pastors using David’s statement of not touching God’s anointed twisted into “thou shalt do everything I command you to do – or your in rebellion”.
When a pastor gets even close to following in the footsteps of King Saul – its time to get out of there pronto!
There will almost always be a David ministry to escape to.
TS00,
What you have said is what I have found to be pretty typical. I spent time studying this church discipline thing.
When we were children, we were taught, “respect your elders”.
Why?
This had nothing to do with any church setting. It had to do with people who were OLDER than you, which is the REAL definition of elder (Yes, even in a church setting).
Even TRIBES have ELDERS. Indian Tribes, Amazon Tribes, etc. I began studying that out a lot.
Elders have LIVED LIFE, BEEN THERE DONE THAT, BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT. In short, elders are SUPPOSED TO BE…
MENTORS. Not authoritarians. They are considered WISE, due to already living life, and so their function is SUPPOSED TO BE…to give wisdom. They have been where you are, and already know the pitfalls, and how to avoid them. This is why it is said to “obey” them.
It’s not supposed to be obedience out of fear, due to them being in any kind of AUTHORITY do beat you down.
So I began seeing the words in the bible, and it hit me! Paul chose OLDER PEOPLE to the church to mentor the younger ones. He didn’t create an office called ELDER. Let me say that again, Paul never created an office called Elder. He chose OLD PEOPLE to a particular function of MENTORING.
NOW read the bible with THAT in mind when you see the word ELDER.
And lastly, Nehemiah chapter 8 gives a great example of what a Pastor is supposed to be. Even to the end of that chapter, where when people look down on themselves, like a Calvinist who loves to state, “WOE IS ME, I’M JUST A LOWLY SINNER, blah blah”, the pastor is supposed to LIFT YOU UP, not tear you down.
Calvinist pastors are MEAN, not loving. In any case, the Catholics are the ones who started this OFFICE OF THE ELDERS stuff, and it just continued after reformation, including Matthew 18.
One last thing about Matthew 18, in the Catholic world, priests are the ones forgiving sin, in the reform world, pastors/elders and congregation forgives sin.
They don’t have authority to forgive sin. ONLY THE VICTIM can forgive sin.
Ed Chapman
Ed, I agree absolutely, that Jesus never intended a ruling hierarchy in his ekklesia, and I consider the entire institutional church set-up as having been faulty from the start. I agree that elders are loving shepherds, called to sacrificially serve others, just as a big brother takes care of his little brother, not authoritarian rulers who must be obeyed.
Along with its faulty theology, Calvinism appears to be the major stream of evangelicalism that is attempting to recover the authoritarianism and control that the Mother Church once had over the masses. I will never again be part of an ‘elder-ruled’ congregation, or be bullied by any man or men to submit to their so-called spiritual authority. Frankly, Jesus made it pretty clear how unethical the lording it over others political systems are as well. But good luck escaping those. Oh for good and honest judges who love and fear God!
From my understanding – we find the days of Ignatius of Antioch – as about the time period in which the church shifts from maintaining a close walk with the Holy Spirit to a reliance upon a Romanized (i.e. hierarchical) system of governance. We see the advent of what is called the Monarchical Episcopate at this point in time.
It fits the Biblical pattern for signs of divine providence to proportionately diminish as a result of a diminishing reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
How many times do we read in the OT – “And king xyz did evil in the site of the Lord and made the people to sin”
For me, the human time-line is a cyclical picture of divine intervention followed by gradual downward spirals, followed by divine intervention.
br.d
You had said:
“From my understanding – we find the days of Ignatius of Antioch – as about the time period in which the church shifts from maintaining a close walk with the Holy Spirit to a reliance upon a Romanized (i.e. hierarchical) system of governance. We see the advent of what is called the Monarchical Episcopate at this point in time.”
My response:
I’ve thought about this an awful lot. I’ve never taken the time to research this to pinpoint. I’m not even sure that history is accurate enough to even try to pinpoint. I have seen that some of the alleged early church fathers were FABRICATIONS of an invented history, and so I am not even assured an accurate church history (Catholic (ROME) church history, that is). It’s like, THEY TOOK OVER Christianity, by FORCE.
Ed Chapman
Yes – I remember bits and pieces of archeological finds.
Such as a Roman podium dating back to the time of Constantine which had a pagan symbol on one side and the symbol of the cross on the other. The theory is – a Roman orator performed a Christian liturgy in the morning and a pagan liturgy in the afternoon. Also there is evidence the RC tried to date certain items to the time of Pentecost – such as a plaque with a prayer to Marry. Or setup a statue of the god Pan holding a pan-flute – and a sign below declaring it David the shepherd boy. With a pan flute??? – who doesn’t see through that! So yes I guess its fair to say there is a lot of corrupted info of that time period.
TS00,
Yes, yes, and yes; totally agree! Especially your second paragraph. The word, “EVANGELICAL” has been a bad taste in my mouth for quite a number of years due to its hierarchy established organized religion, no different than that of the Catholics, the origin of organized religion.
Whatever happened to the LOCAL unaffiliated denomination community church? I see “church plants” going on, when there are a bazillion church’s within a ten mile radius. We don’t need any more church plants. All the church plants are for, is more MONEY for the MOTHER CHURCH, for some poor excuse of MISSIONS to fulfill the, what do they call it? GREAT COMMISSION? Tons of middle men in between getting paid a salary, and by the time all expenses for OFFICES are paid, i.e., water bill, electric bill, phone bill, copy machines, file cabinets, desks, computers, and you name it, how much really gets to the field to support the missionaries? There are PRESIDENTS for this, presidents for that, executives for this, executives for that, and then, there are YOUNG WET BEHIND THE EARS Pastors that need to be taught how to preach and teach, in a college setting…but they were called? More like, SELF APPOINTED ANOINTED.
And a MASSIVE meeting, called CONFERENCES every year, with strange things getting voted on that the bible already covers. Hotel reservations, pamphlet costs, plane fares, etc.
The local community is POOR, but God needs MONEY to support the guys in expensive suits behind the pulpits, or the congregation will get accused of ROBBING GOD.
And we wonder why people are leaving Christianity. Well, I don’t wonder anymore.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman wrote:
“The Catholic religion, and that of the REFORMERS, created an anti-semetic view of the Jews, and I couldn’t stand that at all. I learned of that in my study. Both Luther, and Calvin had DISDAIN for the Jews.”
SPS: Question. If “Both Luther, and Calvin had DISDAIN for the Jews” as many claim, why did both of them follow Jesus Christ? Jesus was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. John was Jew. Paul was a Jew. In fact, it is probable that the entire Old and New Testaments were written by Jewish people. With the possible exception of Luke’s Gospel and Acts? For a person to be Jewish, is not simply a belief. Judaism is a belief, but being a Jew is a genetic ethnicity.
Ed Chapman wrote: “My point, I stay away from CONFESSIONS, including the Apostles Creed. I remember reading Benjamin Franklin’s take on God, and he began, “THIS IS MY CREED…”.
I’d rather hear YOUR creed, than that of the Apostles Creed, cuz I don’t remember reading their creed in the Bible. Besides, I do NOT believe in a holy catholic church, even if the c is not capitalized. And why must I confess that to begin with?”
SPS: I did not create Christianity, it is therefore not my right to create a creed of my own. However, the Apostles creed is what I believe and have believed long before I read it. It is possible to come to an understanding long before the person reads a particular creed.
Also, when the 39 Articles reference the word “catholic” it is not a reference to Roman Catholicism, but the universal worldwide body of believers.
Simon Peter,
I’m not fully convinced that Luther or Calvin followed Jesus Christ at all. Both were former Catholics, and the way that I see Catholics, is that they are more concerned with “THE CHURCH” than with Jesus Christ.
Luther was concerned with the corruption of THE CHURCH, regarding money, regarding grace vs. works, regarding “indulgences”, etc. It was still about the politics of THE CHURCH, having really nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
As I said to you before, there is about 300 years of so-called “Church History” that had to be compiled by a historian, for which there really is no physical evidence of. I’m not convinced that the historian accurately captured the TRUTH regarding church history.
Christianity existed outside of Calvin and Luther, and most importantly, Catholicism. But where is the written documentation of those people? Other than what Paul wrote regarding other nations, all we have is the history of ROME, and how they took over, and it became POLITICAL, and corrupt.
Lastly, I know that the little c is in regards to the CHURCH worldwide. but it was STILL to the BIG C Catholic church worldwide. I don’t find a need for that to be in MY creed. Besides, I don’t believe that the Apostles of the days of the NT being written ever proclaimed such a creed in the first place. Why is it necessary for me to voice something that I don’t believe?
It’s not necessary for me to proclaim anything about world wide Christians, let alone what someone else’s creed is. The “MY CREED” is what is important, not YOUR creed. What I believe, not what YOU believe. What is a CREED? Isn’t a creed what YOU believe?
I don’t believe in a holy little c catholic church, because in essence, that little c is discussing the big C, when all is said and done.
Ed Chapman
I don’t have a stake in the matter one way or the other – but I do see this article in Wikipedia “Luther and antisemitism”
Here is a snippet:
It is believed that Luther was influenced by Anton Margaritha’s book Der gantze Jüdisch Glaub (The Whole Jewish Belief).[11] Margaritha, a convert to Christianity who had become a Lutheran, published his antisemitic book in 1530 which was read by Luther in 1539. In 1539, Luther got his hands on the book and immediately fell in love with it. “The materials provided in this book confirmed for Luther that the Jews in their blindness wanted nothing to do with faith and justification through faith.”[12] Margaritha’s book was decisively discredited by Josel of Rosheim in a public debate in 1530 before Charles V and his court,[13] resulting in Margaritha’s expulsion from the Empire.
It is no secret that Jewish people for many centuries saw Christians as persecutors – who would call them “Christ killers”
br.d,
John Hagee was on Mark Levin show not long ago. Mark Levin is Jewish. John Hagee began an organization called Christians United for Israel.
John Hagee is a highly educated pastor, BUT he had NO IDEA about the antisemitism of Luther until he began to study that out, because there were Jewish people that were telling him about Luther, and at first, he was taken aback, not fully realizing this. Then he began some serious study about Luther, and found out just how much that Luther really did despise the Jews.
A few short years ago, the last Pope wrote a book exonerating the Jews for killing Jesus.
How mighty nice of him to do that. When Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not of what they do”, I think that the Pope thought that Jesus was speaking to him, being FATHER?
But, WHY did the Jews NOT KNOW what they do? That’s my sticking point with the Calvinists, rhutchin?
Right away Jesus forgave them, without anyone repenting for it. WHY?
The ironic thing about the Catholic church is the number of believers they have murdered over the years – in the “so called” name of truth.
I think if Jesus were personally here in the flesh today – the Catholic church would be demanding he be crucified.
While Pope Leo X saysL
-quote
“how profitable that fable of Christ hath ben to us and our company”
br.d,
YIKES.
A few month’s back, I went to the theater to see the movie about the Apostle Paul.
I was very very very disappointed, because of the Catholic slant on the story line, which showed that it was more about politics than that of Jesus Christ. Political unrest, Jesus and Paul are disrupting Rome’s authority over people. I was disgusted at the movie.
The Catholics had the same type of made for television movie that Roma Downey had produced, too. It was aweful.
Ed Chapman
Yes – I think when one looks under the hood in Catholicism – one will actually see a political and religious alignment with Islam.
Even people in Hollywood are distancing themselves from Mel Gibson who after creating “The Passion” was found to be antisemitic.
Of course that was due to his Catholic influences.
I find it interesting also how N.T. Wright calls Calvin a Catholic with a small “c”.
And I’ve heard rumors that John Piper may be embracing “Chrislam” as a form of church consolidation.
But so far – that is just a rumor – so take I it with a grain of salt.
It sure didn’t take long for people to distance themselves from Mel Gibson once he got drunk and spewed his hatred for the Jews. And it is self evident that is due to his Catholic upbringing. It’s what he was taught, by Catholics. And for people to say otherwise, attempting to defend Catholics on this issue, very disingenuous.
Ed Chapman
BrD,
John 16:2 (NKJV)….
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you (the Jews) will think that he offers God service.
Matthew 25:31-46 (NKJV)….
“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep (nations) on His right hand, but the goats (nations) on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren (fellow Jews), you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Genesis 12:2-3 (NKJV)….
“I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
The world will be judged how they have treated the chosen people of God.
Blessings.
Phillip
The world will be judged how they have treated the chosen people of God.
Blessings.
br,d
Thank you Phillip for the “blessings” and “blessings” back to you also.
However within the scheme of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – divine judgement has a very interesting twist to it
Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of every thought, choice, and action that will ever actualize in your brain.
Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT you to disobey.
How you treat the chosen people of god – is how Calvin’s god DECREES you treat them.
Then he judges you for the very things he has MADE you think, say, and do – *AS-IF* you could have done otherwise.
Don’t you just love that form of judgement! :-]
Yes and Amen to this passage!
But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.” -Luke 2:10
Absolutely this is super good news Eric!!! thank you!!!! oddly it still baffles me (not that I’ve been a believer much past a decade) yet this system permeates so much of Christianity the coined “frozen chosen”… I’ve been unable to respond lately, because God has placed a burden of love on my heart for a young person who not only is addicted to prescription medication, they come from an extremely disturbing childhood, and they also have many twisted versions of God’s Word thrown at them from YouTube.. Why bother caring, because it isn’t easy caring for a truly broken person & yet I trust, that the Gospel is a transforming message and a gift to be recieved by whomever will come!!!
Revelation 22:17 NASB — The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
So if this person is simply not an elect then what am I really able to offer in pointing out truth in love through God’s grace that’s been given to me… would this mean, that my striving in love is useless & in vain??? Did I mention God placed the person on my heart & is still guiding me, because I want to walk by faith not by site!!! Even though calvinism sure sounds closer than what I’ve been trying to refute and redirect them back to Jesus & also show His love.. I’m relying on His Word to guide not my feelings nor some systems view; and when it’s time to walk away I will know or they will respond to this Amazing News from above & of course that’s my prayer as well as my husbands…
2 Corinthians 10:5 NASB — We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
So I’m trusting that “the good news” is exactly that!! & it is Exciting and truly transforming!!!
Thank you I do appreciate the articles and posts. I find them encouraging!! also thank you for pointing to the truth of the cross and the desperate need each individual has to come if they will…Let it never be;
Philippians 3:18 NASB — For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ,
Colossians 1:20 NASB — and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
This statement I got here and use often “God is recognizably good”🌻
Nice post Reggie – thank you!
Reggie writes, “if this person is simply not an elect then what am I really able to offer in pointing out truth in love through God’s grace that’s been given to me… ”
You are able to offer, “…truth in love through God’s grace that’s been given to me… ”
Then, “would this mean, that my striving in love is useless & in vain???”
Even you know that you can plant or water but it is God who gives the increase. Thus, it is that the young person dominates your petitions to God.
Reggie
“if this person is simply not an elect then what am I really able to offer in pointing out truth in love through God’s grace that’s been given to me… ”
rhutchin
You are able to offer, “…truth in love through God’s grace that’s been given to me… ”
br.d
Yeah right – offer it to a dead person!
A Calvinist offers a glass of water to a corps – cuz he’s been taught he won’t loose his reward! :-]
DOUBLE-MINDED thinking will always result in a DOUBLE-MINDED belief system
AIDAN MCMANUS:
Aidan McManus wrote;
“Simon,
I’m Irish and still living in Ireland. Am I right in thinking that you said you are English? If so, are you still living there; and, do you have Brexit fatigue?”
SPS: Yes, I am English. Yes, I still live here in glorious England.
“Brexit”? = Capitalism vs Marxist-Socialism. Answer: 1 Timothy 2: 1-3
Aidan: “Correct me if I’m wrong in regard to Calvinism, but it seems like they negate the need for a Christian to repent of future sins, including unbelief. If this is the case, do you know how they deal with such passages as 1 Jno. 1:6-10? I’ve seen you do this, namely, call for scripture each time. That’s always a good start.
SPS: Good question. Some Calvinists do not deny human responsibility, or the need to repent. Myself I do not believe in the forgiveness of sins in the sense of ‘Past, Present and Future’. People will disagree with me on that, which is their right. However, I cannot see why any believer would need to confess present sins if those sins were already forgiven. What I believe is that if a person has truly come to Christ, past sins and present sins are already forgiven. However, the need to continually repent and “confess our sins” to Him, make no sense if future sins were already forgiven. The believer would have no need to repent or stop sinning, but could merely follow the will as the will wants to do. In other words, if a believer wanted to sin momentarily, he would be permitted to sin because that sin would already be forgiven.
Conditional Security is far more consistent with Scripture than Once Saved Always Saved.
John Calvin in his commentaries (22 volumes) teaches well and those writings are often consistent with Scripture. Yet there are times when “Institutes” almost reads like another person wrote them. But too many Arminians do not bother to read Calvin to find out. They criticise him without bothering to actually read the man himself. Likewise, too many Calvinists do not bother to read Jacob Arminius either. They criticise him without bothering to read any of his works first. Books or references to Arminius from Calvinistic preachers and authors etc are all too often bias and historically inaccurate. For example, if I were to read a quote by Jacob Arminius to a Calvinist, the Calvinist would likely respond ‘that’s a real true Calvinistic statement.’ Ignorant of course that the words were of Arminius himself.
The difference between the articles on this website vs Calvinism is that here, there seems to be an emphasis on the logical conclusions to 5 Point Calvinism, which logically lead to determinism or other points being added. When this logical conclusion is followed, the Calvinist is left with no where to go but to either radically re-interpret the text in question or interpret the conflicting text in light of another passage that works in their favour.
In light of this, lets look at that passage you mention:
1 John 1:6 “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth”.
SPS: The emphasis and context is on Christian ethics, or fruit. as evidence of being a Christian and abiding in Christ. If believers claim to have union with Christ yet their lifestyles do not display the light, the person WALKS in darkness, and in the dark a person cannot see anything, thus cannot DO THE TRUTH.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
SPS: This speaks of a continuous walking, moving fellowship with Jesus the light of the world. In Him there is no darkness at all. Thus, if we are all abiding in Him, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Christ cleanses us. It is present, continuous, and active.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
SPS: This is not about sins in the plural, but “sin” as a human condition. If we deny that we have sin, we are not saved. No one can be saved and deny that they humans are sinful. If we do, we cannot see any need for the sacrifice of the Saviour.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
SPS: Continuous confession of sins to Christ is necessary. Note once again, this is not “sin” as in a singular reference, but “sins” as in the doing of them. Sin speaks of the condition of mankind after the fall. Sins speaks of the transgression of the law, the sins that people commit. Murder, lying, theft, adultery, the disrespecting of parents, coveting etc. Sin in the singular speaks of the condition of sin that existed before the fall. Note the use of the word “if” as in “If we confess our sins”. This word “if” is a conditional particle and can be found throughout the New Testament.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”
SPS: The emphasis here is on the doing, and the evidence of the believer’s abiding in Christ as revealed in the lifestyle of the believer. Notice the emphasis of the plural “we” rather than in the singular. It speaks of the absolute necessity of being internally convicted of sin without which, no one can be truly saved.
This passage teaches the responsibility of every believer and cooperation with God for salvation. It does not teach that salvation is “all of God” as some Calvinists claim. However most hardcore Calvinists will simply say that this passage is simply about the proofs of whether or not a person is elect or not elect. If a person is elect, he or she will do these things. Which confuses the emphasis that John presents that it is the responsibility of the believer to do these things, which God will respond to if we believe and obey,
Hope that all makes sense somehow.
Simon Peter
The difference between the articles on this website vs Calvinism is that here, there seems to be an emphasis on the logical conclusions to 5 Point Calvinism, which logically lead to determinism or other points being added. When this logical conclusion is followed, the Calvinist is left with no where to go but to either radically re-interpret the text in question or interpret the conflicting text in light of another passage that works in their favour.
br.d
Wonderfully stated!
And Dr. William Lane Craig would agree
-quote
What truly distinguishes [the Calvinist] view is that it is a form of Universal Divine Causal Determinism. The Calvinist thinks that God *CAUSALLY* determines everything that happens.
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame. -end quote
br.d
You had said:
“God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame. -end quote”
My response:
I think I saw a Twilight Zone episode similar to this.
Ed Chapman
Ed
I think I saw a Twilight Zone episode similar to this.
br.d
Good one Ed!
I think we can see why Calvinists avoid being honest about their belief system.
SPS writes:
“The difference between the articles on this website vs Calvinism is that here, there seems to be an emphasis on the logical conclusions to 5 Point Calvinism, which logically lead to determinism or other points being added. When this logical conclusion is followed, the Calvinist is left with no where to go but to either radically re-interpret the text in question or interpret the conflicting text in light of another passage that works in their favour.”
That is very insightful. I do find the emphasis on the logical conclusions of Calvinism to be the most helpful tool. It is so easy to re-interpret any group of words into whatever meaning one desires, and a clever man, like Calvin (or whoever was behind him) can do this endlessly. Thus, I find prooftext wars futile and unproductive.
It is far more problematic for the Calvinist to be confronted with the ramifications of his system, which many a Calvinist has never though through. They seek to avoid these unpalatable truths by pulling out the script they have memorized, anything to escape the cognitive dissonance of the unavoidable logical conclusions that their god is cruel, unjust and unlovable.
Calvi-god is the sort of deity who can only be feared and obeyed. Thus, countless men and women through the ages have been led to sacrifice their own children, out of fear of being annihilated by an imaginary cruel and unpredictable power. I would assert that one of the major goals of the incarnation was to teach us that the true, living God is not such a being. He is loving, kind, merciful and trustworthy. We can approach him fearlessly, and know that he loves us and desires our good at all times.
This has been the core of my faith throughout my almost 60 years. Doctrine and theological questions have come and gone, but nothing can budge my belief in a good and loving all-powerful God who is utterly for us. Thus, it is my goal on these pages to encourage others to believe this as well. One can get through life uncertain on the essence of the Trinity, or the meaning of baptism. But no one can come to know and love God without believing that he is real and trustworthy, and utterly loving in nature.
Totally off topic, Simon, but I was happy to find your music on Amazon Music and am enjoying your Dusty Road album. 😉
SIMON:
You wrote:
“Conditional Security is far more consistent with Scripture than Once Saved Always Saved.”
Aidan:
If people disagree with that statement, I believe that they disagreeing with what the scriptures teach.
By the way, I thank you for the depth of the response you gave to this question. Its a very straight forward passage, and yet reveals so much if one is willing to accept it. Some will try to say that your interpretation here is teaching salvation by works. Not so! Just because one’s ultimate salvation is made conditional by God, does not mean that he is following a system based on works. Our ultimate salvation requires an obedient of faith. If not, then passages like this make absolutely no sense.
(IF) is a small word, but has great implications in this passage. As I was reading through your explanation of (v.6), “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth”. I was thinking about what that word (if) means in this whole context, including the word “fellowship” which is repeated in the contrast of vss. 6 and 7. For me, it puts a definite question mark on that person’s fellowship with Christ.
The implication here of course, is that ‘If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in the light, we tell the truth, and practice the truth.’ But, if we are walking in the darkness, we lie. We lie in regard to our claim to having fellowship with Him. People need to remember, that John includes himself in these (we) statements. Therefore, these conditions for fellowship and the forgiveness of future sins, were just as applicable to the apostle, John, as anybody else.
I do believe though, that the Lord is the One who decides at what point a person is cut off. He is willing to give people time to repent. In the book of Revelation, He gave “Jezebel,” who ever she might have been, time to repent of her of her immorality. But it seems she was unwilling.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Of course, if we are reading this right, we will see that our fellowship, and continuous cleansing from sin through the blood of Christ, is truly dependent on (if) we walk in the light.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I think repentance is naturally implied here. What happens (if) we don’t repent and confess our sins? We won’t have forgiveness and cleansing from our sin. A Christian can die in their sins if they are unrepentant. Some say that’s impossible for a Christian to do. But if its possible for him to walk in darkness and sin, its possible to be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, even to an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. These warnings are given to Christians. Why the warnings if its impossible?
In 2 Cor 7, Paul said, ‘for Godly sorrow produces a repentance “unto salvation.” Interestingly enough, he was speaking to Christians at the time, who were in need of some repenting. Yes, we are truly saved by faith, but it needs to be a continuous, obedient, walking in the light kind of faith. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.
I think you made perfect sense, Simon.
I am hesitant to leave a reply on this site but after reading it for the last couple of years, I feel like maybe my story is one to be told. I am a 52 year old female who just a few years ago was a successful businesswoman, wife and mother to three beautiful children. At 50 years old, I had everything that the world would deem as desirable. A godly, loving husband, 3 beautiful children, a huge business, a mansion, furniture stored to fill 3 homes, a different car to drive for every day of the week, designer clothes, shoes and handbags, 4 or 5 luxury trips a year, 3 children in private christian schools with nannies, drivers, gardeners and housekeepers at their disposal.
Fast forward to today. I am homeless with literally the clothes on my back. I have lost everything. I am divorced, lost custody and visitation of the children, no home, business, health insurance, credit cards, cars, furniture, shoes or purses. All is gone. I have some clothing stored in garbage bags in a storage unit 10 minutes from my parents home. How could this happen, I have asked God? Well here it is:
17 years ago, I got hooked on opiods and became a drug addict, alcoholic, liar, thief and adulterer but even before that when I look back, now that the scales have been lifted from my eyes, I was always a liar and a thief who then became a murderer (2 abortions), drug addict, alcoholic and adulterer. I would like to preface all of this with, although I was not in my own mind during the drug and alcohol use, my choices were my own and no one made me choose to do all of the things I did. I would like to say the devil made me do it, but I don’t even have that excuse. I can remember lying to the priest in confession so I would have something to confess and that was in the 1st grade.
I was raised Catholic by a father who was an officer in the military and a christian mother who stayed at home full time to raise 5 children. In my teens, my mother became Non Denominational Christian and so did the rest of the family. I was taught about Jesus from an early age and called myself a Christian regularly attending church, bible study, prayer meetings and having a large library of bibles, scripture books, journals and resources that I would give to people to lead them to the Lord because I was so blessed.
My husband filed for divorce in December of 2015 because I fired him from his job because he would not stay up at the office so I could take the children out Christmas shopping. (Good reason to fire the love of my life) He tried everything to reconcile with me but my heart became hardened and I was having an affair and had aspirations of being with someone else with no thought of what I was doing to him and the children. We had been married 25 years and had known each other since we were teens. I threw him out of the house with the clothes on his back, cut off his credit cards and left him without any money. I would not let the kids see their dad, spread lies about him and started a war with him that lasted two years until our divorce was final in July 2018. In May of 2017, I was taken to the mental ward because my parents had taken a mental health warrant out on me. I was left there for 7 days and they finally released me when they realised no family was coming up to check me out and take care of me. I was diagnosed bipolar and put on more medication. I came home and decided to leave with the children for a short vacation only to be taken to the mental ward again for calling the police to have my parents and brother removed from my property. I was there 24 hours and came home to an empty house. The kids were given to my brother by the court, my business was taken over by an attorney and my husband was living with his girlfriend till our divorce was final. I checked into a hotel and went on a drug and alcohol binge, fired my divorce attorney, fired my two brothers, sister in law and uncle from work and called my soon to be ex to come and pick me up and take me home which he did.
When I got home, he went thru my cell phone and found out I had been cheating on him which I vehemently denied and even said “MAY GOD STRIKE ME DEAD IF I AM LYING!” and guess what God struck me dead right then and there. I felt a large pop go off in my spirit and I could no longer distinguish between days. Every day felt the same (no end no beginning) The time just stopped and every 24 hours felt like 1,000 years. Well how can I be writing on this site if I am dead would be a natural question? The only answer I have is God struck me dead spiritually at that moment and left me here to reap what I have sown before my physical body actually dies. You do not tell the Living God to strike you dead if your lying and then not expect Him to do so especially when you are lying.
I ended up getting the children back in August of 2017 only to lose them for good when I tried to commit suicide on November 2, 2017. I was taken to the hospital to have surgery and then went into the mental ward for the 3rd time and was released to my parents after 21 days. They sent me to a womens home for another 30 days seeking outpatient treatment for 6 hours a day with a group under the direction of a physiatrist. My parents reluctantly came and picked me up and let me live with them for the next two years while I attended church, bible study, prayer meetings, saw psychiatrists and counselors and used a spiritual warfare bible and a scripture book to pray the demons off of me all to no avail. i continued lying because when I told the truth no one believed me because of all the lies I had told and my family accused me of being a traitor. My life got worse. House and business were sold and ex husband has legal custody of the children and everyday still feels like 1,000 years and I can’t walk or stand for any amount of time due to the unbearable pain I feel in my back, hips, legs and feet. I have reaped what I have sown and lost it all.
I started researching what happened to me for over two years now and believe that I am a vessel of wrath. God did not chose me to have eternal life in heaven. I was created for destruction so that He would be glorified. I never even knew what Calvinism was before December of 2017. I believed in a loving, trustworthy Father in heaven that sent His only son to save me from eternal damnation and can tell you I never thought in a million years I would be going to hell but that is where I am headed and it is a very real place for quite a few people. The first passage I read after getting to my parents house was Romans 9. God HATED Esau before he was born, before he did neither good nor bad, God hated him. Yes, HATED is the word used to describe how God felt about one of his creation. WHY? I asked God how this could be true and it is because God is omniscient and He knows what we are going to do before the foundation of the earth when he choose his ELECT. He did not choose everyone and Jesus did not die for everyone. The scriptures say many are called but only few were chosen. I was given resources and teachings to make different choices than the ones I made but continued on a road that destroyed my life and everyone I was close to. Now that the scales have been lifted off my eyes, it is too late. There is no redemption or forgiveness for me. Pastors and ministers have told me just put it all under the blood of Jesus and that God does not want any to perish but all to known the truth. I realized that Jesus only takes those that the Father gives to Him indicating that there are those that the Father does not give to Jesus. The scriptures say that God curses who He curses and blesses who He blesses. A few years ago, I would have told you that I was one who God had blessed but today I would tell you that when I say Lord, Lord, He will say I never knew you, you cursed and send me to the pit.
I am not saying I don’t deserve to go to Hell because I do deserve it and I made all of those terrible choices and I was definitely taught right from wrong and I did evil deeds anyway. Everyone inherently knows right from wrong but I can tell you when I was doing all the things I was doing I was deceived into thinking I was doing them for a reason. Drugs to remove the pain from a birth defect I was diagnosed with, sleeping pills to sleep because I had terrible insomnia (God grants sleep to those He loves), alcohol to escape from doing the drugs, lying to cover from my guilt, stealing to cover from my spending gross amounts of money and an affair to get back at my husband for cheating on me first. I had an excuse for everything and I was a Christian on top of it. Now looking back, I see all the warning signs that I ignored or was too wasted to notice.
To those of you out there that believe the damned want to be damned and cursed you are wrong. Nor do they reject what Christ did on the cross. I can speak for myself, do I believe Jesus died to end the war between God and man that came from original sin? Yes, I do but I now believe He only came for His sheep that will hear His voice when He calls them by name. God’s Sovereign choice is just that. His Choice, the scriptures say He chooses you, you do not choose Him. They also say many are called, but few are chosen and that God makes vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. Scripture teaches that you can’t do anything to be one of God’s elect and you can’t lose your salvation because God puts something inside you so that you will respond when he calls you. I wish this were not true and pray and plead daily with God to give me another chance.
I know at this point, I may sound bitter and angry and I guess I am. I do not want to go to Hell and be damned for eternity in the lake of fire. I don’t know anyone that would choose to be out of favor with God. The punishment of sin is death and at death there is judgement and if you are not covered by Christ’s blood covering you are going to the pit. I was always taught that evil was the devils work but the bible clearly states that God created evil just as He created good and everything is ordained by God. Either he is omniscient or he isn’t. It does not work both ways. He knew what I was going to do before I was born. I was always taught you only have to believe that Jesus was the son of God who came to die for all of your sins and confess with your mouth and you would be saved. That is not true. I was baptized in a swimming pool in 1997 in 30 degree weather because I wanted to be saved. I had already committed murder (abortion), lied and stole but wanted God’s grace and forgiveness. After that, I broke all the commandments, have not honored my father and mother and have destroyed many lives in the process. I no longer commit those sins, I do not take drugs or any kind of prescription medicine and have stopped sinning. I want to be a Godly woman and have a chance to be a mom and grandmother but I kicked my ex husband out of the house and kicked Jesus out of my spiritual house when said what I did and now God has His wrath upon me. It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the Living God. God will not justify a lie. My ex husband, children, family and former friends want nothing to do with me and neither does God. A jury of my peers and members of the church congregation would say I deserve to die for the innocent lives I took and they are right. That would be alright with me if I knew I had forgiveness from God.
According to Calvinism, I was never one of the elect and I now believe that is true. I can’t deny what has happened to me nor should I ask God why? According to Paul that would be absurd. How can you ask the Creator of the Universe such a thing when He is the Potter and I am just a piece of clay created for eternal damnation. I just need to be content that God will get glory from all of this. Paul had so much love that he would have taken the place of one to be damned. I believe Romans 9 clearly states that there is an election and that in order for God to be glorified and his mercy shown to the elect, He created vessels meant for destruction. Being one who is meant for destruction, this seems extremely cruel and I ask God every day, how this is glorious? My ex husband is now minister who travels the world leading people to Christ and my oldest daughter is in bible college and those things would not have happened if I were still married. My two younger children are addicted to drugs and alcohol and have eating disorders and I am just waiting to die a physical death hoping that before that happens God will forgive and let me have another chance. Realistically, deep down I know He will not let a murderer, liar adulterer or thief in the kingdom of heaven.
I greatly respect all the viewpoints I have read on this site and hope maybe someone will read this knowing that I am not at all happy with the revelation that Calvinism is real and wish this would have never happened. I would not wish this on my worst enemy. To be separated from God is unbearable torture and the only thing worse is to be burning in a lake of fire. The scripture says that Jesus did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I do agree with some viewpoints on this site. I now no longer believe Jesus died for me but for the Elect of God. I believe I was given free will to make the choices that I did. I have free will now to choose God and that is what I want but that option is not available to me and many others who are non elect.
Any thoughts are welcome.
Lisa:
Coming to Jesus only by yourself alone is just fantasies. Jesus Said: “No one can come to the Son except God the Father draws him/her to the Son.” It is beyond all human means. Let us just leave to God the Father the job for Him to do that and how He is going to do that for you . What the scripture assure us is that God will surely draw to the Son his chosen ones. Why? bec. it was for them that Jesus Christ has atoned for. God is the initiator of the Salvation of man. Without a Divine intervention, coming to God would be impossible. Trust Him, by the time He will open your heart for you to see the truth.
No persons need to be remotely concerned whether or not they are elect. No human being is excluded from calling on God. Jesus said “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 13: 32
It is true that before Christ was crucified, no one could believe Jesus was the Messiah unless the Father drew people to Him. But many in Israel resisted Him. But now, because of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of our Lord, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ. (Matthew 28: 18) Christ draws all men to Himself, whether they are Jew or Gentile. No one is excluded from receiving Jesus. God loves us all, but all do not receive Him. But if we believe in Him, we need not fear, we have a living hope and “everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” 1 John 3: 3.
Try not to listen to 5 point Calvinistic babble, it’s nonsense and confuses people. Just read the Bible, and put your trust in God’s love and believe the Bible not the words of men.
“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” 1 Timothy 4: 10
Amen SpS
Yes I agree Amen!
SIMON wrote:
“It is true that before Christ was crucified, no one could believe Jesus was the Messiah unless the Father drew people to Him. But many in Israel resisted Him. But now, because of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of our Lord, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ. (Matthew 28: 18) Christ draws all men to Himself, whether they are Jew or Gentile. No one is excluded from receiving Jesus. God loves us all,..”
Aidan writes:
Again, thanks very much for this. I would have never thought of making that progression from John 6 to John 12, namely, that Christ being lifted up, is now the primary medium through which all are drawn to Him. Its kind of one of those things that’s there already, but it’s only when someone says it out loud, you say, ‘this is one of those penny dropping moments, and its really worth thinking about.’
As in John 6, the drawing is done through the word, but now that word includes the full message of the cross, the gospel. Whose word is Christ’s, for “All authority has been given to Me,…. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” But not to the exclusion of the Father, because “All scripture is God-breathed.” Just thinking out loud here. Nor would it be to the exclusion of what was written in Moses and the Prophets.
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12)
“So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening” (Acts 28:23).
“Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor 15:1-4, 11)
Again, just some thoughts, out loud.
Aidan
Aidan McManus,
I’m not sure Calvin did us any favours with his ‘Harmony of the Gospels’. Preachers and too many Christians today make too many assumptions and over emphasise themselves in the text. Too many people selfishly read themselves into the text and think every verse is all about them. It’s all me me me in the church today.
Preachers, books and church cultures are largely responsible for people thinking like that.
However, a greater key to understanding Scripture is to understand the original authors intended meaning and to whom and what he was addressing. For example, I do not interpret John’s Gospel with Paul’s letter to the Romans. I do not interpret Luke’s Gospel with with the Gospel according to Matthew.
I first establish who wrote what letter, and to whom and then work my way from there. This helps establish the historic setting of the narrative and then the original theme and overview of that particular book or letter.
The Gospel according to St. Luke and Acts of the Apostles can interpret one another (same author) Same Greek. The Gospel of John and 1 John can interpret one another (same author) and same use of Greek.
Mathew was probably writing to the Jews. Luke was writing to a Roman official. James was probably writing to Jews involved in the very early stages of the Jewish Wars. Paul was largely writing to early Gentile churches and his character can be seen clearly in his letters.
By saying this I will in no way consider any accusations from other people that I am denying “Inspiration” on the contrary, God used the characteristics and linguistic skills of the individual authors. But if we drop into this text or that text and ignore the original authors intended meaning and overview, we run risk of misinterpreting the text.
For example: some interpret Philippians 1: 6 as though that relates to all believers. It doesn’t. It relates to the original Christians at Philippi. They were remaining true to Christ and the Gospel. But Paul did not say the same thing to the believers in Galatians. Note: Yet if believers today remain loyal to Christ as the Philippians did, that text can be applied, provided the initial meaning and original authors intended communication is applied.
Reading the Bible is like reading the autobiography of God. Co-written with other authors. But if we drop into the Book here and drop in there, we run danger of missing the overall story. The Bible contains many covenants, amendments and updates.
John was concerned with communicating Jesus’ Oneness with the Father. He begins with a parallel to Genesis 1 and from this, we can see that John was communicating that in Jesus, the recreation of the world was taking place. He lays emphasis on Jesus (the Word) being the Creator, and then mirrors Genesis with the theme of darkness and light. But if we drop in to this verse or that verse and then interpret this passage or that passage by some other unrelated place, we run risk of misinterpreting the text and propagating misconceptions.
Simon Peter
Too many people selfishly read themselves into the text and think every verse is all about them. It’s all me me me in the church today.
br.d
Insightful!
This is what some scholars have noted as Martin Luther’s weakness in his reading of scripture.
sps wrote, “However, a greater key to understanding Scripture is to understand the original authors intended meaning and to whom and what he was addressing. For example, I do not interpret John’s Gospel with Paul’s letter to the Romans. I do not interpret Luke’s Gospel with with the Gospel according to Matthew. ”
The original author of the Scriptures is God per Paul, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,…” and Peter, “…prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” When Paul writes to the Philippians, he (Paul) is writing to the believers in that church but God is writing to all believers. Thus, any believer can read Philippians and say, “This applies to me, as a believer.” So it is with all the Scripture.
All Scripture is a cohesive whole as God is its author. That which we read in Mark is complemented by what we read in Matthew and further complemented by what we read in Luke and John. Everything Jesus said in the gospels is complemented by what Paul and Peter write in their letters.
rhutchin
The original author of the Scriptures is God per Paul
br.d
Dr. Gordon Fee – Professor Emeritus New Testament Studies
-quote
A text cannot mean today what it could NEVER HAVE meant for its original readers/hearers.
Reading the Bible with an eye only to its meaning for us can lead to a great deal of nonsense as well as to every imaginable kind of error—because it lacks controls.
And our experience as teachers is that students from Reformed traditions seldom ask what certain texts mean.
Instead what they ask is “how to get around” what passages seem to clearly affirm”
br.d writes, “And our experience as teachers is that students from Reformed traditions seldom ask what certain texts mean.
Instead what they ask is “how to get around” what passages seem to clearly to affirm”
More false impressions. br.d is full of them.
br.d
Dr. Gordon Fee– Professor Emeritus New Testament Studies
-quote
“And our experience as teachers is that students from Reformed traditions seldom ask what certain texts mean.
Instead what they ask is “how to get around” what passages seem to clearly to affirm”
rhutchin
More false impressions. br.d is full of them.
br.d
And it is conceived as RATIONAL to attribute a quote from someone else as my FALSE perception? :-]
br.d writes, “And it is conceived as RATIONAL to attribute a quote from someone else as my FALSE perception?’
False impressions can transfer from one person to another.. Thus Paul in Galatians, “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.”
br.d
And it is conceived as RATIONAL to attribute a quote from someone else as my FALSE perception?’
rhutchin
False impressions can transfer from one person to another..etc
br.d
And how (for a Calvinist) is that going to happen – without Calvin’s god determining each of those FALSE perceptions to appear in those person’s brains?
And since it LOGICALLY follows – that (as a Calvinist) Calvin’s god doesn’t permit you to discern which perceptions he has given you are FALSE perceptions.
Then how are you going to be able to discern which perceptions are FALSE perceptions – he has given to anyone else?
Since that is a LOGICAL consequence of you’re belief system – you might bite the bullet and accept it.
But I already know – Calvinists choose DOUBLE-THINK instead.
As John Calvin teaches them
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Why everyone should want to live in a world of DOUBLE-THINK now shouldn’t they! :-]
RHUTCHIN,
Do you practice hermeneutics? Are you aware that there are definitive words only used by Paul and words only used by Luke in the New Testament? Are you aware that the Gospel of Luke contains the actual verbal (feminine Greek) testimony of Mary, the mother of Jesus? Are you aware that Luke used distinctive medical Greek words in both Luke and Acts? thus revealing the writer was certainly a high ranking medical man. Are you aware that the style of Greek in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation reveal that it is very doubtful they are the same author.
The Inspiration of Scripture is not an issue here. I have already stated that.
S
Simon Peter,
You had said:
Are you aware that the style of Greek in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation reveal that it is very doubtful they are the same author.
My response:
I totally get and agree with your premise, but I had never heard anyone say that before, regarding John. In both cases, John is an apostle, and I always “assumed” it was the same John. I’m not sure where you stand on the “rapture”, but when I “assume” that Revelation 7:9 discusses the raptured people, then I am also assuming that the rest of the book of Revelation is primarily information for those “left behind”, if you will. Jews, in short.
Then in the book of John, John was to proselytize the Jews, and Jesus has Paul for the “other sheep”.
Then we have this:
Galatians 2:9
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
The word, “they” included John.
And we know that Cephas is Peter, and we know that James began his book “to the twelve tribes (Jews).
But I never heard that John is a different John for the book of Revelation before. Just wondering about that.
Ed Chapman
sps writes, “Do you practice hermeneutics? Are you aware…”
Yes. That being said, God is the ultimate author of the Scriptures; consequently, all Scripture is a cohesive whole as God is its author. That which we read in Mark is complemented by what we read in Matthew and further complemented by what we read in Luke and John. Everything Jesus said in the gospels is complemented by what Paul and Peter write in their letters. Are we in disagreement on this point?
rhutchin,
On this point, I will neither disagree or agree.
But…WITNESSES.
Matthew , Mark, Luke, and John are witnesses.
I know the issues surrounding Luke, but…
I’ve done this:
Using the NIVr, zipper the 4 gospels together.
It’s really cool, cuz you will see that the order of events actually do match.
Nothing is out of place. However, if one misses an event, the other mentions it, or the others both mention it.
John, however, takes a lot of work to put his into place, cuz he was more the spiritual speaker, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke is easy.
I did an excel spreadsheet listing each event, and the references in chronological order. Took me a few weeks, but once done, then look at the complete story, it’s like a flawless movie.
Good stuff!
Ed Chapman
BR.D,
SPS: “Too many people selfishly read themselves into the text and think every verse is all about them. It’s all me me me in the church today.
br.d
Insightful!
This is what some scholars have noted as Martin Luther’s weakness in his reading of scripture.”
I would agree. Luther’s works contain a lot of himself. Luther had an axe to grind when he read James, and did not recognise the original meaning. He thought James was teaching works and thus he practically threw the text out. Calvin also had an axe to grind and a lot of his expositions are refuting Rome. His overstating of predestination, election etc are all responses to the errors of Rome.
It is a weakness to interpret the Scriptures with something other than the text in mind. Historical present, is a fallacy. If we study Scripture without any axe to grind and practice selflessness, and view a Scripture as the original author of every text intended it to be, we will see the true meaning of Scripture. When we do that, we see no contradictions in any part of the Bible and we can apply the text to today, to congregations and our own lives, if we get it right in the first place.
For example: Is Luke 10: 19 about all believers of every age? No, it’s original meaning was about the 72 disciples. Verse 17 makes that clear.
When Paul made it to Rome, is that such a big deal today? No. But it was then.
It is a constant challenge to us all. Can be difficult. But we must understand that the writings in the Bible were written to specific people and persons, if we ignore that, and over read ourselves into the texts, average Christians could all end up like Benny Hinn.
Excellent Simon!
I agreed with it all – and especially the reference to Benny Hinn :-]
I’m enjoying your posts!
br.d,
You had said:
” and especially the reference to Benny Hinn :-]”
My response:
Ya, but Benny Hinn is RICH. We could all end up RICH. For the Love of Money!!
Ed Chapman
CHAPMANED24 wrote, “You had said:
Are you aware that the style of Greek in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation reveal that it is very doubtful they are the same author.
My response:
I totally get and agree with your premise, but I had never heard anyone say that before, regarding John. In both cases, John is an apostle, and I always “assumed” it was the same John. I’m not sure where you stand on the “rapture”, but when I “assume” that Revelation 7:9 discusses the raptured people, then I am also assuming that the rest of the book of Revelation is primarily information for those “left behind”, if you will. Jews, in short.”
SPS: It is amazing. I avoid historic revisionism but it is also confirmed by the early Church. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History) in the 4th Century wrote of how the early church did not know for certain who the author was. He recorded there were two John’s in Ephesus, John the Apostle and John the Elder.
I have been to Ephesus and Patmos is not far. So either of the two John’s could have been exiled on Patmos. It is interesting that In Revelation John the author never referred to himself as an Apostle nor does he actually state that he knew the Messiah in the human sense. He actually references the 12 Apostles in 21: 14, but that text does not read as though he is referring to himself.
Simon Peter,
OK, this looks interesting to dig into for me, as I just remembered the following:
Acts 12:12
And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
Acts 12:25
And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Here we have a John, who is also known as Mark. Makes me wonder about the 2 gospels, as well that Mark was John, and John was Mark? I’m confused! I was never a CHURCH HISTORY buff, cuz I don’t believe in the Catholic church, especially when what we hear begins in the 3rd century, we miss a couple hundred years of info.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
Just a quick Google search, there seems to be quite a disagreement with the conclusion of Eusebius, meaning, open to debate.
Ed Chapman
SIMON,
You wrote:
However, a greater key to understanding Scripture is to understand the original authors intended meaning and to whom and what he was addressing.
I first establish who wrote what letter, and to whom and then work my way from there. This helps establish the historic setting of the narrative and then the original theme and overview of that particular book or letter.
Aidan:
Absolutely agree. So much false doctrine is being taught, and churches split when men fail in this regard. This is one of the reasons why John 14-16 is so often misapplied, when people don’t take into account who Jesus was addressing.
And what you said, in no way negates inspiration. Those who suggest otherwise are being ridiculous.
Good points Aidan!
I heartily agree!
Agree with all of the above. Many view scripture as a blueprint, and attempt to find the line by line instructions by which to build their vessel. I perceive it as instructive in a more fluid way, as needs be for wisdom that is applicable to countless people in countless ages and countless situations. It always requires the wisdom and input of the Holy Spirit to provide the insight it is intended to give.
It’s not as if God could not have written a systematic theological tome like Calvin’s Institutes, if that was the best way to show us what we need to know.
TS00
It’s not as if God could not have written a systematic theological tome like Calvin’s Institutes, if that was the best way to show us what we need to know.
br.d
So TRUE TS00!
Institutes of “Good-Evil”.
The world might have changed over the past two thousand years, but man hasn’t.
Therefore, God’s word is just as applicable to us today, as it was then.
That living and enduring word of God.
RH, you wrote:
sps writes, “Do you practice hermeneutics? Are you aware…”
Yes. That being said, God is the ultimate author of the Scriptures; consequently, all Scripture is a cohesive whole as God is its author. That which we read in Mark is complemented by what we read in Matthew and further complemented by what we read in Luke and John. Everything Jesus said in the gospels is complemented by what Paul and Peter write in their letters. Are we in disagreement on this point?
AIDAN:
Yes, the scriptures are a cohesive whole. But, I think we are all in agreement that you have to be discerning in regard to context and text etc. But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is whether people want the truth.
Take for example our famous verse in (Matthew 7:21). “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”
If I bring out the fact that this verse is dealing with at least two groups of people, namely, those who will be saved and those who will not, many will attack that contention based on their theology, rather than on the passage. Who are the group who will not be saved in this verse? Those who say, (‘Lord, Lord,’) AND (do not do the will of the Father in heaven). Who then are the group that will be saved? Only of those who call Him, (‘Lord, Lord,’) AND (does the will of the Father in heaven shall enter).
Based on what is said in this verse: In the final analysis, what is the difference between those who will enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who will not?
(those who love the truth[2Thess2], given the freedom to worship, according to the Truth, today, 1 Corinthians 15.
So those hearing and seeing can clearly understand the hardening process[Romans 1 and 2], this text [Mat 7] always comes back to the heart and mind of the works that come out of the mouth of a false prophet no matter what works they manifest , even about acting like a sheep.the 2 false prophet examples in Deuteronomy God makes clear, looking back)
If the false prophet doesn’t ‘see’ they are a false prophet calling “Lord, Lord”, then what ‘other’ hand(s) are they holding? What’s the test? What to recognize looking presently forward, we should see TheRevelation.
———————-
John 15:16a (NKJV)….
You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit
The lamb crucified from the beginning of the world. Genesis tells us ‘when’ Adam would sin. God was prepared ahead of time to redeem us from the Enemy. Determined, not to be Puppeteer – we are tested given freedom to worship. About things revealed, we are not God -as to understand His working power of Omniscience.
Big picture…framework: Mankind did not chose God having been given instruction about what Truth commands and would command.[death for rebellion to the truth] See the revealed plan of redemption. It’s not a secret philosophy-it’s the truth about the freedom found in the Love of God and the Spirit is Truth.
Revelation ‘about’ instruction, a relationship living and active always involves 2: remain enemies or receive the offer of eternal friendship, chosen to bear fruit to the Glory of God: Romans 5/ 1Cor 15:*1-5[Isaiah 52:13-15&53 ( Who is guaranteed tomorrow, like a rebel on a cross?) For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. God is His peoples front and rear guard.
John 3:12If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Tammy,
Ya know…the age old question. What are we doing HERE, on EARTH? God created us. So WHY did God LOCATE us in a land FAR FAR away FROM HIM?
Why didn’t God KEEP US IN HEAVEN WITH HIM? What’s the NEED for THIS PLACE? If ya break a bone here, IT’S GONNA HURT.
Does anyone break a bone in heaven? No scraping of the knees? Why put us thru that stuff HERE on earth?
When I was growing up, I always thought it was so that WE can CHOOSE God, because God does NOT want ROBOTS, for he wants us to LOVE HIM voluntarily, by free will.
But then I learned of Calvinism in the last 10 to 12 years, and they teach the exact opposite of what I was brought up on in Christianity.
THIS EARTH is nothing more than a TESTING ground for our own HEARTS.
An movie actress friend of mine died of MS recently (she starred in The Mangler with Robert Englund). He sister also has MS, but she’s not advanced in the disease yet. Those two sisters would talk about this a lot. They were both JEWISH. They both became Christian in the mid 90’s, after growing up in strict Judaism.
BOTH OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS were, regarding as to WHY WE ARE HERE ON EARTH, is to LEARN how to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
Love is our only COMMANDMENT. Some will disagree with that, as they thing that there are more, cuz Jesus said something about obey my plural commandments.
Faith is the law, love is the commandment under that law.
We are to learn (emphasis on LEARN).
So, bottom line, I do not agree with anything of Calvinism, that EVIL somehow gives God PLEASURE.
Ed Chapman
Nice post Ed! Very thoughtful!
I appreciated also the sincerity in it.
Thanks!
Great thoughts. And this learning to love others is, in effect, loving (honoring) God. I too, like many, can get lost in the weeds of Theodicy. The best my feeble mind can come up with so far is that the fact that justice demands that creatures granted the power of reason and choice must have the opportunity to exercise said reason and choice. God could have chosen Universalism, and there would have been no sin, suffering or evil; but it appears that he determined that free creatures were superior to robots, and even worth the tragedy of the current world suffering under the weight of rampant evil.
Being free creatures, we have the freedom to choose whether or not to love, trust and fellowship with God. It seems that it was necessary to allow mankind the freedom to choose evil and see the consequences of that choice. Perhaps the only way to permanently and effectively eliminate evil without coercion is what my Ma used to call the need to ‘learn things the hard way’. Sure, God could have just told us what was good and evil, and locked us up so that we could do nothing forbidden. Just as my mother could have chained me to my bed. But that would not have allowed us to learn our lessons and freely come to a hatred and rejection of evil.
Loving others more than self is the most genuine expression of goodness. Which is why Calvinism is so offensive, casting upon God a heinous, narcissistic ‘It’s all about me’ nature that is the opposite of all he is and all he has done. God is genuinely and wholly good, which means that he loves others more than self. This he has demonstrated through Jesus, and it is indeed heinous to accuse him of self-seeking,
tyrannical determinism.
TS00 writes, “The best my feeble mind can come up with so far is that the fact that justice demands that creatures granted the power of reason and choice must have the opportunity to exercise said reason and choice.”
It is because of our feeble minds that the Proverbs instruct–
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
“the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;”
“Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.”
“A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.”
TS00,
You had said:
“And this learning to love others is, in effect, loving (honoring) God”
My response:
YES YES, that’s exactly how I understand it, as well.
TS00 had said:“And this learning to love others is, in effect, loving (honoring) God”
Ed responded: “YES YES, that’s exactly how I understand it, as well.”
Of course, this is backwards. It is in learning to love God that a person finds himself loving others. A person who does not love God will not love others.
No… it is the other way. You prove that you LOVE God by how you treat others.
Dang, man. Ugh! I can’t believe some of the things you say.
Ed Chapman
Sometimes rh doesn’t have an answer for something when its important to him to appear to be right.
So he will simply make-up whatever he can think-up on the spot – to counter your statement.
Its done for the sake of appearance more than anything else – and it can sometimes buy a little time.
I just anticipate it as one of many debate strategies.
Ya, I get it. Lol
Aidan
Based on what is said in this verse: In the final analysis, what is the difference between those who will enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who will not?
br.d
Yes – you ask a good question here Aidan.
I think in the Calvinist systematic – the “determining” determinant is whatever intent Calvin’s god has for each person he creates.
In Calvinism – “before they were born, Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated” is just another way of indicating Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – before he created either of them – already had two specific intentions for each of them.
He either DESIGNS/CREATES a person specifically for eternal bliss
Or he DESIGNS/CREATES a person specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
Calvin’s god is like the divine artist who draws each person’s portrait of what their life will look like.
Every sin and evil Calvin’s god makes them commit are simply shades of color Calvin’s god applies to their portrait.
But before he even starts anyone’s portrait – he has already determined their eternal fate.
Aidan writes, “Based on what is said in this verse: In the final analysis, what is the difference between those who will enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who will not?”
We also know, “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” Thus, those to whom the Holy Spirit grants the ability to say “Jesus is Lord” will be saved while those not granted this ability will not be saved.
br.d
“grants the ability to”
The robot engineer/designer grants to the robot the ability to be a robot. :-]
RH,
You just proved my point in not being able to answer Matthew 7:21, without bringing in your theology. It’s a simple question.
Based on the reason Jesus gave in Matthew 7:21, what is the difference between those who will enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who will not? Who can give a straight answer to this question, simply from what is being said in the passage?
Aidan writes, “Based on the reason Jesus gave in Matthew 7:21, what is the difference between those who will enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who will not? ”
Those who enter the kingdom of heaven include, “he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” What else do the Scriptures tell us?
“if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10)
“Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousness was imputed to Abraham, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” (Romans 4)
“…we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” (Romans 5)
“…the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6)
“God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Corinthians1)
“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” (1 Corinthians 18)
…and many other Scriptures.
RH, You wrote:
Aidan writes, “Based on the reason Jesus gave in Matthew 7:21, what is the difference between those who will enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who will not? ”
Those who enter the kingdom of heaven include, “he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” What else do the Scriptures tell us?
“if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10)
“Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousness was imputed to Abraham, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” (Romans 4)
“…we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” (Romans 5)
“…the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6)
“God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Corinthians1)
“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” (1 Corinthians 18)
…and many other Scriptures.
AIDAN’S RESPONSE:
AGAIN, you still couldn’t simply answer what Mathew 7:21 says without bringing your Calvinistic doctrine into it. Even in your first statement, where you said, “Those who enter the kingdom of heaven include, “he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” But this is not what Jesus said. You added the word “INCLUDE” changing the whole sentence.
Among the ‘Lord, Lord,’ crowd who WILL enter the kingdom of heaven? Listen to it again; “Not everyone who says to Me, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). The only persons getting into heaven among the ‘Lord, Lord,’ group, are the doers of the will of the Father, period.
We all know your position, Rhutchin. So you don’t have to qualify it. We all know that you believe, only those whom God chose and regenerated will do the will of the Father in heaven.The rest of those verses you quoted all hinted at that, with words like, “imputed,” and “received,” or “gift” etc..
Its interesting that in Luke’s account, in Luke 6:46, Jesus reproves them, by asking, “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?”
HERE’S A QUESTION: Was Jesus rebuking the ‘elect,’ or the ‘non-elect,’ in Luke 6:46?
Aidan writes, “AGAIN, you still couldn’t simply answer what Mathew 7:21 says without bringing your Calvinistic doctrine into it.”
Calvinist doctrine is to bring the whole of Scripture to bear on an issue.
Then, “You added the word “INCLUDE” changing the whole sentence.”
My bad.
Then, “We all know that you believe, only those whom God chose and regenerated will do the will of the Father in heaven.”
Thus, no one should build a doctrine on a single verse but take all of Scripture into account.
RH, you wrote:
“Thus, no one should build a doctrine on a single verse but take all of Scripture into account.”
AIDAN’S RESPONSE:
It is not your’s, nor anyone else’s job to build any doctrine. That’s where men have gone wrong from the beginning! The goal is not to BUILD A DOCTRINE, but to continue to “preserve (maintain, keep) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
When Paul said, “being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3), that was their primary objective.
The “unity of the Spirit” to be kept by Christians should never be union reached simply on the basis of mutual consent, but rather “unity” upon the basis laid down by the Holy Spirit. Verses 4-6 reveal to us what that is.
v.4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
v.5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
v.6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Again, its up to men to “KEEP the unity of the Spirit,” NOT BUILD IT!
Aidan
rutchin
Calvinist doctrine is to bring the whole of Scripture to bear on an issue.
br.d
More precisely – Calvinist doctrine is to bring an INTERPRETATION designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism – to bear on an issue
Excellent point Br.d,
br.d
More precisely – Calvinist doctrine is to bring an INTERPRETATION designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism – to bear on an issue
Aidan:
Perhaps he can’t help himself. Especially if he is being, ‘Divinely Caused’ to – bring an INTERPRETATION designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism – to bear on an issue
Aidan:
Perhaps he can’t help himself. Especially if he is being, ‘Divinely Caused’ to – bring an INTERPRETATION designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism – to bear on an issue
br.d
YES! He has no say in the matter! :-]
Maybe he is also being determined NOT TO LISTEN!
There are a lot of people who are determined not to listen.
Well if Calvin’s god is determining his every perception – not permitting him the ability to choose a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception – (which is the case in Theological Determinism) then he wouldn’t have the ability to know his true condition.
He could have been determined not to listen – and he wouldn’t have the ability to know it.
Isn’t Calvinism fun! :-]
How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? NOBODY CAN DETERMINE THAT!.
Too funny!
How many Calvinists can determine that Calvinism is true?
NONE – Calvin’s god does not permit the creature to determine anything! :-]
Yeah! Its kinda like, ‘how many Calvinists know they are saved’?
Absolutely right!
The answer is ZERO! :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god does not permit the creature to determine anything! ”
Actually, under Calvinism, the creature is made in the image of God and is independent of God (enabling the creature to voluntarily disobey God’s laws) and self-determining (able to do as he desires). Given that God is sovereign, the creature is still subordinate to God making the creature’s actions subordinate to God’s will. This works as explained in Isaiah 10 and in the stoning of Stephen. In each case, the Assyrians and the Jews acted independent and self-determining but could only fulfill their desires because God had previously determined that the expression of their desires was consistent with His will.
br.d
Calvin’s god does not permit the creature to determine anything! ”
rhutchin
Actually, under Calvinism, the creature is……independent of God (enabling the creature to voluntarily disobey God’s laws)
br.d
FALSE
In Theological Determinism – every neurological impulse is determined by Calvin’s god before the creature is born and the creature has no say in the matter of anything Calvin’s god determines for himself or anyone else.
To call something “voluntary” which the creature has no control over is simply dishonest language.
rhutchin
and self-determining (able to do as he desires).
br.d
FALSE
Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things without exception.
Take the sum total of things determined in human time-line
Subtract *ALL* from it
You get ZERO
That is how much is left over for the creature to determine.
And that of course includes *ALL* creaturely attributes such as desires etc.
rhutchin
Given that God is sovereign, the creature is still subordinate to God making the creature’s actions subordinate to God’s will.
br
A robot is subordinate to its program – which is subordinate to the programmer’s will.
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism – every neurological impulse is determined by Calvin’s god before the creature is born and the creature has no say in the matter of anything Calvin’s god determines for himself or anyone else.”
No. Again, God created man in His image. That means God created man with the ability (a mind) to gather information from his environment and increase his understanding and knowledge of that environment. God created this ability and man uses this ability for his purposes (desires). It is also true that Hod has infinite understanding of His creation and understands how the mind of man works and how his mind stores information and understands that information. Because of His understanding, God can determine the actions He will take in the course of time to accomplish His will. That man involve God determining to do nothing thereby enabling the desires of a man to play out – as with David’s adultery and the crucifixion of Jesus. Had those events not been consistent with His eternal plan, God would have involved Himself in the affairs of David to prevent his adultery or to prevent the death of Jesus before the proper time. Absent God’s determination to involve His self in worldly affairs, those affairs proceed from man’s desires and do so voluntarily. Of course, God by virtue of His infinite understanding, knows all future events and thereby determined those events by His creation of the universe.
Then, “In Theological Determinism – every neurological impulse is determined by Calvin’s god before the creature is born and the creature has no say in the matter of anything ”
No. Neurological impulses are generated in the mind of a person as he interacts with his environment. That is the way God made man. Thus, when Adam first laid his eyes on Eve, a host of neurological impulses were generated in his mind and God did not have to cause them directly even though He determined them by not involving Himself in Adam’s ability to think. Of course, God by virtue of His infinite understanding, knew exactly how Adam would react to seeing Eve and had determined that reaction by creating Adam in His image.
Then, “To call something “voluntary” which the creature has no control over is simply dishonest language.”
That is not the case here. At least, you cannot explain how it must be so.
Then, “Take the sum total of things determined in human time-line”
David determined his adultery because God did not force him into that action. Of course, God understood David and thereby knew the decision David would make. Because God did not determine to intervene into David’s affairs to prevent the adultery. God determined that David would be adulterous and God made this event certain when He created the universe.
Then, “A robot is subordinate to its program – which is subordinate to the programmer’s will.”
As man is made in the image of God, man is not a robot unless you can explain how he is.
br.d
“In Theological Determinism – every neurological impulse is determined by Calvin’s god before the creature is born and the creature has no say in the matter of anything Calvin’s god determines for himself or anyone else.”
rhutchin
No. Again, God created man in His image. That means God created man with the ability (a mind) to gather information from his environment and increase his understanding and knowledge of that environment.
br.d
Absolutely *ALL* of which is determined by the THEOS – and NONE of which is determined by man.
That is in fact the definition of Theological Determinism – the THEOS determines *ALL* – the creature determines ZERO
As Dr, William Lane Craig notes:
-quite
In Universal Divine Causal Determinism …since our choices are not up to us but are caused by God, human beings…..are mere instruments by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone.
rhutchin
Absent God’s determination to involve His self in worldly affairs…..
br,d
AH! And here it is! The Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK tap-dance – where he denies his own theology!
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Theological Determinism
-quote
Theological determinism is the view that God determines *EVERY* event that occurs in the history of the world.
Calvinist Paul Helm’s
-quote
WCF’s statements about God’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus rule out libertarian free will.
WCF 10.1 straightforwardly affirms compatibilism by asserting that God determines that the elect freely come to Christ.
rhutchin
those affairs proceed from man’s desires and do so voluntarily.
br.d
LOGICALLY FALSE
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to “volunteer” something one does not have to volunteer.
rhutchin
Of course, God by virtue of His infinite understanding, knows all future events and thereby determined those events by His creation of the universe.
br.d
Determining future events does not require infinite understanding – it simply requires the ability to determine future events.
In Theological Determinism – every neurological impulse is determined by Calvin’s god before the creature is born and the creature has no say in the matter of anything which is determined by Calvin’s god which equals EVERYTHING
rhutchin
Neurological impulses are generated in the mind of a person as he interacts with his environment.
br.d
DUH! – And Calvin’s god determines what-where-when-and-how every neurological impulse will be generated
That is what Theological Determinism is!
rhutchin
As man is made in the image of God, man is not a robot unless you can explain how he is.
br.d
A childish straw-man
When did I argue – in Calvinism – man is a robot ONTOLOGICALLY?
The only LOGICALLY COHERENT freedom that can exist within Theological Determinism is compatiblistic freedom.
And compatiblistic freedom is defined as *ONLY* the freedom to be/do what one is determined to be/do.
The THEOS determines *ALL*
The creature determines NOTHING.
Nothing more is PERMITTED or made available.
But I know – Calvinists have a LOVE-HATE relationship with their own doctrine! :-]
br.d writes, “That is in fact the definition of Theological Determinism – the THEOS determines *ALL* – the creature determines ZERO…And Calvin’s god determines what-where-when-and-how every neurological impulse will be generated That is what Theological Determinism is!”
I think you may be confusing Theological Fatalism with Theological Determinism. Under Theological determinism, God creates man after His image making man an independent and self-determining creature, We see this illustrated by the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and in the crucifixion of Christ. James tells us that God does not tempt a person but that “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” Thus, God does not initiate the neurological impulses in a person’s brain nor does God initiate the desires and feelings a person experiences within himself. Yet, God is still sovereign and God is the final arbiter, thus determiner and author, of all that happens, It is God’s direct action (as with the flood and the impregnation of Mary) or lack of action (as with David’s adultery and the stoning of Stephen) that lead to Paul’s statement, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
As much as you argue against this, or quote William Craig, neither you nor Craig can support your opinion with the Scriptures. Until Craig can do that, and you can copy him, you have no argument and all the flapping of your arms means nothing.
br.d
That is in fact the definition of Theological Determinism – the THEOS determines *ALL* – the creature determines ZERO…And Calvin’s god determines what-where-when-and-how every neurological impulse will be generated That is what Theological Determinism is!”
rhutchin
I think you may be confusing Theological Fatalism with Theological Determinism.
br.d
Nope!
Theological Fatalism is the belief that things come to pass -quote “OF NECESSITY”
rhutchin
Under Theological determinism, God creates man after His image making man an independent and self-determining creature,
br.d
FALSE
You’ve already made a statement in a previous post to this one – which denies the UNIVERSALITY of Universal Divine Casual Determinism. So we can understand your simply trying to SMUGGLE in some form of IN-determinism.
rhutchin
As much as you argue against this, or quote William Craig, neither you nor Craig can support your opinion with the Scriptures. Until Craig can do that, and you can copy him, you have no argument and all the flapping of your arms means nothing.
br.d
Sorry rhutchin – I can see how you would want to appoint yourself the judge over all arguments and explanations.
But you don’t have the authority – or the LOGIC – to make that stick. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Theological Fatalism is the belief that things come to pass -quote “OF NECESSITY””
Yep. That seems to be the way you describe it when you say things like, “the THEOS determines *ALL* – the creature determines ZERO.” and “And Calvin’s god determines what-where-when-and-how every neurological impulse will be generated That is what Theological Determinism is!””
Then, “You’ve already made a statement in a previous post to this one – which denies the UNIVERSALITY of Universal Divine Casual Determinism. ”
Following Craig, you approach Theological Determinism using a secular, humanist philosophy. Neither Craig nor you limit Theological Determinism to the one true living God and frame it by the way God describes Himself and His creation in the Scriptures. If Craig had a Scriptural argument behind his views, you would know it and could have presented it. You didn’t, leading me to conclude that they do not exist which agrees with my searches on his website.
Then, “I can see how you would want to appoint yourself the judge over all arguments and explanations.”
I appoint the Scriptures to judge arguments and explanations. Until you can support your claims from the Scriptures, your comments seem pretty worthless to me. As you say, you don’t have the authority – or the LOGIC – to make your statements stick.
br.d
‘Theological Fatalism is the belief that things come to pass -quote “OF NECESSITY””
rhutchin
Yep. That seems to be the way you describe it when you say things like, “the THEOS determines *ALL* – the creature determines ZERO.” and “And Calvin’s god determines what-where-when-and-how every neurological impulse will be generated That is what Theological Determinism is!””
br.d
Well that is because you don’t know what the term UNIVERSAL means in Philosophy.
You do seem to know what “universalism” means though – so you should be able to connect a few dots from there.
I’ve spelled this out for you before but perhaps you didn’t get it then – so I can do it again.
UNIVERSAL = Everything without exception, ALL, Nothing left over
DIVINE = A reference to a THEOS
CAUSAL = A reference to Cause and Effect – with the emphasis on the CAUSE
DETERMINISM = The thesis of determinism
So you do the math
Take the sum total of things that will be determined (or in Calvinist vernacular “come to pass”)
Subtract *ALL* from it (i.e. that quantity which the THEOS determines)
You have ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
rhutchin
Following Craig, you approach Theological Determinism using a secular, humanist philosophy. Neither Craig nor you limit Theological Determinism to the one true living God and frame it by the way God describes Himself and His creation in the Scriptures.
br.d
He is LOGICAL enough to know that IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data.
Whether that data is scripture or not is irrelevant.
And a red-flag is Calvin’s DOUBLE-THINK
Calvin’s most sacred proposition:
1) Believe that *ALL* things are determined and in *EVERY* part
2) Go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE
In other words – hold to what is deemed the most sacred of all propositions as TRUE
But go about your office *AS-IF* it is FALSE
That is your IRRATIONAL thinking conundrum!
That is why Calvinists are often DOUBLE-MINDED – and why so much DOUBLE-SPEAK.
BTW: If you are savvy – you should be able to see “Universal” in Calvin’s most sacred proposition.
And besides that – I can see how you would want to appoint yourself the judge over all arguments and explanations.”
rhutchin
I appoint the Scriptures to judge arguments and explanations. Until you can support your claims from the Scriptures, your comments seem pretty worthless to me. As you say, you don’t have the authority – or the LOGIC – to make your statements stick.
br.d
I know – with you of course as the self appointed judge of all arguments and explanations concerning scripture – right! :-]
But we’re right back to the problem of IRRATIONAL thinking.
br.d writes, “Take the sum total of things that will be determined (or in Calvinist vernacular “come to pass”)
Subtract *ALL* from it (i.e. that quantity which the THEOS determines)
You have ZERO left over for the creature to determine.”
We both agree with Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” However, God still uses free creatures to determine (bring about) events. We find the creature determining to do that which he desires. God then incorporates that which the creature determines into His plan. Isaiah 10 is an example of this. Of Assyria, Isaiah says, “…it is in his heart to destroy…” God uses this desire to destroy saying, ” I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.” Assyria desired to destroy and God directed that desire to destroy Israel by removing His protection of Israel. In the overall scheme of things, God necessarily determines all things because it is His plan that has been unfolding since the creation. However, Assyria by freely pursuing its desires, is easily used by God to carry out His plan.
Then, “Calvin’s most sacred proposition:
1) Believe that *ALL* things are determined and in *EVERY* part
2) Go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE”
As you have noted, point (2) was advice offered by Calvin. It is advice that has been largely rejected by Calvinists. Calvinists do subscribe to point (1) because God has infinite understanding and thereby knows how everything works. There is nothing that God does not understand.
You err in saying, “That is your IRRATIONAL thinking conundrum!” You may attach this to Calvin but not to Calvinists or me. However, in the end, you argue for God ensuring the certainty of all events but and not their necessity.
Then, “BTW: If you are savvy – you should be able to see “Universal” in Calvin’s most sacred proposition.”
Even you don’t deny the “universal” of Universal Divine Causal determination You don’t even deny the “Divine,” or the “Causal,” or the “Determination.” So, what is your whole argument intended to accomplish other than to affirm that you cannot argue against Calvinism?
Then, “But we’re right back to the problem of IRRATIONAL thinking.”
Given that you have not identified anything irrational in Calvinism thinking, are you referring to yourself?
br.d
Take the sum total of things that will be determined (or in Calvinist vernacular “come to pass”)
Subtract *ALL* from it (i.e. that quantity which the THEOS determines)
You have ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
rhutchin
God still uses free creatures to determine (bring about) events.
br.d
I understand the need to make determinism APPEAR like IN-determinism. :-]
Firstly – the “free” which exists withing Theological Determinism is compatibilist freedom.
As Paul Helm’s states: Determinism rules out Libertarian Freedom
Compatibilist freedom is nothing more than the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
Robots have compatiblistic freedom.
Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the DECREE
And since Calvin’s god DECREES/determines *ALL* things UNIVERSALLY – this leaves ZERO left over for creatures to determine.
rhutchin
God necessarily determines all things…..
br.d
That position of “necessarily” is unique to Calvinism of course – and that’s why Calvinism is a minority view.
Calvin’s most sacred proposition:
1) Believe that *ALL* things are determined and in *EVERY* part
2) Go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE”
rhutchin
As you have noted, point (2) was advice offered by Calvin. It is advice that has been largely rejected by Calvinists.
br.d
And I’ve seen that “so called” rejection in action.
Like a person who claims to reject alcohol – while sipping on a Martini! :-]
rhutchin
God has infinite understanding and thereby knows how everything works.
br.d
Anyone who infinity determined *ALL* things UNIVERSALLY before they happen is bound to have infinite understanding of how they work.
As Calvinist John Feinberg states it:
-quote
“God’s UNCONDITIONAL decree is based on absolutely nothing outside of himself that moves him to choose one thing or another”
rhutchin
You err in saying, “That is your IRRATIONAL thinking conundrum!” You may attach this to Calvin but not to Calvinists or me.
br.d
And all the SOT101 reader has to do is read through your posts! :-]
rhutchin
However, in the end, you argue for God ensuring the certainty of all events but and not their necessity.
br.d
Well I wouldn’t use the term “ensuring” because that for me is misleading.
I would rather say certainty is a LOGICAL consequence.
And appealing to necessity – which you’ve done a few times by the way – is a modal fallacy.
rhutchin
Even you don’t deny the “universal” of Universal Divine Causal determination
br.d
I learned what “Universal” means years ago – from a course on the “Square of Opposition”
See: https://www.iep.utm.edu/sqr-opp/
rhutchin
You don’t even deny the “Divine,” or the “Causal,” or the “Determination.” So, what is your whole argument intended to accomplish other than to affirm that you cannot argue against Calvinism?
br.d
Calvinists – in their LOVE-HATE relationship with determinism – have two primary problems they struggle with.
The first one is the UNIVERSALITY of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
The second is with the fact that compatibilist freedom represents a tiny sub-set of total freedoms people intuit as normal
Christian Philosophers all acknowledge compatibilism eradicates
– Do Otherwise
– Alternate Possibilities
– Anything being “up to us”
The only way a compatibilitist experiences those freedoms is through ILLUSIONS and DOUBLE-THINK.
That is why Calvin’s answer to the conundrum is: “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
And Ravi Zacharias describes perfectly the a byproduct of that psychology
-quote
“A person who embraces radical absolutes will constantly be looking for ways to SMUGGLE in concessions”
And BTW SMUGGLING in concessions constitutes a large percentage of your exculpatory posts! :-]
rhutchin
Given that you have not identified anything irrational in Calvinism thinking, are you referring to yourself?
br.d
I’m sure glad that SOT101 readers can read our dialogs and see all of them for themselves! :-]
For me – that is a win-win situation!
BR.D – Keep doing what you are doing…how you show line by line the error is so good.
I was recently sent this article…it was a comparison of how Islam and Calvinism are very much the same in that neither of these ideas of God has God as truly loving his creation…and as to determinism and damnation almost identical. It makes me wonder if the author of the Islamic god is the same as the author of the Calvinist god?
https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/islam-and-calvinism/
Most of what is stated in this article I have observed previously so it was not new but the quotes from Koran were new to me and then they are set side by side with quotes from Calvinism. A scary picture indeed. But very revealing.
https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/islam-and-calvinism/
Good catch GraceAdict!
You will not be the first person to see a connection between Islam and Calvinism.
From my understanding it has its basis in a connection between Islam and Catholicism.
The connection as I understand it – with Catholicism has a lot to do with doctrines that evolve around Mary.
Take a quick look at this article by Dr. Francis X. Clooney, – Harvard University a scholar of Hinduism and Hindu-Christian studies.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2015/12/18/what-islam-really-teaches-about-virgin-mary
Take a look also at this web page:
https://ing.org/we-belong-to-each-other-catholics-and-muslims-in-todays-america/
I think the most obvious parallels with Calvinism perhaps are
– The same emphasis on absolute Theological Determinism (i.e. sovereignty)
– The same bent towards a compatibilistic view on freedom and human responsibility
– The same arbitrariness of divine decisions (i.e., who is designed for eternal torment vs who is designed for heaven)
– The same tendency towards appeals to paradox or mystery
I don’t know enough about Islam to know if it teaches people are specifically designed for torment FOR HIS GOOD PLEASURE.
One can surmise about that.
Obviously there is a divergence such as a Unitarian Theism vs a Trinitarian Theism
But people do appear to see parallels that are foundational to both belief systems
I seem to recall a Baptist college professor (or something like that) who expressed the similarities.
And he was severely attacked by Reformed people for doing so.
That would at least indicate there is a population of Reformed people who don’t like the association.
br.d writes, ‘Firstly – the “free” which exists withing Theological Determinism is compatibilist freedom.
As Paul Helm’s states: Determinism rules out Libertarian Freedom”
OK. However, given that no one, not even you, has been able to define LFW, it;s not hard to rule it out. Of course, Helm’s definition of LFW probably precludes its existence anyway.
Then, “Compatibilist freedom is nothing more than the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
Robots have compatiblistic freedom.”
Robots are mechanical inventions, not iiving creatures, that are neither independent nor self-determining. Man is not a robot, as he is a living creature made in God’s image having independence and self-determination.
Then, “And appealing to necessity – which you’ve done a few times by the way – is a modal fallacy.”
I think you just made that up. Perhaps, you can explain it. Probably not.
The, “rhutchin: Even you don’t deny the “universal” of Universal Divine Causal determination”
br.d: “I learned what “Universal” means years ago – from a course on the “Square of Opposition”
Thus, affirming my claim, “Even you don’t deny the “universal” of Universal Divine Causal determination”
Then, “Calvinists – in their LOVE-HATE relationship with determinism – have two primary problems they struggle with.
The first one is the UNIVERSALITY of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.”
I don’t see it. I think you made this up.
Then, “The second is with the fact that compatibilist freedom represents a tiny sub-set of total freedoms people intuit as normal”
I think you made this up also. Can you describe the other “freedom” you claim to exist?
Then, ‘The only way a compatibilitist experiences those freedoms is through ILLUSIONS and DOUBLE-THINK.”
Yet, people the common experience of people is in expressing their desires in everything.
Then, “That is why Calvin’s answer to the conundrum is: “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part””
That is because it really doesn’t matter. We still choose according to our desires.
Then, “And BTW SMUGGLING in concessions constitutes a large percentage of your exculpatory posts!”
LOL!!! No concessions on God’s part. God knows the future and that future will come about. Even br.d cannot void God’s knowledge.
br.d
‘Firstly – the “free” which exists withing Theological Determinism is compatibilist freedom.
As Paul Helm’s states: Determinism rules out Libertarian Freedom”
rhutchin
OK. However, given that no one, not even you, has been able to define LFW, it;s not hard to rule it out. Of course, Helm’s definition of LFW probably precludes its existence anyway.
br.d
rhutchin – did you know an Ostrich sticks his head in the sand in order to not see! :-]
Libertarian Freedom:
The ability to choose among a range of options
Those options being REAL and AVAILABLE to choose
That choice being consistent with one’s nature
Compatibilist freedom is nothing more than the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
Robots have compatiblistic freedom.
Libertarian
Robots are mechanical inventions, not iiving creatures, that are neither independent nor self-determining. Man is not a robot, as he is a living creature made in God’s image having independence and self-determination.
br.d
Firstly
rhutchin – your simply chasing your tail with this straw-man argument on humans being robots ONTOLOGICALLY.
If you want SOT101 readers to perceive you as RATIONAL – you’re not doing yourself any favors falling for straw-man arguments.
Secondly:
Here again you are denying the UNIVERSALITY of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
I don’t think you can allow yourself to acknowledge the simple math on this.
Take the sum of things determined (in Calvinist vernacular “come to pass”)
Subtract *ALL* from it (i.e., that quantity which Calvin’s god determines)
You get ZERO left over for creatures to determine.
And on your conversation of appealing to necessity – which you’ve done a few times by the way – that is a modal fallacy.
rhutchin
I think you just made that up. Perhaps, you can explain it. Probably not.
br.d
It comes under the heading of “Modal scope fallacy”
It will be much better for you to look it up and apply the examples to “events which come to pass”
To be helpful – here is a statement also from Dr. Craig:
Some people have adopted a viewpoint called “Theological Fatalism”. Which says that if God foreknows what you’re going to do, then you are fated to do it. And therefore everything happens **NECESSARILY**.
This however commits an elementary logical fallacy.
It reasons as follows:
1) NECESSARILY if God foreknows that I will do [X], then I will do [X]
2) God foreknows that I will do [X]
3) Therefore NECESSARILY I will do [X]
That commits a fallacy in modal logic.
All that follows form premises (1-2) is that you will do [X].
It does not follow from premises (1-2) that you will do [X] NECESSARILY.
The fallacy here is to conflate NECESSITY with CERTAINTY.
Additionally on a different fallacy concerning NECESSITY – I suggest you also read this article:
https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Confusion-of-Necessary.html
rhutchin
Thus, affirming my claim, “Even you don’t deny the “universal” of Universal Divine Causal determination”
br.d
rhutchin you are funny – another instance of reverse attribution! :-]
Calvinists – in their LOVE-HATE relationship with determinism – have two primary problems they struggle with.
The first one is the UNIVERSALITY of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.”
rhutchin
I don’t see it. I think you made this up.
br.d
That’s why its so wonderful that you are here posting
SOT101 readers get to see your posts – and where you exhibit the very things you say you don’t
Its a win-win situation for everyone! :-]
Also
The second problem for Calvinists is with the fact that compatibilist freedom represents a tiny sub-set of total freedoms people intuit as normal”
rhutchin
I think you made this up also. Can you describe the other “freedom” you claim to exist?
br.d
So this is part of your “grease-pig” routine
You delete the evidence (i.e., the three categories of freedom that I detailed – which all Christian Philosophers acknowledge eradicated by compatiblism) – and then you demand I provide evidence.
Letting you appoint yourself the judge of things explained is the equivalent of poking oneself in the eye with a stick! :-]
From the list of freedoms which you deleted:
The only way a compatibilitist experiences those freedoms is through ILLUSIONS and DOUBLE-THINK.
rhutchin
Yet, people the common experience of people is in expressing their desires in everything.
br.d
A solipsist experiences people as being real – and yet his belief system tells him they are not.
If he goes about his office *AS-IF* his belief system is false – then he is in DOUBLE-THINK
A Calvinist’s belief system tells him Calvin’s god – determines *ALL* his thoughts, choices and desire.
– Does NOT PERMIT him to think, choose, desire otherwise
– Does NOT make any alternative thoughts, choices, desires available to him
– None of his thoughts, choices and desire “up to him”
If he goes about his office *AS-IF* he is the one who determines his thoughts, choices, and desires then he is in DOUBLE-THINK
rhutchin
We still choose according to *OUR* desires
br.d
This follows your infinite regress thinking pattern
An attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the creature caused an attribute of the create – and on into infinite regress.
*AS-IF* that is RATIONAL
Like someone who claims to not drink alcohol – while sipping on a Martini :-]
BTW
SMUGGLING in concessions constitutes a large percentage of your exculpatory posts!
rhutchin
LOL!!! No concessions on God’s part. God knows the future and that future will come about. Even br.d cannot void God’s knowledge.
br.d
Divine knowledge is NOT what differentiates
Determinism/compatiblism is.
So divine knowledge is simply a convenient red-herring.
br.d writes, “Libertarian Freedom:
The ability to choose among a range of options
Those options being REAL and AVAILABLE to choose
That choice being consistent with one’s nature”
Without faith, Paul says, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Thus, your definition does not apply to a salvation decision nor any decision predicated on faith. Take faith out of the equation and your definition is no different than compatibilist freedom as a person’s desires determine the choice made – the choice being consistent with one’s nature. All you need is one example where a person’s desire (nature) does not determine the choice one makes in order to differentiate LFW from compatibilist freedom. Do you have one?
Then, “Compatibilist freedom is nothing more than the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.”
Which is the freedom to do as one desires. The Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and the Jews who sought the crucifixion of Christ are examples.
Then, “To be helpful – here is a statement also from Dr. Craig:
Some people have adopted a viewpoint called “Theological Fatalism”. ”
I said you were conflating Theological Fatalism with Theological determinism. You appeared to deny that but now seem to agree.
br.d
Libertarian Freedom:
The ability to choose among a range of options
Those options being REAL and AVAILABLE to choose
That choice being consistent with one’s nature”
rhutchin
Without faith, Paul says, “the carnal mind is enmity against God;. for it is not subject to the law of God..
br.d
That’s all you have?
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Dr. William Lane Craig
“It needs to be kept in mind that Universal Divine Causal Determinism is an *INTERPRETATION* of Scripture.
An interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.
When one’s INTERPRETATION leads one into this sort of Cul-de-sac (i.e. A LOGICAL DEAD END), it is a good idea to re-asses whether one has indeed rightly interpreted scripture.
rhutchin
Thus, your definition does not apply to a salvation decision nor any decision predicated on faith.
br..d
And you say I make stuff up!
It is universally understood in Christian Philosophy – the LOGICAL entailments of Compatibilistic and Libertarian freedom – are what they are irrespective of any particular application (i.e.,choice).
As I said: IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data.
Whether that data is scripture or not.
rhutchin
Take faith out of the equation and your definition is no different than compatibilist freedom
br.d
And you say I make claims!
What a hoot
Try to see if you can make that one float anywhere! :-]
rhutchin
as a person’s desires determine the choice made – the choice being consistent with one’s nature.
br.d
This is simply Calvinism’s doctrine of total inability.
Which represents a minority view in Christianity.
In Theological Determinism – where the THEOS determines *ALL* things – a person’s choice is made *FOR* the person *BY* the THEOS.
Where as in Libertarian Freedom the THEOS “merely” permits the person to make that choice.
The assumption that the person’s nature is UNABLE to do so is simply a Calvinist assumption.
rhutchin
All you need is one example where a person’s desire (nature) does not determine the choice one makes in order to differentiate LFW from compatibilist freedom. Do you have one?
br.d
FALSE
Go back and look at the definition again.
Compatibilist freedom is nothing more than the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god determines.
Compatibilist freedom is the freedom that Robots have.
Where no decision is “UP TO YOU”
And you want to call that you making a choice – good luck!
rhutchin
Which is the freedom to do as one desires.
br.d
An in Theological Determinism all desires (as all attributes) are determined *FOR* the person *BY* Calvin’s god.
rhutchin
I said you were conflating Theological Fatalism with Theological determinism. You appeared to deny that but now seem to agree.
br.d
rhutchin – all anyone has to do is read your posts to see you attribute to me the very fallacies you commit :-]
BR.D. It is absolutely fascinating to see RH waffle back and forth. I think I know what is going on.
On one level he wants to be an IN-Determinist so as not to profane God’s Holy name BUT then a loyal Calvinist can’t go there other wise his whole system falls apart and RH knows the names he will be called by his fellow elite elect and that scares him more than anything.
So he must continue to make claims there is no answer that can be given to show how man can have LFW. BR.D you have shown this many many times so has Lieghton so has Tozer but it scares RH to go there, he knows the arrows from his fellow Calvinites that are already pointed his way just waiting for him to step out of line.He knows those names well he has been to Calvinist conferences and seen many panels and heard the likes of James White. He knows all of that and can’t go there he would lose soooo much. He may have used those names on others and for him that is the worse thing you could be called by a fellow ELECT.
It doesn’t matter that the Bible teaches this freedom and it is implied on almost every page of scripture but Oh the horror of those name grips his heart. So at times it looks like he wants to sound like an IN-Determinist because it scares him a little bit to profane God’s Holy name but then he must snap back to the party line because the greatest fear he has is the fear of his fellow Calvin followers and being called one of those names that they throw around to keep each other in check …that is his greatest fear. The fear of God not so much.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“However, God still uses free creatures to determine (bring about) events. We find the creature determining to do that which he desires. God then incorporates that which the creature determines into His plan.”
My response:
I’m still wondering where the devil is in all this. Doesn’t seem like the devil temps anyone to do bad things. Man does evil things by himself without any demonic influence at all, cuz that is the NATURE OF MAN.
So what does Satan do for fun these days? You say that Satan is limited. I don’t buy into that logic, but I’ll play. WHAT CAN SATAN DO, IF HE IS LIMITED? WHAT ROLE DOES SATAN HAVE?
From your logic, he has NO ROLE WHATSOEVER, as if he doesn’t even exist.
chapmaned24 writes, “So what does Satan do for fun these days? ”
As Peter wrote, “your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” Paul wrote, “…if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded,…” In the book of Job, we see how Satan was able to torment Job. No reason to expect that he cannot do the same to people God does not protect today.
Then, “You say that Satan is limited.”
Satan can only do that which God frees him to do. Satan could not enter the garden until God removed His protection over the garden. Satan could not torment Job until God said he could. Satan cannot take away God’s blessing on a person and is God’s instrument to curse those who hate Him.
Then, “From your logic, he has NO ROLE WHATSOEVER, as if he doesn’t even exist.’
LOL!!! My logic is to accept the Scripture as true. Apparently, that is not your logic.
rhutchin,
You said:
Satan can only do that which God frees him to do. Satan could not enter the garden until God removed His protection over the garden.
Then you said:
“My logic is to accept the Scripture as true. Apparently, that is not your logic.”
My response:
Where did you read that Satan COULD NOT enter the garden until God removed his protection over the garden?
I’m curious.
James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
How can one RESIST if God planned one to not resist? How can one not resist, if God planned that one would resist?
Eve could have said, NO, I WILL NOT EAT OF IT, and the devil would have fled. At least, that’s what James 4:7 indicates.
James 4:7 indicates that we have a FREE WILL CHOICE to make. Resist, or give in.
Now, are you REALLY accepting James 4:7 as true?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, ‘Where did you read that Satan COULD NOT enter the garden until God removed his protection over the garden?”
We know that God created Satan making Satan subordinate to God and subject to God’s will. From Job, we learn that Satan cannot do anything unless God enable him to act. Ephesians says that “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” and all things includes the acts of Satan, As God is omnipresent, Satan cannot move without God knowing it giving God final say in what He will enable Satan to do.
Then, “How can one RESIST if God planned one to not resist? How can one not resist, if God planned that one would resist?”
James provides instruction to believers. God, through faith, has enabled believers to resist Satan – by calling on God for help.
Then, “Eve could have said, NO, I WILL NOT EAT OF IT, and the devil would have fled. At least, that’s what James 4:7 indicates.”
Yep. Nonetheless, because God has infinite understanding, He could know that Eve would eat the fruit. With that understanding, God planned the death of Christ as an atonement for sin.
Then, “James 4:7 indicates that we have a FREE WILL CHOICE to make. Resist, or give in. ”
Only believers have a free will choice. This is possible because of faith. Unbelievers who have no faith can only do as they desire – sin.
No. Satan is not subordinate to God. Satan tried to overthrow God, so God kicked him to the curb.
What you people perceive as Satan being in subordination in the book of JOB, I DON’T SEE IT THAT WAY.
All I see in the book of JOB is a bet, a wager, a GAME, which was a TEST of the faith of JOB not to curse God, like Job’s wife wanted him to do.
I see it no different than three song called, THE DEVIL WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA.
But you proper see it as the devil has limitations.
No no, and no. It doesn’t work that way.
It was a bet, where rules are set, just like any human bet on a football game…aka a 6 point spread.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Satan is not subordinate to God.”
God is sovereign over His creation. God created and everything He created is subordinate to Him.
rhutchin
God is sovereign over His creation. God created and everything He created is subordinate to Him.
br.d
Subordinate functionality – just like the functionality that robots have.
Even though they are not biological entities – they are governed by determinism.
Just like Calvin’s god’s humans – nothing is UP TO THEM. :-]
br.d writes, “Even though [robots] are not biological entities – they are governed by determinism.”
Except that humans, unlike robots that cannot think or reason, are made in the image of God and are independent (able to think and reason) and self-determining (able to seek their own desires). As Paul put it, “…in God we live and move and have our being…” so God commands what a person will be able to do. Where man’s will and God’s will collide, God’s will prevails.
br.
In Calvinism – even though robots are not biological entities – they are governed by determinism – just like humans.
rhutchin
Except that humans, unlike robots that cannot think or reason
br.d
Well you need to come up to speed a little.
All “AI” experts will tell you – robots have their own form of predetermined neurological impulses.
And that of course is what humans have in Calvinism.
Additionally you don’t appear to know that the human function of RATIONAL reasoning is eradicated by Theological Determinism.
A quintessential aspect of Libertarian functionality in human deliberation includes the ability to choose from multiple options.
In the case of RATIONAL reasoning, TRUE vs FALSE represents multiple options the human mind would have to choose between.
No ability to choose between those multiple options equals no Libertarian choice – and thus no ability to RATIONALLY affirm TRUE from FALSE.
Theological Determinism eradicates:
– Alternate Possibilities
– Do Otherwise
– Things being UP TO US
Therefore in Theological Determinism our perception/choice between TRUE vs FALSE is not UP TO US.
Calvin’s god determines which perception/choice a person will make when deliberating TRUE vs FALSE.
Therefore all Christian philosophers understand – Determinism rules out the function of RATIONAL reasoning.
Sorry – you’re back to robot functionally again – I’m afraid
rhutchin
self-determining – able to seek their own desires
br.d
Going about your office *AS-IF* there are some desires Calvin’s god leaves left over for you to determine?
Still following Calvin’s instructions I see :-]
br.d writes, “All “AI” experts will tell you – robots have their own form of predetermined neurological impulses. And that of course is what humans have in Calvinism.”
LOL!!! br.d wants to equate the AI created by man with the man created in the image of God. Not even close.
Then, “A quintessential aspect of Libertarian functionality in human deliberation includes the ability to choose from multiple options.”
Yeah, but the person still chooses according to his desire. The availability of multiple options does not differentiate LFW from compatibilist freedom.
Then, “Calvin’s god determines which perception/choice a person will make when deliberating TRUE vs FALSE.”
As the Proverbs tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” and “by the fear of the LORD one departs from evil..” Without the fear of the Lord, a person has a distorted picture of reality or the inability to think rationally. The only way to convey LFW to a person is to give a person faith and with faith, even the Calvinist says that the person has LFW.
br.d still seems unable to provide a definition of LFW that really differentiates it from compatibilist freedom and this given his seeming aversion to accept the truth of the Scriptures.
br.d
All “AI” experts will tell you – robots have their own form of predetermined neurological impulses. And that of course is what humans have in Calvinism.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! br.d wants to equate the AI created by man with the man created in the image of God. Not even close.
br.d
Falling for that Straw-man argument again – not much of a personal compliment I’m afraid.
Its the FUNCTIONALITY parallels that are at play of course
You know how it is – – every neurological impulse determined by an external mind – and all that.
And on how RATIONAL reasoning is eradicated by Determinism:
A quintessential aspect of Libertarian functionality being human deliberation which requires the ability to choose from multiple options.
In this case – TRUE vs FALSE
Sorry to say – that’s ruled out also – as that would be DO OTHERWISE – also eradicated by Determinism.
rhutchin
Yeah, but the person still chooses according to his desire.
br.d
AH yes! Going about his office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. desires) are determined in any part.
We must be faithful to follow Calvin’s instructions! :-]
rhutchin
The availability of multiple options does not differentiate LFW from compatibilist freedom.
br.d
AH! Now trying to SMUGGLE in Alternative Possibilities – also eradicated by Determinism.
One would wonder why we can’t be thankful for what compatiblism provides?
After all – shouldn’t one be thankful for what Calvin’s god has made available?
Looks like that’s not really doing the trick for us doesn’t it?
And so in that wonderful robotic world of Theological Determinism
Calvin’s god determines which perception/choice a person will make when deliberating TRUE vs FALSE.
Making it the case that RATIONAL deliberation which requires a libertarian choice – is also eradicated by Determinism
So sad!
rhutchin
As the Proverbs tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
br.d
Sure – when Calvin’s god DECREES it.
If and when he actually does
But that’s not UP TO YOU either is it?
rhutchin
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” and “by the fear of the LORD one departs from evil.
br.d
Nice little SIMULATED world isn’t it?
rhutchin
.Without the fear of the Lord, a person has a distorted picture of reality or the inability to think rationally.
br.d
Well of course we both know – whatever perception is DECREED you have – whether distorted or not – is NOT UP TO YOU
Pre-determined *FOR* you by Calvin’s god.
What you get is what you get I’m afraid.
rhutchin
The only way to convey LFW to a person is to give a person faith and with faith, even the Calvinist says that the person has LFW.
br.d
OH! You want to whole package now?
Not very respectful – since Calvin’s god in his infinite knowledge of the creature gave you compatiblist freedom instead.
As Paul Helm’s explains:
-quote
WCF’s statements about god’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus RULES OUT Libertarian Free Will.
WCF 10.1 straightforwardly affirms compatibilism by asserting that God determines that the elect freely come to Christ.
rhutchin
br.d still seems unable to provide a definition of LFW that really differentiates it from compatibilist freedom and this given his seeming aversion to accept the truth of the Scriptures.
br.d
On that thinking – Calvin’s god’s freedom might just as well be compatiblist freedom
Cuz there’s not difference between it and Libertarian Freedom – right?
So just like you’ve explained it
His every decision is solely determined by his desires – which he has no control over – since his desires are the determining factors.
So he’s determined by the same factors that creatures are determined by.
br.d writes, “Its the FUNCTIONALITY parallels that are at play of course”
LOL!!! br.d wants to equate the AI created by man with the man created in the image of God on functionality. Not even close.
br.d
Its the FUNCTIONALITY parallels that are at play of course”
rhutchin
LOL!!! br.d wants to equate the AI created by man with the man created in the image of God on functionality. Not even close.
br.d
A RATIONAL mind understands what the term “Parallels” means.
And the fact that you keep falling into Straw-man arguments on this – doesn’t exemplify RATIONAL thinking
br.d writes, “And the fact that you keep falling into Straw-man arguments on this – doesn’t exemplify RATIONAL thinking”
You are the one equating the work of man with the work of God. What is more irrational than that?
br.d
And the fact that you keep falling into Straw-man arguments on this – doesn’t exemplify RATIONAL thinking”
rhutchin
You are the one equating the work of man with the work of God. What is more irrational than that?
br.d
The fallacy here is to conflate logical equation with “Parallel”
At this point I suspect you just feel the need to post a response.
br.d writes, “The fallacy here is to conflate logical equation with “Parallel””
I only pointed out that you confused man’s ability with God’s ability.
br.d
he fallacy here is to conflate logical equation with “Parallel””
rhutchin
I only pointed out that you confused man’s ability with God’s ability.
br.d
rhutchin – can you calculate 2 x 2?
rhutchin: “I only pointed out that you confused man’s ability with God’s ability.”
br.d: “rhutchin – can you calculate 2 x 2?”
LOL!!! Thanks for affirming that you confused man’s ability with God’s ability.
rhutchin
I only pointed out that you confused man’s ability with God’s ability.”
br.d
rhutchin – can you calculate 2 x 2?”
rhutchin
LOL!!! Thanks for affirming that you confused man’s ability with God’s ability.
br.d
If that’s how you want to leave it – as always – I’m happy to let intelligent SOT101 readers observe what they will :-]
God has to intervene in order for Satan’s plans to foil.
Babies were murdered so that Jesus would not be born.
Onan spilled his seed so that Jesus would not come from their line of Judah.
I could go on and on. Satan can do as he pleases, but God will be triumphant in beating him.
They, God and Satan is in a war.
We fight not against flesh and blood, but spiritual forces. That’s evil forces.
Satan wants to win this war. And he blinds YOU so that you will not see the truth.
He is called the adversary.
You’ve built him into a good guy being used to fulfill God’s pleasure.
That’s down right wicked of you people to even think that.
Ed Chapman
ED,
rhutchin’s claim that Calvin’s god intervenes in events – is totally IRRATIONAL
In Calvinism no event can come to pass unless Calvin’s god immutably decrees it
Anything that Calvin’s god does not immutably decree – is not going to come to pass.
So then If Calvin’s god immutably decrees it – the idea that he will then intervene or prevent it – is just Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK!
This is another one of rhutchin’s magical square-circles. :-]
For sure. The double speak is so evident that I just confuses me that her can’t see the contradictions that he states.
I know what you mean!
Its really a deeply entrenched form of IRRATIONAL thinking.
Its like their minds are captured by some kind of dark force.
br.d writes, ‘In Calvinism no event can come to pass unless Calvin’s god immutably decrees it”
This sometimes by God’s action (e.g., the impregnation of Mary) and sometimes by God’s inaction (e.g., the stoning of Stephan).
Then, “Anything that Calvin’s god does not immutably decree – is not going to come to pass.”
This because God has an infinite understanding which leads to His perfect knowledge of all future events of which Paul says, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
Then, “So then If Calvin’s god immutably decrees it – the idea that he will then intervene or prevent it – is just Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK!”
God’s immutable decree can require His intervention to bring about an event (e.g., the impregnation of Mary) or as you say, to prevent something, (e.g., Isaiah 10 where the Assyrians could not invade Israel until God said they could). I don’t see why you cannot understand that as your reference to “Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK” indicates.
rhutchin
God’s immutable decree can require His intervention ….
br.d
Thanks rhutchin this again exemplifies the DOUBLE-THINK.
An immutable decree to intervene/prevent an event that could not possibly have come to pass without an immutable decree.
Thus what we have – is Calvin’s god creating a PRESENTATION of himself intervening/preventing an event.
The Star Trek Next Generation series contains a COMPUTER SIMULATED world called the HoloDeck.
A computer represents a totally Determined world.
A computer for example cannot create TRUE randomly generated numbers
It can only create a SIMULATED PRESENTATION of them.
Calvinism – deterministic just like the computer – can only create SIMULATED PRESENTATIONS of intervention and prevention.
Calvin’s god intervening in events that were not going to happen without him making them happen.
Its a nice little computer SIMULATED world! :-]
br.d writes, ‘An immutable decree to intervene/prevent an event that could not possibly have come to pass without an immutable decree.”
There was only one decree incorporating and it incorporated God’s actions. As examples, God had decreed the impregnation of Mary and the crucifixion of Jesus.
Then, “Calvin’s god intervening in events that were not going to happen without him making them happen. ”
An example being the impregnation of Mary.
br.d
An immutable decree to intervene/prevent an event that could not possibly have come to pass without an immutable decree.”
rhutchin
There was only one decree incorporating and it incorporated God’s actions…..etc
br.d
That works with my statement.
But again – what we can see – is Calvin’s god creating SIMULATED PRESENTATIONS of “so called” divine interventions.
Intervening in an event that he knows could not come to pass without him MAKING it come to pass.
Its all very puppet theater like isn’t it! :-]
chapmaned24 writes, “God has to intervene in order for Satan’s plans to f[a]il. ”
Which God can do because God is sovereign and Satan is subordinate to Him.
Then, “You’ve built him into a good guy being used to fulfill God’s pleasure. ”
Satan is evil and is used by God to fulfill His purposes. An example is the crucifixion of Christ.
rhutchin
Satan is evil and is USED by God to fulfill His purposes. An example is the crucifixion of Christ.
br.d
Replace the word USED with the word FORCED and you have a more truth-telling statement.
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless…..He COMMANDS….they are ….FORCED to do Him service.”
( Institutes I, 17, 11.)
rhutchin: “Satan is evil and is USED by God to fulfill His purposes. An example is the crucifixion of Christ.”
br.d: “Replace the word USED with the word FORCED and you have a more truth-telling statement.”
“Used” is adequate here. God, by His infinite understanding, knows the mind of Satan ans He used Satan just as He used the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and the Jews in the crucifixion of Christ.
Let’s look at Calvin’s thinking on this in its entirety.
“How comes it, I ask, that [believer’s] confidence never fails, but just that while the world apparently revolves at random, they know that God is every where at work, and feel assured that his work will be their safety? When assailed by the devil and wicked men, were they not confirmed by remembering and meditating on Providence, they should, of necessity, forthwith despond. But when they call to mind that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters, but are even forced to do him service, – when the godly think of all these things they have ample sources of consolation. For, as it belongs to the lord to arm the fury of such foes and turn and destine it at pleasure, so it is his also to determine the measure and the end, so as to prevent them from breaking loose and wantoning as they list. Supported by this conviction, Paul, who had said in one place that his journey was hindered by Satan, (1Th 2: 18) in another resolves, with the permission of God, to undertake it, (1Co 16: 7) If he had only said that Satan was the obstacle, he might have seemed to give him too much power, as if he were able even to overturn the counsels of God; but now, when he makes God the disposer, on whose permission all journies depend, he shows, that however Satan may contrive, he can accomplish nothing except in so far as He pleases to give the word. For the same reason, David, considering the various turns which human life undergoes as it rolls, and in a manner whirls around, retakes himself to this asylum, “My times are in thy hand,” (Psa 31: 15) He might have said the course of life or time in the singular number, but by times he meant to express, that how unstable soever the condition of man may be, the vicissitudes which are ever and anon taking place are under divine regulation. Hence Rezin and the king of Israel, after they had joined their forces for the destruction of Israel, and seemed torches which had been kindled to destroy and consume the land, are termed by the prophet “smoking fire brands.” They could only emit a little smoke, (Isa 7: 4) So Pharaoh, when he was an object of dread to all by his wealth and strength, and the multitude of his troops, is compared to the largest of beasts, while his troops are compared to fishes; and God declares that he will take both leader and army with his hooks, and drag them whither he pleases, (Eze 29: 4) In one word, not to dwell longer on this, give heed, and you will at once perceive that ignorance of Providence is the greatest of all miseries, and the knowledge of it the highest happiness.”
John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Institutes I, 17, 11.). (Kindle Locations 3730-3733). Kindle Edition.
rhutchin
Satan is evil and is USED by God to fulfill His purposes. An example is the crucifixion of Christ.”
br.d
Replace the word USED with the word FORCED and you have a more truth-telling statement.”
rhutchin
“Used” is adequate here. God, by His infinite understanding, knows the mind of Satan ans He used Satan just as He used the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and the Jews in the crucifixion of Christ.
br.d
In terms of truth-telling – prefer Calvin’s use of the term FORCED.
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless…..He COMMANDS….they are ….FORCED to do Him service.”
( Institutes I, 17, 11.)
It has more PUNCH to it! :-]
Aidan asks, “HERE’S A QUESTION: Was Jesus rebuking the ‘elect,’ or the ‘non-elect,’ in Luke 6:46?”
46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?
Jesus was teaching to the crowd as context tells us:
17 And Jesus came down with His disciples and stood on a level place with a crowd of His disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear Him and be healed of their diseases,
18 as well as those who were tormented with unclean spirits. And they were healed.
19 And the whole multitude sought to touch Him, for power went out from Him and healed them all.
Jesus was likely directing the comment to those who claimed to be His disciples. Theses could be those who deserted Him in John 6, “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.”
To answer your question, Jesus was speaking to the both elect and non-elect. This is a similar, if not the same, situation as in Matthew 7. As even believers are not perfect, Jesus was speaking to them also. In the same way, Jesus speaks to us today.
RH, wrote:
“To answer your question, Jesus was speaking to the both elect and non-elect. This is a similar, if not the same, situation as in Matthew 7. As even believers are not perfect, Jesus was speaking to them also. In the same way, Jesus speaks to us today.”
Aidan writes:
Surely it would be nonsensical to reprove the non-elect with the words, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? By your definition they wouldn’t be able to call Him ‘Lord, in the first place. And they are certainly not going to be able to do His will. So, I think that’s gonna rule out Him speaking to the non-elect.
However, if He is speaking to the ‘elect,’ surely then this would negate the doctrine of “once saved always saved”?
Since you mentioned Matthew 7, let’s put the two passages together and see what we get.
IF HE IS SPEAKING TO THE ELECT, THEN THEY CAN LOSE THEIR SALVATION:
“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”
“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:
“and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
“and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
BUT IF HE IS SPEAKING TO NON-ELECT, IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
Aidan writes, “Surely it would be nonsensical to reprove the non-elect with the words, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? By your definition they wouldn’t be able to call Him ‘Lord, in the first place. And they are certainly not going to be able to do His will. So, I think that’s gonna rule out Him speaking to the non-elect.”
Of course, Jesus is speaking to the non-elect. He describes them as those who say, “have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” There are people today who think they are saved because they joined a church, were born into a christian family, or are good in their own estimation. Jesus is warning all these people that their thinking is skewed. Obviously, the elect do not base their salvation on such things. What purpose is served by Jesus speaking these things to the elect? It is the elect who see the faults of the non-elect and endeavor to pray for God to save them just as they earnestly pray for all the lost and especially their friends and neighbors.
rhutchin states:
“Of course, Jesus is speaking to the non-elect. ”
If they are Jews, they are the elect. They are the HOUSE OF ISRAEL. “Israel Mine Elect”. NO ONE ELSE IDENTIFIES AS “ISRAEL”.
JESUS DID NOT COME FOR THE GENTILES. HE CAME FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, SO STATES THE GOSPELS MORE THAN ONCE.
AT A LATER TIME, RIGHT BEFORE HE ASCENDED, THEN DID HE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT OTHER SHEEP.
There is nothing “NON” about it.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “If they are Jews, they are the elect.”
Elect as Jews; non-elect as children of promise.
rhutchin states:
Elect as Jews; non-elect as children of promise.
My response:
Jesus wasn’t talking to non-elect.
In Romans 11, the JEWS GET MERCY for their UNBELIEF.
I keep bringing up the following regarding Paul. He got MERCY for his IGNORANCE IN UNBELIEF. And WHY was Paul IGNORANT IN UNBELIEF? Why is that CAUSE for MERCY? And HOW is Paul any different than that of your AVERAGE Jew?
I can never get a straight answer on that.
1 Timothy 1:13 (PAUL SPEAKING ABOUT HIMSELF REGARDING MERCY AND IGNORANCE AND UNBELIEF)
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Romans 11:32 (PAUL, DISCUSSING THE JEWS WHO WILL INDEED BE GRANTED MERCY DUE TO UNBELIEF)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
chapmaned24 writes, “In Romans 11, the JEWS GET MERCY for their UNBELIEF. ”
What Jews? All Jews who ever live or just certain Jews at a certain time?
Then, “WHY was Paul IGNORANT IN UNBELIEF? Why is that CAUSE for MERCY? And HOW is Paul any different than that of your AVERAGE Jew? ”
Apparently, Paul was as ignorant and unbelieving as all people were including Jews. Nothing unique about that. Paul received mercy because God wanted to grant him mercy, all others not receiving mercy then receiving judgment. Those not ignorant would be the Jews who interacted with Jesus during His ministry and saw His miracles.
rhutchin,
This is exactly why I can tell that you’ve never ever read the bible as a novel a minimum of 5 times. The answer is as plain as day.
Jews were put in place for a reason, and that reason is to reveal Jesus to us, tho they don’t believe in him.
Time and time again I mention Joseph and his BRETHREN.
Joseph HID his identity to his brothers, while FEEDING them from starving. His brothers had no idea who he was, the one SAVING them. But while they were in this BLIND STATE of not knowing who Joseph was, Joseph toyed with them for a while.
But in the end, Joseph revealed himself, and his brothers were scared to death of punishment.
But Joseph embraced them, and gave them mercy.
The PIT without water, that they threw Joseph in, was prophesy of Jesus suffering in hell for our sins. Joseph rising to top dog in Egypt is prophesy of Jesus being seated at the right hand of the father.
Joseph revealing himself to his brothers is prophesy of Jesus revealing himself to the Jews, going all the way back to Moses, giving all of the blind Jews mercy.
In Deuteronomy, it is stated that God never gave them (Jews only, not Gentiles, cuz he was talking to the children of Israel), a mind to understand, ears to hear, or eyes to see, or a heart to perceive to this day (meaning, never), but Moses did understand, Moses did see, Moses did perceive. For God did not speak in riddles to Moses, as he did to others. He so stated.
What I find interesting, is that most of you reformers teach scripture from an expository teaching, rather than interpreting carnal things spiritually. To you people, Joseph is just a story about what you intended for evil, Good meant for good, meaning, that Joseph fed the hungry while the world was in a drought.
But it has more significance than just that, because it’s prophesy of Jesus and the Jews.
It’s not just a historical moral story about being nice to your brothers.
Read three dog gone book as a novel instead of picking pet verses from a man made doctrine that was never meant to be.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “What I find interesting, is that most of you reformers teach scripture from an expository teaching, rather than interpreting carnal things spiritually. ”
I like to spiritualize the Scriptures also. I see The Scriptures having more than one level of meaning. Expository teaching is valuable as is spiritualizing. Both add to out knowledge of God’s will.
rhutchin
I like to spiritualize the Scriptures also.
br.d
This tradition of using scripture this way – can be traced back to Augustine.
For example – Augustine’s interpretation of the story of Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan
Augustine believed Jesus was referring to the Apostle Paul as the good Samaritan.
Augustine’s first response to scripture – due to NeoPlatonist and Gnostic influences – was to reject it as implausible.
The school of Alexander was said to have adopted the allegorical method of interpretation – Origen and Ambrose
Teaching Augustine this method of interpretation – allowed him to REFORM scriptures that did not fit into a NeoPlatonist mold.
RH, you wrote:
“Of course, Jesus is speaking to the non-elect. He describes them as those who say, “have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?”
Aidan writes:
Okay, we have your definition of who the “non-elect” are in this passage. The ‘non-elect’ are those who say, ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do NOT do the will of the Father. The same ones who said, “have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?”
Again, why would Jesus say to them, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46). Why would He say that to them, IF IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID?
It makes no sense, nor do your explanations of this passage!
And where do they get the power to cast out demons in Jesus’ name – and do many mighty works in Jesus’ name?
If they are non-elect then they are dead to such things. Their every desire is evil continually. They don’t have the capacity to do anything in Jesus’ name.
Given the doctrine of Total Inability – they wouldn’t have the capacity to say “Lord Lord” because their hearts would be filled with complete antipathy for him. They should be saying “Lord Lord” to Lucifer.
They ‘claimed’ to be doing these mighty works. And not only that, but they ‘claimed to have done them in “His name” i.e (by His authority, Col. 3:17). But if they practiced lawlessness because they could but do nothing else, then why did Jesus not know it? Why would He rebuke them for calling Him, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not doing what He said, if He knew it was impossible?
Did Jesus not know, Rhutchin?
I think rhutchin’s response to this would be that their claim was false. That they in fact did not do anything in Jesus’ name.
And Calvinists interpret the word KNOW within Jesus’ statement “Depart from me I do not know you” – as a reference to knowledge via intimacy. A similar use of this word is found in Genesis – Adam “knew” Eve.
But we’re still left with the fact that these people are coming to Jesus and asking or expecting to be accepted by him.
And according to Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Inability – a non-elect person is DEAD – and they can’t come to Jesus for anything
They totally hate God, they are completely repulsed by him, and all of their inclinations point in the opposite direction.
What I find Aidan – concerning Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity is that it is made out of play-putty so that the Calvinist can mold it into any shape he needs it to look like for any given argument.
The Calvinist will assert at one minute that the Totally Depraved person is totally dead and cannot possibly desire god in any way.
But then they are faced with Calvin’s doctrine of the wheat and the chaff – where he says that within Calvinism there are only a few grains that are actually elect – and the vast majority of them are deceived by Calvin’s god into believing they are elect when they really aren’t.
So on that teaching – vast majority of Calvinists who are not really elect are going about their Christian lives – making decisions and conforming themselves to Biblical things just like the elect Calvinists do. And no one in the Calvinist fold can tell the difference between these elect and the non-elect.
So how then do they explain that Calvinists can live that way – and at the same time be DEAD and incapable of desiring god?
The Calvinist ends up with yet another self-contradiction.
So what they do is SHAPE-SHIFT the doctrine of Total Depravity – to make it look like whatever they want – from one argument to the next.
They shape it into a square for one set of arguments.
And then shape it into a circle for the next set of arguments.
That’s why a large percentage of Calvinist thinking comes out as square-circles! :-]
I already understand all of what you’ve said. But, Rhutchin has already admitted that these folks, whether in or out of the church, are the non-elect. So, he is still left with the same question. Matthew 7 indicates that even while speaking to the crowd, Jesus already knew what these folks ‘always were,’ – ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, etc..!’
So, Jesus knows that all of these are people whom – He never knew, who would practice lawlessness! But He also knows, – whether they be in the church or not, – that the fate of such is irrevocably fixed. Why then would He bother to say to these people, these non-elect, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say; If He already knew what they were from the beginning, and what their inevitable fate was? UNLESS IT WAS SOMETHING THEY COULD CHANGE.
All the square pegs in round holes ain’t going to make that question go away!
AH! I see – yes point well taken!
I guess that goes along with the question why does the language of scripture infer that people have the ability to “DO OTHERWISE” when they really don’t. As you say – Jesus has divine knowledge – and if Calvinism is true then he knows everything Calvin’s god is going to make people do. Why then ask the question to them about why are they doing it!
Yes you are spot on Aidan
Its like Calvin’s god makes a person to lift his left hand and then he asks that person why he lifted his left hand.
As you say – how the Calvinist brain is taught to totally ignore the millions of narratives in scripture – where the one communicating uses language that presupposes the opposite of what the Calvinist believes – is a real mystery!
Br.d,
if Calvinism is true then he knows everything Calvin’s god is going to make people do. Why then ask the question to them about why are they doing it!
Aidan,
Exactly! If Jesus knows that only the non-elect will ever be lost, and why they are lost; “Why then ask the question to them about why are they doing it!??”
Br.d,
Its like Calvin’s god makes a person to lift his left hand and then he asks that person why he lifted his left hand.
Aidan,
Or, perhaps, Its like Calvin’s god makes a person only able to lift his left hand, and then condemns that person for not being able to lift his right hand instead. Even the ‘non-elect’ in the church who tried their best to lift their right hand.
It makes a lot of non-sense!
Absolutely correct!
With Calvinism’s “Good-Evil” DUALISM – Calvin’s god’s love is “Good-Evil” and his justice is “Good-Evil” also.
br.d writes, ‘I guess that goes along with the question why does the language of scripture infer that people have the ability to “DO OTHERWISE” when they really don’t. ”
To show that people always choose according to their desires even when they have the ability to choose otherwise (i.e. the ability to choose counter to their desires). That which a person choices always reflects his desires and is never contrary to his desires.
If someone thinks this in error, it is only necessary to provide an example contrary to this position.
Without regeneration, is it possible for a non-elect to choose contrary to his desires and get to heaven?
Aidan writes, “Without regeneration, is it possible for a non-elect to choose contrary to his desires and get to heaven?”
Without regeneration, it is not possible for a person to see heaven much less enter heaven according to John 3.
The context of the discussion was the non-elect!
RH responded with:
To show that people always choose according to their desires even when they have the ability to choose otherwise (i.e. the ability to choose counter to their desires). That which a person choices always reflects his desires and is never contrary to his desires.
If someone thinks this in error, it is only necessary to provide an example contrary to this position.
Aidan writes:
Note four things Rhutchin affirms: (My answers are in the brackets)
1. People always choose according to their desires (Elect and non-elect I presume)
2. They have the ability to choose otherwise. (Elect and non-elect I presume)
3. A person’s choice always reflects his desires. (Interesting you should say that)
4. Provide an example contrary to this position. ( Rom. 2:14-15)
“for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)”
Note: – ‘WHEN GENTILES BY NATURE do the things in the law’
Also: – ‘who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS.’
WAS THE LAW GOOD OR BAD?
(Rom. 7:12) – “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
SO:
We have the Gentiles (who were without the law of Moses), doing BY NATURE the things in the LAW, which was HOLY, RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD.
STATEMENT:
It seems they were – by nature able – to choose the good, after all.
NECESSARY CONCLUSION:
Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!
rhutchin: “If someone thinks this in error [that people always choose according to their desires], it is only necessary to provide an example contrary to this position.”
Aiden: “We have the Gentiles (who were without the law of Moses), doing BY NATURE the things in the LAW, which was HOLY, RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD.
STATEMENT:
It seems they were – by nature able – to choose the good, after all.
NECESSARY CONCLUSION:
Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!”
The challenge was to show that people do not always choose according to their desires.
You show that people have options and make choices. Are these choices consistent with their desires? Romans 1 tells us, “…although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” Then, Romans 2, “…in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,…” Then, “Romans 3, “There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit”; The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
In Romans 8, Paul wrote, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” The dividing line between flesh and spirit is having the Spirit of God dwelling in you. So, your statement that, “Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!” is in error. Without the Spirit of God dwelling within a person, he is dead and incapable. That is because a person is born without faith and faith only comes after hearing the gospel, “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?…So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In Ephesians 1, we read, “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” So, one is indwelt by the Spirit of God only after hearing the gospel and believing the truth. That comes after a person is born meaning that a perosn is born without faith, without belief and without the Spirit of God – in other words, dead and incapable – or Totally Depraved.
Some Calvinists have customized patch-work definitions of Libertarian Freedom and Theological Determinism.
The profession/academic definitions for LFW are:
The ability to make choices from a range of options – (which is ruled out by Theological Determinism)
Those options existing as real and available to choose – (which is ruled out by Theological Determinism)
A Person’s choice not being made *FOR* the person by someone else – (which is ruled out by Theological Determinism)
A Person’s choice being consistent with one’s nature
One example is given by Reformed theologian – Dr. Oliver Crisp
A person who is addicted to drugs.
That person has a range of options that are limited by the addition.
Another example would be a person who is in a prison cell – whose range of options is limited by his previous actions brought about by his nature.
But all academia acknowledges that Theological Determinism rules out:
– Anything being UP TO YOU
– Any Alternative Possibilities
– Your ability to DO OTHERWISE
RH wrote:
“The dividing line between flesh and spirit is having the Spirit of God dwelling in you. So, your statement that, “Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!” is in error.”
Aidan writes:
“for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)” (Rom. 2:14-15)
Note: – ‘WHEN GENTILES BY NATURE do the things in the law’
Also: – ‘who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS.’
WAS THE LAW GOOD OR BAD?
(Rom. 7:12) – “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”
SO:
We have the Gentiles (who were without the law of Moses), doing BY NATURE the things in the LAW, which was HOLY, RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD
NECESSARY CONCLUSION: 1.
If men were born – dead and incapable, totally depraved; they could not BY NATURE do any of those things which are good, holy and righteous.
NECESSARY CONCLUSION: 2.
Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!
Then, “Romans 3, “Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. “There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Notice the terminology: – TURNED aside (not born aside) – BECOME unprofitable (not born so) – all HAVE SINNED (not born sinners) – all FALL short (not born in that condition).
NECESSARY CONCLUSION 3.
Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!
In Romans 8, Paul is writing to Christians whom he calls not to live according to the flesh, but those who are led by the Spirit, are sons of God.
“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”
NECESSARY CONCLUSION 4.
It is possible, even for Christians, to live according to the flesh and die. Even they must continue to choose life or death!
Aidan writes, “NECESSARY CONCLUSION: 1.
If men were born – dead and incapable, totally depraved; they could not BY NATURE do any of those things which are good, holy and righteous.
NECESSARY CONCLUSION: 2.
Men are not born dead and incapable – or totally depraved!”
That people do, by nature, the things of the law means that God did not create a bunch of psychopaths. He created people with a conscience. Total Depravity deals with one’s spiritual condition and ability to relate to God. People can reason that it is beneficial not to go around killing each other.
Then, “Notice the terminology: – TURNED aside (not born aside) – BECOME unprofitable (not born so) – all HAVE SINNED (not born sinners) – all FALL short (not born in that condition).”
Total Depravity refers to the corrupted nature with which a person is born and to the absence of faith. As a consequence of being Totally Depraved, people sin.
Then, “NECESSARY CONCLUSION 4.
It is possible, even for Christians, to live according to the flesh and die. Even they must continue to choose life or death!”
As Paul explains in Romans 7.
RH, wrote: Concerning Total Depravity,
“He created people with a conscience. Total Depravity deals with one’s spiritual condition and ability to relate to God. People can reason that it is beneficial not to go around killing each other.”
Aidan writes: IS THIS NOT WHAT TOTAL DEPRAVITY TEACHES?
Here’s some definitions I found of those who teach that we are born with a corrupted nature.
“From this original corruption, whereby all are utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.”
“Being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.”
Is this not what you believe, RH, since you believe we are born Totally Depraved, dead, and incapable ?
Then, if Romans 3 says, “Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. “There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Notice the terminology: – TURNED aside (not born aside) – BECOME unprofitable (not born so) – all HAVE SINNED (not born sinners) – all FALL short (not born in that condition).
HOW can one turn aside if they are already – born aside?
HOW can one become unprofitable if they are already – born unprofitable?
HOW can one fall short if they are already – born short of the glory of God?
NECESSARY CONCLUSION FROM ROMANS 3.
Men are not born already dead and incapable – or totally depraved!
HOW can one be born dead having never sinned – if the wages of sin is death?(Rom. 6:23)
BUT YOU TEACH THE OPPOSITE TO THESE VERSES, namely, that we are ALREADY BORN dead, separated from God, and Totally Depraved? Shame on you!
I think you’re seeing what I’m seeing with Total Depravity Aidan
Its an accordion doctrine that they stretch and collapse at will.
Expanding/shrinking it to make it APPEAR however to be whatever they need at a given context.
The bigger question for me is – how many Calvinists are Totally Depraved?
Calvin’s interpretation of the “wheat and the chaff” stipulates that the vast majority of the church is non-elect.
On Calvin’s interpretation it logically follows – the vast majority of Calvinists are Totally Depraved.
Precisely! I believe he was attempting to sanitize total depravity, in an effort to try and fit those verses into some kind of doctrinal straight jacket. Peter just simply calls it twisting the scriptures!
Aidan
Peter called it twisting the scriptures”
br.d
Exactly! And I think Calvinism seeks to wrestle scriptures into its own image
Aidan writes, “BUT YOU TEACH THE OPPOSITE TO THESE VERSES, namely, that we are ALREADY BORN dead, separated from God, and Totally Depraved?”
Under Calvinism, people are born with a corrupted heart and without faith. Without faith all sin, one can only turn aside, one can only be unprofitable.
What do you think a person can do without faith?
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, people are born with a corrupted heart and without faith.
br.d
Its more TRUTHFUL to say Calvin’s god DESIGNS people to be born with ….etc
And also more TRUTHFUL to say Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire
For his good pleasure – of course.
RH, wrote:
Under Calvinism, people are born with a corrupted heart and without faith. Without faith all sin, one can only turn aside, one can only be unprofitable.
What do you think a person can do without faith?
Aidan:
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat. 19:14)
Children have no need!
rh asks:
“What do you think a person can do without faith?”
I think a person can do the exact same things with or without faith, except please God.
Abraham could have either offered or withheld the life of his son, faith or no faith. But God, seeing his heart, knew that his sacrifice was the result of his complete trust in his power and character. Had he set out to sacrifice his son with a heart of anger and hate, his obedience – without faith – would not have been pleasing to God.
It is not merely mental assent nor our deeds, but the heart behind our deeds, that God sees and rewards or punishes. Works without faith are just as useless as faith without works.
TS00 writes, “I think a person can do the exact same things with or without faith, except please God.”
The question becomes, “What pleases God?”
Then, “Abraham could have either offered or withheld the life of his son, faith or no faith. But God, seeing his heart, knew that his sacrifice was the result of his complete trust in his power and character. ”
It was faith that enabled Abraham to please God and led Abraham to offer his son to God. Without faith, Abraham could not please God and could not offer his son to God.
Of course, faith enables us to do otherwise difficult things, and scripture even appears to assert a supernatural power that accompanies faith, but that was not what I was addressing. My point was that men with or without faith have the same options before them. It is their believing that enables them to do what otherwise would be too hard, not God doing some supernatural magic to make them different than they were before.
It is like the ‘power’ of love. Loving someone does not create a new, supernatural force that did not formerly exist. Rather, love creates the incentive to do hard things, like putting others before self.
TS00 writes, “My point was that men with or without faith have the same options before them. It is their believing that enables them to do what otherwise would be too hard,…”
People with or without faith have the same options from which to choose. Those with faith will choose a different option than those without faith. The person who has assurance and conviction regarding Christ will choose salvation. The person who has no ssurance or conviction regarding Christ will not choose salvation.
Then, ” not God doing some supernatural magic to make them different than they were before.”
Jesus said in John 6″
– “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
– “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;”
– “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
– “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
Sounds like God is intimately involved in the salvation of a person.
RH, you wrote:
Under Calvinism, people are born with a corrupted heart and without faith. Without faith all sin, one can only turn aside, one can only be unprofitable.
What do you think a person can do without faith?
Aidan writes:
Your question at the end is just a distraction from the real issue here. The real question is whether or not we are born totally dead and totally depraved. According to TULIP, which you affirm, we are all born in that condition. But that contention is at odds with your statements, and with the statement of scripture.
You say, we are “born with a corrupted heart?” But the scripture says:
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one. (Ps. 14:3)
So, if we are ‘born dead, depraved, and corrupted’ as you say, that would necessarily imply that we are BORN – turned aside, corrupt, unprofitable, spoiled, useless, etc.. But if instead we – turn aside from God and become corrupt, unprofitable, useless – as the scriptures says, then we were not born in that depraved condition! How do you explain this? And show me the scripture that says we are, “born with a corrupted heart?”
RH, wrote:
Aidan writes, “Without regeneration, is it possible for a non-elect to choose contrary to his desires and get to heaven?”
Without regeneration, it is not possible for a person to see heaven much less enter heaven according to John 3.
Aidan Responds:
Everyone knows that – regeneration – is necessary for salvation. But what you don’t know, is that, it does NOT happen outside of WATER BAPTISM.
“but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5)
The word “WASHING” is defined as “a bath, a laver” the “act of bathing.”
Hence, – the washing of regeneration – occurs in WATER BAPTISM.
br.d
‘I guess that goes along with the question why does the language of scripture infer that people have the ability to “DO OTHERWISE” when they really don’t. ”
rhutchin
To show that people always choose according to their desires
br.d
While OBFUSCATING the fact that their desires are NOT UP TO THEM
That is how Calvinism brings scripture down to its level of not speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
rhutchin
even when they have the ability to choose otherwise (i.e. the ability to choose counter to their desires).
br.d
AH! Another attempt to ROB an aspect of IN-determinism eradicated by Determinism and SMUGGLE it back in.
Encyclopedia Britannica – Determinism
Determinism in philosophy is the theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism entails that humans cannot DO OTHERWISE than what they are determined to do.
In Theological Determinism
Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the Immutable DECREET
DO OTHERWISE – is the Calvinist’s ILLUSION
rhutchin
That which a person choices always reflects his desires and is never contrary to his desires.
br.d
Those desires NOT “UP TO” the creature – as they – as well as all attributes are pre-determined by Calvin’s god.
Poor Calvinists with their LOVE-HATE relationship with Determinism.
Aidan writes, “Why then would He bother to say to these people, these non-elect, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say; If He already knew what they were from the beginning, and what their inevitable fate was?”
Paul wrote, “Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life.”
Christ’s words prepare the non-elect for judgement.
br.d writes, “And Calvinists interpret the word KNOW within Jesus’ statement “Depart from me I do not know you” – as a reference to knowledge via intimacy.”
Calvinists contrast Matthew 7 with Romans 8 – those Jesus never knew (the non-elect) and those He foreknew (the elect).
Then, “according to Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Inability – a non-elect person is DEAD – and they can’t come to Jesus for anything”
No. Calvinism says that people cannot come to Jesus except in faith. People without faith come to Jesus all the time on the basis of their works as those described in Matthew 7 do.
Then, “They totally hate God, they are completely repulsed by him, and all of their inclinations point in the opposite direction.”
As Romans 1 tells us, “although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.”
Then, “concerning Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity is that it is made out of play-putty so that the Calvinist can mold it into any shape he needs it to look like for any given argument.”
Then put on your big boy pants and argue against Paul who wrote, “to be carnally minded is death,…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
br.d
“according to Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Inability – a non-elect person is DEAD – and they can’t come to Jesus for anything”
rhutchin
No. Calvinism says that people cannot come to Jesus except in faith…….
br.d
Of course that’s what you’re saying now – but we know it will change.
That’s why I say Total Depravity is a PLAY-PUTTY doctrine for Calvinists.
They mold it into whatever they want it to look like depending on what they need at the time.
Sometimes DEAD DEAD DEAD
Sometimes not so DEAD :-]
hutchin
Then put on your big boy pants and argue against Paul who wrote, “to be carnally minded is death,…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
br.d
You are funny rhutchin – your answer to Calvinists SHAPE-SHIFTING one of their doctrines is to have me argue against Paul
What a hoot! :-]
br.d writes, “your answer to Calvinists SHAPE-SHIFTING one of their doctrines is to have me argue against Paul”
No. It’s to have you argue against Paul. Something, you seem unable to do.
br.d
your answer to Calvinists SHAPE-SHIFTING one of their doctrines is to have me argue against Paul
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
No. It’s to have you argue against Paul. Something, you seem unable to do.
br.d
No thanks – I’ll sit back and watch – you go for it. :-]
Aidan writes, “Did Jesus not know, Rhutchin?”
Not only know but foreknew, and now I know Him.
Aidan
Did Jesus not know, Rhutchin?”
rhutchin
Not only know but foreknew, and now I know Him.
br.d
Well now rhutchin – come on – you know what Calvin teaches.
You can at least say Calvin’s god has given you the *PERCEPTION* that you are known and you know him
Remember:
Calvin’s god holds out salvation as a “savor of greater condemnation” to a “LARGE MIXTURE” of Calvinists.
He elects a “few grains of wheat”
And the rest are “A huge pile of chaff”
He deceives the vast majority of Calvinist with a FALSE perception of salvation.
And you have no way of knowing which group you are in – because that is a SECRET
As Calvin says:
-quote
“God’s SECRET election and his INNER call….he alone knows who are his” .
br.d writes, “And where do they get the power to cast out demons in Jesus’ name – and do many mighty works in Jesus’ name?”
Yet, Christ says of them, “I never knew you.”
Paul explains their power, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” Then in Revelation, “Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.” Finally, Jesus said, “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”
Then, “Given the doctrine of Total Inability – they wouldn’t have the capacity to say “Lord Lord” because their hearts would be filled with complete antipathy for him. They should be saying “Lord Lord” to Lucifer.”
True. As paul said, “no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”
br.d
And where do they get the power to cast out demons in Jesus’ name – and do many mighty works in Jesus’ name?”
rhutchin
Yet, Christ says of them, “I never knew you.”
Paul explains their power, ……etc
br.d
rhutchin – will you conflate a person masquerading as an Apostle with someone who casts out demons?
I think you’re just blowing a trumpet and just clanging a symbol. :-]
Given the doctrine of Total Inability – they wouldn’t have the capacity to say “Lord Lord” because their hearts would be filled with complete antipathy for him. They should be saying “Lord Lord” to Lucifer.”
rhutchin
True. As paul said, “no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”
br.d
Thanks rhutchin for the entertainment :-]
br.d writes, “Given the doctrine of Total Inability – they wouldn’t have the capacity to say “Lord Lord” because their hearts would be filled with complete antipathy for him. They should be saying “Lord Lord” to Lucifer.”
Under Total Depravity, people are still allowed to lie. Totally Depraved people are able to deny God. They are able to enter the community of believers as false prophets and false teachers. They avoid Scripture and teach a humanist philosophy. Thus, Peter writes, “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.” Paul also, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” and “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.”
br.d
Given the doctrine of Total Inability – they wouldn’t have the capacity to say “Lord Lord” because their hearts would be filled with complete antipathy for him. They should be saying “Lord Lord” to Lucifer.”
rhutchin
Under Total Depravity, people are still allowed to lie.
br.d
rhutchin – no one here is fooled by that language.
Take the word “allowed” and replace it with CAUSED and you have a truthful representation of Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism.
rhutchin
Totally Depraved people are able to deny God.
br.d
CAUSED to deny is the correct term
As John Calvin puts it:
-quote
Individuals are born….DOOMED FROM THE WOMB to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.(Institutes 23:12)
However, I do thank you for providing examples of Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK :-]
How much of TULIP does this one scripture that RH posted contradict?
RH: Thus, Peter writes, “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them,
At least 4 points of TULIP are contradicted by this scripture.
I was just thinking along those line GraceAdict!
There are people who posture having an infallible interpretation of scripture.
And since their interpretation is infallible – when it reveals itself as IRRATIONAL – then LOGIC must be cast aside because infallible wins.
101 easy lessons in how to win at the table of “Shell Games” and “Language Tricks” :-]
GraceAdict writes, “At least 4 points of TULIP are contradicted by this scripture.”
A bold claim. Maybe you just made it up. Why should a person believe you?
br.d “Take the word “allowed” and replace it with CAUSED and you a truthful representation of Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism….CAUSED to deny is the correct term.”
Caused is OK too. That because God created the person and in creating the person, He enables a person to lie and deny Him as He made the person independent and self-determining. God does not initiate those responses in a person.
br.d
Take the word “allowed” and replace it with CAUSED and you a truthful representation of Universal Divine *CAUSAL* Determinism….CAUSED to deny is the correct term.”
Caused is OK too. That because God created the person and in creating the person, He enables a person to lie and deny Him as He made the person independent and self-determining. God does not initiate those responses in a person.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – a good example for the SOT101 reader
In analyzing Calvinist language – one needs to be aware that TRUTH-TELLING comes in degrees :-]
br.d writes, ‘Thank you rhutchin – a good example for the SOT101 reader
In analyzing Calvinist language – one needs to be aware that TRUTH-TELLING comes in degrees”
You and I used different words for the same purpose. Nothing changed.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – a good example for the SOT101 reader
In analyzing Calvinist language – one needs to be aware that TRUTH-TELLING comes in degrees”
rhutchin
You and I used different words for the same purpose. Nothing changed.
br.d
Well one can understand how “nothing changes” for the anyone who chooses language that is less truth-telling.
Its a matter of personal preference.
But that doesn’t mean nothing changed – sufficient for others to discern.
br.d writes, “Well one can understand how “nothing changes” for the anyone who chooses language that is less truth-telling.”
Its a matter of personal preference.”
A matter of personal preference does not make it less than truth=telling where both terms mean the same thing
br.d, “.But that doesn’t mean nothing changed – sufficient for others to discern.”
Nothing changed that you are able to explain. Maybe someone else will help you out.
br.d
Well one can understand how “nothing changes” for the anyone who chooses language that is less truth-telling.”
Its a matter of personal preference.”
rhutchin
A matter of personal preference does not make it less than truth=telling where both terms mean the same thing
br.d
But that doesn’t mean nothing changed – sufficient for others to discern
rhutchin
Nothing changed that you are able to explain. Maybe someone else will help you out.
br.d
Ah yes we’ve come full circle bad to the “you can’t explain it” routine.
We all know how that one works – and I don’t think you’ll get many takers – for chasing the proverbial grease-pig. :-]
Aidan writes, “why would Jesus say to them, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46). Why would He say that to them, IF IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID?”
Jesus obviously speaks the truth when He says, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” He also spoke the truth when He said, “I never knew you.” By saying, “never,” Jesus means that it is impossible for them to do what He said. So, why does Jesus say this and say it this way? Guess you’ll have to ask Him when you meet Him.
Aidan wrote, “why would Jesus say to them, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46). Why would He say that to them, IF IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID?”
RH, wrote:
Jesus obviously speaks the truth when He says, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” He also spoke the truth when He said, “I never knew you.” By saying, “never,” Jesus means that it is impossible for them to do what He said. So, why does Jesus say this and say it this way? Guess you’ll have to ask Him when you meet Him.
Aidan writes:
That’s right, unlike Calvin’s god Jesus always speaks the truth. He spoke the truth in expecting those who called Him ‘Lord, Lord,’ to do what He said! He spoke the truth as to THE REASON WHY they would not enter – because they did not do “the will of My Father in heaven.” He also spoke the truth as to why they had to depart from Him, He says, “depart from Me, – you who practice lawlessness!’
Again, He spoke the truth when He rebuked them for not doing what He said.
BY NECESSARY INFERENCE, WE SEE THAT JESUS EXPECTED THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID, when He said: “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46).
Aidan writes, “That’s right, unlike Calvin’s god Jesus always speaks the truth.”
Jesus is Calvin’s god.
Then, “BY NECESSARY INFERENCE, WE SEE THAT JESUS EXPECTED THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID, when He said: “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46).”
Or by necessary inference, Jesus expected God’s elect to do what He said. Did not Christ say, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me…” and “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” and “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
RH, quoted Aidan:
Aidan writes, “That’s right, unlike Calvin’s god Jesus always speaks the truth.”
RH, wrote:
Jesus is Calvin’s god.
Aidan writes,
I know Jesus always speaks the truth. And I know Calvin’s god does not. Therefore, BY NECESSARY INFERENCE Jesus and Calvin’s god are not the same.
RH, quoted Aidan:
Then, “BY NECESSARY INFERENCE, WE SEE THAT JESUS EXPECTED THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID, when He said: “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46).”
In response, RH wrote:
“Or by necessary inference, Jesus expected God’s elect to do what He said.”
But RH has forgotten what he said about these same people earlier:
QUOTE: “Of course, Jesus is speaking to the non-elect. He describes them as those who say, “have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?”
QUOTE: “Jesus obviously speaks the truth when He says, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” He also spoke the truth when He said, “I never knew you.” By saying, “never,” Jesus means that it is impossible for them to do what He said.”
Aidan writes:
SINCE YOU HAVE NOW DECIDED TO CALL THEM GOD’S ELECT:
Then you are right in saying, ‘by necessary inference, Jesus expected them to do what He said.’
Thank you, you just proved my point.
Aidan writes, “But RH has forgotten what he said about these same people earlier: QUOTE: “Of course, Jesus is speaking to the non-elect. He describes them as those who say, “have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?””
So? That statement does not infer anything about what they can do. Jesus simply describes the non-elect inferring, if anything, that they should recognize that Jesus is talking about them.
Then, “QUOTE: “Jesus obviously speaks the truth when He says, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” He also spoke the truth when He said, “I never knew you.” By saying, “never,” Jesus means that it is impossible for them to do what He said.””
Here I say that Christ inferred that they would do nothing in response – “By saying, “never,” Jesus means that it is impossible for them to do what He said.”
Then, “SINCE YOU HAVE NOW DECIDED TO CALL THEM GOD’S ELECT: Then you are right in saying, ‘by necessary inference, Jesus expected them to do what He said.’”
Call who God’s elect? Certainly not those of whom Jesus said, “Manny will call be Lord, Lord…” for they are obviously on-elect. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. What point did I prove??
RH quoted Aidan:
Then, “SINCE YOU HAVE NOW DECIDED TO CALL THEM GOD’S ELECT: Then you are right in saying, ‘by necessary inference, Jesus expected them to do what He said.’”
RH responded with:
Call who God’s elect?
Aidan writes:
Those in Luke 6:46 whom we were debating back and forth. I had said, “BY NECESSARY INFERENCE, WE SEE THAT JESUS EXPECTED THEM TO DO WHAT HE SAID, when He said: “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46).”
In response, YOU quoted the same back, and said:
“Or by necessary inference, Jesus expected God’s elect to do what He said.” In context that was the verse we were debating; including the same ones to whom He will say, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
In truth, Jesus said nothing to these people here about being so-called elect, or non-elect. Therefore, what you stated is not even an inference, never mind a necessary inference. You are reading into the passage what you want to see there.
All Jesus says to them in that verse is, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? Without reading anything into that statement, anyone can see that this NECESSARILY IMPLIES that He expected them to do what He said.
A man goes to his doctor, and the doctor rebukes him – “Why do you call me, Doctor, Doctor,’ and do not do what I say?” Anyone can see that the doctor expects the man to simply do – what he has told him to do. Why? Because that is the ‘necessary implication’ from what was said here.
Agreed Aidan,
Almost every page of scripture assumes the ability to understand and respond in a positive manner. It is not just a big play act with the determiner making people do His predetermined acts of evil. The assumption in scripture is this ability to hear understand and respond in a positive manner.
Pro 1:20 Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice;
Pro 1:21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
Pro 1:22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?
Pro 1:23 If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
Pro 1:25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
GraceAdict, excellent passage,
Pro 1:20 Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice;
Pro 1:21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
Pro 1:22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?
Pro 1:23 If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
Pro 1:25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
Aidan,
Here she is, WISDOM, calling them to come to her, crying out for them to listen to her, imploring them to turn with outstretched hand; But they refuse to listen and come to her. So, she warns them of the consequences of not heeding her counsel.
This is not just an – assumption in scripture – there is a NECESSARY IMPLICATION here – of an ability to hear, understand, and respond in a positive manner.
When they refute that, they refute Wisdom!
Aidan writes, “This is not just an – assumption in scripture – there is a NECESSARY IMPLICATION here – of an ability to hear, understand, and respond in a positive manner.”
There are explicit statements in Scripture:
Jesus said, “No one can come to me…”
Paul wrote, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.”
In Hebrews, we read, “without faith it is impossible to please God.”
Jesus would often end a parable saying, “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
These are explicit statements to the ability of a person to hear, understand, and respond in a positive manner. Against these explicit statements, you want to use an implicit statement to override them. So, you can read anything you want into the Scriptures in order to deny that which the Scripture explicitly states. Bad form.
rhutchin
There are explicit statements in Scripture:
br.d
Sure – but that doesn’t negate the fact – the Calvinist interpretation of them is a unique minority view.
br.d writes, “Sure – but that doesn’t negate the fact – the Calvinist interpretation of them is a unique minority view.”
Actually, the Calvinists usually leaves the Scripture along letting them say what they want. It is the non-Calvinist who will often completely ignore verses as if they do not exist.
So, what is the majority view of Ephesians 1:11?
br.d
Sure – but that doesn’t negate the fact – the Calvinist interpretation of them is a unique minority view.
rhutchin
Actually, the Calvinists usually leaves the Scripture along letting them say what they want. It is the non-Calvinist who will often completely ignore verses as if they do not exist.
br.d
Yea – and of course – its just the Calvinists who do that!
To funny! :-]
But Jesus asks the question concerning scripture
“How do *YOU* read it?”
So again – you can disagree with Jesus that Calvinist don’t interpret scripture – if that serves some purpose for you.
And you don’t need my help for that.
rhutchin
So, what is the majority view of Ephesians 1:11?
br.d
Easy
Its not designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
But I think you are perhaps savvy enough to already know that.
rhutchin: “So, what is the majority view of Ephesians 1:11?”
br.d: “Easy. Its not designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism. But I think you are perhaps savvy enough to already know that.’
Yes, the majority view, when it opposes Calvinism, will object to the Calvinist opinion but never offer an alternative just as br.d has done and always seems to do. The failure to offer an alternative to Calvinism has the effect of affirming Calvinism. So, what does the majority view understand Ephesians 1:11 to say as an alternative to the Calvinist understanding? I’m betting (metaphorically) that you don’t know.
rhutchin
Yes, the majority view, when it opposes Calvinism, will object to the Calvinist opinion but never offer an alternative
br.d
This reminds me of a bird watcher who puts his hands over his eyes and then says there is no bird.
A RATIONAL mind would know that “In-determinism” is an alternative to “determinism”
Just because one puts his hands over his eyes – doesn’t mean the bird is not there to see. :-]
First of all, no sincere interpreter of scripture would extract a fragment of a sentence from a fragment of a paragraph from a fragment of a letter and pretend as if that was legitimate. Ephesians 1, and really the entire letter, is explaining that salvation is, and was always planned to be, through faith in Jesus.
There was no such thing as today’s debate over whether or not a limited number of people were irresistibly elected to salvation. The issue was whether or not salvation came by observing the Law of Moses (which Paul usually refers to as works – at least that is the English translation). The Jews insisted that they were owed salvation, not just because of their lineage, but because they had obediently worked to keep the law, as commanded.
The gospel message, brought by Jesus and taught by his apostles, is that the promised salvation had always been through faith in the formerly coming and, now, come Messiah. And the really good news was that this Messiah-brought salvation was not limited to the Jews, but had come to deliver all people, whosoever would put their faith in him.
This is the message, presented in the many letters of the apostles. Salvation is through Jesus, and putting oneself ‘in him’ through faith, not by any other deed, most commonly believed to be circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses.
All of the verses that Calvinists misinterpret to suggest a predetermined elect can better be interpreted as a predetermined gift of salvation. It was Christ, and his gift of salvation that was predetermined in eternity past, and nowhere does scripture state what Calvinism has read into it, that it was only offered to a select few and the rest never had a chance to be saved.
So, yes, with out a doubt God had, from before any men existed, determined to work out a plan of salvation. He predetermined that there would be forgiveness and eternal life, for all who would believe, and punishment and death for all who refused to believe. These two categories are what were predetermined, not the individuals who would, by their own free choices, put themselves into one or the other of these categories.
Most of the Jews stumbled upon the gospel message that salvation was by faith not works (the Law) and that it was freely offered to all men, not Israel alone. Paul explains how Israel the nation was chosen to bring about this promised salvation, and the Messiah who brought it; but never had God stated that this salvation was limited to Israel the nation. Indeed, from the very start, Abraham was told that his seed would bring blessing to all nations, which Jesus revealed meant salvation for all (who would believe and receive it).
So please, don’t keep saying no one has ever offered an alternative explanation to Calvinistic election. This explanation applies to pretty much every gotcha verse of Calvinism, and it has been the understanding of the vast majority of historic Christianity from the very start. It is certainly not unique to me, nor this generation.
TSoo writes, “no sincere interpreter of scripture would extract a fragment of a sentence from a fragment of a paragraph from a fragment of a letter and pretend as if that was legitimate.”
Of course they will. We have statements of truth all through the Scripture, sch as.
– “No one can come to Jesus.”
– “it is impossible for God to lie”
– “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;”
– “out of the abundance of the heart a person’s mouth speaks.”
– “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Then, “So please, don’t keep saying no one has ever offered an alternative explanation to Calvinistic election. ”
I said that br.d had not offered an alternative explanation for Ephesians 1:11.
rhutchin
I said that br.d had not offered an alternative explanation for Ephesians 1:11.
br.d
Everyone here already knows – getting scammed by the “you can’t explain it” routine – is simply chasing a greased pig :-]
TS00,
YES YES YES! This is the HEART AND SOUL of the Christian Faith when you said:
“There was no such thing as today’s debate over whether or not a limited number of people were irresistibly elected to salvation. The issue was whether or not salvation came by observing the Law of Moses (which Paul usually refers to as works – at least that is the English translation). The Jews insisted that they were owed salvation, not just because of their lineage, but because they had obediently worked to keep the law, as commanded.
The gospel message, brought by Jesus and taught by his apostles, is that the promised salvation had always been through faith in the formerly coming and, now, come Messiah. And the really good news was that this Messiah-brought salvation was not limited to the Jews, but had come to deliver all people, whosoever would put their faith in him.
This is the message, presented in the many letters of the apostles. Salvation is through Jesus, and putting oneself ‘in him’ through faith, not by any other deed, most commonly believed to be circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses.
My response:
YES, YES, YES!
In my study of the 7th Day Adventists (NOT TO BE ONE, but to try to figure out WHY they insist on going to church on Saturday), I discovered EXACTLY what you said here.
The word RIGHTEOUSNESS jumped out at me SO STRONG, it was like a major revelation. The law of Moses, vs. NO LAW OF MOSES.
Legalists think that the law of Moses was NOT DONE AWAY WITH, that we are still bound to NOT HAVE BACON FOR BREAKFAST, etc.
Hence, the word WORKS, or, EARNING your way, by…THE LAW, hence, the wages of SIN is death, for all have sinned.
What you said is bible 101 stuff, and I just can’t understand why reformers in general, whether Calvinists or not, can’t get that simple message that you stated.
Believe…ON YOUR OWN…or EARN your way…by THE LAW.
Now, you and I have a difference of opinion regarding the Blind Jews, but that’s neither here, nor there as far as I am concerned. What you said is FOUNDATIONAL.
Just a few days back, I found a web site that said:
“…verse numbers are not necessary to understand the Scripture, (Yes, some think they are indispensable for understanding the Bible.),and they are very much like “letters in red” in the Bible — very misleading at times. The problem here is that the “helps” placed in the Bible to help us find things, cease being helps to a high percentage of folks and become equal with Scripture itself for determining doctrine. So it is with the verse numbers. They are there to “help” us reference particular places in Scripture, much like the line numbers in a legal document. That is all they are for. We should never allow the verse beginnings and endings to override the rules of language structure and grammar, as that will — sooner rather than later — lead to errors in doctrine.”
He was discussing Ephesians 1:4, about sentence STRUCTURE, indicating that the sentence does NOT BEGIN in verse 4, but in another verse, and doesn’t end in verse 4 either, and the PROPER GRAMMATICAL WAY to break down the structure of a complete sentence, regardless of verse numbers.
Ed Chapman
What is truly bad form, is that, you don’t understand that implicit statements in scripture, are just as equal in authority as explicit statements are. Even the devil can quote “explicit statements” of scripture to his own ends. But regarding ‘implicit statements’?
EXAMPLE: The Sadducees’ contention over the resurrection, and Jesus’ response!
“But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,
‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mth. 22:31-32)
SEEMINGLY, the Sadducees thought that once you were dead, you were dead, end of story! But Jesus refutes this teaching by quoting a very famous passage where Moses encounters God at the burning bush. Here, Jesus makes the “NECESSARY IMPLICATION” from God’s statement to Moses, – ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ namely, that – “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” That was the only logical conclusion that could have been made from that verse, but they had missed it – big time!
HENCE, ‘necessary implications’ are one of the ways in which scripture directs us in the truth.They are no less authoritative than “direct statements” are. Jesus, Himself, established scriptural authority for belief in the resurrection, simply by using “necessary inference.” It was not the only time He taught in this way. The apostles often taught and came to the truth in this way, and the scriptures constantly direct us in this way.
ON IMPLICIT STATEMENT ALONE, the resurrection had been firmly established by Jesus, and His critics fully silenced. Once authority for something has been established by – NECESSARY INFERENCE – it has, precisely, the same force as a command.
Aidan writes, ‘All Jesus says to them in that verse is, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? Without reading anything into that statement, anyone can see that this NECESSARILY IMPLIES that He expected them to do what He said.”
Jesus here speaks of the past behavior of the person. If anything, He implies that they should have been doing what He said. His point is that their is a disconnect between their confession, “Lord, Lord” and their behavior, “do not do what I say.” Jesus makes a statement of fact. His statement implies that we can tell a true believer from a false believer by their actions. Jesus does not address the ability of the person to obey Him.
Then, “A man goes to his doctor, and the doctor rebukes him – “Why do you call me, Doctor, Doctor,’ and do not do what I say?” Anyone can see that the doctor expects the man to simply do – what he has told him to do. Why? Because that is the ‘necessary implication’ from what was said here.”
OK. The doctor prescribed medication to a person. The patient returns later and reveals that he has not taken any of the medication. The doctor certainly expected his patient to take the medicine. So, why didn’t he? At this point, we don’t know.
rhutchin,
I have no real problem with your explanation here, BUT…
Take it back to Abraham, WHICH Reformers NEVER LIKE TO DO in the first place.
The book of James talks about it, about how his FAITH is JUSTIFIED by what he did.
James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
And WHY is Jame 2:21 so IMPORTANT?
Because Abraham LIVED what he BELIEVED. And how?
Because he KNEW that God PROMISED Abraham that his seed would continue thru Isaac, and that BELIEF is what propelled him to offer Isaac, because for that promise to be fulfilled, he KNEW that God would indeed raise him from the dead in order to fulfill that promise.
So, Abraham lived what he believed, and he believed the PROMISE.
Hebrews 11:17-19 King James Version (KJV)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
——————————-
James 2:14-20 King James Version (KJV)
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
———————————————————————-
That James reference is in regards to LORD LORD. It’s like seeing a hungry man on the street, and saying, “I’LL PRAY FOR YA BROTHER”, instead of FEEDING HIM.
Your doctor doctor example is really all about SELF, not giving Jesus a drink of water, or visiting those in prison, etc.
It’s about treating others as how you want to be treated.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, ‘That James reference is in regards to LORD LORD. It’s like seeing a hungry man on the street, and saying, “I’LL PRAY FOR YA BROTHER”, instead of FEEDING HIM.
Your doctor doctor example is really all about SELF, not giving Jesus a drink of water, or visiting those in prison, etc.
It’s about treating others as how you want to be treated. ”
So, Matthew 7, “Lord, Lord…” is an issue of salvation. One is not saved because of his works.
Luke 6, “Lord, Lord…” is about works following salvation. One is not saved if he produces no works – “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,…”
rhutchin,
I sure hope that you are not referring that Jesus is the one DOING the good works FOR US, using our bodies as he wishes, for his Fathers pleasure.
No!!!!
It is our own good works, that SHOWS what we believe, proving to God our faith.
You’re Matthew 7 or Luke 6 regarding the word, WORKS.
PLEASE DEFINE WORKS.
In other words, define the difference between Romans 4 works, and James 2 works.
What is the difference between them?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I sure hope that you are not referring that Jesus is the one DOING the good works FOR US, using our bodies as he wishes, for his Fathers pleasure. ”
He does works THROUGH us. As Paul said in Philippians, “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”
Then, “In other words, define the difference between Romans 4 works, and James 2 works. What is the difference between them?”
No difference. Both Abraham and the object of James are believers. As James explains, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
This shows your ignorance. There is a difference between Romans 4 works, and James 2 works.
How can you declare that there is no difference?
The law of Moses is the works that Romans 4 is discussing.
Abraham didn’t have the law of Moses, so he didn’t work for his righteousness.
James 2 is not about righteousness.
That’s the difference.
James 2 is what you do as a result of BELIEVING.
Romans 4 is working for your salvation.
Huge difference, but you say NO DIFFERENCE?
WOW!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Romans 4 is working for your salvation. ”
Romans 4 says, “Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised,” As James said, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
The two statements are parallel!
– “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”
– “Why do you call me, Doctor, Doctor,’ and do not do what I say?”
Since you admit that the Doctor rebuked them because he expected them to do what he said, and you also admit that the Lord rebuked them because He expected them to do what He said! Because, it is necessarily implied. The reasons why they failed is of no consequence. They still received the rebuke because of their disobedience. In other words, both were expected to obey.
The problem you have with the ‘Lord, Lord,’ verses is that you have already stated that this applies to the non-elect. But as you have already admitted by stating – “He implies that they should have been doing what He said.”
Then this necessarily implies – the ability to obey Him.
This reminds me of the saying “Should and Ought implies can” :-]
Aiden writes, ‘Since you admit that the Doctor rebuked them because he expected them to do what he said, and you also admit that the Lord rebuked them because He expected them to do what He said! ”
Christ rebukes them because of their declaration, “Lord, Lord…” We know that believers who also say, “lord, Lord…” actually do the things He says. The failure of some who said, “Lord, Lord…” to obey Christ revels that they were not believers. – thus Paul’s characterization of them applies, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Then, “But as you have already admitted by stating – “He implies that they should have been doing what He said.” Then this necessarily implies – the ability to obey Him.”
Wring conclusion. The implication is that those who call Christ, Lord, and do not do as He said are not believers – they have no desire to obey Him and thereby no ability to obey Him.
CHRISTIANS CAN BE FLESHLY MINDED:
Explicit statements made by Paul to Christians;
“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?” (1 Cor 3:1-4)
Paul also says, “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6)
TO CHRISTIANS:
“For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom. 8:13)
“But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.” (Rom. 13:14)
THEREFORE, YOU ARE RIGHT, Paul’s characterization of them applies, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.”
The implication is that those who often call Christ, Lord, and do not do as He said are INDEED BELIEVERS! In which case they would need to repent.
AMcMan writes:
CHRISTIANS CAN BE FLESHLY MINDED:
Explicit statements made by Paul to Christians;
“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?” (1 Cor 3:1-4)
GA: I Totally Agree!
Thank you, GA,
What they don’t realize from these and other scriptures, is that Christians must still consciously choose to walk by the Spirit, and not fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:16).
Aidan writes, “Christians must still consciously choose to walk by the Spirit, and not fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:16).”
This is sanctification and no one argues against that.
RH wrote:
Aidan writes, “Christians must still consciously choose to walk by the Spirit, and not fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:16).”
This is sanctification and no one argues against that.
Aidan writes:
Conversely, Christians can choose not to walk by the Spirit, but to fulfill the desires of the flesh.
“For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom. 8:13)
It’s interesting isn’t it? Even Christians can – choose – life or death, depending how they live or walk!
Aidan writes, “Even Christians can – choose – life or death, depending how they live or walk!”
Only Christians have this ability. Non-Christians, because they have no faith, can only choose death until such time that God gives them faith.
rhutchin states:
“Aidan writes, “Even Christians can – choose – life or death, depending how they live or walk!”
Only Christians have this ability. Non-Christians, because they have no faith, can only choose death until such time that God gives them faith.”
My response:
No, Non-Christians have to FIRST BE GIVEN INFORMATION in order to CHOOSE anything, otherwise, it’s NOT A CHOICE.
It’s like looking at a MENU at a restaurant. You are given a CHOICE OF A SOUP OR A SALAD.
You can’t CHOOSE salad if SOUP is the ONLY THING on the menu.
And that applies to YOU, as well. YOU can’t choose soup or salad. You are DICTATED which you will have.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “No, Non-Christians have to FIRST BE GIVEN INFORMATION in order to CHOOSE anything, otherwise, it’s NOT A CHOICE.”
The non-Christian must be given the assurance and conviction (faith) in the gospel that enables the ability to choose life. Absent faith, they do not have the ability to make that choice. Most non-Christians easily understand the gospel when they hear it. Absent faith, it is all foolishness to them.
rhutchin,
NO ONE in reform likes to TAKE IT BACK TO ABRAHAM, do they?
You had said:
“The non-Christian must be given the assurance and conviction (faith) in the gospel that enables the ability to choose life. Absent faith, they do not have the ability to make that choice. Most non-Christians easily understand the gospel when they hear it. Absent faith, it is all foolishness to them.”
NO ONE enabled ABRAHAM to believe, or not believe. He believed on his own accord. God made him a PROMISED and, ON HIS OWN ACCORD, believed God. There was no enabling about it.
YOU have faith that the chair you sit in will not tip over. THAT’S YOUR OWN FAITH. The chair manufacturer did not INCLUDE FAITH as part of the sale. God does NOT IMPUTE FAITH. Period.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “NO ONE enabled ABRAHAM to believe, or not believe. He believed on his own accord.”
Guess we disagree.
Yes, we do, and that is the heart of our differences.
chapmaned24
“NO ONE enabled ABRAHAM to believe, or not believe. He believed on his own accord.”
rhutchin
Guess we disagree.
br.d
Calvin’s god snuck into Abraham’s tent one night and mistakenly thought he was dropping a “Faith” pill into Abraham’s mouth.
It turned out it was an “Ishmael” pill :-]
rhutchin
Non-Christians, because they have no faith, can only choose death until such time that God gives them faith.
br.d
Take out the “Total Depravity” floppy drive from the brain and insert the “Faith” floppy drive in its place.
But then you have the problem of Calvin’s god giving them a FALSE “Faith” program. :-]
Aidan wrote, “Even Christians can – choose – life or death, depending how they live or walk!”
RH, wrote: “Only Christians have this ability.”
Aidan writes: If Christians have this ability, then Christians can lose their salvation.
And, salvation is the gift in Ephesians 2, not faith. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,”
Aidan,
You had said:
“Aidan writes: If Christians have this ability, then Christians can lose their salvation.”
My response:
I know that you think that Christians can lose their salvation, but what I have learned is that Christians CANNOT lose their salvation.
Once you know the TRUTH (Jesus said that he is the Truth), and the TRUTH (SON) SHALL SET YOU FREE.
Now, by putting yourself UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, aka, the law of sin and death, that is CHOOSING DEATH, and that is the burden, that is NOT BEING BORN AGAIN.
Christians do sin, but just because they do, they don’t lose salvation, because they are NOT UNDER THE LAW. Romans 7:14-25 explains in detail.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
And finally…
1 John 3:9 (KJV)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
and
Hebrews 13:5
I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Wherever you go, THERE HE IS!
Our HOPE *(expectation) is in the savior to SAVE US from a SINFUL BODY, that still sins even as a Christian, as Romans 7 indicates. We HATE WHAT WE DO in sinning, but 1 John 3:9 states that we are NOT ETERNALLY JUDGED by sin that we do, because we are NOT UNDER THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH, but under the law of FAITH, and faith is a law to be obeyed, hence:
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
We are eternally secure, because
Hebrews 11:1
FAITH IS…
Faith is KNOWING (ASSURANCE) that we are gonna get what we are waiting for (HOPE).
If you are NOT SURE, then you have NO FAITH, not saved to begin with, you have NO HOPE:
Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
—————————————
So, I believe in “once saved, always saved”, BUT, not for the reasons that REFORMERS do, by using the word ELECT incorrectly, as they do.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
We probably never agree on this, but just some verses to consider anyways.
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-9)
These are Christians John is speaking to. Would it be possible for one to read these verses and reasonably conclude that Christians do not sin? Of course not! I think we pretty much agree on that. How could they be told to “confess our sins” if they did not sin? And He could not “forgive us our sins”- if – we did not “confess our sins” – Otherwise we remain in our sin.
“My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” ( 1 John 2:1 )
Why would Christians continue to need an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, if it was okay for them to remain in their sin? Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness (1 Jn 3:4) Depart from Me you who practice lawlessness. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.(Rom. 8:13) Christians cannot afford to live in sin or they will die.
“Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.” (1 Jn. 2:24-25).
If it was impossible for them to stop “abiding” in Christ, why the need to assure them with; – IF – what you heard from the beginning “abides” in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father? The necessary inference here, is that it WAS possible for them to stop abiding in the Son and in the Father. And we know that “life” can only be found in the Son: – “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 Jn. 5:12)
“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:5-6)
Written to Christians who were turning back to the Law.
“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:4) Repentance and confessing of sin was definitely needed here. It is hard to see how someone who has been “severed from Christ” and “fallen from grace” could possibly be saved in that condition, – without repentance and forgiveness, that is.
These are just some of the scriptures:
But, I’m sorry, I just cannot believe in “once saved, always saved” because I find too many scriptures that teach otherwise for the – unfaithful!
Aidan,
Sure, we do sin, just like Romans 7 discusses. But, we still won’t lose our salvation… if we have faith. You will never stop sinning, ever. But that sin is not judged against you regarding eternal salvation. And it seems that Simon Peter doesn’t get it, as well.
Ed Chapman
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.(Eccl. 7:20)
But there is a big difference between him and one who falls away and becomes unfaithful. That’s what I’m talking about! But there are some who believe that that’s not possible.
Aidan,
You had said:
“But there is a big difference between him and one who falls away and becomes unfaithful. That’s what I’m talking about! But there are some who believe that that’s not possible.”
My response:
What we call THAT, is: Not saved in the first place. You can’t LOSE something that you never had in the first place. They were never ROOTED…like a plant. Jesus explains this about the SEED spread out. Some on ROCK, some in GOOD SOIL, etc.
Ed Chapman
Ed:
“What we call THAT, is: Not saved in the first place.”
Aidan:
Only a person who was “in Christ” and saved by “grace” in the first place, could ever be – (severed from Christ) and be deemed as having –
(fallen from grace). You can’t be severed from it unless you were connected to it in the first place. And you can’t fall from it unless you were in it – in the first place.
Aidan,
WORKS is the OPPOSITE of Grace, and WORKS is the LAW OF MOSES. When people gravitate BACK TO THE LAW FOR WORKS, THOSE are the people that fall from grace, because those in the law of Moses are STILL AWAITING A MESSIAH.
That still concludes that you were never saved to begin with, because you didn’t have faith, and the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 is KNOWING that you are gonna get what you are waiting for.
It doesn’t matter whether it was the law of Moses or not. They were still Christians being severed from Christ, and falling from grace. They had been saved, and now they were losing their salvation!
Galatians 5:4 King James Version (KJV)
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
That one verse tells me that they were NOT CHRISTIANS, all because they look to THE LAW.
Christ is NO EFFECT to them, meaning that they have NO FAITH, NOT SAVED in the first place. Now, OUR differences is in the word FALLEN.
I take that word as meaning FALL SHORT of Grace, not to mean LOST grace. We fall short of the Glory of God. Fallen.
Ed Chapman
chapmened24 writes, “WORKS is the OPPOSITE of Grace, and WORKS is the LAW OF MOSES. ”
Matthew 7 tells us, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’’
We can add, “…prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name…” as works that do not gain salvation.
That’s not works, rhutchin. Works is the law of Moses, period.
chapmaned24 writes, “That’s not works, rhutchin. Works is the law of Moses, period. ”
These “activities” were offered as proof of salvation. Those activities were not evidence of salvation as Jesus did not accept them. If those activities do not merit salvation, what is the difference between them and works of the law?
No, rhutchin. You need to first establish what works is, and it is concluded that works is only the law of Moses.
The law of Moses is indeed works, only.
Moving on…
These people in the example being told, are being “portrayed” as Jesus followers already, NOT PRODUCING FRUIT.
Followers of Christ must produce fruit.
That’s what’s being discussed. Producing fruit is the context, being Christ followers is the context.
Not works, because doing those things are not law of Moses commandments.
Law of Moses commandments is what works is.
Ed Chapman
Ed, I believe you are correct that almost without exception what is translated as ‘works’ in scripture refers to the Law of Moses. The Jews did not believe that they could be saved by being ‘good enough’, i.e. doing good works. No indeed, or they would not have had to go through the long list of ceremonies and sacrifices to make up for their many acknowledged sins and shortcomings. They were not counting on their good works, but on their keeping of The Law.
It is a novel and modern (if you can call John Calvin modern) interpretation of the New Testament to turn faith vs. works into faith vs. Good Deeds, rather than Faith vs. Law. The issue was always about whether or not salvation came through The Law or Faith, as taught by Jesus and his apostles. It was through this redefinition that Calvin was able to fashion his false gospel.
TS00 writes, ‘It is a novel and modern (if you can call John Calvin modern) interpretation of the New Testament to turn faith vs. works into faith vs. Good Deeds, rather than Faith vs. Law.”
This because Jesus said, in Matthew 7, ““Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
Can you tie Matthew 7 to your statement above?
TS00,
Yes, my revelation of the word works was when I was researching why the 7th Day Adventists insist on going to church on Saturday.
But the one word that stuck out the most to me was the word, righteousness. That one word taught me a ton about works vs faith, and it taught me that it’s either one or the other, but not both.
Next…
Good works, which is the exact same thing as saying good deeds, is as a result of salvation, not a means to salvation. It’s the same thing as loving our neighbor as ourselves. Feeding the hungry, not by taxes, but by your own pocket book, visiting those in prison, giving a thirsty man water, etc. That’s good works.
But works is just the law of Moses.
Works requires a wage. Good deeds don’t. The law of Moses is the law of sin and death. Wages of sin is death.
No one is gonna get a paycheck of eternal life by the law, so why are people so concentrated, and infatuated by TRYING to be righteous by it?
Wouldn’t you rather be righteous without the law?
These things are explained all thru Romans. But Romans has to be read as a whole letter first, before you begin to break it down in sections, cuz trying to build a doctrine from a few verses will fail.
The book of James is about Good Works. But Luther got confused about that, cuz he taught against works, so he couldn’t tell the difference between works of the law of Moses, vs GOOD WORKS of the law of faith.
Ed Chapman
chapmeaned24 writes, “You need to first establish what works is, and it is concluded that works is only the law of Moses.”
What is a work? A work is doing the Law of Moses. That does not prevent other actions also being works. You have offered your opinion that “works is only the law of Moses,” and sought to prove this by showing that the Law of Moses is always identified as a work. However, proving that ” the Law of Moses is always identified as a work,” does not prove that “works is only the law of Moses.” Even br.d could figure that out.
Then, “These people in the example being told, are being “portrayed” as Jesus followers already, NOT PRODUCING FRUIT. ”
The people portray themselves as believers (maybe because they made a free will decision) – “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied…” Jesus sets the record right saying, “I never knew you.” Producing fruit could not be the issue because Jesus “never knew them.”.
rhutchin,
NO. Works is ONLY the Law of Moses. I stand by that ALWAYS. That’s why FAITH can’t be a work, because it’s NOT A COMMANDMENT in the law of Moses.
Again, look at CONTEXT. Context, Context, Context.
THOSE PEOPLE were ALREADY THINKING THAT THEY WERE SAVED IN THE FIRST PLACE, so therefore, they were NOT in the WORKING PHASE of trying to OBTAIN salvation at all. They thought that they were ALREADY SAVED. Already, already. So they understood ALREADY that they didn’t need to WORK for salvation.
These people were NOT PRODUCING FRUIT, while claiming that they were ALREADY SAVED.
So please look at CONTEXT.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “They thought that they were ALREADY SAVED. Already, already. So they understood ALREADY that they didn’t need to WORK for salvation.”
So, a person stands before God seeking to enter heaven. What does he say? Jesus portrays certain people as saying, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ If this were truly fruit, then how could Jesus say, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Jesus’ point is that a person is not saved because he prophesies, cast out demons and does many wonders – a person is saved by God’s grace. In this case, Jesus portrays certain people as justifying their salvation by their works or fruit. This is the same as a person justifying his salvation by saying, “I am a member of a church, or I was baptized, or I went out witnessing.” All those actions are fine and good, but they miss the point that Jesus is making.
rhutchin,
You are not not not reading Matthew 7 right.
Prophesying in Jesus name isn’t considered a work to gain salvation. Casting out demons is not considered a work to gain salvation.
Those people were claiming to be Jesus followers already.
They were not producing fruit. Period.
You literally have no clue regarding the word work.
They were not working to be saved. They thought they were already saved.
The point Jesus was making was about PRODUCING FRUIT.
Calvinism is so screwed up about this grace thing.
Jesus had followers already, called disciples and apostles. He sent out 72 at one point.
And he hadn’t died for anyone’s sins yet.
His point was, if you follow him, you had better PRODUCE FRUIT.
STOP MAKING THIS ABOUT SALVATION, WORKS, GRACE, cuz it’s not about any of those words at all.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
Addendum to my last..
Meaning that not all who CLAIM to be “Christians” will get to heaven.
Or, to add Calvinist humour, not all who CLAIM to be ELECT will get to heaven.
Ed Chapman
Ed
Or, to add Calvinist humour, not all who CLAIM to be ELECT will get to heaven.
br.d
Correct – according to Calvinist doctrine.
Not all Calvinists who PERCEIVE themselves to be elect are elect.
As a matter of fact Calvin teaches the proportions are -quote “a few grains” vs -quote ” a pile of chaff”.
On Calvinism then – the vast majority of Calvinists are
1) Given a FALSE perception of election
2) Are given thousands of subsequent FALSE perceptions in their reading of scripture
3) Are TOTALLY DEPRAVED
br.d,
A pile of what? Lol. So, based on that, they can’t know if they are saved or not. It’s all a 50/50 chance, i.e., Maybe they’ll make it, maybe they won’t. But they are elect. I know in regular Christianity about the wheat and chaff, but as individuals, we can know. But Calvinists can’t know which one they are. I wonder, when in church, they look around to see who is not on the ballot, voting for themselves.
Ed Chapman
Well it wouldn’t be a 50/50 chance – it would be more like a 5/95 chance – with approximately 95% probability that Calvin’s god has given them a FALSE perceptions of salvation.
The proportions depends on how you interpret the word “few”.
For example if you have 100 blocks sitting on a table – how many of them would you classify as a “few”?
A Calvinist’s answer to that question will reveal what percentage that Calvinist calculates – as the percentage of those in his church who are truly elect.
Calvin’s god also deceives these Calvinists into believing they are not TOTALLY DEPRAVED. And then he continues to deceive them throughout their lives – giving them FALSE perceptions of being Christians and FALSE perceptions when they read scripture , assuming the promises of scripture apply to them. When the truth is – Calvin’s god created them as objects of his hatred and wrath.
Calvinism also has the doctrine of SECRET election.
Everyone’s election status is unknown to humans – only known to Calvin’s god.
And just when we were having a nice, peaceful, quiet moment – rhutchin!
rhutchin
We can add, “…prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name…” as works that do not gain salvation.
br.d
You might want to try casting out a demon without being saved
Oh that reminds me – casting out demons is something Calvinists don’t do. :-]
br.d writes, “You might want to try casting out a demon without being saved”
Guess Jesus got it wrong when He said, ““Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
br.d
You might want to try casting out a demon without being saved”
rhutchin
Guess Jesus got it wrong when he said……etc
br.d
The higher probability is that the Calvinist brain – by virtue of IRRATIONAL thinking – ends up with an IRRATIONAL interpretation.
And that’s what a RATIONAL person would expect. :-]
br.d writes, “The higher probability is that the Calvinist brain – by virtue of IRRATIONAL thinking – ends up with an IRRATIONAL interpretation.”
That might work if you had an alternative interpretation that could be viewed as rational. I suspect you do not.
br.d
The higher probability is that the Calvinist brain – by virtue of IRRATIONAL thinking – ends up with an IRRATIONAL interpretation.”
rhutchin
That might work if you had an alternative interpretation that could be viewed as rational. I suspect you do not.
br.d
Well of course in Theological Determinism what “you suspect” is NOT UP TO YOU because all things are exclusively determined *FOR* you at the foundation of the world before you exist. And there is a probability that Calvin’s god decreed you to “suspect” things that are FALSE – just as he determines you to have FALSE perceptions.
The good news is – I get to analyze Calvinism’s IRRATIONAL thinking as it becomes posted here
And SOT101 readers get to make up their own minds when they see those examples.
So its a win-win situation! :-]
br.d,
You had said:
rhutchin
We can add, “…prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name…” as works that do not gain salvation.
br.d
You might want to try casting out a demon without being saved
Oh that reminds me – casting out demons is something Calvinists don’t do. :-]
My response:
lololololololololol, I almost fell out of my chair and spit my coffee out of my mouth at that!! Ya, they don’t believe in gifts, so rhutchin is gonna conclude that it was JUST FOR THAT GENERATION only. Well, Aidan, too.
On the other hand…
We have to include this, tho:
Mark 9:38-40
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
But notice the reasoning behind it in verse 38 (not speaking evil of Jesus)…
SO, still, the point about Matthew 7 is still about Jesus followers not producing fruit, because Mark above, they weren’t followers of Christ, so they weren’t about producing fruit, they just didn’t speak evil of Jesus, not against THEM (us in the sentence).
Bottom line, it’s not about WORKS for salvation, cuz Matthew 7, they thought that they were already in the “IN CROWD” already, packed their bags, ready to move into that mansion in the sky!!
Ed
Well there have been believers who claim to have a ministry of waring against principalities and powers (e.g. casting out demons)
Pablo Bottari – for example – who according to his testimony worked in countries where the occult is prevalent and where during evangelism meetings people would manifest demonic behaviors, like the boy who threw himself in the fire in Matthew 9.
Pablo is supposedly now teachings pastors the principles of dealing with people who have demonic influences in their lives.
And one of the critical tenets understood in that process is that in order for a seducing spirit to seduce a person requires that person have some degree of Libertarian Free will. To gain entrance to a person requires some form of consent from the person.
If you think about it – there is no such thing as seducing someone who has compatibilisitc free will
In compatibilism every neurological impulse is determined by Calvin’s god
And that is the essence robotic functionality.
And there is no such thing as seducing a robot.
Yep. And I’ve also heard testimony of the demonic by missionaries in the countries that practice voodoo. Lots of strange activity like what you describe.
Ed Chapman
So its worth considering – if every demon in hell knows that a divine law of the spirit realm is that – in order to gain ground in a person’s life they must take advantage of that person’s Libertarian free will – then one way to neutralize the church’s ability to war against principalities and powers would be a doctrine that rejects Libertarian Free will.
If that is true – then Calvinism represents a doctrine designed to render the church impotent against principalities and powers.
This is exactly the reason that Satan needs to be discussed, because Satan has a kingdom, and is out for people’s soul.
This whole idea that man is an enemy to God by nature is very strange doctrine to me. Never heard of that til I learned of Calvinism. The devil is the enemy, who comes to steal, kill, and destroy, and he does not do that with God’s permission or God’s decree.
It really boggles my mind how you guys in the reform world co-exist together with Calvinists, while knowing the major differences. To me, that’s chaos. How and why did you guys do it? I’ve read that the common thread is baptism. And I’m like, “So?” Cuz to me, that’s not satisfactory at all. Just wondering!!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
It really boggles my mind how you guys in the reform world co-exist together with Calvinists, while knowing the major differences. To me, that’s chaos. How and why did you guys do it? I’ve read that the common thread is baptism. And I’m like, “So?” Cuz to me, that’s not satisfactory at all. Just wondering!!
br.d
I’m not sure what you’re asking here Ed.
I’m personally not in the reformed camp.
But it sounds like you’re interested in the various sections of the reformed camp and how they fit together?
Well that’s a relief to know that. But, ya, that question of mine has been on my mind since me arguing with a former blogger that ran an SBC blog before SBC Today went offline. I think it was called SBC Tomorrow. I brought up the question as an argument, and he didn’t want to hear it, and he was not Calvinist, and a major endorser of both existing side by side. He blocked me almost immediately when I said the word chaos.
Ed Chapman
I happen to know that Brian was considering publishing a work on certain aspects of Luther.
So I think out of all of the participants here, besides Dr. Flowers, he might have more familiarity with the various parts of the Reformed camp.
The next time he’s here – you might want to ask him.
chapmaned24 writes, “This whole idea that man is an enemy to God by nature is very strange doctrine to me.”
Paul wrote in Ephesians 2, “you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” Then James writes, “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” Then, Paul writes in Romans 8, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Not new with Calvinism.
This is a very important point, and parallels the inability to make use of the power of the Spirit. This is why such errors are not just benign doctrinal disagreements, but genuinely do great harm to the Body of Christ. Satan’s desire is to not simply deceive us into believing lies, but to deceive us into believing lies that render us powerless against the powers of darkness.
TS00
Satan’s desire is to not simply deceive us into believing lies, but to deceive us into believing lies that render us powerless against the powers of darkness.
br,d
Yes absolutely!
And for me – the fact that an allegiance to Calvinism forces the Calvinist to disobey Jesus’ command:
“Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay for anything else comes of evil”
– serves as a major red-flag that the system seduces them into various forms of intellectual dishonesty.
And there is every reason to assume the enemy is hiding and working within the cracks and crevices of that.
br.d writes, “And one of the critical tenets understood in that process is that in order for a seducing spirit to seduce a person requires that person have some degree of Libertarian Free will. To gain entrance to a person requires some form of consent from the person. ”
LOL!!!! Peter wrote, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.”
rhutchin
LOL!!!! Peter wrote, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.”
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – for proving my point!
In Theological Determinism one’s every thought, choice, and desire is fixed in the past before one is born
Making it the case that not one thought, choice or desire is UP TO YOU.
Therefore exhorting someone to do something *AS-IF* it were UP TO THEM when one knows it isn’t – is DOUBLE-SPEAK.
And that is why that verse affirms IN-determinism. :-]
Aiden writes, “If Christians have this ability, then Christians can lose their salvation.”
Not according to Jesus. Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” and ““This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Also, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” No Christian can lose his/her salvation – it is guaranteed by none other than Jesus Himself.
Then, “And, salvation is the gift in Ephesians 2, not faith. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, “
James wrote, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above…” Salvation is by grace and obviously a gift from God. In Ephesians 2:8, Paul adds, “by faith,” and in writing this is prompted to add, “that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” The whole of salvation including the means to salvation, is a gift from God.
RH, wrote:
Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” No Christian can lose his/her salvation – it is guaranteed by none other than Jesus Himself.”
Aidan writes:
Jesus said: “the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” (John 6:37)
“The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.” ( 2 Chr. 15:2)
“If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.” (2 Ti. 2:12)
And let’s not forget the “unprofitable SERVANT” was – “cast out.”
“And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 25:30)
When you come to Christ, filled with sorrow of a Godly nature which brings you to repentance, desiring to be baptized into Christ, into His leadership, you will not be rejected – entrance will not be denied you. But, he who proves to be an “unprofitable servant,” He will be “cast out.”
Aidan writes, “When you come to Christ, filled with sorrow of a Godly nature which brings you to repentance, desiring to be baptized into Christ, into His leadership, you will not be rejected – entrance will not be denied you. But, he who proves to be an “unprofitable servant,” He will be “cast out.””
So, the question is, “Which Scriptures rule over the other Scriptures?” I maintain that John 6:37 rules over all other Scripture in the matter of Salvation. Here, Jesus says, ““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.”
The action by God, “All that the Father gives Me…” precedes the action of man, “…will come to Me,…” God’s action makes man’s action certain.”
This is emphasized when Jesus then says, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Again, God’s action, “…unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” precedes the ability of man to come to Jesus as, ““No one can come to Me…”
Nothing in the verses you cite overturn John 6. They are subordinate to John 6 and must be harmonized in subordination to John 6. If you use the other verses to negate John 6, you incur the penalty of Galatians 1, ” I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
John 6 is clear; God’s giving a person to Christ and God’s drawing a person to Christ necessarily precede a person coming to Christ. You cannot overturn this.
RH, wrote: “I maintain that John 6:37 rules over all other Scripture in the matter of Salvation.”
AIDAN: And yet, he who proves to be an “unprofitable servant,” will be “cast out.” (Matt. 25:30)
Therefore, the problem is not with the scriptures, but rather, your interpretation of scripture! Notice, its the “unprofitable servant” who is cast out, and not the “faithful servant.”
Aidan writes, “Therefore, the problem is not with the scriptures, but rather, your interpretation of scripture! Notice, its the “unprofitable servant” who is cast out, and not the “faithful servant.””
In other words, you understand what Jesus says in John 6 and His specific statement, “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” and you don’t know how Matthew 25 should be understood in light of that. However, we understand Matthew 25, we cannot use it to deny John 6. The easiest solution is to see John 6 referring to salvation and Matthew 25 not so. You need to show that Matthew 25:14ff deals with salvation if you want to go in that direction. I don’t see a need to force that meaning onto it.
RH, wrote: “However, we understand Matthew 25, we cannot use it to deny John 6. The easiest solution is to see John 6 referring to salvation and Matthew 25 not so.
AIDAN writes: You mean Matthew 25 cannot be used to deny YOUR understanding of John 6! Maybe the easiest solution would be to review your understanding of both passages. Too optimistic perhaps?
And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Mat. 25:30). He is not talking about ‘Brexit’ here, He’s talking about “Hell.” About being cast out into the – outer darkness. Notice: “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Jesus is referring to being cast into Hell. There are other passages of scripture that refer to this.
Mat. 8:12 – “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mat. 13:42 – “and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mat. 13:50 – “and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mat. 22:13 – “‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'”
Mat. 24:51 – “and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Mat. 25:30 – “And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'”
Luk. 13:28 – “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.”
The easiest solution would be to hear what Jesus said in Matthew 25 without imposing anything else onto it! That passage teaches that the – “faithful servant” – will enter into the joy of his master. But the – “unprofitable servant” – will be cast out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hence, the faithful servant will be saved, but those who prove to be unfaithful servants, will not be saved, but – cast out of the kingdom.
It was the will of the Father to bless Solomon forever when He gave him the kingdom. But, as it is today, these things are always conditional on remaining faithful to God.
“As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever. (1 Chr. 28:9)
God wills that those who are His remain faithful to Him, but that unfortunately doesn’t always happen. You just need to get Calvin out of head in order to see it! But, somehow I get the feeling, that ain’t gonna happen either!!
Aidan writes, “AIDAN writes: You mean Matthew 25 cannot be used to deny YOUR understanding of John 6! Maybe the easiest solution would be to review your understanding of both passages. Too optimistic perhaps? ”
In John 6 Jesus says, “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”
Maybe, you could explain what you think Jesus is telling us here?
Then, “And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Mat. 25:30)….Jesus is referring to being cast into Hell. There are other passages of scripture that refer to this.”
The issue is to identify who is being cast into hell.
Mat. 8:12 – sons of the kingdom seems to refer to the Jews
Mat. 13:42 – the tares, sown by Satan, are unbelievers, “those who practice lawlessness.”
Mat. 13:50 – the wicked, or unbelievers, are cast into hell
Mat. 22:13 – the man without a wedding garment, an unbeliever, is cast into hell
Mat. 24:51 – the evil servant is an unbeliever
Mat. 25:30 – the unprofitable servant is an unbeliever
Luk. 13:28 – the workers of iniquity are unbelievers
Then, ‘The easiest solution would be to hear what Jesus said in Matthew 25 without imposing anything else onto it!”
John 6 is a direct teaching by Jesus. Matthew 15 has Jesus illustrating his point with a parable,. Direct teaching by Jesus is explicit and takes precedence over parables.
Then, “God wills that those who are His remain faithful to Him, but that unfortunately doesn’t always happen.”
As Jesus explains in John 6, all those who are God’s will remain faithful as Jesus will make that outcome certain. Jesus said, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me,” and “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.”
RH, wrote: “The issue is to identify who is being cast into hell.” Mat. 24:51 – “the evil servant is an unbeliever”
Aidan writes:
First of all, I’m glad that you admitted that these servants were being cast into Hell.
Secondly: Jesus is speaking to His disciples here not to “unbelievers.” He warns them to keep watch and be faithful, ready for His coming, and not to be caught unawares. For those who can put two and two together, read the following and judge for yourselves!
“Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.
“But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
“Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?
“Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. “Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. “But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ “and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, “the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, “and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25:42-51)
The word “servant” throughout this passage is (doulos) = “slave”. So you have Master and slave. It’s the most common word used for “servant”. The Master here is the Lord, and the servants are His disciples. Matthew 25:30 is the same. All the way through this passage the “servants” are His disciples. Why is Jesus warning His disciples to remain faithful? Read it again, it’s self explanatory!
Aiden writes, “Secondly: Jesus is speaking to His disciples here not to “unbelievers.””
Ij John 6, we read, “Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you?…Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.”
Disciples are not necessarily believers. They may be but do not have to be.
RH, wrote:
“Disciples are not necessarily believers. They may be but do not have to be.”
AIDAN writes:
WRONG! You can’t qualify to be “truly” His disciple unless you believe in Him! Note the following passage:
“As he was saying these things, many believed in him. So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Some among these Jews had now come to believe through His word. Theirs was the right kind of faith, resting on His word; because it says they believed Him, (v.31). He says to them, “If you remain in My word”. The pronoun is emphatic, “If you on your part abide (remain),”etc., namely, “you” as having come to faith. This singles them out from the rest of the Jews. We must not overlook the implication in the verb “remain” in My word. Jesus means that these men – are now in His word; that they now embrace His word by faith. BUT they must now REMAIN – in His word. They must remain, be fixed and established in His word. They already believe in Him based on His word. All they needed now was to become permanently fixed in that faith – His word. “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;-[NASB].
Therefore, only those who believe in Him, and continue in His word, are truly disciples of His. And so, you are wrong in saying that you can’t be a disciple without being a believer. Stating that – “They may be but do not have to be,” is false!
Aidan writes, “WRONG! You can’t qualify to be “truly” His disciple unless you believe in Him! …Therefore, only those who believe in Him, and continue in His word, are truly disciples of His.”
That’s what I said. One can be a disciple but not “truly” His disciple as John 6 points out.
RH, wrote: “Aidan writes, “WRONG! You can’t qualify to be “truly” His disciple unless you believe in Him! …Therefore, only those who believe in Him, and continue in His word, are truly disciples of His.”
“That’s what I said. One can be a disciple but not “truly” His disciple as John 6 points out.”
AIDAN writes:
Sorry, but that’s not what you said. Here’s what you said – “Disciples are not necessarily believers.”
Here’s what Jesus said:
“Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.” (Matt. 24:42)
“Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Matt. 24:44)
Again, why would He need to warn His closest disciples about remaining faithful? Why would Jesus need to warn them about the danger of being cast out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth? Because, it was possible even for them to lose their salvation, if they became unfaithful. And many passages such as this one show that anyone can fall away. The promises of God are only ever guaranteed to the faithful. And, that includes the promises of John 6.
In my previous response to this, I should have said this at the end instead:
“Therefore, only those who believe in Him, and continue in His word, are truly disciples of His. You are wrong, – you cannot be a disciple without being a believer. Stating that – “They may be but do not have to be,” is false!
Another point! I said, – “Jesus is speaking to His disciples here not to “unbelievers.”
Then you replied, – “Disciples are not necessarily believers.”
I forgot to mention that the context of this is Matthew 24, 25, and 26. And that these are well seasoned disciples whom Jesus is confiding in here. It is only two days before the Passover, in which He tells them that He would be delivered up to be crucified.
Note:
“Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.” (Matt. 24:1)
“Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3)
But notice Mark’s account of this verse:
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?” (Mark 13: 3-4)
Jesus finishes the conversation with them in Matthew 26 with these words:
Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, that He said to His disciples, “You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.” (Mat. 26:1-2)
Again, the warnings that He gives to remain “Faithful” until He comes are to His disciples, not to “unbelievers” – period. Who else could such warnings apply to?
RH, wrote:
“John 6 is a direct teaching by Jesus. Matthew 15 has Jesus illustrating his point with a parable,. Direct teaching by Jesus is explicit and takes precedence over parables.”
AIDAN writes:
Making up your own rules again I see! I’d like to know where in the bible does it say that “Direct teaching by Jesus is takes precedence over parables?” Just show me the verse!
And besides, you can’t get more explicit than those things Jesus spoke to His disciples.
“Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.” (Matt. 24:42)
“Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Matt. 24:44)
Therefore these verses reveal not only that His disciples should be watching and ready for when the Lord comes; but that He is the Lord(Master) and His disciples are the servants (doulos) in the narrative.
And what will be the fate of the “unfaithful servant” who does not make himself ready?
“the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know
and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt. 24:50-51)
Now, you can’t get more explicit than that, can you?!!
This passage alone, refutes your view of John 6.
Well that’s the first time I’ve heard someone argue that one verse of scripture must over-rule another – or that all other verses in scripture must be subordinate to one particular verse.
Coded language for:
My INTERPRETATION of verse [X] over-rules all other INTERPRETATIONS. :-]
Precisely! Ah, Sher! who needs to harmonize scripture after that?!!
We can have fun can’t we! :-]
You’re right! I mean people use prooftexts like that all the time, but they rarely state their strategy so baldly: ‘My verse can beat your verse up any day’! Sounds like kids in a schoolyard.
Exactly!
Isn’t it interesting how Calvinists so frequently make statements like
“If you believe verse xyz is correct you must be a Calvinist”
Common!
Don’t they know – even an elementary school student should be able to see through that ruse!
That’s like saying:
If you see is a mountain off in the far distance you must be a flat-earther. :-]
RH wrote:
James wrote, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above…” Salvation is by grace and obviously a gift from God. In Ephesians 2:8, Paul adds, “by faith,” and in writing this is prompted to add, “that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” The whole of salvation including the means to salvation, is a gift from God.”
AIDAN writes:
Of course every good gift and every perfect gift comes from above. But there are many gifts that cannot be received unless we are willing to do something in order to receive them. We must be willing to put out our hand and receive them. And even when we have received a gift, often it’s of no value unless we are willing to exercise that gift.
“and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.” (Ecc. 3:13) Indeed, but only for those who are willing to work by using the abilities God has blessed them with.
“Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.” (Psalms 127:3) Obviously, unless one is willing to have children they can’t be received as a gift or heritage of the LORD. This blessing cannot be received unless we ourselves want it, and do what is needed to receive it.
Likewise, one cannot receive the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit; until they are willing to repent and be baptized.
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
In Ephesians 2:4-9, the context shows that salvation is the primary focus, not faith!
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph. 2:4-9).
Again, salvation is the gift here, not faith!
Aidan writes, “But there are many gifts that cannot be received unless we are willing to do something in order to receive them”
If something is a gift, then you don’t have to do anything to receive it.
rhutchin
If something is a gift, then you don’t have to do anything to receive it.
br.d
Calvinism incorporates the Gnostic and NeoPlatonist component of “Good-Evil” DUALISM
So it makes perfect sense for us to observe – how many things enunciated by Calvinists – will appear in “Good-Evil” pairs.
And this is also the case with the gift of salvation.
For some, the gift is “Good”.
And for others the gift is “Evil”.
As John Calvin states:
-quote
“He holds it [salvation] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation
(Institutes, 3.24.8.)
br.d quotes Calvin: As John Calvin states:-quote> “He holds it [salvation] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation(Institutes, 3.24.8.)
John Calvin, in context–
“The expression of our Savior, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” (Mat 22: 14), is also very improperly interpreted, (see 3.2.11 and 12). There will be no ambiguity in it, if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear, viz., that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness….Few, then, out of the great number of called are chosen; the calling, however, not being of that kind which enables believers to judge of their election. The former call is common to the wicked, the latter brings with it the spirit of regeneration, which is the earnest and seal of the future inheritance by which our hearts are sealed unto the day of the Lord, (Eph 1: 13, 14). In one word, while hypocrites pretend to piety, just as if they were true worshipers of God, Christ declares that they will ultimately be ejected from the place which they improperly occupy, as it is said in the psalm, “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart,” (Psa 15: 1, 2). Again in another passage, “This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob,” (Psa 24: 6). And thus the Spirit exhorts believers to patience, and not to murmur because Ishmaelites are mingled with them in the Church since the mask will at length be torn off, and they will be ejected with disgrace.”
For some, there is no gift, for others, there is a gift.
br.d
Concerning the gift of salvation
As John Calvin states:
quote “He holds it [salvation] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation
(Institutes, 3.24.8.)
rhutchin
John Calvin, in context–…..For some, there is no gift, for others, there is a gift.
br.d
Sure its easy to recognize the game of SEMANTICS.
1) Whatever *IT* is that Calvin’s god is “holding out” to them *IT* must be called something.
2) Calvin’s god deceives them into believing it is a gift of “Good” by “holding it out to them”
3) Whatever one wants to call *IT* – it is something Calvin’s god gave the them – so there is a sense in which it is a “gift”
4) In the mind of the Calvinist recipient *IT* is PERCEIVED as a gift
But none of those SEMANTIC games end up hiding the Gnostic NeoPlatonist pattern of “Good-Evil” DUALISM
But dutiful Calvinist do spend their lives trifling over words – so that is expected. :-]
RH wrote:
“If something is a gift, then you don’t have to do anything to receive it”
AIDAN writes:
Like how men can eat and drink and enjoy the fruits of their labor?
“and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.” (Ecc. 3:13)
Or how about, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) – Nothing doing there I suppose?!!
Aidan writes:: “Like how men can eat and drink and enjoy the fruits of their labor?
“and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God.” (Ecc. 3:13)”
In Ecclesiastes, we read, “Nothing is better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor. This also, I saw, was from the hand of God. For who can eat, or who can have enjoyment, more than I? For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God….I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor–it is the gift of God.”
Everything a person receives is from God. Some gifts from God result from work – the farmer plants and waters and God gives the increase. So, God has promised rewards, or gifts, as encouragement to people to work. The gift is at God’s initiative
Then, “Or how about, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) – Nothing doing there I suppose?!!”
In Acts, we read, “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
The gift of the Holy Spirit is by promise or at God’s initiative.
So, there are gifts from God that serve to reward good behavior, e.g., work. Then their are gifts from God that result from His mercy when people do not do good, e.g., salvation.
RH, wrote:
“So, there are gifts from God that serve to reward good behavior, e.g., work. Then their are gifts from God that result from His mercy when people do not do good, e.g., salvation.”
AMCM writes:
Yes, indeed, the gift of God that results from work! And then there’s the 3000; who had no problem understanding that God required them to – ‘Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ They understood the gift and promise that’s availed of through obedience of faith!
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3: 9
What does it mean to be elect?
God has determined people are given eternal life or the second death. It is a big picture determination: God’s terms of agreement related to faith in this age-you , having the ability to be brought to salvation, must believe the Good News. You have the common sense given to mankind commonly- to think for a reason-1corinthians 15 God determined you are without excuse to believe He has paid in full. You can spit in His face or really believe the truth Romans 5.Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not forgiven: To Stand firm denying forgiveness , positioning God as evil in His justice and mercy, rebelling against your free will having the ability of worship. No man has free will over death. They ALEADY stand condemned. God offers: ‘today is the day of Salvation.’
If you don’t come it’s because you refuse to believe the truth about forgiveness of our sin, that JesusChrist suffered death and bodily rose from the dead.
Determined- big picture- the bride is elected and chosen. She is still being saved until she reaches her maturity. ( The bridegroom will return for the elect and chosen bride- In all of history . See Daniel 12)
Determined – Christ return.
The Spirit and the Bride say come!
The Word of God is living and active – do you believe His Word? If you don’t you are determined to remain condemned. This both is coherent and corresponds to reality. Logic, the Logos- God is not a philosopher- Jesus Christ is the revelation and the resurrection.
The greatest gift of life is free to you at the cost of God. It’s held out in offer to me and you. I received it. It was the cost paid for the Bride- the bride price. You receive individual and are given a family wedding. Seal of guarantee? God knows the moment you really believe Him and you are born again of the Spirit.
Jesus Came to save the sick( sinners). Do you want to be healed? That eternally , first raised to life eph 2, then receive a resurrection to life at His coming? Romans 8
Context: we are all uniquely average to have sin and be sinned against? See the parties ? Luke 15 , even angels join in.
They were not given to Jesus because they were not drawn to the Father. Anotherwards they didn’t believe the truth of scripture. That’s why the didn’t believe Jesus: He said the scriptures are about “ME”. The religious political teachers were blind to the truth . They hated His healing with forgiveness!
John 6:28-29 and bread of life- now go back and read and be given to Jesus , who today drawns us to His Father..
John 17- Jesus prays a pure prayer.
Come, Reason: Isaiah 1:18
From a forgiven sinner, uniquely average among mankind
Somewhere beyond the USA, where someone is common in mankind to be removed from theologies of men- died because they simply believed the truth- Jesus is the Savior beyond the grave. Who is guaranteed tomorrow, anywhere in the world?
Tammy writes, “What does it mean to be elect?”
The “elect” are believers. They are the same believers on both sides of the discussion. The issue is how they come to believe.
Tammy,
rhutchin responded to you with:
The “elect” are believers. They are the same believers on both sides of the discussion. The issue is how they come to believe.
My response:
The elect are Jews, whether they believe or not, because they are blind, OR they are the “remnant” that have been unblinded. None are Gentiles.
The Jews were “elected”, if you will, to DO certain things, such as “REVEAL GOD” to us Gentiles, even if they can’t see, we see God THRU them. There would not be Christianity if it were not for them. But, Calvinism DISMISSES them.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes:
“But, Calvinism DISMISSES them.”
My strong sense of justice leads me at times, as in this case, even to stand up for my ‘enemies’. Not that Calvinists are my enemies, but for the sake of the gospel, their false teaching is.
I do not believe that Calvinism, nor other christian branches that hold similar views on such subjects, can be justly accused of ‘dismissing’ the Jews. Speaking for myself, I do not reject anyone on the basis of race. (That is granting, which I do not, that being a ‘Jew’ is really about race. It is about religion.)
So, if we dismiss or reject anything, it is racism or partiality. I believe that scripture teaches that God treats all men on a completely equal basis, in regards to their eternal destiny. Each man, no matter his circumstances, has the ability to trust in God and rely on his grace for forgiveness of sin and everlasting life. This has absolutely nothing to do with one’s race, gender or any other physical, psychological, social or geographical construct.
Thus, rather than ‘dismissing’ Jews, I put them on the exact same footing as every other human being. I see no distinction, period, now that the Old Covenant has passed and the New Covenant, which is faith, is in place. I understand your opinions, although I do not concur with them. I do not condemn you, nor feel a deep need to convince you to change your mind. I only enter into this discussion when I sense injustice or a need to clarify when I sense people are being misrepresented. It is important that we understand, respect and fairly represent the views of those we disagree with.
TS00,
This has nothing to do with race.
Gentiles are multiple races. Israel is Jacob.
Remember Hank Hanagraph? He used to get really upset at this stuff as kinda like what you are. When he’d take phone calls on the subject, he’d get mad, and say, “God is not a COSMIC racist!”
When he said that, I lost respect for him. Now what religion is he?
Ed Chapman
*Dear, Lisa*
My response was to serve my Savior, for Lisa. She said: “Any thoughts are welcome.” Sorry, I did not head my response to Lisa.
As to the question about “elect” the purpose was : what is the basic definition and etymology?
I did myself give a limited answer from one precept as a revealed perspective from scripture :-)-
The big picture God determined,revelation about Him, for us to understand His Glory: He will resurrect His Bride. She is chosen by grace through faith in all ages of history, the mystery now revealed, Jesus is the light of the world.
( Who will not be resurrected in all of history? Jesus is THE Resurrection and He, at the cross did will :’draw all people to Himself.’ Big picture revealed(determined): the resurrection to life or second death.)
See Romans 1( see 2 for all who are reproved)
Today, we are in the age without excuse to come worship God because He has given HIs Son. God has been revealed in the flesh, common to man is history,evidenced, to common man in the flesh of His creation. We think for a reason, mankind’s common sense, in which God seeks us by His creation of us in the garden. Again, see Romans 1: God in the Garden made us free to worship. Communication was fully functioning in the garden. Lisa, do you have the ability to understand these words, even as a child can when the hear them?: 1 Corinthians 15:*1-5
I am not Calvinist- God did not (pre)determine my neighbor would be without excuse to deny truth as to be destroyed for His glory. Note: This is not in 1 Corinthians 15, the good news we must hold fast to, not believing in vain. God determined( big picture revelation) if we love the truth, in faith, we will worship Him. This elected Bride, chosen by God will be resurrected to life.
The word{s} of God is/are living and active. The Apostles and prophets spoke(writing) in the Spirit of Truth, living and active.We read ‘scripture’ being the 66 canonized. Only God knows the heart and mind of the individual perfectly, motive and ability of those spoken to. So, for example, they speak to the “chosen” and “elect” “if you hold fast” according to the confession of faith in the Truth. God will judge, revealed, this is determined. And determined that we have free will, within His determined creation, even though we have no free will over death, God works. I can only go by what he reveals. I am not God, I cannot explain His power beyond what He reveals in truth. Calvin philosophied beyond this, as did Augustine.
So, I am also not fully “tradionalist” but I lean the way toward their explanation to their neighbor,as our God so loved the world. My position is God’s word is living and active. I see ( just as a 52 year old common (wo)man 🙂 , according to scripture, Calvinsist have positions that need to be rejected as they are mere philosophy with faulty evaluations of truth, but “tradionist’ need to sharpen their position in the power of the living and active word of God. But, precept upon precept us humans can only ‘normally’ communicate so much with language, in the power of God.
Lisa, this is what the living and active word says, it is an invitation spoken, do not “philosophize it” It is either true or not true. Do you hear what God is saying:
Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
1 Corinthians 15: Jesus won the victory of sin and death. This is the test, do you believe in the power of God to forgive sin? You must decide.
Psalm 119:108 Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O Lord, and teach me your rules.
1 Corinthians 9:16-18
16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
God understands the words ‘normally understood and communicated.’ He is the one who filled the word ‘normal’ with meaning , seeking us to understand God it greater. He is Divine, which is not normal .
Mark 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
It’s normal to seek to be made well, to receive healing. 🙂 Do you want to be well ?
2+2=4 even if you don’t believe it is true beyond yourself. it is still true. Come, Jesus is faithful and true. See who He came to save. He said. 🙂
For example:
Scripture nowhere calls anyone a nonbeliever,but unbeliever. ( it uses the term ” not believe” about unbelief )
Yes,some called irreligious,
but not a nonbeliever.
Relationship always involves more than 1 person,being(living) and active.
God reveals Himself for the offering of ‘living and active’ friendship.
Having the ability of unbelief, if you are active to deny HIs offering you remain in unbelief,the already standing condemnation of man from a Holy God -you remain in relationship enemy towards Him.But,if in faith you submit to believe the truth that His living and active offer has called to you,He calls you friend and He crosses you over to be ‘living and active’ friends.
This is The Power of The Light,personal is God living and active towards His creation generally and specifically-Jesus revealed in this last age on earth:John3 &Rom5
We are in a relationship with God whether we believe it or not. ‘You’, who have the normal ability of common sense to think for a reason, will remain enemies or be friends. It was granted in the garden of creation.Romans 8
love, (uniquely average to be saved by our Messager of Forgiveness, I share Him as my Savior) tammy, marked: saved for the coming of the bridegroom for the bride(living and active, died to myself to be hidden with Christ in God)
(I am out of time to proof read any better… blessings:-)
chapmaned24 writes, “Now if only rhutchin and jtleosala would break out of their spell. ”
Hey Ed: There was no such “spell” of any evil force that can afford to touch us when Jesus Christ have said: “And I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My Father’s hand” John 10:28. How can we eject from that Union with Christ if that union with Christ has been sealed with His LOVE. Even if we want to eject, yet we cannot for we have already been atoned for and has been bought with Christ’s precious blood.
jtleosala,
How can you be so sure that God “CHOSE” YOU? You are making an ASSUMPTION that you are a Christian. It’s a GUESS. You have no idea if YOU have eternal life. You have NO IDEA if God actually chose YOU.
What you are indicating is that God promises eternal life, promises this and promises that and promises that other thing, but you have NO IDEA if YOU have any of those promises at all.
Do you?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “What you are indicating is that God promises eternal life, promises this and promises that and promises that other thing, but you have NO IDEA if YOU have any of those promises at all. ”
How does anyone, including Ed, know that God has saved him? It is because God opened his heart, as with Lydia, to receive the gospel and not consider it foolishness or to treat it with indifference. It is because God revealed his sin to him and led him to repentance. It is because he has the assurance and conviction that the gospel he heard is true and he longs for the coming of Christ to take him into heaven. He does not depend on his works for salvation but sees God working in him to accomplish God’s purposes. He sees the Holy Spirit producing fruit in his life that would not exist otherwise. He desires God and seeks to know Him and is renewing his mind through prayer and study of the Scriptures. This and more as others can attest.
rhutchin
How does anyone, including Ed, know that God has saved him?
br.d
You don’t want to make the mistake of superimposing the Calvinist system onto others.
1) The Calvinist doesn’t know if he’s been saved because Calvinism teaches that is a DIVINE SECRET – the TRUE church is INVISIBLE.
2) He is taught that the highest probability is that he’s been DESIGNED for the lake of fire – per Calvin’s interpretation of the wheat and the chaff.
3) Universal Divine Causal Determinism tells him Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT him to “know” TRUTH from FALSE on anything, and does not PERMIT him the function of RATIONAL reasoning which requires Libertarian functionality.
So given all of that – of course the Calvinist can’t “know” he is saved.
But the Non-Calvinist is not plagued with those handicaps.
br.d writes, “You don’t want to make the mistake of superimposing the Calvinist system onto others.”
Br.d doesn’t know.
br.d
You don’t want to make the mistake of superimposing the Calvinist system onto others.
rhutchin
Br.d doesn’t know.
br.d
What – that Calvin’s god has given you another FALSE perception?
He sure does enjoy doing that! :-]
rhutch,
It might surprise you, but Lydia is Jewish. She is the ELECT. She was already a God follower I the Jewish religion. She was a blind Jew, which is why God opened her heart.
Now, regarding you and jt, you are not Jewish. The law is the schoolmaster that brings you to Christ. That is the father drawing you. The law. The law reveals your sin. Not the Holy Spirit. Yes, I know, you guys st to think you have a verse that states that the Holy Spirit reveals your sin, but that verse has nothing to do with revealing your sin. The law in written form does. That law is what gives you a guilty conscience.
Lastly, you Calvinists have no idea what the word WORKS even is discussing.
Faith is not a work of man, but faith is our own, not an imputation. It is thru our own faith (belief) of God’s promises that saves us. No different than Abraham believing God’s promise. Then he lived that belief.
Your doctrines are so twisted. I believe God’s promises, therefore I’m saved. It’s called FAITH, my own faith. There is no such thing as imputed faith. We are saved by grave thru our own belief (faith).
Now, regarding what you THINK, you can’t guarantee your salvation, even in your own outline in your comment.
Your own comment does not PROVE that you are saved. It only proves that you know what Calvinist doctrine is. Satan transforms into an angel of light.
Ed Chapman
Good post!
chapmaned24 writes, “Your doctrines are so twisted. I believe God’s promises, therefore I’m saved. It’s called FAITH, my own faith. There is no such thing as imputed faith. We are saved by grave thru our own belief (faith).”
I claim your “faith” came through hearing the gospel. Until you heard the gospel, you had no faith.
rhutchin
I claim your “faith” came through hearing the gospel. Until you heard the gospel, you had no faith.
br.d
More than likely – he was born with the ability to believe
And then Gospel message gave him the most wonderful of gift of all to believe in.
Salvation in the love and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s why outside of Calvinism – its “GOOD” news!
While in Calvinism its “Slightly-Possibly-GOOD” and “Most-Probably-EVIL” news
br.d writes, “More than likely – he was born with the ability to believe And then Gospel message gave him the most wonderful of gift of all to believe in.”
Yep. That’s why faith always leads to salvation.
br.d
More than likely – he was born with the ability to believe
And then Gospel message gave him the most wonderful of gift of all to believe in
rhutchin
Yep. That’s why faith always leads to salvation.
br.d
More precisely – turning one’s God given ability to believe – that which one is already born with – onto the OBJECT of the person of Jesus Christ – Is a REQUIREMENT of and thus leads to salvation.
br.d writes, “More precisely – turning one’s God given ability to believe – that which one is already born with – onto the OBJECT of the person of Jesus Christ etc.”
If that were the case, everyone who hears the gospel would receive faith, believe and accept God’s salvation. That does not seem to be what we observe in life.
br.d
More precisely – turning one’s God given ability to believe – that which one is already born with – onto the OBJECT of the person of Jesus Christ – as believing is a REQUIREMENT – and thus leads to salvation.
rhutchin
If that were the case, everyone who hears the gospel would receive faith, believe and accept God’s salvation.
br.d
Here we have another example of a Calvinist Non-Sequitur.
Just because Neil Armstrong – who walked on the moon – believes that man has walked on the moon – that doesn’t AUTO-MAGICALLY mean everyone who hears about it believes it.
No one ever said Calvinism is RATIONAL :-]
br.d writes, “Just because Neil Armstrong – who walked on the moon – believes that man has walked on the moon – that doesn’t AUTO-MAGICALLY mean everyone who hears about it believes it. ”
It does if they have faith. With faith people believe it; without faith people do not believe it.
br.d
Just because Neil Armstrong – who walked on the moon – believes that man has walked on the moon – that doesn’t AUTO-MAGICALLY mean everyone who hears about it believes it. ”
rhutchin
It does if they have faith. With faith people believe it; without faith people do not believe it.
br.d
It simply means they chose not to apply their God-given faculty of belief – onto the truth value of that particular proposition.
A person who does apply his God-given faculty – (the ability to believe something to be true) – towards the proposition that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon – is thus said to “have faith” in that proposition.
But the Calvinist in order to “have faith” has to have a great robot programmer in the sky – insert an invisible “faith” floppy drive into his brain.
Only to discover later when he ends up in the lake of fire – the program he was given was labeled “FALSE faith”.
And everyone should want to run out and buy that product ASAP! :-]
br.d writes, “It simply means they chose not to apply their God-given faculty of belief – onto the truth value of that particular proposition.”
No. A person has to have faith. Faith is the assurance and conviction that is given to the person by the gospel and leads to the person believing unto salvation.
Then, “But the Calvinist in order to “have faith” hast to have a great robot programmer in the sky – insert an invisible “faith” floppy drive into his brain. ”
Another false impression. God made man in His image with the ability to understand his environment, increase in knowledge, and act based on the knowledge he accumulates. A person can have false impressions based on lack of understanding or knowledge, deception by others, and lack of faith, among other things.
br.d
it simply means they chose not to apply their God-given faculty of belief – onto the truth value of that particular proposition.
A person who does apply his God-given faculty – (the ability to believe something to be true) – towards the proposition that Neil Armstrong walked on the mood – is thus said to “have faith” in that proposition.
rhutchin
No. A person has to have faith.
br.d
Just as I said – when a person applies the human faculty of belief (God given to all humans at birth) – towards a given proposition – that is SEMANTICALLY called “having faith” in that proposition.
The Calvinist claim – that the human faculty of belief – is missing from human normative functionality – is totally unique to Calvinism
rhutchin
Faith is the assurance and conviction that is given to the person by the gospel and leads to the person believing unto salvation.
br.d
See answer above
But the Calvinist in order to “have faith” hast to have a great robot programmer in the sky – insert an invisible “faith” floppy drive into his brain.
rhutchin
Another false impression.
br.d
I suppose I should have taken the time to indicate that statement as Metaphoric language.
But I assumed a Calvinist could recognize metaphoric language when he sees it.
I apologize for assuming to much.
rhutchin
God made man in His image with the ability to understand his environment, increase in knowledge, and act based on the knowledge he accumulates. A person can have false impressions based on lack of understanding or knowledge, deception by others, and lack of faith, among other things.
br.d
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
“Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of God.
John Calvin
-quote
“Quote
Hence they are merely instruments, *INTO WHICH* god constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.” (Institutes PDF version pg 127)
-quote
“Men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
In Universal Divine Causal Determinism – where a THEOS determines everything without exception – leaving NOTHING left over for humans to determine – it LOGICALLY follows this includes him determining *EVERY* specific human perception in every part.
And we know the Calvinist will “Explicitly” affirm his THEOS determines *ALL* things that are determined.
But we understand he will later “Implicitly” assert NATURE as the determiner of *SOME* things – rather than the THEOS.
This is the way a Calvinist can “explicitly” assert [A] and then later “Implicitly” deny it.
I sense rhutchin knows he’s in a bad spot here. It is quite easy to see that each individual chooses in what he believes or puts his faith in, whether it be God, yoga, Neil Armstrong, reincarnation, Hitler, CBD oil, Trump or any of a million persons or things. Each and every individual, when confronted with a person or truth claim must make a choice as to whether or not to trust what they have heard. This is so obvious it is not even debatable.
Who gives people faith in NASA or Trump? Who gives people faith in modern medicine or herbs? Who gives people faith in the countless things they believe in, each and every day? Are there multiple faith-givers, or is God handing out faith to only a select few in every aspect of life? If so, what is the rationale for God giving or withholding faith from people concerning science, history or medicine? It is simply ludicrous, and I think rh knows it.
To believe is to have faith. To have faith is to believe. It is silly to assert that one must have faith in order to believe. You might as well say ‘One must have faith to have faith’. Utter nonsense, but, unfortunately, that nasty little system requires an outside source of all that pertains to salvation, so men cannot be acknowledged to have what anyone with eyes can see – the freedom to believe anything they wish. Go ahead, choose to believe me or not. 😉
I agree totally! I see it all as a SEMANTIC game being played on the word “have”
“Have faith” is simply a colloquial word pattern people use to communicate believing something to be true.
What rhutchin is doing is playing shell games with the word “have”
Conflating it to mean – if someone doesn’t believe something to be true – that person needs to be “given” that belief – because otherwise they don’t “have” it.
All of the slippery word games Calvinists use to make their doctrine *APPEAR* RATIONAL :-]
Bingo!
Scripture shows us the same word is used for believing a lie as is used for believing the gospel. It is not that a person is absent the ability to believe it is that the person has placed his faith in the wrong OBJECT. An idol, a lie, a man and system. Exact same word as believing the gospel. RH knows this but he ignores it…he has been shown this many many times.
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
GraceAdict
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE a lie:
br.d
Nice Point GraceAdict!
So in Theological Determinism where the determinist says Calvin’s god must give “BELIEF” in salvation
Following that model – the determinist can say Calvin’s god must give “BELIEF” in a LIE.
Both statements appear LOGICALLY consistent with Theological Determinism – where Calvin’s god is the SOURCE/ORIGIN of whatever he determines to bring into existence.
Thus Calvin’s god is the SOURCE/ORIGIN of both TRUTHS and LIES.
And that also coincides with the Gnostic component of “Good-Evil” DUALISM inherent within Calvinism.
Exactly in Calvinism the most logical thing to do is “eat drink and be merry for what ever you do has already been determined by God and it cannot do anything BUT glorify Him because it proceeds from God himself.”
Calvinism is the best foundation for living life just as you want and continuing in sin because it ALL comes from God and it all glorifies God. No one can ever do anything that was not secretly decreed by God for His glory. This is Calvinism and it came from the pit.
That’s exactly right!
We know in Calvinism – all sin and evil that comes to pass – ONLY does so by Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
And it is NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for any human to disobey Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
The Calvinist who says otherwise – is implicitly boasting he has the power to falsify or negate the immutable DECREE.
And that pretty much puts him side-by-side a Semi-Pelagian.
He might just as well acknowledge Calvin’s god is the one who determines his every desire and inclination, and stop thinking otherwise.
So as you rightly say:
Eat drink and be merry – for tomorrow he either wakes up in heaven or he wakes up in eternal torment in a lake of fire.
And he is totally powerless to make any difference – one way or the other.
But let me ask you something GraceAdict
What is the possibility that gloating, boasting and acting superior is actually the Calvinist’s version of “eat drink and be merry”?
All of those things are manifestations of the flesh.
GraceAdict writes, “Calvinism is the best foundation for living life just as you want and continuing in sin because it ALL comes from God and it all glorifies God. No one can ever do anything that was not secretly decreed by God for His glory. ”
Paul had to deal with people like you. So, he writes, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?… Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”
rhutchin
Paul had to deal with people like you.
br.d
See GraceAdict – I do think gloating, boasting, and acting superior is the Calvinist version of “eat drink and be merry”
rhutchin
Paul had to deal with people like you.
GA — the only difference is that is YOUR systematic NOT mine. You are the one that holds to God’s Secret will decreeing every evil deed ever done and it is done for His Glory.
RH takes his beliefs and then projects them on others who don’t hold those beliefs. He is the one who holds them NOT me I have simply brought to light this evil belief system and it’s logical conclusion. That is what Calvinism gives the church. No thank-you.
GraceAdict writes, “GA — the only difference is that is YOUR systematic NOT mine.”
My systematic in this case is Romans 6, I don’t know what your systematic is.
rhutchin
My systematic in this case is Romans 6, I don’t know what your systematic is.
br.d
Every scholar knows – to conflate scripture with one’s INTERPRETATION of it is juvenile.
Anyone who aspires to be a scholar while claiming his systematic is scripture – will end up as the butt of jokes.
br.d
See GraceAdict – I do think gloating, boasting, and acting superior is the Calvinist version of “eat drink and be merry”
GA – I agree… That to me is a given with Calvinism. Since under Calvinism a person HAS to embrace the Idea “I am special, I am not like my peers, I thank you God that you have not made me like this publican BUT I am special and loved instead of hated like most of my peers” The Calvinist assumptions are very much an internal gloating and feeling of superiority – but since they know how to do the AS IF dance they do that as well while internally gloating and acting superior.
On top of that I have seen many evils done by Calvinist who followed in the steps of John Calvin (Servetus). This is a logical outworking of their worldview. It is not contrary to their Worldview. What John Calvin did to his opponents is not out of Character with their worldview it is the logical outworking of it. That is why Calvinism is so bad.
What Calvinists do to hurting people is not out of character with their worldview it is totally in harmony with their worldview….it’s foundational beliefs logically lead there. Beth Moore, Lisa, Derek,
Much like Atheism – it’s logical outworking is “the survival of the fittest, do what you have to do to get ahead, lie, steal, kill” That is the logical outworking of the belief system – NOW that does not mean all atheists do that, some may even be self-sacrificing to complete strangers but that is not logical to their worldview. They are acting out of character with their worldview.
So it is with Calvinism when people act in harmony with Calvinism they do what we have seen. These are logical outworkings of a worldview. Heartless, because their God is heartless and besides, if I did it, that is proof it was decreed by God for His Glory.
Yup!
Reminds me of the scripture which speaks of graven images.
They that create them become like unto them.
br.d writes, “Thus Calvin’s god is the SOURCE/ORIGIN of both TRUTHS and LIES. ”
God is the source of truth granting people the ability to believe, “to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,” God works through Satan to get people to believe a lie, “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
rhutchin
God works through Satan to get people to believe a lie
br.d
Satan is simply an instrument Calvin’s god’s created
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly,….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He ……COMMANDS.
They are….FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11.)
Calvin’s god – before he created Satan – conceived of everything he would MAKE Satan be and do.
The creature is powerless to alter, falsify, or negate immutable DECREE.
Leighton has just released another short video…interesting it deals with this issue. Of course RH just ignores these things and goes on making the same old illogical and unbiblical arguments over and over again. BUT if you are at all teachable take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi8M3ZeB6pY
It is a good short video 15 minutes, called.. A Calvinistic Inconsistency?
Enjoy
FraceAdict writes, “Leighton has just released another short video…”
In the video, Dr. Flowers can only make his point by using an illustration making God equal to a policeman and then projecting the inadequacies of the policeman onto God. Didn’t that strike you as somewhat odd.
In addition, Dr. Flowers refers to people as “autonomous.” God is sovereign and He alone is sovereign. People can be independent of God but not autonomous from God.
GraceAdict writes, “Scripture shows us the same word is used for believing a lie as is used for believing the gospel. It is not that a person is absent the ability to believe it is that the person has placed his faith in the wrong OBJECT….RH knows this but he ignores it…he has been shown this many many times.”
I don’t ignore this. I point out Scripture that you ignore. First, Hebrews 11 defines faith as “assurance and conviction” and we can say that this is assurance and conviction in Christ. This assurance and conviction, or faith, is only possible when one hears the gospel. Paul tells us this in Ephesians 1, “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,” Thus, if a person never hears the gospel, he cannot receive faith and cannot be saved. Yet, all those who are present when the gospel is preached do not respond in faith. This is because “faith” is a gift.
That “faith” is a gift is shown by Jesus in John 6, “‘there are some of you who do not believe’…And He said, ‘Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father….'” Paul repeats this to the Philippians, saying, “to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,…” Then, in Acts 5, “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Then, we have 1 John 5, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,” So, we find Paul in Ephesians 2, “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,.. For we are God’s workmanship,…”
You know all this and then ignore it.
rhutchin,
You had said:
I claim your “faith” came through hearing the gospel. Until you heard the gospel, you had no faith.
My response:
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
That does NOT say that faith comes by hearing the gospel. It states that faith comes by hearing the WORD OF GOD.
The Word of God begins in Genesis 1:1. Not sure if you knew that or not.
Galatians:
Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
There is a PROPER order of events that has to take place.
You can’t just begin at the book of John.
Good news makes NO SENSE without first knowing what the bad news is. THEN the good news makes sense.
It’s always good to begin a book AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK.
Faith comes by hearing GENESIS THRU REVELATION…aka, THE WORD OF GOD.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That does NOT say that faith comes by hearing the gospel. It states that faith comes by hearing the WORD OF GOD. ”
Paul, in 1 Corinthians, says, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved,…” In Ephesians, “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation;…” In 1 Thessalonians, “our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance…And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit,…”
The gospel is central to salvation and the gospel is the source of the faith that leads us to salvation.
rh writes:
“The gospel is central to salvation and the gospel is the source of the faith that leads us to salvation.”
He’s partly right. The gospel is central to salvation, but it is the OBJECT of our faith, not the source. We must hear the truth presented before we can make the choice to believe or not believe it. This is the natural understanding of scripture, as held by most throughout the centuries. In no circumstances that I am aware of is faith – in anything – given to someone by some outside source. By definition faith is internal, a decision to grant credence to some truth claim. The gifting of faith concept is ludicrous and has absolutely no basis in scripture (The one verse claimed to support faith as a gift is merely twisted to make it mean what some wish it to. A meaning which, btw, even John Calvin rejected as unsupportable.) or reality.
TS00,
Absolutely. Grace is the gift, not faith. I have no idea how that they, the Calvinists, read that faith is the gift in that Ephesians reference.
Ed
Oh, and your comment last night about the REMNANT, that is regarding the AWAKE OUT OF SLUMBER JEWS THAT GOD UNBLINDED, and only Jews are the elect. That’s another indication that the topic of Romans 9-11 is about Jews only.
The emphasis is placed on Salvation as being the gift in Ephesians 2, not Grace or Faith!
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Well said Ed,
The gift is salvation, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
When is a person saved? My reference for that question is for those who never heard of a Jesus. They have no clue. They never heard of a saviour, let alone what sins that they possess. That reference is…
Romans 2:14-16, and it’s I’m not mistaken, Paul calls that GOOD NEWS, aka, gospel. So, do they get eternal life, or not?
Ed Chapman
ED, you wrote:
When is a person saved? My reference for that question is for those who never heard of a Jesus. They have no clue. They never heard of a saviour, let alone what sins that they possess. That reference is…
Romans 2:14-16, and it’s I’m not mistaken, Paul calls that GOOD NEWS, aka, gospel. So, do they get eternal life, or not?
Aidan:
I’m afraid that judgment is not for you or me to make. Only on the day of judgment will the judgment be made. As for here and now? We can only go by what the scriptures teach concerning sin and salvation.
ALL HAVE SINNED:
For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.(Rom. 3:9)
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Rom. 3:23)
THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.(Rom. 6:23)
THE GIFT OF SALVATION IS IN CHRIST:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.(Rom. 6:23)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (Eph. 2:8)
“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”(Acts 4:12)
HE WHO BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED:
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)
Aidan,
I was not making a judgment on THE person(s). I was making a judgment on the bible reference of Romans 2:14-16 that andwers my rhetorical question.
A person that does not know about a savoir is judged by his own conscience…God given conscience.
As you say, Jesus is the judge. He will determine whether to save them, or not.
But that’s my take on Romans 2:14-16.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “A person that does not know about a savoir is judged by his own conscience…God given conscience. ”
This means that he is judged for his sin by his own conscience and justly condemned.
Then, “As you say, Jesus is the judge. He will determine whether to save them, or not. ”
A good Calvinist statement.
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “A person that does not know about a savoir is judged by his own conscience…God given conscience. ”
This means that he is judged for his sin by his own conscience and justly condemned.
Then, “As you say, Jesus is the judge. He will determine whether to save them, or not. ”
A good Calvinist statement.”
My response:
THAT’S NOT WHAT ROMANS 2:14-16 states, or concludes, or is indicating.
You NEGLECT that they don’t have THE LAW in written form, and that indicates that EVEN THO THEY SINNED, THEY ARE NOT CONDEMNED all due to that little thing called, WITHOUT THE LAW, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION, AND SIN IS NOT IMPUTED.
So, just because they sinned, that does not mean that the sin is counted against them.
They are NOT accountable for what they DON’T KNOW. If they have NO CONSCIENCE about it, they can’t be held to account for a sin that their conscience does not convict them on.
Abraham sinned by sleeping with his sister. Oh, that’s right, you think that God INVENTED sin at a later time.
Romans 5:13 BEFORE THE LAW SIN WAS IN THE WORLD….WHAT’S THE REST OF THAT VERSE SAY, rhutchin?
What about Romans 4:16? What does that verse say?
Hello?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “So, just because they sinned, that does not mean that the sin is counted against them.”
Perhaps not. However, his sin is evidence that he is unrighteous, and it is his being unrighteous, even without sin, that denies him entry into heaven.
Then, “What about Romans 4:16? What does that verse say?”
“Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.”
Paul explains the “seed” in Romans 9, “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” When Paul writes, “those who are of the law,” he means Israelites; when Paul writes, “also to those who are of the faith of Abraham,” he includes gentiles.
Putting it all together, we have, “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to the Israelite children of promise but also to gentiles.”
No, rhutchin, sin is not evidence that he is unrightous. Righteousness of God WITHOUT the law is manifest. Was Abraham righteous? What was his sins? Where did Abraham go when he died, seeing that Jesus hadn’t died for his sins yet?
Right – Abram believed – and the Lord credited it to him as righteousness
chapmaned24 writes, ” Was Abraham righteous?”
According to Romans 4, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” AS Paul explains to the Philippians, “to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,…” So, it was granted to Abraham to believe and that belief was accounted to him for righteousness.
Jesus said in John 8, ” “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” How was this possible? Again, Jesus said, ““Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Apparently, Abraham saw Jesus as his savior.
rhutchin,
And Romans 4:16, and Romans 5:13, and Romans 7:7 state that before the law sin was in the world, but where no law is, there is no transgression…aka no sin. Knowledge is needed.
Romans 2:14-16 states the word NATURE.
YOU preach that man’s nature is evil. But from what I read, man has a built in conscience.
If they sin, do they repent to the one they sinned against? Many will. Some won’t. Those who won’t, they won’t be excused. Those who do will be excused, no sin. Do you see now?
Slowly read romans 2, 14-16.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “YOU preach that man’s nature is evil. But from what I read, man has a built in conscience…Slowly read romans 2, 14-16. ”
Romans 2 says, “for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
….(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)….
in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
Later, Paul writes, “What then? Are we (Jews) better than they (Greeks/gentiles)? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin….for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,…”
Paul then in Romans 8:
“those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh…For to be carnally minded is death…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.”
What can we draw from these Scriptures:
1. …the doers of the law will be justified;
2. …all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,…
3. …the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
4. …those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
So, what does the conscience accomplish – certainly not salvation?
ED, You wrote:
Aidan,
I was not making a judgment on THE person(s). I was making a judgment on the bible reference of Romans 2:14-16 that andwers my rhetorical question.
A person that does not know about a savoir is judged by his own conscience…God given conscience.
As you say, Jesus is the judge. He will determine whether to save them, or not.
But that’s my take on Romans 2:14-16.
AIDAN’S RESPONSE:
Fair enough Ed, none of us want to overstep that mark.
Aidan
Aidan,
True true! But I find that a lot of people do overstep. When I first started this Calvinist trek, I discovered some Calvinists saying that EVERYONE is in hell prior to Jesus coming on the scene, and all those who never heard of Jesus are also burning in hell, because they didn’t accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
That’s the MAJORITY of God’s creation in hell.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
They can’t say that? That just doesn’t make any sense. There were people who feared God and were faithful to Him in the Patriarchal age. Of course, like the rest of us, they were far from perfect, (not sure how close Enoch came though); But as long as they sought God, and were found to be faithful to Him according to His will at the time, they were acceptable to Him. I think Jesus’ blood covered the sins of those back in time, just as much as anything else.
This is what happens when people follow a theology. Anyways, no one is in hell yet if they are all in Hades. What does Rhutchin believe?
Aidan,
You had said:
“. I think Jesus’ blood covered the sins of those back in time, just as much as anything else.
This is what happens when people follow a theology. Anyways, no one is in hell yet if they are all in Hades. What does Rhutchin believe?
My response:
Yes, the blood of Christ covered the sins of those back then, too.
But, as you may have noticed, I defend the Jews a TON in my comments, where most people in the Christian world condemn them, badmouth them, practically DICTATING to them JESUS. My GROWN UP self has seen from the Bible the story of Joseph, and his “BRETHREN (KEY WORD).
The first Jew that I spoke with, regarding “HELL”, he said, EVERYONE GOES TO HELL WHEN THEY DIE.
They KNEW of that TEMPORARY PLACE that people went to after they died, which we call ABRAHAM’S BOSOM. They knew that NO ONE GETS OUT OF THAT PLACE until a Savior REDEEMS them from their sins.
The story of Samuel, the witch of Endor shows where Samuel was, RESTING IN PEACE. It was NOT IN HEAVEN, but in HELL.
Now, when I say HELL, I’m not talking about FIRE AND BRIMSTONE. I’m talking Abraham’s bosom. After Jesus died, he led CAPTIVE CAPTIVE, releasing them from that place to be in heaven with him.
My point with all this:
Hades, Hell, Sheol, etc.(as there is Tartarus …= TOM-AY-TO, TOM-AH-TO…SAME SAME. The word “hades”, being a Greek word, was to DESCRIBE what hell is, in carnal terms…A FIRE THAT IS NEVER QUENCHED.
So, YES, THERE IS FIRE IN HADES, HELL, etc., and it is NOT the same location as THE LAKE OF FIRE, but there is fire in BOTH PLACES.
But ya, I’d be interested in the conclusions of Rhutchin, but the “traditional” Calvin answer is_____________________________.
“Hint…If they are ELECT, they are not there, but if they are NOT Elect, they are there. Grace!”
Calvinists say the darndest things, don’t they?
Ed Chapman
ED,
I suppose from Luke 16, there is the torment side of Hades with fire. But exactly right, its not the lake of fire reserved for the day of judgment. Then there’s the great gulf in between, where nothing is allowed to pass through, not even american battleships. Then, on the other side of Hades, Abraham’s bosom, or Paradise, where the thief on the cross is on vacation. “And that’s all I have to say about that.” Forrest Gump.
As for Rhutchin? He’s gone pretty quiet since that question was asked. I think he and Jt are working together. When RH gets tired, Jt takes over until he gets tired, and then RH comes back refreshed, and on it goes. But sometimes, they come in on something at the same time to throw off suspicion.
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“Then there’s the great gulf in between, where nothing is allowed to pass through, not even american battleships.”
Being a US Navy veteran, that was a good one!
I’ve seen rhutchin being silent on a few occasions. He’s pretty consistent in his theology, so I am just guessing that he’s busy with other things that God determined for him to do, like maybe work on the wife’s car! Who knows?
It seems that Aidan McManus longs to hear from the Calvinists side.. Well, your argument with Ed Chapman regarding the issue on dunking in water that I would like to respond here. I guess that you seem to require water dunking in baptism for one to obtain salvation.
I reject that thing. Water dunking does not save anyone.Ed C is correct by saying the same. It is Jesus Christ who saves not water Baptism. John’s Baptism is of Repentance and it never saved anyone. A person who is baptized in water is one who had already believed in Christ. It is just a showcase of what had previously transpired in a person’s life showing publicly, that a person has been buried with Christ through water baptism. In Christ, a believer is being reminded that he was given a new life to live by and that he will resurrect someday at the second coming of Christ. This is based on Romans 6:3-5. It is just a plain ritual for those persons who already got saved in Christ. The thief on the cross was an exemption to this. He had no more time to do this dunking in water baptism. So… don’t be too dogmatic about dunking in water baptism.
v. 3 Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
v. 4 Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into His death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should also walk in newness of life.
v. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.
JT,
Before we move any further with this, lets see if you are prepared to answer the questions that Ed wouldn’t answer.
WHAT BAPTISM DID JESUS COMMAND UNDER THE GREAT COMMISSION?
HOW MANY BAPTISMS ARE THERE TODAY?
Aidan
The so called great commission that was based on Matt. 28:19-20 was originally given to the 11 disciples during the ascension of Christ to heaven. Most Christians claim this as the command to baptize in water. If we read it in Acts chap. 2:38, 41, the word “baptize” has been mentioned telling the readers about Peter having been complied the command to baptize those 3,000 people who received the word preached and thus were baptized.
In Acts 2:38, the word Repent was also used which is compatible with John’s Baptism of Repentance. When Christ has been baptized at the Jordan river to serve as an example, the Holy Spirit manifested descending upon Jesus, then in Acts 2:38 it mentions the gift of the Holy Spirit shall be received by the person being baptized. The verse does not say clearly if the gift of the Holy Spirit shall be received simultaneously with the event but it may also suggest to a later time. There was no laying of hands that i see in the verses cited.
Your question, how many Baptism are there today? My answer is only one. I also do believe in the infilling of the Holy Spirit, but I don’t equate it to Baptism. The issue with infilling with the Holy Spirit is not always maintained due to the fact that believers in Christ still commit sins and have the possibility to grieve the Holy Spirit.
JT, fair enough, at least you attempted to answer my questions.
First you said:
The so called great commission that was based on Matt. 28:19-20 was originally given to the 11 disciples during the ascension of Christ to heaven. Most Christians claim this as the command to baptize in water. If we read it in Acts chap. 2:38, 41, the word “baptize” has been mentioned telling the readers about Peter having been complied the command to baptize those 3,000 people who received the word preached and thus were baptized.
Aidan’s Response:
You are correct, it was indeed originally given to the Apostles, and then they were to pass that command unto all other disciples: “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” “(v.20). It was also water baptism in His name, “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Compare that expression in (Acts 10:47-48) ““Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized……And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”
Next you said:
“then in Acts 2:38 it mentions the gift of the Holy Spirit shall be received by the person being baptized. The verse does not say clearly if the gift of the Holy Spirit shall be received simultaneously with the event but it may also suggest to a later time.”
Aidan’s Response:
On that basis, one could just as easily say, ‘the verse does not say clearly if forgiveness of sins shall be received simultaneously with the event’. But that wouldn’t make much sense either! But if a person’s sins are completely forgiven in baptism, they are immediately a fit vessel for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Last you said:
“Your question, how many Baptism are there today? My answer is only one.”
Aidan’s Response:
Well, that would have to be water baptism commanded in the great commission, right? Because that baptism was commanded for all who would believe, and He says, “and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” “(v.20). This naturally implies that Holy Spirit baptism is gone, and so also is John’s baptism gone. Therefore, we are only left with baptism in the name of Jesus, given under the great commission.
Just to let you know; Luke’s account of the Great Commission mentions “Repentance” which would make sense to it being commanded in Acts 2:38.
NOTICE: (LUKE 24:46-48)
“Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,(V.46)
“and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (V.47)
“You are witnesses of these things.” (V.48)
Some days later, in Jerusalem, when Peter stands up to preach the first gospel sermon, he commands them to ““Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Which was in keeping with what was commanded by Jesus, when He gave the great commission a few days earlier.
JT,
Isn’t it interesting that you have the new life beginning before baptism, when the Apostle Paul has the NEW LIFE AFTER BAPTISM?
Note: NEW LIFE AFTER BAPTISM:
“Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)
Notice what he said: THROUGH BAPTISM WE ARE BURIED WITH HIM INTO DEATH: ONLY TO BE RAISED UP TO WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE.
Note: MADE ALIVE THROUGH BAPTISM:
“buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,” (Col. 2:12-13).
Again, notice what Paul said: “BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM……..WERE RAISED WITH HIM……MADE ALIVE TOGETHER WITH HIM, HAVING FORGIVEN YOU ALL YOUR TRESPASSES”
Yes, only Jesus saves, if we obey Him (Heb. 5:8).
And, leave John’s baptism out of it. You are confused if you think that this is John’s baptism. His baptism momentarily served its purpose. That baptism is long dead in the water! We now have baptism in the name of Jesus, which is a completely different baptism than John’s.
And leave the thief on the cross out of it too. BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS, IS FOR US TODAY, not for him.
Aidan writes, “Isn’t it interesting that you have the new life beginning before baptism, when the Apostle Paul has the NEW LIFE AFTER BAPTISM?”
We read in Colossians:
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Thus, v10, the believer is “complete in Christ.” This was accomplished as the believer was-
– circumcised with the circumcision made without hands (this accomplished by God)
– buried with Him in baptism, (this accomplished by the Holy Spirit)
– raised with Him through faith. (the response of the believer as enabled by faith).
Romans 6 tells us–
2 …How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
7 For he who has died has been freed from sin…
13 13* And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. (the believer’s exercise of faith)
Here, we see this order of events–
– we were buried with Him through baptism into death (This the baptism of the Holy Spirit)
– we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
– present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness
In each case, both God and the Holy Spirit are said to act and it is their actions that are followed by the person exercising faith.
What order do you see coming out of Colossians and Romans?
No more than what is revealed in the passage!
WATER BAPTISM:
In – [Col. 2: 11-13:] -THE BELIEVER WAS:
– circumcised with the circumcision made without hands (by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh), (v.11)…. HOW?
NEXT TWO VERSES EXPLAIN HOW:
– Having been buried with Him in baptism, (in which you were also raised up with Him through faith) in the working of God,..(v.12)
– And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, (He has made alive together with Him)
— Having forgiven you all trespasses (V.13)
WATER BAPTISM:
In – [Rom. 6:3-7] – When the BELIEVER WAS BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST :
– He was baptized into His death (v.3)
– Was buried with Him into death, then raised to walk in newness of life (v.4)
– Have been united together in the likeness of His death, shall be in the likeness of His resurrection (v.5)
– our old man was crucified with Him, ( in order that our body of sin might be done away with)
– so that we would no longer be slaves to sin (v.6)
– freed from sin. (v.7)
– present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. (v.13)
Clearly the Apostle Paul has the NEW LIFE AFTER BAPTISM.
Baptism is an act of faith, and God responds to it accordingly.
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pt. 3:21).
HOW MANY BAPTISMS DOES PAUL SAY THERE ARE?
WHAT ONE IS IT?
Aidan writes, “Anyways, no one is in hell yet if they are all in Hades. What does Rhutchin believe?”
I’m with Paul on this – “Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.”
rhutchin
I’m with Paul on this……
br.d
More precisely – an INTERPRETATION of Paul designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism
Ed Posted this one:
“What you are indicating is that God promises eternal life, promises this and promises that and promises that other thing, but you have NO IDEA if YOU have any of those promises at all.”.
——-Here’s My Response——–
1. It is you Ed who affirmed in this blog site that “Paul is an apostle both to the Jews and to the Gentiles”. Is this not the one that fires back to you after ignoring that Gentiles are not elect, only Israel,?”
2. Jesus said: “And other sheep [Gentile believers in Christ] I have which are not of this fold ; [even if the Gentiles were not the original God’s elect, joining God’s fold for the Gentile believers is our joy to the completion of God’s pre-determined sheep before the foundation of the world] them also I must bring , [this is the assurance given by Jesus Christ. Ed, are you still doubting Christ’s words here?] and they [both Jewish believers and Gentile believers] shall hear My voice [Ed, those true sheep whom Jesus brought in His fold recognizes the voice of the Good Shepherd, not the strange comments coming from the opponents here] and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” [this will happen in heaven the eternal abode of God together with the believers after they are raptured on earth] John 10:16
jtleosala
Jesus said: “And other sheep [Gentile believers in Christ] I have which are not of this fold
br.d
Notice how natural it comes for Calvinists to alter the text
But the Calvinists doesn’t need to PHYSICALLY alter the text like the Jehovah’s Witness does
His mind is conditioned to alter the text while reading it.
jt,
I never affirmed any such thing.
Ed, I mean your statement that I read before that says : “Gentiles are not elect “. Sorry if the way I dot it (paraphrase) was not the accurate statement one.
jt,
That is correct, I did indeed say that Gentiles are not elect.
This is how I see it:
1. Gentile CHRISTIANS are NOT elect
2. Gentile Non-Christians are NOT elect
3. Jewish Christians are elect remnant
4. Jewish Non-Christians who are BLIND are elect.
5. Jewish Non-Christians who CLAIM TO SEE, are NOT elect
John 9:39
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
John 9:40
And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
jt,
Scripture never affirms that Gentiles are elect. You think it does because you define elect as those chosen at the foundation of the earth to be saved, whether saved now, or in the future. But that’s not how I read it. Israel is the elect according to OT. There is no scripture to indicate that elect is anyone else. The church is not Israel. Never has been, never will be. Romans 9-11 does not say that all believers are Israel. That’s considered replacement theology. And I don’t believe in replacement theology.
Ed, Let us just agree to disagree on both sides. No problem with me… our conversation is still coupled with cordial words towards you.
jt,
You are dog gone right we disagree on this point, as it is the HEART of the differences between your doctrines, and mine…CHOSEN, ELECT, etc.
Redefinition of words, logic, scripture. Where I come from, we call that A CULT. But ya, we be still friends!
Ed Chapman
Very nice! Thank you JT!
chapmaned24 to JTL writes, “Scripture never affirms that Gentiles are elect. ”
What about Colossians 3:12 – “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;” The Colossians were gentiles weren’t they?
rhutch,
Like I’ve said, do you see the word elect in that? He’s speaking to Jews here, not Gentiles.
Now, I know that you believe that both Jews and Gentiles attended the same local church services, but that’s not true.
I am at work. I can’t do the verses search right now. But… if you would do a word search for the verse that states, “churches of the Gentiles…”
That means that on the opposite side, there is churches of the Jews.
Further research shows that the Bereans were Jews, because they searched the scriptures daily. Where are those scriptures located? SYNAGOGUES. Gentiles not allowed in SYNAGOGUES.
Furthermore, in Acts 19, the Thessalonians were Jews.
Anytime you see the word ELECT, then you know that the audience is Jews, not Gentiles.
Right of the top of my head, Corinthians letters are for Gentiles.
The book of Hebrews is directed to the Jews. James is to the Jews. Both of Peter’s letters is to the Jews. Johns epistles are directed to the Jews.
Ephesians is directed to the Jews.
Even revelation is directed to the Jews. For those of us who are raptured, we won’t be here for the rest of the story until we come back with Jesus.
Very few epistles are directed to Gentiles.
I don’t care how much you preach, “For there is no difference..”
There is distinctions.
Ed Chapman
Ed C. posted this one:
“Ephesians is directed to the Jews.”
——Here’s My response——-
Eph. 2:8-9 says: “For by grace, you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast”
1. If the verse I cited above was never intended for the Gentiles, then what would be the doctrine on Salvation that was designed by God for the Gentiles, because according to your claim the book of Ephesians is only intended for the Jews? Perhaps Ed C. may explain here his own version on the doctrine of Salvation for the Gentiles…
2. Ed, a Gentile must keep off with the book of Ephesians and never attempt to read it because it is only intended for the Jews.
3. Anyway, it is your right to be wrong as you choose it for yourself . In your claim it appears that the pronoun “YOU” in Eph. 2:8 refers only to the Jews.
So… it is not the “Good News of God’s Choice”. Putting bar against the Gentiles to become partakers of the grace of God. This could be a serious claim coming from a non-Calvinist.
I argue with chapmaned24 in his claim that the book of Ephesians were only intended for the Jews:
1. Eph. 2:11-14
v. 11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh-who are called uncircumcision by what is called uncircumcision made in the flesh by hands.
v. 12 That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
v. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
v. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation.
The book itself addresses the Gentiles. How could Ed C. ignore this verses in the book itself and say it is only directed to the Jews?
jt,
I was at work, jt. Kinda hard to do my job, and so this at the same time. I’m home now, and will revise my statement in a moment, regarding Ephesians. Or, whatever it was that you are challenging me on. But I stand by my statement regarding elect is Jews only, not Gentiles. Right now, I just want to take a small break for about 20 minutes. Be right back.
However
jtleosala,
OK, SO, I stand corrected on the book of Ephesians. I say again, I was at work. I don’t have the time or the ability to SEARCH biblegateway.com while I am working. I was just going off on MEMORY, and of course, in this case, I was wrong.
However, you will NOT FIND the word “elect” in Ephesians at all.
Let me say that again:
You will not find the word “ELECT” in Ephesians AT ALL.
But, you will find the word Gentiles, just like you told me.
Therefore, the book of Ephesians is directed to Gentiles, just like the books of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
If the word ELECT is in the book, then it’s to the Jews. If it isn’t, then that is a HINT that it’s probably to the Gentiles.
So, just because I mis-spoke in an earlier comment, does not mean that I am admitting that my premise is wrong. Other than the Ephesians flub, I stand by everything that I stated.
Ed Chapman
Acts 2:5-10 (NKJV)….
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them SPEAK IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, EACH IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE IN WHICH WE WERE BORN? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them SPEAKING IN OUR OWN TONGUES the wonderful works of God.”
Acts 17:1-2 (NKJV)….
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where THERE WAS A SYNAGOGUE OF THE JEWS. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures
Brothers/Sisters,
By the time Paul’s ministry had come upon the scene, the children of Israel had been scattered among the Gentiles for centuries. Paul was, in fact, God’s chosen vessel to the children of Israel and the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). There wasn’t a place where Paul went that the Jews weren’t entrenched. If a Jew is born in a foreign land, he instantly becomes a citizen of that country, even speaking fluently that language. But they are still Jews (or Israelites) by blood line.
So, just because the book might be entitled “Galatians”, “Ephesians”, or “Corinthians” doesn’t necessarily mean we was speaking to Gentiles.
Phillip,
I stand corrected one more time. I had earlier said Acts 19 regarding the Thessalonians. The actual reference is Acts 17, as you so state.
Dude, where ya been, man!? Ya left me hanging for a long time on this! LOL. Just kidding. Thanks for chiming in.
But, regarding Galatians, Ephesians, and Corinthians, those are indeed addressed to the Gentiles, but your premise is spot on, and also, your references are DEFINITELY spot on, correcting another minor error on my part.
Glad to hear from you!
Ed Chapman
phillip writes, “So, just because the book might be entitled “Galatians”, “Ephesians”, or “Corinthians” doesn’t necessarily mean (h)e was speaking to Gentiles.”
Of course it does. When Paul addresses his letters “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:” and “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:” and “To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,” and ‘To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,” and “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:” he is writing to all believers and this would include gentiles.
rhutchin,
You replied to Phillip, basically telling him that his letters are for BOTH JEW AND GENTILE.
WRONG! You had better do a LOT MORE research and STUDY.
I mentioned this yesterday, but obviously, you were not listening:
Romans 16:4
Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Do you see that? CHURCHES OF THE GENTILES.
What’s the OPPOSITE OF THAT? Obvious answer: CHURCHES OF THE JEWS!
Now, when reading Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 12:2
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
BREAKING NEWS: JEWS ARE NOT GENTILES!
Galatians 2:7-9
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
BREAKING NEWS:
1. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles
2. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews
3. James is the Apostle to the Jews
4. John is the Apostle to the Jews
James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Ed Chapman
Excellent points
chapmaned24 writes, “BREAKING NEWS:
1. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles”
That is why Paul’s letters are to gentiles.
rhutchin,
It was ALWAYS Paul’s custom TO THE JEW FIRST, and THEN after that, he would go to the Gentiles. That’s why, in Acts 17, he is talking to the JEWISH Thessalonians.
The Books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is PAUL, SPEAKING TO THE JEWS OF THESSONLIA, which is why I mentioned the Bearans, because they were Jews who searched the scriptures daily, and the ONLY PLACE scriptures would be is in a Jewish synagogue, where NO GENTILES WERE ALLOWED TO BE.
In order to KNOW who the Audience that Paul is speaking to, is to use a FINE TOOTH COMB and SLOW DOWN when reading, and you will see, with the words being used, and LOGIC. Like the logic that GENTILES NOT ALLOWED IN SYNAGOGUES. That’s a HUGE CLUE. One that gets missed, because people in general OVERLOOK that minute detail.
Colossians is NOT TO THE GENTILES, either.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “The Books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is PAUL, SPEAKING TO THE JEWS OF THESSONLIA,…”
Paul says, “To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:…you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,…you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans,…each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God;…”
Paul wrote in Colossians, “To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:…since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth; as you also learned from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant,…Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ, greets you,…” Your claim here is that Epaphras was a Jew. From what I could determine, Epaphras is a Greek name.
chapmaned24 writes, “Let me say that again: You will not find the word “ELECT” in Ephesians AT ALL.”
That is because “elect” is a noun and Paul does not use that term in Ephesians. However, Paul does use the verb form, “chosen,” in 1:4, “God chose us in Him…” The effect is the same. That God “chose” them makes them the “chosen” or the “elect.”
Rhutchin,
No, that’s not the reason. The reason is Isaiah 45:4 “…Israel My elect…”
Now spin that, Mr. Spin Doctor!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “No, that’s not the reason. The reason is Isaiah 45:4 “…Israel My elect…””
Whether the gentile believers, identified in v1 as “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus,” knew Isaiah 45 is speculative. Paul preached to them that, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” They also knew that which Paul wrote to them, “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” They knew that they were “chosen” and this is the same as calling them “elect.”
rhutchin said:
‘chapmaned24 writes, “No, that’s not the reason. The reason is Isaiah 45:4 “…Israel My elect…””
Whether the gentile believers, identified in v1 as “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus,” knew Isaiah 45 is speculative. Paul preached to them that, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” They also knew that which Paul wrote to them, “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” They knew that they were “chosen” and this is the same as calling them “elect.”
My response:
APPLES ORANGES.
You are discussing that Jesus died for WHO? CALVINISTS ONLY?
I never said anything about the GOSPEL from 1 Cor 15, as you are mentioning. The GOSPEL is NOT the subject of Isaiah 45:4 The Subject of Isaiah 45:4 is ISRAEL, THE FLESHLY ISRAEL. And it is NOT SPECULATIVE. It’s pretty straight forward in BLACK AND WHITE.
I thought you people were into EXPOSITORY preaching where NOTHING is spiritualized? But, you are gonna spiritualize this one as meaning THE CHURCH? Giving it a NEW DEFINITION other than PHYSICAL ISRAEL? just BECAUSE ALL ISRAEL ISN’T OF ISRAEL?
So, you think that the CHURCH is Israel? YES OR NO?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “So, you think that the CHURCH is Israel? YES OR NO?”
Israel is uniquely comprised of Jews. The church is uniquely comprised of the Jewish children of promise and gentile believers.
Rhutchin,
Regarding Ephesians 1:4, I keep reiterating that it does NOT say that God chose ANYONE at all.
You place a period after the word “us”, which is why you think it has meaning that YOU were chosen.
Get rid of that period, and read the rest, and it’s context changes to its proper meaning, which is,
“The children of God are TO BE holy and blameless”
It has nothing to do with YOU being chosen, it ONLY has to do with being holy and blameless, and THAT is what was chosen, that only holy and blameless people will have union with God, and that is what he decided at the foundation of the world.
It’s not discussing PEOPLE chosen, it’s discussing behavior chosen, aka, his expectation of those TO BE in his presence.
He chose you to be holy and blameless does not mean that he chose you.
That seems to be a hard one for Calvinists to understand.
Ed Chapman
Also I would add that the starting point is those who are “In Christ” the Calvinist reads it as “You were IN ADAM and God chose you to be IN CHRIST” which is not what it says at all. The Calvinist inserts extra words into the text…even if it is just a mental insertion.
GraceAdict writes, “Also I would add that the starting point is those who are “In Christ” the Calvinist reads it as “You were IN ADAM and God chose you to be IN CHRIST” which is not what it says at all.”
The Calvinist read this as,
He chose us… – God chose us (Paul and those to whom he writes the letter)
…in Him … – in Christ indicating that Christ was a necessary part
…before the foundation of the world, – God did this a long time ago.
rhutchin,
In other words, you put a period after the word, “US”.
Hey everyone. I’m working swing shift for about a week or so. Sleeping schedule to be weird the next few days. I’ll respond when I can. Right now at lunch.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “In other words, you put a period after the word, “US”.”
Don’t see how. We both seem to agree that God choose someone for something. In choosing “us” God had a purpose in mind for “us.”
Most translations translate the Greek as “He [God] chose.” The paraphrases have this language:
– Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.
– Long before he laid down earth’s foundations, he had us in mind, had settled on us as the focus of his love, to be made whole and holy by his love.
– Even as he made selection of us in him from the first, so that we might be holy and free from all evil before him in love:
rhutchin
God loved us and chose us
br.d
For the Calvinist that is translated as “chose a few of us”
br.d writes, “For the Calvinist that is translated as “chose a few of us””
OK. Thanks for not denying it.
br.d
For the Calvinist that is translated as “chose a few of us”
rhutchin
OK. Thanks for not denying it.
br.d
That depends on what you are referring to
I don’t deny my understanding of the LOGICAL consequences of the Calvinist belief system.
Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of Calvinists as “chaff”
As John Calvin puts it:
-quote
“A few grains hidden under a pile of chaff”
So applying probability – that means Calvin’s god gives a FALSE perception of election to the vast majority of Calvinists
Makes me just want to run and sign right up for that – right now!!! :-]
br.d writes, “I don’t deny my understanding of the LOGICAL consequences of the Calvinist belief system.”
And you never deny the truth of your understanding. Perhaps, because you have nothing to take its place.
br.d
I don’t deny my understanding of the LOGICAL consequences of the Calvinist belief system
rhutchin
And you never deny the truth of your understanding. Perhaps, because you have nothing to take its place.
br.d
Another good example of Calvinist thinking!
It is consistent Calvinism – to implicitly deny the truth of one’s understanding.
But anyone who is RATIONAL knows that to be DOUBLE-THINK.
br.d writes, “It is consistent Calvinism – to implicitly deny the truth of one’s understanding.”
In this case, I explicitly affirmed the truth of your understanding and noted that you did also. However, when doe Calvinism ever “implicitly” deny anything? If anything, Calvinism is explicit in what it says – thereby generating much discussion.
rhutchin
And you never deny the truth of your understanding. Perhaps, because you have nothing to take its place.
br.d
Another good example of Calvinist thinking!
It is consistent Calvinism – to implicitly deny the truth of one’s understanding.
But anyone who is RATIONAL knows that to be DOUBLE-THINK.
rhutchin
In this case, I explicitly affirmed the truth of your understanding and noted that you did also.
br.d
Well even a stopped clock can appear right 2 times each day now can’t it?
rhutchin
However, when does Calvinism ever “implicitly” deny anything?
If anything, Calvinism is explicit in what it says – thereby generating much discussion.
br.d
All the SOT101 reader need do – is scrutinize Calvinist posts here – to discern that Calvinist language is designed to “Explicitly” affirm [A] – and then to latter “Implicitly” deny it.
A phenomenon Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book “A Closer Look at Calvinism” calls “Calvinism’s Rocking-Horse”
That is why we say – a Calvinist becomes an expert at pointing 10 fingers in 20 directions at the same time.
Otherwise known as DOUBLE-SPEAK :-]
br.d writes, “Well even a stopped clock can appear right 2 times each day now can’t it?”
In this case, your understanding if true 2 times each day will be true throughout the day, ceterus paribus.
Then, “All the SOT101 reader need do – is scrutinize Calvinist posts here – to discern that Calvinist language is designed to “Explicitly” affirm [A] – and then to latter “Implicitly” deny it.”
If one did as br.d says, he would come up with nothing.
rhutchin
In this case, your understanding if true 2 times each day will be true throughout the day, ceterus paribus.
br.d
rhutchin – can you be a little less vague about what you are claiming “my understanding” to be?
And all the SOT101 reader need do – is scrutinize Calvinist posts here – to discern that Calvinist language is designed to “Explicitly” affirm [A] – and then to latter “Implicitly” deny it.”
rhutchin
If one did as br.d says, he would come up with nothing.
br.d
AH! But that’s why I am happy to let SOT101 readers come to their own conclusions. :-]
Perhaps the greatest complaint one hears from former Calvinists is the deceptive and less than forthright speech on the part of Calvinist teachers, pastors, authors and theologians. The Calvinist is renown for appearing to say one thing while secretly meaning something quite different. It is also commonly alleged that it is not so much what Calvinists say that is the problem, but what they don’t say. The Calvinist will blithely quote scripture as if their theology does not teach its exact opposite, such as ‘God so loved the world . . .’ or ‘God desires that none perish’.
Dishonesty, deception, subterfuge – whatever term you choose – the Calvinist, from Calvin on down, must become an expert at both affirming and negating the same point, as their system is the exact antithesis to scripture’s teaching. They are tasked with the heavy burden of appearing to align with scripture and Calvinism’s anti-scriptural teachings at the same time. That’s not an easy task.
Absolutely!!
Interesting how you, I and others can discern that characteristic of the Calvinist’s language – while they have no discernment at all about it. I think that goes to show how we humans can justify just about any form of corruption.
rhutchin,
No, I do not agree that God chose ANYONE in the context of Ephesians 1:4. Period.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “No, I do not agree that God chose ANYONE in the context of Ephesians 1:4. Period.”
So, when everyone else in the world translates “exelexato amas” as “He chose us” you translate it as what??
chapmaned24 writes, “It has nothing to do with YOU being chosen, it ONLY has to do with being holy and blameless, and THAT is what was chosen, that only holy and blameless people will have union with God, and that is what he decided at the foundation of the world. ”
Ephesians 1
3 God…has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
…
So, God has blessed us (Paul and those to whom he writes). How has God blessed us?
v4. He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him…
v5. He predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ
v7 In Christ we have redemption through His blood
v11. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance,
Then, “He chose you to be holy and blameless does not mean that he chose you. ”
That God “chose you to be holy and blameless” means that God “chose you to be holy and blameless.” It begins with “God chose” so it means “God chose.” It was God’s decision to bless Paul and the people to whom Paul writes his letter.
Ed, no problem with me… and I always appreciate your sincerity and humility. God bless you and your work…
jtleosala,
Thanks, bud! You know my banter is all in fun.
Ed
I know many here already know my stance regarding who the elect are in scripture. For those already annoyed by my view, you can stop reading here (seriously).
For those who haven’t heard my stance, let me point out the following….
How many times have our Calvinist brothers said something like… “we don’t know who the elect are so we preach the gospel to all indiscriminately?”
Well, to them I say….
Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)….
For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.
Now our Calvinist brothers, on this very website, have said things like…
“Well, everyone knows that…” and/or “But it wasn’t an election to salvation.”
Regardless of how they try to spin it, Israel was God’s elect in the OT. Period. No one outside of Israel was ever called by God as “the elect”. No one before Israel was referred to, by God, as “the elect”. That description was reserved only for the people of Israel. And, by the way, Jesus, the elect one (Isaiah 42:1), was, Himself, an Israelite.
Now, during Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles, who did Paul refer to as “the elect”? Israel (Romans 8:33, Romans 11:28, 2 Timothy 2:10).
Who did Jesus refer to as “the elect” during His earthly ministry? Israel (Matthew 24:22, 24:24, 24:31).
So what do we have? Who were the elect in the OT? Israel. Who were the elect during Paul’s church age ministry? Israel. Who are the elect during the last days according to the Lord Jesus Christ? Israel.
Now regarding salvation. I consider myself as being non-elect. A non-Israelite (by blood line). And yet I am saved by grace thru faith. Some of my non-Calvinist brothers on this site might disagree with me here about being non-elect now (saved or “in Christ”), but I do think they would all agree with me that as Gentiles, prior to salvation, that we are/were all non-elect.
The Biblical fact is, Christ died for all men everywhere. He did for the elect (Israelites) and the non-elect (non-Israelites). In fact, the salvation of the non-elect came thru the elect (John 4:22, Romans 11:11). I believe that C. S. Lewis observed this fact when he wrote….
“The ‘chosen’ people are chosen not for their own sake (certainly not for their own honor of pleasure) but for the sake of the unchosen. Abraham is told that ‘in his seed’ (the chosen nation) ‘all nations shall be blest.’ That nation has been chosen to bear a heavy burden. Their sufferings are great: but, as Isaiah recognized, their sufferings heal others.”
I agree wholeheartedly with my brother Ed that Israel is God’s elect. However, where I might disagree with him is that every Israelite throughout all history will be saved. I hope he is right. Maybe the Lord has shown him something that I haven’t seen as yet. Personally, I would love to see the lake of fire empty and Satan bereft of a single soul.
My point here to all the readers is this. Don’t base your salvation on election. Don’t believe that Christ only died for the elect. He didn’t. Don’t believe salvation is only reserved for the elect. It isn’t. Paul tells us that salvation is based on grace thru faith. The “good news” Paul shared with his audience is this…
1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (NKJV)….
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures
No matter how you have lived, what sins you have committed, there is nothing you have done that God’s grace thru the blood of Jesus Christ can’t cover. You just have to believe it.
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:32)
Does it say…. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be elect”? Nope (Arminianism)
Does it say…. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will know you are elect”? Nope (Calvinism).
Simply… “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be (what?) saved”.
Now our Calvinist brothers tie salvation to election. Our Calvinist brothers can believe what they want to believe. Free will. Just remember what John Milton (from “The Devil’s Advocate) said about free will.
Grace
Phillip,
YES! Great explanation!!
I’m not so sure that the Calvinists even believe in a Devil. They don’t mention him at all in anything that I read. Maybe in passing, regarding Job, but that’s about all.
Ed Chapman
I was thinking about what you pointed out here
About Calvinists being so focused on the “Good” half of Calvin’s god and not very much focused on the “Evil” half.
You know John Piper’s ministry “Desiring god” etc.
They’ve detailed out the (TULIP of salvation) in intricate detail – which only applies to a few of them.
While they’ve neglected the (TULIP of reprobation) detailed out in intricate detail – which applies to the majority of them!
They’ve detailed out the “golden-chain” of salvation in intricate detail – which only applies to a few of them.
While they’ve neglected the “golden-chain” of eternal torment in the lake of fire – detailed out in intricate detail – which applies to the majority of them!
As R.C. Sproul says “Evil is Good”
Obviously Calvin’s god glorifies himself by creating a lot more “Evil” than he does creating “Good”.
One would think Calvinists would want to glorify Calvin’s god by writing books detailing out in excruciating detail – how Calvin’s god glorified himself in every minute detail of the holocaust, and tsunamis, chain-saw massacres etc.
After all – that would be the major portion of desiring Calvin’s god wouldn’t it?
One wouldn’t want to just desire his “good” determinations – to the neglect of his “evil” determinations!
Perhaps John Piper has seriously neglected glorifying Calvin’s god.
Since creating “evil” obviously represents the vast majority of Calvin’s god’s determinations
Piper doesn’t appear to be giving Calvin’s god the majority of the glory he deserves.
br.d,
I just did a quick Google search for “Calvinist and the Devil”. Just on page 1 of the results, it’s like, “Where is the devil in Calvinism…seems to be missing”. I’m paraphrasing, but seems that many people see that.
Ed Chapman
Well since Calvinists function as advertising agents for their theology – I guess it makes sense that they would do as all advertisements do – focus on the “good” HIDE the “evil”.
phillip writes, “Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)….
For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.”
Israel was to be the elect of God. It largely rejected that honor. So, Paul sets the record straight in Romans 9, “it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”
Paul then included gentiles as the elect arguing in Ephesians 3, “by revelation God made known to me the mystery…which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel…” And then in Romans 9-11, “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.” and “I speak to you Gentiles;..if some of the branches [unbelieving Israel] were broken off, and you [gentiles], being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,…You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
That Paul is speaking of salvation is clear when he says, “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’” and ” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” and “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.”
rhutchin states:
Israel was to be the elect of God. It largely rejected that honor. So, Paul sets the record straight in Romans 9,
WRONG!
There is NOTHING about a “WAS” about it. There is NOTHING FOR THE JEWS TO REJECT. They are the elect.
Israel is the elect. You say that Romans 9 sets the record straight. YOU ARE DOG GONE RIGHT THAT IT DOES. It STILL states that Israel is the Elect.
Verse 9 (IN THE FLESH JACOB), NAME CHANGED TO ISRAEL. ISRAEL IS THE ELECT BY THE FLESH.
by the spirit is a DIFFERENT STORY, but by the FLESH, JACOB IS ISRAEL, AND HIS CHILDREN ARE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
In other words, PHYSICAL ISRAEL (JEWS) ARE THE ELECT, not Gentiles.
I have concluded that you Calvinists can’t read, but if you can prove to me that you can read, you can’t comprehend.
Verses 9-13 tells you that Jacob is the Elect…that is by the flesh.
There is no SPIRITUAL elect. No such thing. THE CHURCH IS NOT ISRAEL.
LASTLY, THE JEWS STILL INHERIT THE PHYSICAL LAND OF ISRAEL. AND IT’S NOT DEPENDENT OF IF THEY OBEY OR NOT. IT WAS A PROMISE GIVEN TO ABRAHAM…UNCONDITIONALLY.
AND SO, JACOB IS ELECT, NOT ESAU, WHO SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT. JACOB NAME CHANGED TO ISRAEL…IN THE FLESH, BUDDY!
Ed Chapman
RHUTCHIN,
Anytime you see the word “REMNANT”, it is discussing “awakened, unblinded Jews”.
Ephesians 3 has nothing to do with the conversation of Romans 9.
The promise to Abraham is TWO FOLD.
1. Physical Land of Israel (It does not matter how much the Jews DISOBEY God, because the promise is UNCONDITIONAL, and that promise was given to Abraham, not directly to them)
2. SPIRITUALLY, what is the promised land?
Ephesians 3 is discussing #2, whereas, Romans 9 is discussing things in the PHYSICAL, not the spiritual. Physical Israel, and there is no such thing as spiritual Israel to begin with. We are not Israel. Elect never got transferred to Gentiles.
But…if you read the REASONING THAT PAUL got…SAVED…it was because he was IGNORANT IN UNBELIEF.
Did you hear that? Probably not.
SO, Romans 11 states that the people he will have mercy on, is because they are IGNORANT IN UNBELIEF.
Did you hear that? Probably not, cuz we keep revisiting this conversation over and over and over and over again.
Ed Chapman
I would humbly remind people that the reason issues are revisited again and again is often not that someone is not reading their bible. Persons who differ in opinions usually interpret the exact same words to mean something different. So just repeating the same verses over and over will accomplish nothing, nor will name-calling or insults.
I am not saying one never shares the scriptures one builds their viewpoint upon, as there are some new to the debate who may be unfamiliar with one or both sides’ premises. However, if the dissenter already knows the verses involved, prooftext wars are pointless, which is why some of us focus on logic as the most helpful tool to judge whether or not one’s various renderings of this or that verse are consistent with the rest of what one believes to be true.
The fact of the matter is, some believe that God still views and treats the physical descendants of Abraham separate from how he treats all other men. (A select few descendants, that is, not all, which point Paul makes in Romans. Not all descendants of Abraham, etc. Even the ‘Jews’ of his day recognized that some historical ‘Jews’ (descendants of Jacob) were rebellious and were judged fiercely.) Thus, when they see the word ‘Israel’ they automatically read ‘Jews’. Others allege that the point of Paul in Romans was to prove why that was illogical.
Some, myself included, find ‘All Jews will be saved’ difficult to defend, as, with Paul, we point out that all fleshly descendants of Jacob were never automatically ‘approved’, as well as not all fleshly descendants of Abraham. Some were swallowed up by the earth, some died from the poison of scorpions, etc.
Additionally, some who were not fleshly descendants of Jacob became members of the nation of Israel by conversion. In other words, being part of ‘Israel’ was never restricted to fleshly descendants of ANYONE. What do those who believe Israel=Jews do with such people and their descendants?These converted ‘Gentiles’, including Rahab the harlot, were just as much a part of ‘Israel’ the nation as Jacob’s descendants, upon embracing The Law of Moses. Some even were included in the lineage of Jesus. The Israel=Jews folks totally ignore the fact that even in Paul’s day there were different races of men within the existing nation called Israel.
It seems to some that the simplest explanation is Paul’s explanation that not all who are OF Israel ARE (truly) Israel. This could easily translate to ‘Not all Jews are Israel’, as the word ‘Jew’ was not in existence at the time of writing, or ‘Not physical heritage but faith makes one a true ‘Israelite”. Or simply, God did not choose one race of people to be ‘loved’ but ‘elected’ one nation to do his bidding, reveal the knowledge of sin and produce the Messiah.
One group reads ‘Nevertheless, all Israel will be saved as ‘all Jews will be saved’ (again, totally disregarding the non-Jewish Israelites). The other group starts with ‘Not all who are of Israel are Israel’ and understands the same words to mean ‘Since not all who are of Israel are Israel scripture is affirming that the ‘True’ Israel is something else, which is reasoned to be, based on its emphasis in scripture, those of all nations who believe’.
There are many more arguments, but exhaustively covering the issues is not my point. (You can do a Google search and find all of the books, articles, debates, etc. you wish.) Which ever way you see it, simply throwing the same verses out repeatedly, or telling people how ignorant they are, serves little purpose. We all know the words, we simple understand them to mean different things.
TS00,
You must first recognize that the Jews are blind. That is step 1. So, do you recognize that the Jews are blind?
If yes, explain. If no, explain.
I know how a Calvisist would respond, as they would say, “NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE ELSE”, or something along those lines. But what say you?
Ed
My issue is with stating ‘You must understand’ as if your opinion is, without doubt, the ‘right one’. Now if you were saying, ‘Please understand that this is what I think and why’, I would affirm, yes, I understand that this is what you think and why. ‘Must’ I, or do I, concur? It doesn’t even matter.
I’m not here to push my opinions on you or anyone. I seek to correct false views of God which might lead people to not trust him. That is pretty much why I comment here. I would implore you to give me, and others, the same respect to have our own opinions on secondary matters, and to admit that none of us can be certain that we are absolutely right about anything.
I do believe Zionism has led to much injustice and bloodshed, and is nothing but blatant racism. There are even a number of Jews who reject Zionism, seeing the injustice and violence it invokes. And, while I do concede beliefs have ramifications, I realize that I am insignificant enough that my particular views do not much affect what happens in the world. 😉
I will do what little I can to stand up for the weak, defend the helpless, fight injustice and prevent evil, in whatever small ways I can. My concern for the lost is not limited to any particular race, but is based on the interpretation of John 3:16 that God so loves [every single human being that ever has or ever will exist in] the world. I dismiss any race of men’s claims to superiority or special treatment, even if based on some interpretation of scripture, (We have both witnessed how easily scripture can be twisted to mean almost anything.) I do not, however, dismiss any individual as less valuable or worthy in God’s eyes than any other. I do not believe God condemns or singles out for special treatment any race of men, but holds each individual responsible for his or her actions.
My heart aches for every human being who does not know God. Frankly, I don’t give diddle about anyone’s claims to rank, privilege or authority. If God views one race as more valuable than any other, or grants blessing and honor based on birthright, then, in my opinion, pretty much everything written in the New Testament becomes meaningless. But that’s just my opinion.
TS00,
Ok, so you don’t like how I talk. No biggie. But I followed that up with a question. I would think that you’d be more concerned with the follow up question, rather than the, “You must understand” statement. I’m from Washington State. We aren’t as formal here in our statements. Sorry to disappoint my 3rd grade grammar.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
I needed to revisit this comment with you, since you seem to have some serious issues with me, especially when you state such things as you would rather side with your enemy, than with me. Where did that come from?
OK, so you have a problem with Zionism. I don’t.
OK, you have a problem with naming the Jews as Elect, because you think that is racism. I don’t.
So, I’m left with the conclusion that you just don’t give a darn about the topic of Elect being the Jews, and you have no heart to study the matter out.
As what Simon Peter said, regarding ditching orthodoxy, he’s just not interested. You don’t have to continue a conversation with me. I’m not trying to convince you of anything that you have no interest in. But it seems that you are opposing me, for really no apparent reason that I can comprehend.
It is, what it is. I bow out of any conversation with you. We don’t agree. Fine.
Ed Chapman
It was this issue, along with a few others, that led me to feel as if my former Calvi-pastor was less than honest in his presentations. I mean, an honest person will know both (or more) sides of an issue, and will seek to present them fairly. It is either ignorance – which hopefully is not the case with a ‘bible teacher’ – or dishonesty which compels one to throw out this or that verse and state ‘your’ interpretation as the one and only possible meaning.
This is why I no longer engage in prooftext wars. It is simply arrogant and foolish. I try to differentiate between people newly coming to the issues (whether they be Calvinism, eschatology or whatever) and those who have studied and firmly entrenched their opinions. If already well-versed, why would I throw verses at someone? Such a dead-end battle could continue indefinitely.
My goal is to encourage those who are struggling with issues to see that there are nearly always multiple understandings of said issues. There has always been debate, even about the supposedly most ‘orthodox’ beliefs, else there would have been no need for councils and creeds.
Some assert that historical christian ‘orthodoxy’ is settled and unchallengable. If you want to be a member of leader of a particular institution, that is probably so. Personally, I no longer concern myself with being a good ‘Presbyterian’, ‘Baptist’, ‘Catholic’ or any other man-made term. I guess I’m a heretic to everyone, because I refuse to adopt any man-made system.
Which does not mean that I do not listen and learn from many long-held positions. I simply refuse to embrace any as ‘authoritative’ and unquestionable. My personal goal is not to persuade anyone to believe like me, but to be free to think and believe as the Spirit of God directs you. You will no more get it all right than anyone else, but you can certainly grow in humility, wisdom and grace as long as you live.
TS00,
You had said:
” Personally, I no longer concern myself with being a good ‘Presbyterian’, ‘Baptist’, ‘Catholic’ or any other man-made term. I guess I’m a heretic to everyone, because I refuse to adopt any man-made system. ”
Oh my, this sounds exactly how Benjamin Franklin put it, as well.
I can’t remember what denomination he was, but he stopped going to church, DUE TO THIS. He didn’t like his preacher very much, DUE TO THIS.
He said something on the line of that the preacher was more concerned about making people better CHURCH GOERS, than better CITIZENS.
In my short interpretation, the preacher had the LOVE GOD part down REALLY WELL, but neglected to teach people how to LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS YOURSELF.
Theologically, however, he was indeed a Christian, but he didn’t believe that Jesus was God. He said this as a rebuke to the Church of England (NO OFFENSE SIMON PETER), because no one trusted the Church of England to tell them the truth, so many had doubts about that topic in those days, which is WHY Ben Franklin was known as a DEIST. He did believe in the God of the Jews…just not that Jesus was God, and considered himself too old to study it out, and he didn’t think that God would punish those who had that doubt.
However, ORTHODOXY, doesn’t have that latitude, so I am not orthodox (sorry again Simon Peter).
Ed Chapman
Ed
TS00
I mean, an honest person will know both (or more) sides of an issue, and will seek to present them fairly.
br.d
Excellent point and Totally Correct!
As a matter of fact – in the world of Biblical Scholarship – this is what separates the “men” from the “boys”.
F.F. Bruce for example was considered one of the top 10 Scholars in the world – and this was one of the very reasons for that.
Conversely – someone like John Gills is someone who would be seen as on the NEGATIVE side of that equation.
His commentaries are totally focused on pushing his own theological agenda with not one ounce of open mindedness.
For that reason – he is perhaps read by a portion of Calvinists
But any Non-Calvinist looking at his commentaries is liable to discern a mind locked inside a very tiny little box.
chapmaned24 writes, “Ephesians 3 has nothing to do with the conversation of Romans 9.”
It helps to explain v24 “even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
Then, “Romans 9 is discussing things in the PHYSICAL, not the spiritual. Physical Israel, and there is no such thing as spiritual Israel to begin with.”
Paul writes, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Paul here distinguishes between “children of the flesh” and “children of promise.” If you don’t want to identify the “children of promise” as spiritual Israel, that’s fine. You can divide Israel between flesh and promise and everyone will know what you mean.
Then, “SO, Romans 11 states that the people he will have mercy on, is because they are IGNORANT IN UNBELIEF.”
OK. We can pit them in the children of promise category.
rhutchin,
One thing that Cavlinists can’t seem to do, is to INCLUDE Romans 10 and 11 with the SAME CONVERSATION, TOPIC and SUBJECT that Romans 9 CONTINUES with, thereby, putting the whole thing into context of JEWS ONLY.
The blind Jews get mercy, just like Paul did for the same exact reason. Mercy due to ignorance in unbelief, for which rhutchin thinks that NO ONE GETS MERCY FOR UNBELIEF, for he thinks unbelief is a sin DESERVING EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. And yet, Romans 11 tells us otherwise.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “One thing that Cavlinists can’t seem to do, is to INCLUDE Romans 10 and 11 with the SAME CONVERSATION, TOPIC and SUBJECT that Romans 9 CONTINUES with, thereby, putting the whole thing into context of JEWS ONLY.”
In Romans 9-11, we read, “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?,,,What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?…I say then, have [the Jews] stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles,…For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved,…”
Plenty of room for the gentiles in Romans 9-11. In addition, one must distinguish between the children of the flesh and the children of promise among the Jews.
Gentlemen , my throw in because it keeps blowing up my mailbox:
Calvinist position on the(individual) elect with its embedded philosophy, being not the logic revealed in scripture: I (obviously) disagree
The position that it was termed for the believing “Jews”: disagree, while I will agree that it covers situations in scripture of His people where the body of believers were in the flesh Jewish, called elect.
A defense according to scripture that our election is attributed to the greatest picture attributed to the still being saved bride of history, and not detailed in only believing who are Jewish :
2 John 1:1 [ Greeting ] The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,
2 John 1:13 The children of your elect sister greet you.
( lady/sister=assembies)
The Holy Spirit is also not bound by space and time when using Paul in space and time. Ephesian 2, we are included and God makes for Himself one new people from 2. Paul was the Apostle set apart for the Gentiles while preaching to both groups Jew and Gentile. Titus is gentile, considering the servant and audience
Titus 1:1 [ Greeting ] Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
(so looking back we could assume it to speak of the entrusted Jews, while looking forward HIs one new people. Unless one is to make an extreme dispensationalist view of revelation, which is faulty. )
——————————–
John of the revelation is the Apostle John. Writing ‘style’- it wasn’t a style, but a pressured mess: John wasn’t the direct vessel as in his other 4 writings, as to use his own style . He was the ‘secretary’ to write down what He was being told to write down in his visions from God…. 🙂 in His style! Yes! This is our letter from our God: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place” ( I would also put forth the position is our evidence for the end of the scripture for canon.)
ps: written to be understood and read to the common man (believer) in the churches, after 70 ad. It is important to the church today that Luther and Calvin were late to the table on the book of revelation according to their systems. According to our time in history , with what we know, and the history behind us, including how God used them, is one of the reasons ….. well I will leave this for the ‘reader’ to think about as you may be moved by the Spirit of scripture bringing truths to mind.
———————————
Just a share, when with the student of calvinism (re)arguing his philosophies embedded into his theology:
” You are free to believe as you wish.”
———————————
continue on :-)… I am probably done reading this thread… so, just my throw in at this point. Have a blessed day.
Tammy,
I am free… that’s the beauty of it all. I am free to think as I wish. Calvinists are not free.
But, I may remind you that Jews were elect before there was a Jesus to believe in, whether they sinned, or not. Elect isn’t transferred based on sin, or obedience, or disobedience.
Elect has nothing to do with the topic of salvation at all.
And that is the sticking point, in my free will judgment.
Elect is about using USING the Jews for a specific purpose, blinding them so they CAN’T SEE, so that God will give those he blinded, because they are ignorant in unbelief…and guess what?
It’s not their fault.
Ed Chapman
elect: gentiles? included, together, first to the Jews who believed, then the Gentile, now=His people, chosen
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201%3A12-14&version=NIV;ESV
Ephesians 2:14-16 English Standard Version (ESV)
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
I understand, but that’s not what I’m discussing. Elect is not about the topic of salvation, the way I see it. But others see it as relating to salvation. Different topic.
Ed Chapman
For my “in Christ” brothers out there, I am going to attempt to argue “for” their position that the elect are those who are “in Christ”. Apologies for the length of this post in advance. I just wanted to be thorough.
Most of my brothers here, who happen to disagree with my stance, have said things like “I am elect because I am in Christ, the Elect one.” Puh-lease! Show me one verse, just one, where any of the Jewish writers made such a statement. Even vaguely. I’ll save you some time. It ain’t there. If it was, Calvinism would have never come into existence. It would have been snuffed out immediately.
That said, I am going to attempt to support this stance with scripture.
The scriptures make it abundantly clear that Israel (the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) is/are the elect of God in the OT. If we can’t all agree on that, then I have no clue what book you are reading.
Here are just a couple of verses our “in Christ” brothers use to suggest that Israel is no longer God’s elect.
Romans 9:6 (NKJV)…
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel
Romans 11:7 (NKJV)…
What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the “elect (ion)” have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Even if we were to acknowledge that every Israelite is not saved, whoever this believing remnant is, they are still physical descendants of Abraham and not Gentiles. The very ones to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law and thru whom Christ came (Romans 9:4-5). How do we know this? Because just moments later Paul tells his Gentile audience…
Romans 11:28 (NKJV)….
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the “election” (same word found in verse 7) they are beloved (by God) for the sake of the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).
So if Israelites are God’s elect, somehow we, as Gentiles, have to become Israelites. The only place I can find in all scripture that suggests a solution to this problem is the following….
Ephesians 2:11-13, 19 (NKJV)….
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ….. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”
Now different translations say this differently, but in the NKJV verse 11 says “that you, once Gentiles in the flesh (not physical descendants of Abraham), were without Christ (Messiah) and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” and that as believers, we are now “fellow citizens with the saints (or Jewish believers)”. In the KJV verse 11 reads “that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh”.
Basically, this is saying that we (Gentiles), thru faith in Christ (Israel’s Messiah), have become co-citizens of Israel, not by natural birth (like the Jews) but thru a legal process of adoption, one of the blessings/promises predestined to Israel (not Gentiles).
We are not “elect” because we are “in Christ”. We are “saved” because we are “in Christ”, but we are “elect” because we are now Israelites.
Now, here’s the funny part, even with all that said, I am not sure I am exactly on board with this view. I am going to pull a “Brian” here. By that I mean lay out an idea in clear terms for all to see only to reject it (all in fun, my dear brother!).
Here’s the problems I see with this.
1. Even with the above, Paul never tells us that we have become “elect”. He just says we have become co-citizens with Israel. And, if we become Israelites thru the legal process of adoption, does that imply there is no such thing as a Gentile believer? All believers are, in some way or another, Israelites.
If a Gentile can become an Israelite thru faith in Christ, would that also mean that Israelites who are cut off from God can become Gentiles? To me, it would have to work both ways. Just something to think about.
2. Another issue I see with this notion is that while Israel was God’s elect in the OT, after the cross, the church is now God’s elect. This is saying to me that the church has replaced Israel. And replacement theology is a road I don’t care to travel down.
3. This issue is tied to #2. If the church is now the elect of God, what happens to transfer that distinction back to the Jews in the tribulation days (Matthew 24)? This line of thinking has Israel as the elect in the OT. Today, the church is the elect. But a day is coming when that title will be transferred back to the Jews.
4. Then there is still the issue with 2 Timothy 2:10. I have shown with content, grammar, and additional scriptural support that the nation of Israel, even in a lost state, is God’s elect according to Paul (and this during the church age). They (Israel) are God’s elect. Saved or lost. If you struggle with this, take it to Him.
5. Another issue with this notion is all the confusion it causes. If Gentile believers become Israelites, who are the Israelites in Revelation 7? Are these Gentiles in Jewish clothing? And if Gentiles believers become Israelites, what tribe are we associated with? Are some of us from the tribe of Judah while others from Rueben or Joseph? How is that even decided? Again, something to think about.
6. Then there is the issue of who decides election.
Deuteronomy 7:6-8 (NKJV)….
“For you (the children of Israel) are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
God did not choose Israel because Israel chose Him. God chose Israel because they were the minority. Israel had no say in the matter.
John 15:16a (NKJV)….
You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit
Now Jesus was speaking directly to His Galilean/Jewish brothers, but wasn’t this also the purpose of the nation of Israel as well? To be a light to the Gentiles and bear fruit? Answer: Yes. (Acts 13:47. Revelation 14:4)
My “in Christ” brothers would say to Jesus…
“Well, you might have ‘chose’ me, but only after I ‘chose’ you first.”
I don’t think it works that way.
phillip writes, “So if Israelites are God’s elect, somehow we, as Gentiles, have to become Israelites.”
Romans 2 has, “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; ”
Those Israelites who have had their hearts circumcised by God are God’s elect. Paul continues this this in Romans 9, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” This forms the basis for the remnant of Israel who are God’s elect. As Paul says, “Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.” and “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
Concerning gentiles, Paul writes, “we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.” and “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
So Israelites are not God’s elect with respect to salvation, but the “children of promise” are God’s elect. Gentiles do not become Israelites in order to be saved; God includes gentiles among His elect..
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Romans 2 has, “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; ””
That does not indicate that Gentiles are Jews. It only indicates an ORTHODOX JEW who REALLY BELIEVES IN JUDAISM…hence the word INWARDLY, not just because they got circumcised.
THEN YOU STATE:
So Israelites are not God’s elect with respect to salvation, but the “children of promise” are God’s elect. Gentiles do not become Israelites in order to be saved; God includes gentiles among His elect..
That’s a contradictory statement.
How?
You are equating the word SAVED with the word ELECT.
So, were the Jews SAVED (Elect) in Isaiah ALREADY?
They would HAVE TO BE in order to EQUATE the word SAVED with the word ELECT.
When Isaiah was written, WHO were the ALREADY SAVED JEWS? And why didn’t God say, “ISRAEL MINE ELECT, oh, and BY THE WAY, A BUNCH OF GENTILES, TOO”? Is that what Isaiah reads to you?
Are you actually saying that saved Gentiles are Israel?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “You are equating the word SAVED with the word ELECT. ”
Yep.
Then, “Are you actually saying that saved Gentiles are Israel?”
No. I am saying that saved gentiles are among God’s elect.
Rhutchin states that Gentiles are among God’s elect. What does elect mean? Saved?
So, when Isaiah said that, WHO was ELECT?
JESUS had not arrived at the scene yet. It does not name individuals. Who is Israel?
Who would QUALIFY as Israel?
How many were ISRAEL? WHEN were they ISRAEL?
Did those Jews argue amongst themselves, “I’m Israel!”; “NO you are not, I’m Israel!”; “”Hey, neither of you are Israel! I AM ISRAEL CUZ I’M NOT CUT ON THE FLESH, YOU DUDES ARE CIRCUMCISED”.
TO WHICH THEY ALL RESPONDED, “God told us to get cut, or be cut off, so be gone, you are not one of us!”
Ed Chapman
Let’s play a word game, rhutchin.
Replace ALL words that match ELECT, with SAVED.
But then you would have a problem with the word, ISRAEL.
You say, in one beat, that you are NOT saying that Gentiles are Israel.
So, who is Israel?
You concluded several times that, from many posts, that not all Israel are of Israel.
Then you conclude that Jews circumcised in the flesh are not what?
Then you conclude that there is no difference, blah blah.
So, what is the requirement to be Israel if not all Israel is from Israel?
So, what we have, is Isaiah saying, ISRAEL, MY “SAVED”?
What exactly can you explain here, regarding the requirements of being Israel?
And what are the requirements to be ELECT?
Step by step procedure, please, cuz your explanation is confusing.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 asks, “So, what is the requirement to be Israel if not all Israel is from Israel? ”
According to Paul in Romans 9, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” This distinguishes between Israel in the flesh and that Israel which are the children of promise.
Then, “And what are the requirements to be ELECT?”
Paul explains in Romans 11, “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Then in Ephesians 1, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.”
So, to be ELECT, one must be chosen by God.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“According to Paul in Romans 9, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” This distinguishes between Israel in the flesh and that Israel which are the children of promise.”
I KNEW you were gonna say that. But that does NOT answer my question, because YOU contradict yourself in this.
YOU state that the church is NOT Israel. Fine, GOOD, I agree.
But God calls ISRAEL Elect in Isaiah. But YOU say that Gentiles are PART OF THAT ELECT, and I do NOT FIND ANY PROOF OF THAT, and you haven’t shown me any proof of that, except to offer me Romans 9, that not all Israel is of Israel?
And yet, you refuse to tell me WHO Israel is, and is not.
The NIVR Version states:
Not everyone in the family line of Israel really belongs to Israel.
That makes more sense than what you are telling me regarding Israel, and that somehow Elect involves Gentiles, too. WHERE can you find that in the bible?
WHO belongs to Israel, and who does NOT belong to Israel?
The topic of GENTILES doesn’t even come up until verse 30 of Romans 9. Until verse 30, conversation is all about Jews.
So, let’s break that down:
What Paul is doing here is DISTINGUISHING the difference between the children of the flesh, and the children of promise.
The words, “BUT IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED has MEANING, in that Abraham had 2 sons (actually more than 2 but the 2 is the context of the story line)
1. Ishmael
2. Isaac
By all accounts, Ishmael is SUPPOSED TO BE the RIGHTFUL heir of the PROMISED LAND (PHYSICAL LAND OF ISRAEL) in which God PROMISED to the SEED of Abraham, but not according to God, hence:
“In Isaac your seed shall be called”.
Gentiles do NOT inherit the physical land of Israel. Ismael is NOT INCLUDED, Arabs are considered GENTILES. To date, the Jews have NOT inherited the physical land of Israel. Why can I say that? LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC BORDERS THAT GOD PROMISED. That has NOT come to fruition yet at all. That CARNAL PROMISE still must be fulfilled. The Jews, aka ISRAEL, aka the CIRCUMCISED Jews (uncircumcised Jews do NOT inherit the Promised Land) will indeed inherit PHYSICAL LAND.
But NOT ISMAEL, FOR ISMAEL IS THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, BUT NOT ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE.
But what I am more disappointed in, is that you still REFUSE to CONTINUE the conversation beyond the first part of Romans 9, when the same conversation continues THRU the end of Chapter 11.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “But God calls ISRAEL Elect in Isaiah. But YOU say that Gentiles are PART OF THAT ELECT, and I do NOT FIND ANY PROOF OF THAT, and you haven’t shown me any proof of that, except to offer me Romans 9, that not all Israel is of Israel?”
Colossians 3:12, “Therefore, as the elect of God,…”
From 1:1, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:…” Then, “…you heard and knew the grace of God in truth; as you also learned from Epaphras,…” and “Epaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ,…” Unless, you can make Epaphras a Jew, Epaphras is a gentile and elect of God.
Reader: Ed said:”Faith is the law, love is the commandment under that law.”
I am not Augustinian. I am not a Calvinist. I am positioned against the spirits of their teachings that are in error being the theologies of men that do not align with the revealed doctrines of God and are but mere philosophies. I tend toward “Traditionalist”.
Traditionally understood, Jewish teaching understood that ‘words’ are in reality living and active.
For example: Believing and turning[=repentance] in the heart and mind is active. Hence, John the baptist say “Show works in KEEPING with ( the unseen active claim)repentance. According to the scriptures the doctrine of God is the Word of God is living and active. Hebrews 4
Compel everyone!: Luke 14:23 And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.
Today,1 Corinthians 5:(*1-5) This is what God has determined for those who come to believe ‘should’ do, following the command of God. God has determined that those who come(must) take the free gift of water without price. God has paid in full so that those who can be brought to forgiveness will receive it. [For example, not brought to forgiveness: A child who dies, though they are under the rule of condemnation of man(kind) is not brought to forgiveness being they do not exerice reason in unbelief or belief. See David’s child under the rule of the mercy seat.]
So, my point in using the word determine is because scripture uses it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=determine&qs_version=ESV
I am pointing out that it is through philosophy it is at the least misunderstood(deceived) and at most abused(deceived and deceiving) being a counterfeit( truth expressed with errors/the unseen evil ones lies) whether from a faulty interpretation of scriptures (determined)revealed framework, interdependent detail or both.
It is to show the flaw that Augustinianism/Calvinism go beyond scripture to ‘philosophi’ about God’s revealed determinations throughout scripture beyond logic ( logic being not philosophy but truth, in reality:2+2=4)
God’s command:John 12:50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2 John 1:4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Spirit+is+truth&qs_version=ESV
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
* There is no 1 man today who is a prophet of God. We are to ‘repeat the prophets and Apostles’ in agreement with truth. Therefore, together, those who hold to the truth , as the Holy Spirit is the Authority of Scripture, being one with the Spirit, having the mind of Christ, we together are the voice of prophecy calling in the wildness:Revelation 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
John, as one ‘determined’ by God was the prophetic voice at his first coming in love with warning.
His people today are determined by God to be the prophetic voice that proclaims The Resurrection’s second coming in love with warning, which is the Truth. 1 Corinthians 15. That sin is actual and needs to be forgiven is intrinsically warning and Jesus payment is love for us and God. Unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord. For example: I am uniquely average with sin, in need of a Savior …just as my neighbor is. God calls to the sinner, all mankind being equally standing as condemned already. No human has the power of free will over the rule of death. We are determined to die. But it has been also determined we are free to worship: In the garden we were given the breathe of life, different from the animals. God molded us and breathed directly into our nostrils . This is the reason I mention Romans 1 about God making it evident for the believer how the unbelieving will progressively become more hardened and Romans 2 shows how all are reproved.
Romans 5: Jesus’ 1 act of righteousness is more powerful than 1 act of sin. All sin has been paid in full, many will receive forgiveness and be covered over-as all die because of 1 act of unrighteousness, these many all are under the rule; ‘it is for man once to die’
Only God knows the heart and mind that comes to believe. It is evident from “Lord, Lord” that man can deceive himself that He really believes God about the GOOD NEWS!
Just to clarify some of the big picture I have when thinking(out loud) about the application given to another interpretive detailed position.(As we share the good news with our neighbor, for the sake of Love.)
Tammy,
You had said:
” I am positioned against the spirits of their teachings that are in error being the theologies of men that do not align with the revealed doctrines of God and are but mere philosophies. I tend toward “Traditionalist”. ”
My response:
I gotta admit, but I really don’t know what that means in English. Just kidding.
Myself, I don’t take sides like that. I do my best not to read CONFESSIONS, and COMMENTARIES, etc. The Bereans searched the SCRIPTURES daily to see if what they were being told was true or not. They did not consult commentaries, or take sides, such as “traditionalists”, or “Calvinists”, or “Baptists”, etc.
Before I ever started STUDYING the Bible, I thought it smart to at least READ IT as a NOVEL, not just once, not just twice. But 5 times.
I wanted it to SINK into my head.
Then when I BEGAN to “STUDY”, if I could not remember where a subject was, I began again at Genesis 1:1, and read the bible again, until I found what I was looking for.
That was before the advent of the internet, and the only thing I had was a KJV coupled with a Strong’s Concordance, AND an NIVR version of the Bible as well. I did not have any other versions, cuz I knew that some were TAILORED to a particular bias on certain topics. My first cult that I studied was the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and we all know that they have their own bible version exclusive to them. That was the reason that I stayed away from any other versions other than the KJV and NIVR. Then I would compare OLD ENGLISH words with the NIVR’s modern day language to get an idea of where the 16th Century English was going with this.
Take for example the word, “SUFFER” in the KJV. “SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME”.
Scratch head, Jesus wants children to suffer? No wonder Calvinists are blood thirsty!
I am non-denomination. I can’t let dead people decide for me what to believe. I gotta read the evidence, and be convinced in my own mind.
That was a prologue.
Now, You had said:
“[For example, not brought to forgiveness: A child who dies, though they are under the rule of condemnation of man(kind) is not brought to forgiveness being they do not exerice reason in unbelief or belief. See David’s child under the rule of the mercy seat.]”
My response:
THAT TOPIC is a HOT ISSUE for me.
By studying the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I saw something that they interpret WRONG (no surprise there), regarding the word SOUL. They think that the words SOUL is NO DIFFERENT than that of THE BODY. Yet, we see in 1 Thessalonians 3 words, called, spirit AND soul AND body.
Then we have others outside of that religion, stating that the word spirit is the Holy Spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:13.
So, my study concludes that BOTH are wrong.
YOU are a spirit, dressed in a BODY, and you HAVE a soul.
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1 Corinthians 2:11
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
And likewise I studied out the word SOUL, too. Soul is your EARTHLY THINKING, your spirit thinks HEAVENLY thoughts, soul thinks EARTHLY thoughts, and is the INFLUENCE, to the BODY acting out it’s thoughts.
I have a point to make, and I’m trying to quickly get to it.
So, LIFE is when your spirit dwells in a BODY, and BOOM, you become a LIVING SOUL.
That’s what CARNAL life is. Death is when your spirit NO LONGER dwells, lives, resides in your body. (James 2:26).
So now that we know that is CARNAL LIFE, what is SPIRITUAL LIFE?
Spiritual life is the SAME as carnal life, but with ONE ADDED FEATURE.
GOD dwelling WITH YOU, in your body. So, two spirits in one body. Your own, and God’s.
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
There are several references to God DWELLING in your body, including:
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But wait a dog gone minute here. I thought Jesus was in HEAVEN? Something to PONDER regarding the TRINITY.
Anyway…Spiritual life is God dwelling in your body, and Paul states:
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Romans 7:8
…For without the law sin was dead.
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Romans 3:20
for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
NOTE: The word “alive” in Romans 7:9, and WHY he considered himself ALIVE. It has to do with KNOWLEDGE of sin. Once he KNEW, then he died, spiritually, that is.
So take that Back to Adam and Eve. God DEPARTED them, when they got knowledge of sin. God did not depart them at the sin itself, but at the KNOWLEDGE of it. People have a VERY HARD TIME with me saying this, on both sides of the debate, because they think that disobeying God’s command to not eat of the tree was the ONLY sin, thereby NEGATING out the reasoning behind the NAME of that tree.
So, the order of events:
God is WITH YOU, as a child, UNTIL you get KNOWLEDGE of your sin…then he departs, THEN you need a savior. Until then, you are NOT LOST. No sin can be imputed to you. You are still SPIRITUALLY ALIVE. LIFE, even spiritual life, comes before DEATH, even spiritual death.
We are not born spiritually dead. EACH of us dies a spiritual death, where God departs. But until then, we are BORN OF GOD, and once God departs, THEN there is a need to be BORN AGAIN of God, which BRINGS BACK God into your body, so that it can be said:
Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
In Judaism, there is an AGE that one GET’S KNOWLEDGE. Bar Mitzvah, and Bat Mitzvah.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Read this Deuteronomy STORY LINE in the actual context of “possess it”, in the SPIRITUAL SENSE, rather than the CARNAL TEXT SENSE.
The word “it” is in regards to “THE PROMISED LAND”, for which Christians will interpret as “heaven”, the Jews interpret that as, “the physical land of Israel.
Who gets to go to the “promised land”
Caleb and Joshua, and why? FAITH.
Who else gets to go to the “promised land”?
Those who have NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT, not condemned, not lost, no need to be BORN AGAIN, no need of a savior, because the savior is STILL DWELLING IN THEM to begin with.
This is why I do not subscribe to TRADITIONALISTS, and Calvinists, or denominations at all, cuz I see things that they reject. Like THIS ONE.
Ed Chapman
Tammy,
In my last, I had said:
” Yet, we see in 1 Thessalonians 3 words, called, spirit AND soul AND body.
Then we have others outside of that religion, stating that the word spirit is the Holy Spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:13.”
Correction:
Reference is Chapter 5, verse 23. OOOPS!
Ed Chapman
CHAPMANED24;
Ed Chapman wrote: “I’m not fully convinced that Luther or Calvin followed Jesus Christ at all. Both were former Catholics, and the way that I see Catholics, is that they are more concerned with “THE CHURCH” than with Jesus Christ.
Luther was concerned with the corruption of THE CHURCH, regarding money, regarding grace vs. works, regarding “indulgences”, etc. It was still about the politics of THE CHURCH, having really nothing to do with Jesus Christ.”
SPS: Being unconvinced of something does not make it untrue. I asked a question concerning your statement that Luther and Calvin had disdain for the Jews. I asked how can that be since they followed Jesus Christ, a Jew, and the Apostles, who were all Jews and followed the Bible, which was written by Jews.
You respond with a claim that is your own opinion that you do not think Luther and Calvin followed Jesus Christ at all. That sounds a little like some local pastor who claims that someone is not a Christian because they do not believe the same things that he does. Thus making his interpretation of Scripture a measuring line.
You appear to be measuring the yardstick by the cloth. Where are your proofs?
Ed Chapman wrote: “Lastly, I know that the little c is in regards to the CHURCH worldwide. but it was STILL to the BIG C Catholic church worldwide. I don’t find a need for that to be in MY creed. Besides, I don’t believe that the Apostles of the days of the NT being written ever proclaimed such a creed in the first place. Why is it necessary for me to voice something that I don’t believe?
It’s not necessary for me to proclaim anything about world wide Christians, let alone what someone else’s creed is. The “MY CREED” is what is important, not YOUR creed. What I believe, not what YOU believe. What is a CREED? Isn’t a creed what YOU believe?”
SPS: Who asked you to proclaim anything?
Simon Peter,
I answered what I answered. Sorry that you don’t like my answer. It is what it is.
I am not a CHURCH FATHER HISTORY FAN.
They put their pants on the same way that I do, and I’ve got the book that they didn’t want others to have. So, my conclusions do not match that of them.
They are more about rituals, and the politics of it all, and I’m just not interested in what Church Fathers had to say.
Imagine, waving a smoke filled canister back and forth, while wearing a dress, and a dunce cap. What is that supposed to accomplish?
And I’m supposed to take these guys serious?
YOUR orthodox is not what I believe in.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman, fair enough. You don’t have to take anything seriously, that is your human right. But Orthodoxy is not ‘my orthodox’. I didn’t create Christianity and I did not create Orthodoxy, and neither did you.
Ed Chapman, you wrote; “Imagine, waving a smoke filled canister back and forth, while wearing a dress, and a dunce cap. What is that supposed to accomplish?”
SPS: Could you clarify what you mean by the exactly?
Simon Peter,
Yes, I could explain. One word: RITUALS. Meaningless RITUALS. God’s not impressed with RITUALS in Christianity.
When it comes to the Bible, I do take that serious. I also explain myself as to how I come up with my conclusions, using the scripture. I hope you have noticed that.
Acts 19…Water Baptism? Saved BEFORE being dunked in water.
Water does not save anyone. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what saves.
Children do not need baptized. They are not lost to begin with.
There is no such thing as PURGATORY. I could go on and on for hours on the differences. But I’ll leave it at that.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman, you wrote: “Yes, I could explain. One word: RITUALS. Meaningless RITUALS. God’s not impressed with RITUALS in Christianity.”
SPS: How do rituals relate to this discussion? Do you assume that Orthodoxy means “Greek Orthodox” or religious rituals? I fail to see how these references relate to the discussion?
Ed Chapman wrote: “Children do not need baptized. They are not lost to begin with.”
SPS: Are you referencing the 39 Articles? Article XXV11 does not affirm ‘Infant Baptism’ it says “The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”
Do you object to persons receiving Christ at any age, or did Christ only die for the over 18’s?
Ed Chapman wrote; “There is no such thing as PURGATORY. I could go on and on for hours on the differences.”
SPS; Agreed. Article XX11 affirms the same as I have and do.
Are you sure you are not creating a ‘Straw man’ argument here?
Simon Peter,
I don’t reference ANY articles, confessions, institutes, commentaries or the like. I stay away from them. I could care less what DEAD people decided for YOU. Whatever they believed is THEIR OWN opinions, for which they demand on others.
The only ones needed baptized are those who have KNOWLEDGE of their own sins, hence the name of that tree in the garden, hence Romans 7:7-9, hence Judaisms use of Bar and Bat Mitzvah, which is NOT just a ceremony, but an acknowledgement that they are now held to account for their sins. Before that, in Judaism, the parents are accountable for their children’s actions.
The male is 13, the female is 12.
God never departed children to begin with, without that knowledge, and therefore, the savior is already with them, from the moment of conception to the moment of KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, by the law.
And, water does not save anyone, so there is no need to be dunked in water…I AGAIN bring up Acts 19, while you want to discuss ARTICLES.
We indeed must be baptized, but there is a difference between John’s WATER baptism, and that of the baptism that Jesus gives.
Children are NOT LOST, for God never departed them…YET…until..when? They do not need a savior, since they are not lost. The savior resides in their bodies already.
Ed Chapman
ED,
You wrote:
“And, water does not save anyone, so there is no need to be dunked in water…I AGAIN bring up Acts 19, while you want to discuss ARTICLES.
We indeed must be baptized, but there is a difference between John’s WATER baptism, and that of the baptism that Jesus gives.”
AIDAN’S RESPONSE:
There you go again, confusing what the bible teaches about baptism. There is only one baptism, not two, or three, or any other number.
Here’s what Paul wrote in Ephesians:
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4: 4-6).
I think most people reading these verses can see that the term “ONE” is singular. Paul says; There’s only ONE BODY. There’s only ONE FAITH. There’s only ONE LORD. There’s only ONE BAPTISM.
So, I think we can safely say, that by the time that Paul penned Ephesians, there was, officially, only ONE BAPTISM.
The only question is, what can that baptism be? Is it John’s baptism? Is it baptism in the Holy Spirit? Is it baptism in the name of Jesus? Or, is it perhaps, something else? Remember, that by the time Paul was writing Ephesians, he said there was only “ONE BAPTISM”. So, to be true to the scriptures, there can only be a SINGULAR one. Not, Holy Spirit baptism, and then, water baptism, as some extra ritual you have to go through. Nor, should we combine any of these into one, as some people try to do in order to evade the force of what the scriptures teach. The Bible makes a clear distinction as to what each one of these are.
I submit, that the only baptism it can be, is the baptism that was commanded under the great commission. The baptism under the great commission was the only baptism commanded for FOR ALL TIME. And, the baptism of the great commission was the only baptism that was commanded for ALL WHO WOULD BELIEVE. Therefore, whatever Paul was referring to in Ephesians 4:5, it could only be the baptism that was commanded until the end of time, namely, the baptism of the great commission.
THE BAPTISM OF THE GREAT COMMISSION IS WATER BAPTISM, WHICH IS BAPTISM IN JESUS’ NAME.
This is the baptism that Paul was referring to Ephesians 4. And its the only baptism for today.
I would suggest you read the GREAT COMMISSION ((Mk. 16:15-16; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24: 46-49).
Then read the book of Acts, where we have a record of how it was carried out. And see what people were COMMANDED to be baptized in, when they believed, ( cf. Acts 8:35-38; Acts 10: 46-48).
Don’t move away from this, until we clearly establish what the baptism of the great commission was.
Aidan
Aidan,
Lol, No I’m not confusing anything. Acts 19 shows that Cornelius got saved without the water. After he was saved, then he got dunked. Where I come from, churches all around me agree that the water is nothing more than a SHOW, and they explain that as people are being dunked in a makeshift bathtub.
There is nothing magical about water. It’s not HOLY WATER, it’s just potable water.
Abraham saved without water. Yes, I know, you think that rules change just because Jesus commanded baptism at some great commission commandment. You are ritualizing it, when that’s not needed. Jesus baptized is with the Holy Spirit, and that means that we are saved.
I’m not from Ireland, where Catholicism took root, and all they talk about is water water water regarding baptism.
Here I America, it’s just a show for others to see your commitment. That’s all.
Ed Chapman
ED,
This is what you wrote before about Jesus’ baptism using Acts 19:
Acts 19:5
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and FIRE. That’s how it’s done. And…THEY LAID HANDS on them in order to do it.
The water baptism that we do today…it’s all for SHOW, a sign of FAITH that you DIED to self, but to be made alive, baptism of fire, in the name of Jesus. That’s when you get the SEAL OF PROMISE, the promissory note, aka, the Holy Spirit, aka, Born again.”
ALSO you wrote:
“FORGIVENESS (Jesus’ Baptism) with FIRE and Holy Spirit.”
AND : “Jesus baptized is with the Holy Spirit, and that means that we are saved.”
AIDAN’S RESPONSE:
So, putting it all together from what you said above about Acts 19;
YOU SAID:
1. They basically got baptized with the Holy Spirit when “THEY LAID HANDS on them.”
2. “That’s when you get the SEAL OF PROMISE,..aka, Born again..FORGIVENESS…and that means that we are saved.”
So in other words, according to you, they were not saved UNTIL they had an Apostles HANDS LAID ON THEM.
Ed, I’m here to tell you that this “laying on hands” measure of the Holy Spirit, had nothing to do with their salvation. In Acts 8 we have a very similar order of events as in Acts 19.
— In (Acts 8:12-13) they believed and were saved long before the Apostles came down from Jerusalem and laid hands on them.
Notice what it says;
“But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.”
AFTERWARDS, the Apostles come down from Jerusalem and laid hands on them to receive this measure of the Holy Spirit (vss. 17-18).
— Same in (Acts 19:4-5) they believed and were saved before Paul laid hands on them.
Notice what it says there:
Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
AFTERWARDS, Paul lays hands on them to receive the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit. (v.6)
BTW — BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS IS ALWAYS WATER BAPTISM.
Notice:
“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized…
And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”(Acts 10: 47-48).
PS (It rains a lot here in old Catholic Ireland, so that’s why its SPRINKLING rather than baptism)
But you still haven’t acknowledged what the great commission baptism is. And, that there’s only ONE baptism today (Eph. 4:5).
Aidan.
Aidan,
NO, BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS IS NOT WATER BAPTISM. Where did you get that idea?
Ed Chapman
ED, you wrote:
Aidan,
NO, BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS IS NOT WATER BAPTISM. Where did you get that idea?
Ed Chapman
Aidan’s Response:
(Acts 10:47-48).
“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized..
“And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
I rest my case!
Aidan,
I knew you were gonna go there. But, that still didn’t save the guy. He was ALREADY SAVED before that water thing.
But, I want you to do me a favor. You know that GREAT COMMISSION THING?
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Which ones do you see in the Bible?
I don’t see anyone baptizing in the name of the father at all. I can’t find anywhere as to what the NAME of the Holy Ghost is, either.
All I see is Baptized in Jesus’ name.
NO ONE CAN FOLLOW DIRECTIONS IT SEEMS.
Ed Chapman
Dear ED,
YOU ARE STILL AVOIDING THE MAIN QUESTIONS!
WHAT BAPTISM DID JESUS COMMAND UNDER THE GREAT COMMISSION?
HOW MANY BAPTISMS ARE THERE TODAY?
The holy spirit is God.
Well Done Ed,
Now what about Jesus, and what about the Father?
Its like – ‘FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE HERE’!
Did Abraham get Baptized?
If he lived today, I believe he would have.
YOU ARE STILL AVOIDING THE ISSUE with your strawman arguments!
Aidan,
Does Acts 19 mention anything about WATER, other than JOHN’S Baptism that they had ALREADY gotten, but it wasn’t enough?
Ed Chapman
ED, you asked:
Does Acts 19 mention anything about WATER, other than JOHN’S Baptism that they had ALREADY gotten, but it wasn’t enough?
Aidan’s Response:
YES, BECAUSE THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.
(Acts 19:5) “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
(Acts 10: 47,48) “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized..And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
You can put two and two together, can’t you?
Aidan,
NO, JESUS DOES NOT BAPTIZE WITH WATER. JOHN DID.
Ed Chapman
Dear ED,
YOU ARE STILL AVOIDING THE MAIN QUESTIONS!
WHAT BAPTISM DID JESUS COMMAND UNDER THE GREAT COMMISSION?
HOW MANY BAPTISMS ARE THERE TODAY?
Did Jesus say anything about water in that great commission thing?
STILL AVOIDING THE QUESTION I SEE
If Abraham got baptized, WHAT BAPTISM DID HE GET?
Strawman Ed,
AB, lived in the OLDEN DAYS!
We live in the GOSPEL DAYS!
Now, stop avoiding, and answer.
If there is only one baptism, and Abraham is baptised, then how was Abraham baptised?
STRAWMAN ED,
YOU ARE STILL NOT ANSWERING! You are not on evasive maneuvers any more.
The definition of baptize is IMMERSION. Water is not part of the definition. We are immersed in three holy spirit, and THAT is three ONE baptism.
Strawman Ed,
You said: The definition of baptize is IMMERSION.
Aidan:
CORRECT! Now do a Blue letter Bible search, ‘Baptized with the Holy Spirit’ and see how many times it actually occurred in the book of Acts!
HOW MANY ED, HOW MANY?
Aidan,
In Acts 16, they were ALREADY SAVED by the time that they went swimming in WATER.
Ed Chapman
ED,
“And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” ( Acts 16:33-34)
Notice: That it was only AFTER HIS BAPTISM that the scripture says; he rejoiced greatly, “having believed in God with his whole household.”
Aidan,
Washed clothes, with water, fine. but what does that have to do with the Baptism that JESUS gives? Jesus is in heaven, and he doesn’t come down off his throne to WATER BAPTIZE anyone.
The Baptism that Jesus gives is the Holy Spirit. PERIOD.
NOT WITH WATER.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
In Acts 2, NO WATER, but SAVED!
ED, you said:
In Acts 2, NO WATER, but SAVED!
My response:
YES WATER, YES SAVED!
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38).
Again, notice it says — “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” WHICH IS WATER BAPTISM (ACTS 10:47-48).
Aidan,
Peter said NOTHING ABOUT WATER. NOTHING. You are putting words in his mouth.
Dear ED,
You are deliberately ignoring Peter that – WATER BAPTISM IS BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS (ACTS 10:47-48).
I want you to STUDY this in ALL references. Not just one. In acts 16, they were SAVED without water. Then later got dunked in water. The holy spirit is God, and I’m not convinced that you realize that. If they got God, then they are saved. Period.
I’ve already answered Acts 16. If they were saved before they were baptized in water, then they were saved BEFORE they had their sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) ??? Doesn’t make sense Ed, IT JUST DOESN’T!
You need to answer these questions first, instead of coming up with strawman arguments!
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD.
I’ll bet that you have NEVER found ANY reference that stated that ANYONE was baptized in the NAME OF THE FATHER? Isn’t that the first part of the GREAT COMMISSION? Seems that no one can follow simple instructions!!
You are some strawman, but no scarecrow!
Come back to me, when you can tell me what it means to be BAPTIZED INTO THE NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!
But you are still playing basic maneuvers here.
Aidan,
What does the OLDEN days have to do with Abraham vs. the Gospel days? Are you saying that Abraham didn’t need to be Baptized? And you still can’t find any reference that anyone Baptized in the Name of the Father, can you? Yet, you accuse me of Straw-man? Look for it. You can’t find it, can you? Why? There is a reason that I am going down THAT road, regarding THE NAME OF THE FATHER. I’ll let you ponder that for the rest of your life!
Ed, wrote:
What does the OLDEN days have to do with Abraham vs. the Gospel days? Are you saying that Abraham didn’t need to be Baptized?
Aidan writes: Are you saying he did? Where was Abraham commanded to be baptized?
Ed, wrote:
And you still can’t find any reference that anyone Baptized in the Name of the Father, can you?
Aidan writes: If you understood what Jesus said in (Matthew 28:18-20), you wouldn’t need to ask that question. I understand what He said, therefore, I don’t need to ponder over it. BUT YOU DO!
And you are still afraid to answer the question:
WHAT BAPTISM DID JESUS COMMAND UNDER THE GREAT COMMISSION?
HOW MANY BAPTISMS ARE THERE TODAY?
Aidan,
WATER:
Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.
NOT WATER:
but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
The ONLY Baptism is the one that involves NO WATER, and I don’t care how much you reference WATER, because Acts 16 shows that they got GOD without water. So what did the water accomplish? They got wet. That’s all.
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Acts 11:16
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
Summary:
John Baptized with WATER, Jesus does NOT, and the ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS, is the Baptism that Jesus gives.
The water is ONLY A SYMBOL.
There is no magical powers in water. John baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, which is NOT WATER.
ED, wrote:
WATER:
Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.
Aidan writes:
John’s baptism has nothing to do with Jesus’ baptism in water (Acts 10:47-48).
ED, wrote:
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Acts 11:16
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Aidan writes:
Acts 1:5 refers to what was PROMISED TO THE APOSTLES, i.e. (Baptism in the Holy Spirit a few days from now)
“for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” READ THE CONTEXT AND SEE THE REASON WHY.
Acts 11:6 Refers to Cornelius and his household being baptized in the Holy Spirit. AGAIN, READ CONTEXT AND SEE THE REASON WHY.
Interestingly enough, after Jesus ascended into heaven, these are the only two known cases of baptism in the Holy Spirit, recorded from Acts onward. To say “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” you would have to prove it by duplicating those powerful events at Cornelius’ House, or on the Day of Pentecost. I am here to tell you, ‘they never have been repeated since.’ If it doesn’t look like any of these two events, it ain’t Holy Spirit baptism. YOU MUST MEASURE EVERYTHING BY WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED ABOUT HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM.
ED, wrote:
Summary:
John Baptized with WATER, Jesus does NOT, and the ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS, is the Baptism that Jesus gives.
The water is ONLY A SYMBOL.
There is no magical powers in water. John baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, which is NOT WATER.
Aidan writes:
Now you have a problem: You have TWO BAPTISMS, when (Eph. 4:5) says there’s ONE BAPTISM.
This means that you are CONTRADICTING SCRIPTURE.
You say, “The water is ONLY A SYMBOL.” — I would like to see A SCRIPTURE FOR THAT!
You also say, “There is no magical powers in water.” — NO ONE SAID THERE WAS!
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS: “..in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” ( 1 Peter 3:20-21).
Read the verse above, carefully: CAN YOU SEE HOW FAITH IS INVOLVED IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS CALLED BAPTISM?
That’s what its all about!
Aidan,
You had said:
“Aidan writes:
Acts 1:5 refers to what was PROMISED TO THE APOSTLES, i.e. (Baptism in the Holy Spirit a few days from now)
“for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” READ THE CONTEXT AND SEE THE REASON WHY.
Acts 11:6 Refers to Cornelius and his household being baptized in the Holy Spirit. AGAIN, READ CONTEXT AND SEE THE REASON WHY.
My response:
I already did read EVERYTHING in context, and I do not concur with your conclusions.
The Apostles were NOT promised something exclusive, the promise they got is for EVERYONE. So I don’t buy into your logic on this whole topic whatsoever.
If you read the GOSPELS, Jesus BREATHED on them, and said, “RECEIVE YE THE HOLY SPIRIT (GHOST)”. They got the Holy Spirit when Jesus said that. Everyone who believes gets that spirit (God) without WATER. The water is nothing but a SHOW. But you go ahead and proclaim water day and night. Man dies in desert of dehydration, can’t get saved because NO WATER, and this is what you conclude? Really?
ED, WROTE:
Aidan writes:
Acts 1:5 refers to what was PROMISED TO THE APOSTLES, i.e. (Baptism in the Holy Spirit a few days from now)
“for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” READ THE CONTEXT AND SEE THE REASON WHY.
Acts 11:6 Refers to Cornelius and his household being baptized in the Holy Spirit. AGAIN, READ CONTEXT AND SEE THE REASON WHY.
My response:
I already did read EVERYTHING in context, and I do not concur with your conclusions.
The Apostles were NOT promised something exclusive, the promise they got is for EVERYONE. So I don’t buy into your logic on this whole topic whatsoever.
If you read the GOSPELS, Jesus BREATHED on them, and said, “RECEIVE YE THE HOLY SPIRIT (GHOST)”. They got the Holy Spirit when Jesus said that. Everyone who believes gets that spirit (God) without WATER. The water is nothing but a SHOW. But you go ahead and proclaim water day and night. Man dies in desert of dehydration, can’t get saved because NO WATER, and this is what you conclude? Really?
AIDAN RESPONDS: The fella in the desert? I leave Jesus to judge that.
When the Lord promised the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, THAT EXCLUDES EVERYONE ELSE.
Unless, of course you can show where God PROMISED it to EVERYONE ELSE.
WHAT YOU SAY about Jesus breathing on them, MAKES A NONSENSE OF (Acts 2:1-4).
Again,
When YOUR CONCLUSIONS contradict the scriptures which say there is only ONE, – NOT TWO BAPTISMS.
Then there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS!
AIDAN RESPONDS: The fella in the desert? I leave Jesus to judge that.
Why can’t you answer that? I thought you were the expert, the TRUTH SEER. You can’t answer that one, huh?
I totally disagree with your conclusions.
John 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Is THAT nonsense? It’s in the Bible.
And what was (Acts 2:1-4) all about? WAS IT JUST FOR SHOW AS WELL?
I DON’T THINK SO, ED!!
Where is the WATER in Acts 2:1-4?
ED, wrote:
Where is the WATER in Acts 2:1-4?
My response:
Don’t you recognize TRUE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM when you see it ?
“When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:1-4).
Is this what you see EVERYDAY? …….I THINK NOT!
There’s only ONE BAPTISM today (Eph. 4:5)
Which one is it, WHICH ONE?
I didn’t know they made Honda Accords back then. Peter must have been driving?
Do you see the word, WIND. That means something significant. I described it earlier.
Do you see the word FIRE? That’s Jesus BAPTIZING WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.
NO WATER! HELLO?
Holy Spirit and fire. No water.
I rest my case.
Ed Chapman
Ed, wrote:
Do you see the word, WIND. That means something significant. I described it earlier.
Do you see the word FIRE? That’s Jesus BAPTIZING WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.
NO WATER! HELLO?
Holy Spirit and fire. No water.
I rest my case.
My Response:
(Acts 2:1-4):
Was it actually WIND? Or perhaps, “just as when a mighty wind blows, i. e. just as a sound is made when a mighty wind blows”?
Were the “tongues” actually FIRE? Or perhaps, “cloven tongues like as of fire,”? Literally “as if” according to Thayer, Vine, Strong
Matthew 28:3; “His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.” Has the same expression. Was His clothing actual snow, or just simply, AS WHITE AS SNOW?
NO WATER? – Of course not. This passage is NOT WATER BAPTISM! This was the APOSTLES being baptized WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Acts 1:5 “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
This passage was never about water baptism.
You really should KEEP THINGS IN CONTEXT.
Ed,
Question: What is the baptism of fire in Matt. 3:11?
Answer: In determining the meaning of any verse one should examine it carefully in the light of its context. This is a good practice to always keep in mind to avoid misapplying scripture.
MATTHEW 3:10-12;
“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear his threshing floor and gather His wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire”
Did you notice, Ed, that “FIRE” is mentioned in all three verses?
The context of Matt. 3:11 shows us that John was calling the people to “bear fruits worthy of repentance:” (v.8). This was in keeping with his mission to “prepare” the Jews for the coming of the Lord and His kingdom ( Isa. 40:3-5; Mal. 4:5; Matt. 3:3). Then in (v.9) he makes clear, that just being a literal descendant of Abraham would not be enough to make you a part of the people prepared for the Lord.
One must obey John’s divine message and bear good fruit. In (v.10) he warns them of the consequence of disobeying that message. All such would be cut down and thrown into the fire. But, in (v.11) he explains that it would be the Lord Himself who would baptize with this fire. While John baptized in water, he says, “He who is coming after me…..will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” John could baptize in water, but only the Lord could do the latter two!
Verse 12, Ed, then tells us WHEN the Lord would baptize in fire. Notice, it will be at the harvest time when the good and the bad are separated from one another. The righteous (wheat) will then be gathered into His barn. While the wicked (chaff) will be burned up “with unquenchable fire.” ( Cf. Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:12_15).
Therefore, in light of the context, the “baptism of fire” in Matt. 3:11 is the FIRE OF EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. It is the “lake of fire” of Rev. 20:14-15.
When this PROMISE of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was renewed to the Apostles in Acts 1:5, Jesus used the expression, “not many days from now.”… “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Notice: That the baptism of fire is NOT MENTIONED HERE. Obviously, the baptism of fire would be many many days in the distant future. But, on the other hand, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, would be – “not many days from now” (Acts 1:5, 2:1-4).
Aidan,
Hey, working massive hours this week due to short week for our thanksgiving holiday Thursday and Friday.
But, looks like you are doing cut and paste stuff. Look, Aidan, I’ve been studying the bible for many years. I know how to study. I’m not a newbie, or a novice at this.
I know the difference between CARNAL and SPIRITUAL.
Water is carnal. Holy Spirit and fire are spiritual.
There is no magical power in water.
That’s all I’m gonna say on the subject.
If you believe that NO ONE is saved without water, you are negating everyone that never heard of a Jesus, making them all…ALL hell bound due to no fault of their own.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I hope you have a good thanksgiving holiday over there. I hear its as big, if not bigger than xmas in the States. Listen, no bother, we had to end this debate at some point. I’m not a newbie, or a novice either. I have been studying and teaching these things for the past 30 years. And I have sent you this stuff before.
But, at the end of the day, the only thing that is of consequence, is what the bible teaches.
And whatever the bible teaches is SPIRITUAL, irrespective of how YOU SEE IT.
“These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13).
But you believe what you WANT TO BELIEVE.
If it suits you to quote and follow, at random, what some Church Website teaches about baptism, that’s up to you. But there’s no where in the bible where baptism is ever called a MERE SYMBOL.
But let me tell you, that’s not how Christ or the Apostles saw it.
“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (1 Peter 3:21).
Aidan
I just did a google search for “baptism is just for show”. Picked one at random, and it states:
“Being baptized is an important step for a Christian. It is an outward display of the inward commitment to follow Jesus. ”
That’s what most church’s state. Outward display of the inward commitment.
AGAIN, WHERE’S THE SCRIPTURE FOR IT?????
READ BETWEEN THE LINES. It was NOT NEEDED, since they already GOT GOD.
AFTER THEY WERE BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST
“and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” (Acts 16:33-34).
REJOICED GREATLY, ONLY AFTER BEING BAPTIZED.
NO READING BETWEEN THE LINES THERE.
Aidan,
I gotta go to work, and I did get wet this morning…in the shower! LOL
SPRINKLED MORE LIKE IT…..Lol.
Just like the Catholics!
Yeah! ON POOR INNOCENT SINLESS BABIES, TOO!
How nonsensical is that?
Maybe the priest thought the kid needed a bath? Them sinful dirty diapers makes a baby stink like the devil!!!!!
Ed Chapman
Little divils.
Aidan states:
“You say, “The water is ONLY A SYMBOL.” — I would like to see A SCRIPTURE FOR THAT!”
I have been showing you Acts 16 since the beginning, that they got the Holy Spirit that Jesus Baptizes, so they were saved BEFORE they went down to the water. But you conclude that they were NOT SAVED until the water. So, we don’t agree.
ED, wrote:
Aidan states:
“You say, “The water is ONLY A SYMBOL.” — I would like to see A SCRIPTURE FOR THAT!”
I have been showing you Acts 16 since the beginning, that they got the Holy Spirit that Jesus Baptizes, so they were saved BEFORE they went down to the water. But you conclude that they were NOT SAVED until the water. So, we don’t agree.
Aidan Responds:
(Acts 16: 30-34)
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.”
Okay!
Show me the verse that said, “water is ONLY A SYMBOL??”
What verse said that they, “got the Holy Spirit that Jesus Baptizes” – “BEFORE they went down to the water???”
Aidan,
Show me that it was the WATER that Baptized them. All I see is the washing of WOUNDS.
Again, John Baptized with WATER. But Jesus does not.
I REFERENCED THAT “BY” BY ONE SPIRIT WE ARE BAPTIZED. NOT “BY” WATER.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
BY ONE SPIRIT, NOT BY WATER.
Ed,
YOU quoted Acts 16 as your proof-text – that WATER WAS A SYMBOL !! Where does it say that??
And where does it say they received HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM IN ACTS 16???
I’M WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWERS.
(1 Cor. 12:13) is NOT BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The same expression is used in v.3 and v.9. And just simply means under the INFLUENCE of the Holy spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:9
to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,
Thus, the WORD OF THE SPIRIT led them to be baptized into one body!
Aidan asks:
“Ed,
YOU quoted Acts 16 as your proof-text – that WATER WAS A SYMBOL !! Where does it say that??”
Can you READ BETWEEN THE LINES? It doesn’t have to say it, because they got GOD before any mention of water, meaning that the water didn’t accomplish a thing, except to get them wet, meaning SYMBOL, and I sent google examples of SYMBOL. It’s just a SYMBOL to show that we died with Christ, and RAISED a NEW CREATURE. Nothing more. You are making this into something that it is NOT. CARNAL CARNAL CARNAL.
Baptism is SPIRITUAL, NOT CARNAL.
No where in the scriptures does it say, OR EVEN IMPLY, that water baptism is only a symbol.
Your inference is NOT A NECESSARY INFERENCE.
Now, Peter says, “baptism now saves you”. That’s NO SYMBOLIC STATEMENT.
You should be more concerned with what scriptures teach, NOT WHAT MEN TEACH.
But you say correctly, “Baptism is SPIRITUAL, NOT CARNAL” (1 Peter 3:20-21).
BECAUSE IT’S DONE BY FAITH.
From Hillsong website:
A move from death to life:
Baptism is a symbol of Christ’s burial and resurrection. Our entrance into the water during baptism identifies us with Christ’s death on the cross, His burial in the tomb and His resurrection from the dead.
“Going under the water was a burial of your old life; coming up out of it was a resurrection, God raising you from the dead as he did Christ. When you were stuck in your old sin-dead life, you were incapable of responding to God. God brought you alive – right along with Christ! Think of it! All sins forgiven, the slate wiped clean, that old arrest warrant canceled and nailed to Christ’s cross.” Colossians 2:12-14 MSG
A brand-new life:
It is a symbol of your new life as a Christian. We bury the “old life” and we rise to walk in a “new life”. Baptism is like a wedding ring, it is the outward symbol of the commitment you made in your heart, a commitment that has to be followed through and lived out on a daily basis.
Here is one simple way to explain baptism:
Baptism is a symbol. It’s meant to show the world that that you love, trust and have put your hope in Christ. It’s like a wedding ring.
Very nice!
But I think that baptism is more like THE WEDDING where you have a complete CHANGE OF STATE or RELATIONSHIP.
Its a change of state or relationship by baptism (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal 3:27)
“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Aidan,
Ya know what you are missing in all this? Those who never heard of a Jesus, let alone a baptism.
Ed Chapman
If you preached Jesus to someone, would you tell them they needed REPENT of their sins?
Would you also tell them they needed to CONFESS HIM WITH THEIR MOUTH, as well as believe in the heart?
What would you tell them to do to be SAVED?
If I were you, Aidan, I would indeed ponder at why you don’t see anyone baptizing in the name of the Father! And, by the way, what is the NAME of the Holy Spirit?
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
BUT WAIT? Jesus does NOT LIVE IN ANYONE. He’s in Heaven. RIGHT?
Tell me, what does it mean to be baptized INTO THE NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 28:18-20).
When you are prepared to figure that one out, that’s what happens when one is baptized into Christ, in His name!
But as I said before, ‘I DON’T BELIEVE YOU WANT THE TRUTH.’
I won’t answer that question until you can tell me why that no one baptized in the name of the Father.
I already know the truth, but you seem to have an inside scoop that others don’t, thinking that your truth is more truer.
I’ve been to MANY CHURCH’S, and the ONLY ONES who are as dogmatic about water as you are, are the Baptists/Calvinists. All other churches acknowledge that it’s just for SHOW.
The only scoops I like are, TWO SCOOPS OF ICE CREAM! Yummmm!
Ed, what All other churches acknowledge is of no consequence! YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT!
I’m non-denomination, so I could care less about the DENOMINATION who acknowledges. But, I’ve been to ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, PENTECOSTAL, and a WHOLE BUNCH of others that claim NON-DENOMINATION, no affiliation with REFORM. Catholics started this WATER stuff, and reform folks continued it. Which, my conclusion is, THEY CAN’T INTERPRET SPIRITUAL STUFF FROM THE CARNAL STUFF.
SO WHAT! THAT MEANS NOTHING TO ME!
And what you say means nothing to me, either. Your truth is NOT my truth.
THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
Aidan,
The HEBREW word for Spirit is: RUWACH. The English words used for that Hebrew word in the KJV is:
The KJV translates Strong’s H7307 in the following manner: Spirit or spirit (232x), wind (92x), breath (27x), side (6x), mind (5x), blast (4x), vain (2x), air (1x), anger (1x), cool (1x), courage (1x), miscellaneous (6x).
What’s that got to do with the price of ICE CREAM?? Yummm!
EVERYTHING. In order to understand a LOT of stuff in the Bible, it’s quite important to know what THAT particular word is all about. Why? Cuz it’s used TREMENDOUSLY in the Bible.
Then what does Baptism INTO THE NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit mean?
Aidan,
Imagine of you will…Man in desert. No water for miles. He’s thirsty. Very thirsty.
He decides to repent to God for his sins. Then dies of thirst.
Dead man.
JESUS does not let him enter, all cuz he didn’t get dunked in water?
The dead man pleads, saying, I would still be alive of there was water, and now you want me to spend eternity still begging for water to cool my tongue in hell?
And Jesus answered…”YES”, cuz ya didn’t follow my COMMANDMENT. Finding water was your responsibility, not mine. Be gone. Burn baby burn!”
All cuz of your ritual!
Ed Chapman
ED, you writ:
He decides to repent to God for his sins. Then dies..
JESUS does not let him enter, all cuz he didn’t get dunked in water?
All cuz of your ritual!
AIDAN’S RESPONSE:
What if he was going to repent of his sins, but died before he could repent? What would you say, saved or lost?
What you call “dunked in water” the scriptures calls being united with the death, burial,and resurrection of Christ. Seems like the only place
one could be cleansed by the blood of Christ. You were wrong in thinking it was the water that did the cleansing.
It ain’t my ritual, its Christ’s, He commanded it.
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Notice: “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” – (The Water) Acts 10:47,48) for forgiveness of sins; in which you “will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Indwelling measure of the Spirit) = (Born of Water and the Spirit)
If the Ethiopian eunuch could find water in the desert, a Navy man should have no excuse.
And besides, my job is to simply preach the truth, and leave the ‘if whats’ up to the Lord!
Aidan,
Dude, Baptism is a SPIRITUAL THING, not a carnal thing, and that is what I am trying to convey to you.
You are saved at the moment that you receive the Holy Spirit.
And it is CLEAR that the Holy Ghost is NOT RECEIVED based on getting water on you, for there are MANY references pertaining to that alone, NO WATER.
My point of that COMEDY ACT regarding the guy in the desert is to show how foolish that it is thinking that THIS GUY is gonna get denied entry to heaven, JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NO WATER IN THE DESERT, that he died BECAUSE of dehydration, due to there being NO WATER
And you are gonna tell me that this guy is burning in hell because he didn’t get WATER BAPTIZED? But then you want to re-direct with a WHAT IF?
Water not required. JOHN Baptized with Water. JOHN did. John the Baptist. But that is NOT the baptism that saves anyone. Paul said that time and time again, that: Oh, Yes, John Baptized with water…but…BUT…
It is the words after the “BUT” that you are not getting, that JESUS Baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
BUT…you are still concentrated on WATER.
WHY?
Ed Chapman
ED, you wrote:
“You are saved at the moment that you receive the Holy Spirit.”
My response:
No, Ed, but rather, ‘You are saved at the moment that you receive the forgiveness of your sins.’ And then you “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
We need to emphasize the “and” between REPENT and BE BAPTIZED. We should also notice the “and” between REMISSION OF SINS and GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
( Acts 2:38):
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
The saints at Ephesus were not sealed with the Holy Spirit UNTIL AFTER they had heard the word, the gospel of their salvation, and believed ( Eph. 1:13-14).
Read it carefully please:
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
NO AIDAN,
You are saved at the moment of receiving the Holy Spirit PROVING that your sins are forgiven.
You need to do a LOT of study on the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the PROMISSORY NOTE that guarantees your entrance into heaven. It is called, THE SEAL.
Reading the book of Esther, you can see what a KINGS SEAL is all about.
I’m not so sure that you even KNOW that the Holy Spirit is GOD HIMSELF. You treat the Holy Spirit as if it’s just a THANG.
Ed Chapman
Dear ED,
You are forgiven of your sins first, AND THEN YOU RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (ACTS 2:38). Both happen together at the same time when one is baptized in water, for the right reason.
BOTH HAVE TO DO WITH ONES’S SALVATION.
But you have no idea what the scriptures teach about HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM. Not a diddery doo! DON’T YOU KNOW THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD??
You think that Jesus comes down from His throne in Heaven to baptize people? Seriously? I’D LIKE TO SEE THE SCRIPTURE FOR THAT.
You don’t want the truth, you keep ignoring the scriptures!
Aidan,
in my last, I stated:
“BUT…you are still concentrated on WATER.”
My response:
Get it? Concentrated Water? Just add water!!!! Nevermind, you had to have been there. Don’t forget to tip your waitresses, I’ll be here all week!
Ed Chapman
Dear ED,
YOU ARE STILL AVOIDING THE MAIN QUESTIONS!
WHAT BAPTISM DID JESUS COMMAND UNDER THE GREAT COMMISSION?
HOW MANY BAPTISMS ARE THERE TODAY?
Yes, I’m avoiding the main question.
Reason:
Because you are making it about a step by step CARNAL process, when baptizing people is about GOD residing in you, and you think that in order to get GOD in your body, that ya gotta be dunked in water, when that is not the case.
The holy spirit is GOD.
DO YOU KNOW THAT?
Dear ED,
I don’t think YOU know THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD!
Read Rom. 6:3-8 and YOU WILL THEN SEE HOW SPIRITUAL WATER BAPTISM IS.
Don’t deny the scriptures my friend.
Simon Peter,
So, what you are telling me is that there is different Orthodox’s out there. And if that be the case, whose TRUTH is more TRUER?
Ed Chapman
Dear Ed,
Sorry, but I find your argumentation confused to say the least. You appear to be saying things against Orthodoxy yet you dislike my presenting any source reference to clarify a meaning? You appear to leap from topic to topic, text to text? Why?
For example in one part you made a statement: “Children do not need baptized. They are not lost to begin with.”. In another comment you write: “Children are NOT LOST, for God never departed them…YET…until..when? They do not need a savior, since they are not lost. The savior resides in their bodies already.”
SPS: I do not believe in ‘Infant Baptism’ yet you (Ed Chapman) constantly refer to that doctrine. But why do you go against ‘Infant Baptism’ when you do not believe in ‘Original Sin’ to begin with? You wrote “The male is 13, the female is 12.” Thus claiming that humans would be without sin from birth until 12 or 13, thus meaning that since Christ died for sinners, Christ only died for the over 12’s?
Yet, you affirm unlimited atonement, as do I. But to say that children are born without sin would mean that Christ did not die for them and had no need to die for them, because many die in infancy and have died before they reach 12 or 13. So are you saying there will be souls in heaven for whom Christ did not die, yet are born of woman, and are not sinful?
Ed Chapman wrote; “So, what you are telling me is that there is different Orthodox’s out there.”
SPS: ‘Christianity’ has over 38,000 or 40,000 denominations in the world. Many of them have different practices, traditions and religious rituals. Even in the Church of England and Anglicanism in general, there are countless different practices and beliefs. The C of E is not unified. That is why I reference the ‘Evangelical Wing of the Church of England’ and anyone who knows about the situation here in the UK will know what I am saying. I do not practice any rituals whatsoever, and neither does the Church of England that I am part of.
You ask: “whose TRUTH is more TRUER?”
SPS: Scripture Alone.
Simon Peter,
I have to get ready to go to work…yes, I’m working on the Sabbath!
You had said:
You appear to be saying things against Orthodoxy yet you dislike my presenting any source reference to clarify a meaning? You appear to leap from topic to topic, text to text? Why?
Yes, I am, because I do not conclude what orthodox concludes. I have no problem with your presentation. I just don’t believe what you conclude.
I leap from topic to topic to bring it back to “scripture alone”. I’ve seen many people discuss the term scripture alone”, but when they begin discussing Article this, and institute that, and confession this and Baptist Statements of Faith, etc., that kinda negates out “scripture alone”, as far as I am concerned.
Me bouncing around is just a quick easy way to show the differences between what your orthodox is, and my beliefs based on scripture alone.
Take for example. You believe in a trinity, that 3 people play the role of one God. I think you call that Orthodox, right?
I believe that Jesus is the ONLY GOD, hence ONE GOD. That’s NOT Orthodox. I wasn’t invited to the meeting of 325 AD. I never got the memo.
But I conclude, from scripture alone, that Jesus is indeed God. No problem there, as you think the same. But I believe that he is the ONLY God, and that there is NO GOD BESIDE HIM, as the book of Isaiah confirms.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
Your discussion of the Church of England is interesting, seeing that our founding Fathers here in America departed the Church of England, and didn’t trust the Church of England.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
I had just re-read what you said to me, and I had to re-respond.
You had said:
Yet, you affirm unlimited atonement, as do I. But to say that children are born without sin would mean that Christ did not die for them and had no need to die for them, because many die in infancy and have died before they reach 12 or 13. So are you saying there will be souls in heaven for whom Christ did not die, yet are born of woman, and are not sinful?
My response:
I did not affirm any such thing. I’m not into CATCH PHRASES, such as “unlimited atonement” Those words are not in the bible. Who coined that?
YES, I DID SAY THAT CHILDREN ARE BORN WITHOUT SIN. I do not buy into ANOTHER CATCH PHRASE called, “Original Sin”.
All you guys over across the pond came up with some strange doctrines, beginning at Rome.
unlimited atonement
Original sin
irresistible grace
And you guys all claim scripture alone? Where do these words come from?
So, YOU bring up the topic of Jesus dying for the children’s sins…So, I ask…WHAT SINS?
WHAT SINS? Poopy diapers is a sin?
What sins can be imputed to ANYONE who has NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT SIN EVEN IS?
I referenced to you Romans 7:7-9, and you bring up “unlimited atonement”?
What’s that all about?
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
You wrote: “Me bouncing around is just a quick easy way to show the differences between what your orthodox is, and my beliefs based on scripture alone.”
SPS: That is an assumption. Might be better for you to ask me first what I believe rather than telling me what I don’t.
Ed Chapman wrote: “Your discussion of the Church of England is interesting, seeing that our founding Fathers here in America departed the Church of England, and didn’t trust the Church of England.”
SPS: Those founding fathers of America were hardcore Calvinist Puritans. They left the Church of England because of the issues they had with the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and because they did not believe the reformation had gone far enough. They also believed that God had left this country. I do not follow Puritanism. Not because it was distorted or anything, but because it all went too far.
You mention “trust”. I don’t see how trust is an issue here, I don’t trust any Church. I trust no one but Christ alone. I certainly do not trust mere men or pastors. I was raised in the Salvation Army, then Pentecostal, then later Evangelical Pentecostal, then I eventually went to the Reformed Congregational Church (after I discovered the reformation) then I moved to the Church of England, got disturbed by the Liberals. Then I went to the Baptist Church and found it more than wanting. Now, I am merely part of the body of believers in the Church of England whom I agree with. It has been a 33 year long journey and its nice to be home.
I am very fond of Christian history, probably because I do not like our present world. I find it irritating and fickle.
Simon Peter,
A lot were puritans, I still grant you that, but not all. The puritans was the main reason that debate about religion was such a hot topic. But, our founders wanted FREEDOM of thought, which the church of England did not grant people. Dissenters of the church of England were treated badly. The Puritans were not the only dissenters.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
Ed Chapman wrote: “A lot were puritans, I still grant you that, but not all. The puritans was the main reason that debate about religion was such a hot topic. But, our founders wanted FREEDOM of thought, which the church of England did not grant people. Dissenters of the church of England were treated badly. The Puritans were not the only dissenters.”
SPS: True, for that time. But in 1699 the Religious Tolerance Act was passed by Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration_Act_1688
Then, in the proceeding century, came the Welseyan movement. John Wesley was a Church of England minister and was more reformed than many give him credit for.
Simon Peter,
Well, apparently that Tolerance Act wasn’t enough to satisfy those in this land, cuz y’all were still CHURCH AND STATE (Theocracy), and based on our Declaration of Independence there was a LOT of grievances AGAINST ya’ll’s GOVERNMENT, which was a CHURCH/STATE Theocracy. Our guys enjoyed the SELF GOVERNING RULE, where RULE OF LAW is above LAW OF RULE.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
What a strange thing ‘Christianity’ or so-called ‘Christianity’ has become. It’s like driving on a 30 mph limit, there’s always someone tailgating those who abide by rules.
Simon Peter,
Sure! Rules that Jesus never set. The Pharisees were notorious for the setting of rules, like, washing your hands before you eat.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
No Christian can be a Pharisee. The Pharisees didn’t believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The Pharisee label thing is just something pastors and some Christians have made up to try and put down those who refuse to follow deceptive teaching.
Jesus was speaking against Pharisaic traditions that were not in the Old Testament and were extensions to Deuteronomy 8: 10. He wasn’t talking about rejecting illegitimate false teachings and distortions of New Testament. The New Testament hadn’t been written at that point.
Simon Peter,
You had said:
“No Christian can be a Pharisee”
My response:
Well, then that tells me that Catholics are not Christians. They added Rules that Jesus didn’t.
HEAVY BURDENS (Matthew 23), Jesus scolds the Pharisees for adding RULES that God did not.
How Terrible for the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees
13-14 “How terrible it will be for you, teachers of the law and Pharisees! You pretenders! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter. And you will not let those enter who are trying to.
23 “How terrible for you, teachers of the law and Pharisees! You pretenders! You give God a tenth of your spices, like mint, dill and cumin. But you have not practiced the more important things of the law, which are fairness, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the last things without failing to do the first. 24 You blind guides! You remove the smallest insect from your food. But you swallow a whole camel!
25 “How terrible for you, teachers of the law and Pharisees! You pretenders! You clean the outside of a cup and dish. But on the inside you are full of greed. You only want to satisfy yourselves. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish. Then the outside will also be clean.
27 “How terrible for you, teachers of the law and Pharisees! You pretenders! You are like tombs that are painted white. They look beautiful on the outside. But on the inside they are full of the bones of the dead. They are also full of other things that are not pure and ‘clean.’ 28 It is the same with you. On the outside you seem to be doing what is right. But on the inside you are full of what is wrong. You pretend to be what you are not.
Tell me that isn’t CATHOLIC, including REFORM!
Ed Chapman
You are Sooo CONFUSED ED,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit IS NOT BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF THE LORD! – Two completely different things, ED!
Laying on hands measure of the Spirit IS NOT BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT! – No! No! NOT THE SAME, ED!
BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF THE LORD IS NOT Holy Spirit baptism, or the Laying on Hands measure either. NONE OF THESE THREE ARE THE SAME ED.
The INDWELLING OF THE SPIRIT is not received by Holy Spirit baptism, or by laying on of hands. No ED, NOT THE SAME!
But, the indwelling of the Spirit is received when you receive forgiveness of sins in water baptism, i.e.(BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS ACTS 10:47-48)
You would know this, if you’d care to do some proper research! BUT, I DON’T THINK YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH!
CHAPMANED24,
Ed Chapman wrote;
“You had said:
“No Christian can be a Pharisee”
My response:
Well, then that tells me that Catholics are not Christians. They added Rules that Jesus didn’t.”
SPS: If by “Catholics” you mean “Roman Catholics” I would agree. I do not believe that any Roman Catholic is a Christian. But that does not mean they cannot become Christians. I didn’t say ‘no Pharisee can be a Christian’ but the other way about.
Many reformers were Roman Catholics before they read the Bible. But then when they read the Bible they got saved. Are you claiming the reformers were not Christians? If so, are we to consider the Protestant Martyrs to be damned? Are we to assume the same with John Wycliffe and William Tyndale?
It seems to me that if I were to take your views concerning early Christianity and beyond, they would imply that Christ has failed to build His Church as He said He would. It seems to me that you dismiss every part of Christian history and promote your own views as final and absolute. No room for doubt or challenge. That’s Popery Ed.
Simon Peter,
You had said:
“Many reformers were Roman Catholics before they read the Bible. But then when they read the Bible they got saved. Are you claiming the reformers were not Christians? If so, are we to consider the Protestant Martyrs to be damned? Are we to assume the same with John Wycliffe and William Tyndale?
My response:
I’m NOT saying that at all. I suppose I should have clarified. I am saying that those in Catholicism who PLAYED THE ROLE of a Pharisee are NOT Christians. I didn’t mean Catholics in general. GOD KNOWS THE HEART of an individual, and that heart is what he judges us on. But it seems that those in the HIERARCHY of Catholicism were in it for the prestige, MONEY, making a name for themselves, and keeping THE LITTLE PEOPLE as DUMB at they wanted them to be, so that the people would HAVE TO give them respect…respect that they did not earn, calling them FATHER! Yuck! Icky! EWE!
I have not really ventured to the MANY branches of REFORMATION, OTHER THAN Luther and Calvin, being the main ones. So, I don’t really know what Wycliffe or Tyndale believed.
But that’s my whole point RIGHT THERE. I DON’T CARE WHAT THEY BELIEVED. THEY ARE KINDA DEAD RIGHT NOW. Why is their belief so darn important to ANYONE is beyond me. I don’t care what the Catholics believe. I don’t care what Calvin believes. I don’t care what DEAD PEOPLE IN GENERAL believed. Why is that important to a REFORMER? Why must HUMAN BEINGS consult what they believed? WHO CARES?
I’ve heard from many reformers that if Catholicism would have just reformed themselves, they would still be Catholics. WHY? What was so ATTRACTIVE to Roman Catholicism that they wanted Catholicism REALLY BAD?
They loved the TRADITION, I suppose? The RITUALS? But where is JESUS in all the things that they do and say? I once met a guy that proclaimed to be Catholic, AS IF IT IS A HERITAGE. So I asked him how he’s a Catholic cuz he never goes to church. He said, “Well, my mom is a Catholic.” Some “Catholics” that I’ve spoken to, really do not understand or KNOW the concepts of basic Christianity. They really don’t know Jesus, yet, they go thru the RITUAL MOTIONS at church, chanting RELIGIOUS stuff, and I’m like, “Dude, really?”
The ONLY reason that I am in this debate regarding Calvinism, is because I see the SPIRITUAL/PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE and additional FELONY abuses that goes on in the church’s that NOT MANY PEOPLE call the CIVIL AUTHORITIES about to put these people in jail.
I’ve wondered WHY that is, and this is the main reason that I am in this toxic debate with Calvinists, that can’t seem to realize that they are in the devils territory, not God’s. This TOXIC DEMONIC religion of theirs is the main cause of all the abuse that happens in church’s, and it’s a spinoff of the Catholics, keeping wrongdoing’s HUSH HUSH in the church.
Simon Peter, Have you ever read Nehemiah 8? That’s my style of a church setting learning. These people learned something in that book/chapter. NO BOOKS ON AMAZON PREACHERS.
When I began my Christian Trek…it was just me, my bible, and God, and COFFEE, PENS, COLLEGE RULED PAPER, STRONG’S CONCORDANCE, HI-LITERS, AND SILENCE.
I never wanted to be that person that quoted DEAD PEOPLE, or CONFESSIONS, or INSTITUTES, or anything of the sort. I listened to LIVING BREATHING preachers at church give a sermon.
I never even heard of most of these dead people until about 15 years ago. I don’t care what Augustine believed. But I can tell ya this…give me something that he believed, and I know how to PICK IT APART and make him wish that he believed something else.
Next…
You had said:
“It seems to me that if I were to take your views concerning early Christianity and beyond, they would imply that Christ has failed to build His Church”
My response:
How do you conclude that? You sound like a Catholic when you say that, cuz I’ve heard Catholics say the same darn thing. But, I did say that Christianity existed OUTSIDE of your so-called CHURCH HISTORY, that NO ONE looks at, because the Catholics KILLED ‘EM ALL, and MADE UP A FAKE CHURCH HISTORY out of the 300 plus years of MISSING INFORMATION. I’m being facetious, of course.
I really don’t care about church history. If that’s your thing, go for it. I am alive, and I am about the living, not the dead.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman, thank you for your response. I apologise if I have misread you in any way. I am a Theologian and a Theologian tests things and needs source material to affirm any claim that something is Scriptural.
In my opinion, and I am living, I think what we have here is that we come from two different worlds. Permit me to explain that:
I live in England. Here we have issues within all Churches. Many churches have gone very liberal and are appeasing the world and are compromising the faith by either radically re-interpreting the Bible, just to keep or get people in church. For example; a few years ago the church was offering people chocolate if they came to church. A certain Cathedral held a new age service with a fire breathing vicar, tarot card readers, crystal healers etc. Another church put up a transgender Jesus play and there’s more. Our rights as Christians in the UK are being diminished by secularists and identity crisis. Should Christians simply sit back and watch this happen? Or do we need to respond. Should we be silent when the Church of England is being corrupted by liberals and revisionists. No, we need to stand up for what Scripture says and for what we believe.
If we look at the Bible, we will see that much of Christianity is a response to something or some people. For example, in the Gospels, a fair amount of Christ’s teaching respond to the corruptions within the Temple and how the Pharisees were abusing their positions and using God and people as a way to acquire power, wealth and control. Then they claim special privileges before God that they were in the right because they were children of Abraham. Christ responds a lot to the Pharisees.
This continues in Acts, and when the Gospel moves out beyond Jerusalem and Israel, we see the Pharisees “who believed” (Acts 15: 5) attempting to make it necessary for Gentile believers to conform to the laws of circumcision. The Pharisees again.
This continues throughout the New Testament, and also we cannot deny that much of Paul’s letters are responses to situations the develop in local churches throughout ancient Greece. Then comes Rome. With its earthly power and emperors. This is also responded to in the Gospels.
Why do mention these things? Well, Christianity is like that. It responds to issues that arise around it. For example, the early Church responded to Gnostics. The early Church responded to new teachings and new heresies. The early Church fathers responded to issues within early Roman Churches.
The Nicene Creed was a response to the Arian controversy.
Augustine responded to Pelagius and his teaching on free will.
The Great schism (1054) was a response. The Reformation was a response to the abuses and corruptions of Rome.
And it continues to be like that. For example: New Calvinism in America appears to be a response to the abuses of tv evangelists and hyper charismaticism in the States, Pensicola etc. Calvinists responded to these occurrences with so-called reformed Theology. When the Calvinists such as R. C. Sroul, John MacArthur, John Piper, James White etc gained popularity, some Christians began to challenge their claims because they were getting more popular. R. C. Sproul claimed that he was a descendant of the Scottish Calvinists (John Knox etc) from 16th-17th century Scotland. James White also claims Scottish Decent. It is my opinion that they are/were overstating the beliefs of their ancestors, Thus, what is happening here (on this website) is a response to the abuses or claims of these modern day 5 point Calvinists in America and their claims that Calvinism is Scripture. Thus, what we see here is a response that says ‘It ain’t necessarily so’. Here are the objections, here are the proofs.
Because Calvinists claim that they are teaching orthodox and historic Christianity, the persons here are responding to that by saying, what? I have the church fathers writings here and I am measuring them with Scripture and the CALVINIST claims are just not true. Yet they making many average believers feel like heretics and unbelievers for denying, or questioning what the Calvinists say.
Thus, the reason why historical sources are important in Theology is to establish that claims or interpretations of Scripture are not new. If they are new, and have never been taught before in 2000 years, it is highly likely that another schism or cult is developing.
Hope that makes some sense.
Simon Peter,
Excellent explanation, and yes, I absolutely see your point, and totally agree.
When I was much younger, I had been to church as a child. Mom used to watch Oral Roberts on Television. I vaguely remember going to a Presbyterian Church in the city when I was about 4 year old, then that stopped. As children, my siblings and I said a “traditional” prayer before eating a meal, and the famous prayer before bedtime. I know my parents both believed in the rapture, as I heard them discussing it once. Other than that, there really wasn’t much discussion on religion at all.
The town I lived in, there was a Church of the Nazarene that was only about 4 blocks from my home. I went to Vacation Bible School there quite a bit, and also to church, and church camping trips. I don’t ever remember a time that I didn’t believe in God. It was those boring “traditional” prayers that kept me interested, tho. But being a child, what do I KNOW about God. Not much.
Now, I joined the US Navy in 1982, under then president Ronald Reagan. When I filled out the form for “Religious Preference”, there was a long list of choices to choose from. CHRISTIAN was NOT one of them. The choices, however, included Catholic, Protestant, among others. So, because Christian was not a choice, I didn’t know what to put, so, I chose, “NO RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE”. I had NO IDEA what a protestant was. I had known a few Catholics in school, but what the heck is a protestant? That’s how ignorant I was about Christianity. Now I know. But in the US Navy, there USED TO BE a LOT of Christians, and I was glad and proud of that. I’m not so sure anymore. I got out of the service in EARLY 2001, long before 9/11.
I still do not consider myself a protestant, because that would mean that I am protesting, right? I am not protesting the Catholic Church. That would make me a REFORMER, as far as I am concerned. I am not Catholic, and I am not a reformer. I had not known Church History and the various differing beliefs. I’m just a Christian.
But in regards to the word heresy…I’m NOT SO SURE that differing opinions of the deity of Christ is REALLY heresy. Today’s LIBERAL Christianity is DEFINITELY heresy. Especially the way that you described it, and yes, I see it. I first noticed it from the Methodists.
My first REAL digging into scripture came from an interest in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I knew I never wanted to be one, but one was proselytizing me, and I wanted to know what they believe, and why they believe it. And that is where the age old question about the deity of Christ hit me. In studying them, I was MORE THAN CONVINCED that Jesus is GOD. If I had never studied those guys, I would still be SCRATCHING MY HEAD wondering if they were right, or wrong.
But to have doubt about the deity of Christ…I don’t find that to be heresy. Now when I debate people like them, they want to know, “Where in the Bible does it EXPLICITLY SAY…”. It doesn’t. So, they rest their case. I think that God purposefully did not explicitly say that Jesus is God, SO THAT we all would REASON about it.
Atheists are always saying that religion was invented by man to control the masses. Well,when you do see the HISTORY, can you blame the atheist for saying that? I can’t. KILL KILL KILL those who don’t believe as I do…right? Is that how the APOSTLE Paul handled things?
When I read Paul, the whole town wanted to kill him for preaching Jesus, so…HE LEFT TOWN and went somewhere else. He didn’t kill anyone in the name of religion. He talked a lot about the FREEDOM that we have in Christ, and to NOT be entangled in the BONDAGE anymore. He talked about the false teachers, etc., yes, but if we encounter a false teacher, are we to turn them into civil authorities for the crime of HERESY?
So, what did that 325 AD meeting really accomplish? Especially since I even disagree with their conclusions? As I said before, I believe that Jesus is the ONLY God, whereas that meeting concluded that Jesus is God, but that there are two other BEINGS also included in the ONE GOD thing.
What Benjamin Franklin said…to Ezra Stiles (President of Yale), a CALVINIST:
” You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it.
Here is my creed.
I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.
That he governs by his providence.
That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire,
I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes,
and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity;
though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.
I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed;
especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.”
——————————–
The last sentence is NOT in regards to “unbelievers” as in “non-Christians”, but unbelievers of the deity of Jesus. Many people misinterpret his last sentence. The context was about the divinity of Jesus. And he does NOT think that God will punish those who don’t believe it, or if they do. Cuz they will KNOW one way or another when they meet their maker. I happen to agree.
Notice in the beginning what he states about believing in ONE GOD…but WHICH GOD? The God of Jesus…the Jewish God. That is why his was a DEIST. Many people today believe that the definition of the word DEIST MUST INCLUDE the words, “IMPERSONAL GOD”. But it wasn’t so back then, because Thomas Jefferson said of the Jews that they were DEISTS.
So, what CHURCH history would call heresy, I would NOT. I’d say…AS GOD DID…LET US REASON TOGETHER.
But TODAY’S liberal Christianity, bringing SIN INTO THE CHURCH, now that is a different story, and conversation to have.
Why do I bring up HISTORY here? In the Bible, Paul is dead, Peter is dead, etc. But they were the FOUNDATION of Christianity, so states the bible, with Jesus being the “cornerstone”, THE FIRST STONE LAID.
Our countries founding fathers are like Peter, and Paul, and they considered God to be the cornerstone FOUNDATION.
What have I learned about Church History? LOTS OF MURDER IN THE NAME OF RELIGION, in which, I side with the atheists on that one.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
To add to my last regarding church history…
So what we have, due to the heresy laws of severe punishment, is people DICTATING what to believe, and if you don’t, severe punishment is cast upon you.
These people did not have the means to study for themselves to prove all things. They were dictated to, that those in leadership had already proved all things, therefore you were FORCED to take the position of those who rule over you, instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, and making a conscience decision for themselves.
Call the police for anyone who disagrees with the religious leaders!
That’s why I’m not a fan of church history.
Freedom of thought without government interference is what they needed.
Ed Chapman
Simon writes:
Thus, the reason why historical sources are important in Theology is to establish that claims or interpretations of Scripture are not new. If they are new, and have never been taught before in 2000 years, it is highly likely that another schism or cult is developing.
Hope that makes some sense.
Aidan writes:
Yep! That makes perfect sense to me.
I grew up in Catholicism here in Ireland, accustomed to the fact that they, unapologetically, developed all sorts of doctrines over the centuries. It wasn’t until I began to read the scriptures, that I soon realized how the masses had been led astray, including myself. When I read passages like Matthew 15, where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and scribes for invalidating the word of God for the sake of their tradition. And, how “IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’” – it had a very powerful effect on my life.
This is why I am always adamant that we examine everything carefully. I am not a theologian, but I believe history will teach that there’s nothing new under the sun. Times may have changed, but men haven’t. But I believe we have in our hands “all the truth”(John.16:13) that we need to combat any error, which might come our way. The best defense against every wind of doctrine, is the one Paul gave to the Church at Ephesus in (Eph. 4:1-16). Perhaps, that’s where the early Church failed over the centuries.
It doesn’t really matter, in one sense, what claims many make today. The greatest historical source we have at our disposal is always going to be in the writings of the New Testament. Its what we’ve had from the beginning, the gospel of salvation. Measure everything against that in Christianity, and you will be able to know, with certainty, what is counterfeit and what is real.
AIDAN MCMANUS,
Yes, we must remember that the past now, was the present then. Our present now will one day be past. If we neglect the rules of examination and testing doctrines to see whether they are new or not, we could find ourselves embracing ideas that are distortions of the New Testament. Never underestimate the power of rhetoric. Preachers use it all the time.
I find that when the Scriptures are properly dealt with and interpreted contextually and considering the historical background, we find that most of what the early Church and some ancient sources taught was actually very good.
During the reformation, the Roman Catholic Church and the reformers agreed on a lot of doctrine. There was no debate about the Deity of Christ, or the nature of God or Creation or anything like that. The main issues were the authority of Scripture opposed to the authority of the Pope. The doctrine of justification by faith alone. Transubstantiation was first instituted in Rome at the Lateran Council in 1215, and could not be found in the Scriptures or the early church fathers. It was a new doctrine yet many became convinced by it. I have been to St John Lateran where that council took place. Churches in Rome are full of shrines to dead saints. Many with a Papal seal on their churches. Whenever any church is dedicated to Mary or a saint, people are always in them praying to them. Yet when a Church is dedicated to Jesus, they are practically empty.
I am fine with visiting historic sites and buildings to view them and research. But the last time I visited St. Peter’s Basilica, some kind of mass came on and I could not abide near it in my spirit. At St Cecilia’s Catacomb, a service came on and I had to leave, I could not abide near it. Transubstantiation is a form of mental cannibalism and vampirism. The doctrine of transubstantiation became a huge issue in the reformation but Luther’s view of the Eucharist was vague. But the reformers from the mid 16th century held that Christ was really present in the Eucharist but in soul. It was taken so seriously that reformers would be burned for it. Calvin rightly refused the Eucharist to people who were not saved and stood in front of the alter against men with swords. They were very brave and strong men.
It is pathetic that many in the Christian church today view Roman Catholicism as just another tradition but the same faith. Rome’s denial of faith alone is evidence enough that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity. The Roman Catholic church worships the mass and to them Christ is actually present in bodily form. Which in effect implies that Christ is being crucified again and again at every mass.
If we go back to the source (the Bible) and the early church, we can easily see that Roman Catholicism, as it stands is a much later invention. Even the idea of a singular pope (pappas) is a much later invention. Earlier uses were in the plural, not singular.
sps writes, “Our present now will one day be past.”
The present is but one second (maybe less) that separates the past from the future. When people think of the present they generally include the most recent past and maybe a little bit into the future.
rhutchin,
You had said:
sps writes, “Our present now will one day be past.”
The present is but one second (maybe less) that separates the past from the future. When people think of the present they generally include the most recent past and maybe a little bit into the future.
My response:
Time keeps on SLIPPIN’ SLIPPIN’ SLIPPIN’, into the future!
And
A Stephen King Movie, The Langoliers
Simon Peter,
I think that a LOT of church’s as well as the Catholics have gotten, what everyone calls COMMUNION wrong.
A couple things.
PASSOVER. That’s what the BODY AND THE WINE stand for, regarding Jesus using it as symbology about himself, being the LAMB OF GOD slain (BODY), and the WINE is also a part of the PASSOVER feast (BLOOD), but I don’t think that most people put two and two together and see that this is in regards to Jesus being the PASSOVER, meaning that the Catholics have gotten that all screwed up.
Second, where it discusses THE LORDS SUPPER, the context of the WHOLE THING, if anyone reads it as a WHOLE THING, is about a POT LUCK at church, found in 1 Corinthians 11. What gives me that idea? This:
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?
AND
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.
AND (widening it a little)
21 As you eat, some of you go ahead and eat your own private meals. Because of this, one person stays hungry and another gets drunk.
22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? You are shaming those in the church who have nothing. Do you think so little of God’s church that you do this? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? Certainly not about the Lord’s Supper!
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t see COMMUNION in this, I see a POTLUCK, in that people are being SELFISH regarding STUFFING THEIR FACE, leaving others HUNGRY, but seems like the only thing that people in CHURCH is seeing is,
A RITUAL OF DRINKING GRAPE JUICE AND GLUTEN FREE BREAD, when I’m thinking that Paul is showing that Jesus SHARED his BREAD and WINE with everyone present, and the moral of the story is about SHARING YOUR FOOD with other members of the church during a potluck, and quit STUFFING YOUR FACE. If you are that hungry, GO HOME AND EAT. If you can’t wait for others STAY HOME AND EAT.
The whole thing is 1 Corinthians 11:17-33
Celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the Right Way
17 In the following matters, I don’t praise you. Your meetings do more harm than good. 18 First, here is what people are telling me. When you come together as a church, you take sides. And in some ways I believe it. 19 Do you really think you need to take sides? You probably think God favors one side over the other! 20 So when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat. 21 As you eat, some of you go ahead and eat your own private meals. Because of this, one person stays hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? You are shaming those in the church who have nothing. Do you think so little of God’s church that you do this? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? Certainly not about the Lord’s Supper!
23 I passed on to you what I received from the Lord. On the night the Lord Jesus was handed over to his enemies, he took bread. 24 When he had given thanks, he broke it. He said, “This is my body. It is given for you. Every time you eat it, do it in memory of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup. He said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Every time you drink it, do it in memory of me.” 26 You eat the bread and drink the cup. When you do this, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.
27 Eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in the right way. Don’t do it in a way that isn’t worthy of him. If you do, you will be guilty. You’ll be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone should take a careful look at themselves before they eat the bread and drink from the cup. 29 Whoever eats and drinks must recognize the body of Christ. If they don’t, judgment will come upon them. 30 That is why many of you are weak and sick. That is why a number of you have died. 31 We should think more carefully about what we are doing. Then we would not be found guilty for this. 32 When the Lord judges us in this way, he corrects us. Then in the end we will not be judged along with the rest of the world.
33 My brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home. Then when you come together, you will not be judged.
Call me crazy, but that’s what I see. I don’t see a RITUAL called COMMUNION here…just a POTLUCK AT CHURCH.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter:
You had said:
“If we neglect the rules of examination and testing doctrines to see whether they are new or not, we could find ourselves embracing ideas that are distortions of the New Testament. Never underestimate the power of rhetoric. Preachers use it all the time.
My response:
And, I thought that you indicated that JESUS is the one building the church. You almost make it sound as tho it is MANKIND that is building Jesus’ church FOR HIM.
However, what you say is TRUE, cuz it’s in the Bible, this I know. But, we all know that in the Roman Catholic History, that NOT MUCH HAS REALLY CHANGED, has it?
We still have the REFORM folks DICTATING what to believe, don’t we?
Who is instructed to TEST ALL THINGS, but yet, they are really NOT ALLOWED TO. If they question the preacher, PUNISHMENT BY WAY OF ANOTHER FALSE TEACHING called, CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
Not much has really changed from the GOOD OLE DAYS OF CHURCH history, has it?
Next, you say:
“I find that when the Scriptures are properly dealt with and interpreted contextually and considering the historical background, we find that most of what the early Church and some ancient sources taught was actually very good. ”
My response:
I find that one can READ and UNDERSTAND without all that academic scholarly fluff stuff. To me, all that historical background stuff is, what some call TMI.
Just READ the dog gone book, and that’s all ya need. Then get together with OTHERS and REASON together. NO NEED FOR A FAMOUS DEAD THEOLOGIAN. We are ALL theologians…the STUDY OF GOD.
Seminaries will ONLY TEACH what their INSTITUTES, AND CONFESSIONS allow them to. Therefore, WHAT HAS CHANGED? They are still teaching stuff that THEY GOT WRONG in the Roman Catholic ERA.
What did Paul CONCLUDE about his ACADEMICS?
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
You had said:
“During the reformation, the Roman Catholic Church and the reformers agreed on a lot of doctrine. There was no debate about the Deity of Christ, or the nature of God or Creation or anything like that. ”
My response:
Sure, they agreed on a lot of doctrine, but how much of that doctrine is CORRECT that they agreed on? HOW did the “common foke” agree? I think that the COMMON FOKE was NOT ALLOWED to disagree on ANYTHING that was DICTATED TO THEM.
Come on, let’s be REAL here.
What year was COMMON FOKE allowed to READ THE SCRIPTURES FOR THEMSELVES to determine if those in the HIERARCHY was teaching “doctrines” correctly or not? WHO was allowed to be a Berean? Certainly not even in the Church of England, either, up until WHAT YEAR? And they were REFORM, right? If you didn’t believe what they believed, the GOVERNMENT punished you.
WHO was allowed in that meeting of 325 AD? WHO was rejected from being able to attend? The Deity of Christ must be determined BY FREE THINKING PEOPLE who EXAMINES on their own. They need to be convinced in their OWN MIND. It’s not an easy task to determine, but it must be done ON YOUR OWN…not just because someone dictated it.
NO ONE was allowed freedom of thought in those years. You either conformed, or got killed. Yes, even in the REFORMATION.
So let’s not sugar coat it! It was mighty dangerous to live in those times.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you are right in a lot of that. Truth cannot be determined by decree. When you have to torture and murder people to enforce your declarations, you might have issues.
SIMON, you wrote:
Yes, we must remember that the past now, was the present then. Our present now will one day be past. If we neglect the rules of examination and testing doctrines to see whether they are new or not, we could find ourselves embracing ideas that are distortions of the New Testament. Never underestimate the power of rhetoric. Preachers use it all the time.
I find that when the Scriptures are properly dealt with and interpreted contextually and considering the historical background, we find that most of what the early Church and some ancient sources taught was actually very good.
AIDAN writes:
Some people refer to the events in Acts 15 as pretty much the first council. I don’t know if I would necessarily agree with that assumption. Perhaps those who see the church as having a hierarchical structure, might tend to view it that way, I don’t know. Either way, I think Acts 15 gives us some very powerful principles on how to deal with doctrines that threaten to destroy the church.
We know that some Judaising teachers came down from Judea, the hub of Judaism, to the Gentile church in Antioch, saying that they should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. It seems like they tried to sell it as something that was sanctioned by the Apostles in the church at Jerusalem. This was certainly threatened to split the church, and perhaps destroyed Christianity in its early stages. So, Paul, Barnabas, and some others, go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and elders, about this question.
It seems from Acts 15:6 and Gal. 2:1-4, that there were some private meetings first among the Apostles and elders to settle this matter, and
also how they might approach it. But they had gathered the whole church together for this. The inspired Apostles, without any consultation, could have simply used the weight of their authority and decreed the Lord’s will on the matter, but that would have been the wrong way to handle it.
After Paul and them met with the other Apostles and elders, and they had worked it all out, Peter is the first to stand up before the whole congregation. But, notice from the context, that even the Apostles were not always given direct answers from heaven. They sometimes had to work it out like the rest of us, from what had already been revealed by God. And how they worked it out, is left in the inspired record in order that we might learn to do the same.
How did they work it out? There are three major principles they used in determining God’s will. We call them, 1. Direct statements, 2. Necessary inferences and 3. Approved examples. Very simple and straightforward, but also very effective.
Peter stands up before the congregation and reminds them of the ‘approved example’ of Cornelius and his household. That by his mouth, they heard the word of the gospel and believed. And that God testified and bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. And that He made no distinction in also cleansing their hearts by faith. Peter was able to look to Cornelius as an ‘approved example’ and make the ‘necessary conclusion or inference’ to work out what Go’s will was on the matter. And so also was the crowd.
Then, Paul and Barnabas stood up (v.12) “All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” These multiple ‘approved examples’ among the Gentiles, showed that God was continuing to bear witness through the signs and wonders. There could only be one conclusion that it was the same gospel for those who were turning to God from among the Gentiles.
Finally, James stands up, and backs it up by directly quoting what was written in the Prophets (v.15) concerning God’s intention for the salvation of the Gentiles. These ‘direct statements’ of scripture served as definitive proof of God’s intentions, all along. And they were able to make the ultimate conclusion from all that had been presented, that this is how God was now fulfilling those prophecies.
When all was said and done, the matter had been effectively dealt with, and they had squashed the efforts of the Judaising teachers to destroy the church. If there was ever a question as to whether Jew and Gentile are saved by the same gospel, here’s the answer. A letter was written up by the apostles and elders, with practically everyone on board, and read among the gentile churches. This brought great encouragement and peace among the churches, and as a result they were able to strengthen them and grow (Acts 16:4-5) . But as we know, the judaising teachers might have been silenced for now, but they were certainly not gone.
There are many more examples which show this is how they determined God’s will in the early church.
We would do well to follow suit, today.
Thanks,
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“Some people refer to the events in Acts 15 as pretty much the first council. I don’t know if I would necessarily agree with that assumption. ”
My response:
I may not agree with you in regards to baptism and gifts, but I totally agree with you on this. I remember this being a topic with a Catholic I spoke with, for their justifications on various councils, and meetings, using Acts 15 as their example.
But as you pointed out, the issue was resolved when they went back to the OT Prophets, when you said:
“Finally, James stands up, and backs it up by directly quoting what was written in the Prophets (v.15) concerning God’s intention for the salvation of the Gentiles. These ‘direct statements’ of scripture served as definitive proof of God’s intentions, all along. And they were able to make the ultimate conclusion from all that had been presented, that this is how God was now fulfilling those prophecies. ”
————————–
And this is why I keep bringing it back to ABRAHAM (not many in the Reform world like going back to Abraham, I have discovered), because the promises were given to Abraham BEFORE circumcision, thereby making Abraham a GENTILE at that time.
THEN LATER CAME cirucimcision.
So, regarding Abraham;
Before circumcision…THAT was the SPIRITUAL PROMISE of JESUS being the promised seed, and Heaven being the promised land.
Galatians 3:7
So you see, those who have faith are children of Abraham.
After circumcision…That was the CARNAL PROMISE of Isaac being the promised seed, and the physical land of Israel being the promised land, which are STILL promises to the Jews, which is why circumcision was BROUGHT INTO the Law of Moses, because if any Jew is NOT circumcised, they are KICKED OUT (cut off) from the PROMISED LAND.
Hence, CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
And THAT was the ONLY issue to resolve. I don’t mind if people have “councils”, but if they do, they have to take it back to the OT Prophets and SPIRITUALLY interpret scripture, so that it doesn’t turn into a CARNAL RITUAL FEST, like the Catholics did, and also that of the Reformers, too.
The Law of Moses GOT IN THE WAY OF FAITH, IT WAS A BARRIER. Abraham didn’t have to WORK for righteousness, but the children of Israel were COMMANDED to work for righteousness, and NOW, Jesus said, “YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORK FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS…just believe, like Abraham believed. You don’t have to jump thru hoops, or walk on eggshells to please me. I got your back!”
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I see you are off work today. I’m not. I’m actually working at the moment. I get paid, but I get no thanks for it.
You said:
“But as you pointed out, the issue was resolved when they went back to the OT Prophets,”
Aidan responds:
What I said was that: “There are three major principles they used in determining God’s will. We call them, 1. Direct statements, 2. Necessary inferences and 3. Approved examples. Very simple and straightforward, but also very effective.”
‘Necessary conclusions’ were made from the ‘approved examples’ of both Cornelius, and also in the signs and wonders being performed among the Gentiles. But the final nail in the coffin, was the ‘direct statements’ used from scripture to that effect. Even then they had to make some ‘necessary conclusions’ that this is precisely HOW God was accomplishing those promises.
BUT NOTICE WHAT JAMES QUOTED: (Acts 15: 15-17)
“And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’
Then in verse (19) James says, “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,”
THEREFORE, WHAT CONCLUSION WOULD YOU MAKE ABOUT THE ‘TABERNACLE OF DAVID’?
Ya, I’m up at my normal time… just doing some internet stuff before I leave the house for the traditional thanksgiving meal.
But, I do find that what you said here to be true. They had evidence to present, along with OT prophesies, so they weren’t just making things up.
But, these, being Jews, remember that Peter did say three following…
Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation (GENTILES); but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
The first part of that verse is why the Jews were reluctant to go to the Gentiles. They considered it an unlawful thing, because that’s what God told them in the OT, which is why it was…AGAINST THE LAW (unlawful). But…Acts 15 clarified things.
The so called COUNCILS should be used to CLARIFY, just as this one did. Not to make up new dogma, rituals, and rules.
Ed Chapman
I couldna said it better meself (smiley face)
Hi Simon,
I was wondering if you were willing to give me your view on salvation by “faith alone?” You had said, “Rome’s denial of faith alone is evidence enough that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.” Would you therefore equate anybody’s denial that faith alone saves as not Christian? Personally, I would see a difference in the bible’s use of the terms “faith” and “faith alone.” One inheres works, while the other does not. And, we are saved by one, but not by the other. In case you are hesitant, I prefer to discuss and reason, not to attack.
I hear people all the time saying things like, ‘salvation is by grace alone.’ or, ‘Jesus alone,’ or by, ‘faith alone.’ Sometimes, you will hear them say all three in almost the same breath, which by definition is a contradiction in terms. I say, if its truly by “grace alone” its by grace alone and nothing else. If its truly by Jesus alone, its by Jesus alone and nothing else. And, of course, if its truly by “faith alone” its by faith alone and nothing else.
But more importantly, in view of what the bible teaches, ‘is salvation truly by – anything alone’?
Aidan
COMFORTING THOUGHTS FOR THE SINNING CALVINIST
The sinning Calvinist can take comfort in knowing that no mater how much he disobeys the ENUNCIATED will – he will always be in perfect obedience to the SECRET will.
Yes – it is true – he is taught that in all his sinning – he is “out of sink” with what Calvin’s god says.
But he can take comfort in knowing that he is perfectly obedient to everything Calvin’s god wills.
This gives the Calvinist a distinct advantage over all other Christians!
All of his continual sinning is in full compliance to Calvin’s god’s plan for his life.
As a matter of fact Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT him to do otherwise and DOES NOT MAKE AVAILABLE any alternative.
So as he’s going about his office giving thanks for the divine oversight, he can give special thanks for each and every sin.
For he knows those sins are special events which Calvin’s god specifically decreed to bring about his good pleasure.
The distinct advantage for the Calvinist then – is that he gets to have his cake and eat it!
But the blessings don’t end there!
If he wakes up in eternal torment in the lake of fire – he can take comfort in knowing it was all by grace.
br.d writes, “The sinning Calvinist can take comfort in knowing that no mater how much he disobeys the ENUNCIATED will – he will always be in perfect obedience to the SECRET will.”
So it is with any believer who sins as br.d well knows since he is a man of logic.
rutchin
So it is with any believer who sins as br.d well knows since he is a man of logic.
br.d
Only if he has a THEOS who determines *ALL* things UNIVERSALLY – which would of course include his every sin.
Additionally
– NOT PERMIT otherwise
and
– Not make available any alternative possibilities
are NOT LOGICAL consequences of IN-determinism – as they are for Theological Determinism.
So the IN-determinst Christian does not live in that world – and it thus doesn’t apply to them. :-]
Special Blessings that apply to Theological Determinists alone
And that’s why Calvinists can walk in an air of superiority!
They get the special blessings all of those semi-heretics don’t get! :-]
br.d writes, “So the IN-determinst Christian does not live in that world – and it thus doesn’t apply to them.”
Even the IN-determinst Christian believes that God is omnipresent. So God expresses His ENUNCIATED will – Thou shalt not commit adultery. Then, God observes David as he walks on his patio, sees Bathsheba bathing, calls her to his bed, and has intercourse with her. God is also omnipotent and, as He watches all these events, He could have easily kept David from this sin. Yet, God had decided not to stop David and thereby God determined that David would sin. That is God’s SECRET will according to Calvinists. What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?
rhutchin states:
“He could have easily kept David from this sin. Yet, God had decided not to stop David and thereby God determined that David would sin. That is God’s SECRET will according to Calvinists. What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
My response:
So, what you are saying is that God is a PEEPING TOM?
You say that God determined that David would sin…I thought you people always taught that God ORDAINED David to sin, or PLANNED that David would sin, or WROTE THAT PLAY and all David did was to ACT out what God wrote.
How was David’s ACTING career? Did he get an Academy Award for his PERFORMANCE?
And since God ORDAINED AND PLANNED that Adam would commit adultery, God must be VERY HAPPY that David did EXACTLY as what he planned.
Does a Calvinist God every get angry? If so, WHY? If everything goes as planned, YOUR god should ALWAYS BE HAPPY, right?
Why does the Bible state that God gets angry, even when he is SLOW to Anger. What’s up with that?
Ed Chapman
cgapmaned24 writes, “So, what you are saying is that God is a PEEPING TOM?”
LOL!!! Well, God is always, everywhere present in all of His creation. As the Proverb says, “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Keeping watch on the evil and the good.” However, a Peeping Tom, God is not.
Then, “You say that God determined that David would sin…I thought you people always taught that God ORDAINED David to sin, or PLANNED that David would sin, or WROTE THAT PLAY and all David did was to ACT out what God wrote. ”
Yep, God understood all that would happen in His creation before He even created, By creating the universe, God determined and ordained all that was to happen. Nothing would happen that God had not known was to happen.
Then, “How was David’s ACTING career? Did he get an Academy Award for his PERFORMANCE?”
David was just doing what comes naturally and following his desires.
Then, “And since God ORDAINED AND PLANNED that Adam would commit adultery, God must be VERY HAPPY that David did EXACTLY as what he planned.”
As the Psalms tell us, “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.” and “Whatever the LORD pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places.”
Then, “Does a Calvinist God every get angry? If so, WHY? If everything goes as planned, YOUR god should ALWAYS BE HAPPY, right?”
From the Scriptures:
“the LORD’S anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was gone.”
“the LORD was angry with me on your account, and would not listen to me. So the LORD said to me: ‘Enough of that! Speak no more to Me of this matter.”
“‘they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly.”
“So the LORD became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD had commanded.”
God’s anger is a major theme in the OT.
Then, “Why does the Bible state that God gets angry, even when he is SLOW to Anger. What’s up with that? ”
God gets angry when people do not obey Him.
rhutchin
God understood all that would happen in His creation before He even created, By creating the universe, God determined and ordained all that was to happen. Nothing would happen that God had not known was to happen.
br.d
Infinite and infallible divine understanding is not what differentiates Calvinism.
Theological Determinism and compatibilism are what differentiates Calvinism.
Compatibilism in street language, is called “Robot freedom”
Calvinists are constantly trying to escape the prison cell of their own belief system.
And trying to get a Calvinist to acknowledge that, is the equivalent of chasing a greased pig.
They spend most of their intellectual energy manufacturing libraries of equivocations, obfuscations, euphemisms, and semantic shell-games.
Some people even find all of their tail-chasing entertaining.
Perhaps that’s why God created them! :-]
br.d writes, “Infinite and infallible divine understanding is not what differentiates Calvinism.
Theological Determinism and compatibilism are what differentiates Calvinism.”
God’s infinite understanding is necessary to Calvinism. Infinite understanding is integral to the counsel of His will and enables God to determine the future and involve His creation in the future He determines. With infinite understanding, God is able to work all things according to the counsel of His will. By God working all things, God determines all things.
br.d
“Infinite and infallible divine understanding is not what differentiates Calvinism.
Theological Determinism and compatibilism are what differentiates Calvinism.”
rhutchin
God’s infinite understanding is necessary to Calvinism.
br.d
Not any different than any other Christian Theology :-]
rhutchin
Infinite understanding is integral to the counsel of His will and enables God to determine the future and involve His creation in the future He determines. With infinite understanding, God is able to work all things according to the counsel of His will. By God working all things, God determines all things.
br.d
See answer above
And also
Calvinist John Feinberg
-quote
God’s UNCONDITIONAL decree as based on *NOTHING* outside of himself that moves him to choose one thing or another”
(No One Like Him p. 527)
-quote
He is the *AUTHOR* of a novel who *CONCEIVES* and brings about *EVERY* event that happens, exercising complete control over his characters” . (The Doctrine of God)
Any deity who AUTHORS every micro-part of every thing that comes to pass – doesn’t need infinite knowledge of the universe – to know how those things are going to come to pass.
But he does need enough intelligence to know that what he immutably decreed to infallibly come to pass – he cannot possibly prevent.
And that includes sin’s he makes man commit. :-]
rhutchin: “God’s infinite understanding is necessary to Calvinism.”
br.d: “Not any different than any other Christian Theology”
Christian Theology is Calvinist theology in many areas.
Then, “Calvinist John Feinberg
-quote
God’s UNCONDITIONAL decree as based on *NOTHING* outside of himself that moves him to choose one thing or another””
This agrees with Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Even br.d does not deny the truth of Ephesians.
Then, “Any deity who AUTHORS every micro-part of every thing that comes to pass – doesn’t need infinite knowledge of the universe – to know how those things are going to come to pass.”
It is God’s infinite understanding of His creation, including understanding the man made in His image with independence and self-determination, that enables Him to know how a person will choose before that person even perceives that he has a choice.
rhutchin
God’s infinite understanding is necessary to Calvinism.”
br.d
Not any different than any other Christian Theology
rhutchin
Christian Theology is Calvinist theology in many areas.
br.d
That’s what Calvinists say at least :-]
Calvinist John Feinberg
-quote
God’s UNCONDITIONAL decree as based on *NOTHING* outside of himself that moves him to choose one thing or another””
rhutchin
This agrees with Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Even br.d does not deny the truth of Ephesians.
br.d
It would be dishonest of you to try to paint a picture of br.d agreeing with Calvinism’s IRRATIONAL interpretations.
Any deity who AUTHORS every micro-part of every thing that comes to pass – doesn’t need infinite knowledge of the universe – to know how those things are going to come to pass.”
rhutchin
It is God’s infinite understanding of His creation,
br.d
Which one really doesn’t need for the purpose of determining every neurological impulse based on *NOTHING* outside of himself.
rhutchin
including understanding the man made in His image with independence and self-determination
br.d
Humans having independence and self-determination in Calvinism – very nice ILLUSIONS indeed!
Calvinism’s LOVE-HATE relationship with determinism – always trying to SMUGGLE back in – some form of IN-determinism :-]
Dr. William James
-quote
“The Compatibilist’s strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.”
rhutchin,
Yes, I KNOW that the Bible discusses God getting angry. I’m wondering FROM YOU as to HOW a God of YOUR CREATION can even GET angry in the first place, SINCE GOD HIMSELF planned and ordained that people would disobey him. How can YOUR god get angry when everything went according to plan?
The ONLY TIME that your God SHOULD get angry, is if his plan DIDN’T come to fruition, that SOMEONE spoiled and foiled God’s PLAN.
And we know that in YOUR dogma, that’s impossible, thereby concluding that god should NEVER get angry at all.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “How can YOUR god get angry when everything went according to plan?”
God’s plan was for Adam and Eve to obey Him. However, God understood the limitations of Adam and Eve and understanding that they would disobey Him, He incorporated their disobedience into His plan. God even understood that Israel would disobey Him in the course of time and took that into account in His plan. Nothing wrong with God being angry with people whom He knows will disobey Him.
So, how do you get God to be dumb and ignorant?
No, God’s plan CAN’T be that Adam and EVE to obey him, if his PLAN was for them to disobey him. You are contradicting yourself.
So God should never be angry if things go, according to his plan!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “So God should never be angry if things go, according to his plan!”
Yet, God describes Himself as being angry with those who disobey Him even though He knew that they would disobey Him.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Yet, God describes Himself as being angry with those who disobey Him even though He knew that they would disobey Him”
My response:
YES, I know what the bible states about God getting angry, but it DOES NOT follow your narrative that God uses that as a means to satisfy his PLAN, and if all goes according to PLAN, then there is NO LOGICAL reason for God to get angry, all because it was his PLAN, for those who disobey, had NO CHOICE in the matter BUT to disobey, so their disobedience was THE PLAN. So God should never get angry according to THE PLAN.
In other words, you are contradicting the bible. Yes, God gets angry at those who disobey, BUT, it was by PLAN that they disobey, which MAKES NO SENSE to ANY reasoning. God should be PLEASED that they disobeyed in order for the PLAN to succeed.
Therefore, your reasoning is OUT OF LINE of WHY God gets angry. I’m asking your WHY God gets angry, and all you are doing is showing me that God gets angry.
DUH! But WHY?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “your reasoning is OUT OF LINE of WHY God gets angry. I’m asking your WHY God gets angry, and all you are doing is showing me that God gets angry.”
So, the real issue is, WHY. The Scriptures do not tell us that except to say that God’s anger is predicated on man’s disobedience. However, God understood all this when He gave the commandments. I’m with you on this. I don’t see why God would describe Himself as “angry.”
chapmaned24
How can YOUR god get angry when everything went according to plan?”
rhutchin
God’s plan was for Adam and Eve to obey Him.
br.d
Never ask a Calvinist to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
John Calvin
-quote
God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure *ARRANGED* it.
For it *DID NOT TAKE PLACE BY REASON OF NATURE* that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation…
Since this *CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE(, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….plan of God
(Institutes PDF version pg 765)
Men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
br. d
Outstanding references that shows that either Rhutchin has no clue at what Calvin said, or what the bible reveals, contradicting himself in both cases.
Ed Chapman
It might appear that way at first Ed
But in RH’s case – he knows better.
Unfortunately I think its more a case of playing shell-games with words.
Always using subtle language tricks to masquerade Calvinism as something it isn’t.
Sometimes the language tricks are very subtle – sometimes they aren’t
After a while, I don’t know how someone can think he’s actually fooling anyone.
But such is life!
br.d
So the IN-determinst Christian does not live in that world – and it thus doesn’t apply to them.”
rhutchin
Even the IN-determinst Christian believes that God is omnipresent.
br.d
rhutchin you don’t even seem to be able to acknowledge the difference between a world governed by determinism vs. a world governed by IN-determinism.
Should I wonder why?
rhutchin
God expresses His ENUNCIATED will – Thou shalt not commit adultery. Then, God observes David…etc
br.d
Never ask a Calvinist to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Here is how it works in Theological Determinism:
1) The SECRET will represents Calvin’s god’s “DETERMINATIVE” will.
2) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the creature to falsify or negate the SECRET will.
3) Where the SECRET will = [X] the ENUNCIATED will can represent [X].
4) Where the SECRET will = [X] the ENUNCIATED will can represent [NOT X].
5) Where the ENUNCIATED will represents [NOT X] it functions as a FALSE representation of the SECRET will.
6) From (2) it follows – it is a LOGICAL impossibility for the creature to disobey the SECRET will.
7) From (2) it follows – Calvin’s god will not make available any alternative to the SECRET will at pain of being a house divided against itself.
We can now apply (1-7) to any narrative concerning Calvin’s god arranging a man to sin:
a. It logically follows – the ENUNCIATED will was contra the SECRET will.
b. Calvin’s god did not PERMIT man to obey the ENUNCIATED will.
c. Calvin’s god did not make any alternative available to man.
rhutchin
What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?
br.d
The one’s who understand the LOGICAL consequences of Determinism call it Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
br.d writes, “you don’t even seem to be able to acknowledge the difference between a world governed by determinism vs. a world governed by and IN-determinism.”
Maybe because you cannot describe a world governed by IN-determinism. What in this world is indeterminate?
Then, rhutchin: “What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
br.d: “The one’s who understand the LOGICAL consequences of Determinism call it Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK! ”
LOL!!! When you come up with an answer, let us know.
br.d
you don’t even seem to be able to acknowledge the difference between a world governed by determinism vs. a world governed by and IN-determinism. How am I not surprised! :-]
rhutchin
Maybe because you cannot describe a world governed by IN-determinism. What in this world is indeterminate?
br.d
rhutchin – you don’t live in a SOT101 bubble do you?
You might try reading a little contemporary material on the subject.
rhutchin:
“What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
br.d
The one’s who understand the LOGICAL consequences of Determinism call it Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
rhutchin:
LOL!!! When you come up with an answer, let us know.
br.d
1) Calvin’s god immutably decrees [X] come to pass – without which [X] cannot possibly come to pass
2) Calvin’s god does nothing to keep [X] from coming to pass
Now use (2) as a DOUBLE-THINK strategy to go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE :-]
rhutchin: “Maybe because you cannot describe a world governed by IN-determinism. What in this world is indeterminate?”
br.d” “You might try reading a little contemporary material on the subject.”
Are you hoping that I might find an answer to my question? If you had found an answer, you wouldn’t be waffling.
Then, rhutchin:: “What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
br.d: “1) Calvin’s god immutably decrees [X] come to pass – without which [X] cannot possibly come to pass
2) Calvin’s god does nothing to keep [X] from coming to pass”
The question was, “What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
Want to try to answer that?
rhutchin asks br.d
“The question was, “What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
Want to try to answer that?”
My response:
God never made any such decision. That’s the beginning of your error, in that you think that God made a DECISION here. What makes CALVINISTS think that God made a DECISION one way or another?
Ed Chapman
rhutchin asks br.d “The question was, “What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
chapmaned24 responds, “God never made any such decision. That’s the beginning of your error, in that you think that God made a DECISION here. What makes CALVINISTS think that God made a DECISION one way or another?”
God was present when David committed adultery with Bathsheba. God observed every detail of that event. God is also omnipotent and sovereign over His creation so God had the power and the authority to stop David in his tracks. That God did nothing was a decision, if only by default.
On what basis do you say that God did not make a decision in this instance?
There is absolutely no indication in any of the bible that God makes any determination to keep anyone from sinning, or not sinning.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “There is absolutely no indication in any of the bible that God makes any determination to keep anyone from sinning, or not sinning. ”
In Isaiah 10, God keeps the Assyrians from invading Israel until the time was right. God kept Herod from killing Jesus with a dream to Joseph. God protected the Baptist from Herodias who wanted to kill him. God freed Peter from prison when Herod sought to kill him. God kept Pharaoh and then Abimelech from from Sarah when each took her into his house.
rhutchin
God keeps the Assyrians from invading Israel
br.d
For a deity who DOES NOT PERMIT anyone to DO OTHERWISE than what he DECREES – he sure does of “keeping them from” doing what he knows they can’t do without him MAKING them do it via DECREE :-]
As William Lane Craig states it:
-quote
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world,** PRETENDING** that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and **PRETENDING** that they merit praise or blame. “
br.d writes, “For a deity who DOES NOT PERMIT anyone to DO OTHERWISE than what he DECREES – he sure does of “keeping them from” doing what he knows they can’t do without him MAKING them do it via DECREE ”
God enables a person to act independent of God and to be self-determining and God does this by creating them in His image. By His infinite understanding, God can know their desires and God can plan accordingly. In this case, as Isaiah explains, of Assyria, that “Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations.” Assyria does not desire to obey God as Assyria seeks only to destroy but is used by God to accomplish His purpose Yet, God does not force Assyria to want to destroy but does force Assyria to do as He wants merely by allowing Assyria to do as it wants..
Then, “As William Lane Craig states it:
-quote
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world,** PRETENDING** that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and **PRETENDING** that they merit praise or blame. “
Because God made man in His image giving him independence and the ability to self determine what he will do, man’s every motion is his own doing. Craig seems to be presuming conditions that do not exist. Given that you basically quote mine, even you do not know what Craig means.
br.d
For a deity who DOES NOT PERMIT anyone to DO OTHERWISE than what he DECREES – he sure does a lot of “keeping them from” doing what he knows they can’t do without him MAKING them do it via DECREE :-]
rhutchin
God enables a person to act independent of God
br.d
As robots can act independent of thier designer
rhutchin
and to be self-determining
br.d
They can “go about their office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. they determine) is determined in any part”
Still following Calvin’s instructions I see! :-]
rhutchin
By His infinite understanding, God can know their desires and God can plan accordingly.
br.d
Calvinist John Feinberg
-quote
“God is the *AUTHOR* of a novel who *CONCEIVES* and brings about *EVERY* event that happens, exercising complete control over his characters” . (The Doctrine of God)
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the DIRECT CONTROL of god”
As William Lane Craig states it:
-quote
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world,** PRETENDING** that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and **PRETENDING** that they merit praise or blame. “
rhutchin
…..you do not know what Craig means.
br.d
Sure!!!! :-]
rhutchin
On what basis do you say that God did not make a decision in this instance?
br.d
Such a decision would show Calvin’s god to be a house divided against itself.
Once Calvin’s god MADE David sin by immutably decreeing it – doing NOTHING to falsify or negate that decree is the LOGICAL conclusion.
But on the other hand – we shouldn’t be surprised to see Calvin’s god exhibiting the pattern of Calvin’s DOUBLE-THINK.
After all it would be quite natural for there to be aspects of Calvin’s god – that are figments of Calvin’s imagination.
So it would make perfect sense then to see Calvin’s god:
-quote “going about his office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. David’s sin) was determined in any part”
br.d writes, “Such a decision would show Calvin’s god to be a house divided against itself.”
Why would that be the case?
Then, “Once Calvin’s god MADE David sin by immutably decreeing it – doing NOTHING to falsify or negate that decree is the LOGICAL conclusion.”
God could have decreed His intervention to keep David from sin. Nothing wrong with that.
br.d
Once Calvin’s god MADE David sin by immutably decreeing it – doing NOTHING to falsify or negate that decree is the LOGICAL conclusion.”
rhutchin
God could have decreed His intervention to keep David from sin. Nothing wrong with that.
br.d
It would have been easier for him to simply not MAKE David sin by decree in the first place.
But of course if his intention is to create a SIMULATED PRESENTATION of himself intervening in something he caused – then that is his prerogative.
And since we know Calvin’s god DESIGNS people to sin – and MAKES them sin via immutable DECREES – and them blames them for doing what he MADE them do – then we can see how Calvin’s god’s prerogatives work.
Like R.C. Sproul says in Calvinism “Evil is good”
You know – for his good pleasure – and all that!
It all makes sense when one learns about Augustine’s Gnostic/NeoPlatonist system of “Good-Evil” DUALISM.
br.d writes, “It would have been easier for him to simply not MAKE David sin by decree in the first place.”
To do that, God would have to make David God. However, God me David with less than omniscient knowledge, even less understanding of what he knows, and with even less wisdom with which to choose. Then, God imposed on David a corrupt nature as a consequence of Adam’s sin. God made David with the understanding that David would have desires that would lead him to bring Bathsheba to his bed. God decreed that these things would come to pass when God could have decreed otherwise – a situation that could only happen if God changed some of the conditions that resulted in David’s sin.
Then, “Like R.C. Sproul says in Calvinism “Evil is good””
As you like to quote mine, I am sure you have purposely left out the context of Sproul’s statement if you even know that context.
br.d
It would have been easier for him to simply not MAKE David sin by decree in the first place.
rhutchin
To do that, God would have to make David God.
br.d
Going about your office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. Davids actions) is determined in any part”
Still following Calvin’s instructions I see. :-]
Where David’s action = [X]
No immutable decree MAKING [X] = [NOT X]
rhutchin
God imposed on David a corrupt nature as a consequence of Adam’s sin
br.d
Which Calvin’s god imposed upon Adam via immutable DECREE
DID NOT PERMIT Adam “Do Otherwise”
DID NOT make available any “Alternative Possibility” for Adam
Where Adam’s action = [X]
No immutable decree MAKING [X] = [NOT X]
rhutchin
David would have desires….
br.d
Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. desires) are determined in any part
Still following Calvin’s instructions I see.
Then we have Calvinism’s Gnostic/NeoPlatonist component of “Good-Evil” DUALISM
As R.C. Sproul states in Calvinism
“Evil is good””
rhutchin
I am sure you have purposely left out the context of Sproul’s statement if you even know that context.
br.d
No problem there – the context had to do with the relationship between “Good” and “Evil” in Calvinism
rhutchin
Maybe because you cannot describe a world governed by IN-determinism. What in this world is indeterminate?”
br.d
You might try reading a little contemporary material on the subject.
rhutchin
Are you hoping that I might find an answer to my question? If you had found an answer, you wouldn’t be waffling.
br.d
I don’t think you’re mind is able accept anything that doesn’t fit into what its been conditioned to accept.
I think perhaps you’ve also seen answers here a thousand times
But its easy to just MAKE-BELIEVE they are not answers.
rhutchin
What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
br.d
1) Calvin’s god immutably decrees [X] come to pass – without which [X] cannot possibly come to pass
2) Calvin’s god does nothing to keep [X] from coming to pass”
Now use (2) as a DOUBLE-THINK strategy to go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE :-]
rhutcin
The question was, “What does the IN-determinst Christian call God’s decision to do nothing to keep David from sin?”
Want to try to answer that?
br.d
rhutchin – again – you delete the answer and then demand one
If you want SOT101 readers to perceive you as RATIONAL – then your not doing yourself any favors.
BR.D. It is absolutely fascinating to see RH waffle back and forth. I think I know what is going on.
On one level he wants to be an IN-Determinist so as not to profane God’s Holy name BUT then a loyal Calvinist can’t go there other wise his whole system falls apart and RH knows the names he will be called by his fellow elite elect and that scares him more than anything.
So he must continue to make claims there is no answer that can be given to show how man can have LFW. BR.D you have shown this many many times so has Lieghton so has Tozer but it scares RH to go there, he knows the arrows from his fellow Calvinites that are already pointed his way just waiting for him to step out of line.He knows those names well he has been to Calvinist conferences and seen many panels and heard the likes of James White. He knows all of that and can’t go there he would lose soooo much. He may have used those names on others and for him that is the worse thing you could be called by a fellow ELECT. It doesn’t matter that the Bible teaches this freedom and it is implied on almost every page of scripture but Oh the horror of those name grips his heart. So at times he wants to sound like an IN-Determinist because it scares him a little bit to profane God’s Holy name but then he must snap back to the party line because the greatest fear he has is the fear of his fellow Calvin followers.
RH is a double-minded man unstable who waffles back and forth making claims that no one can clear this up. He makes the same claim about faith though it is shown to him multiple times. Thanks BR.D for exposing all this.
I see it very similarly!
Yes – think about it.
It is internationally recognized that Alvin Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense” remains the current defeater of Atheism’s most powerful argument against God – which is the argument that if evil exists then God can’t exist. And Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense” argument is predicated on Libertarian Freedom.
The Calvinist Philosopher knows that he can’t use Plantinga’s defense against the Atheist’s argument – and he (as a determinist) doesn’t have an argument that can defeat it.
Additionally we have Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” that shows determinism eradicates anything being “UP TO US”. So Theological Determinism turns all human functionality into robot functionality. And Inwagen’s argument is internationally recognized also.
So watch how that plays out with rhutchin trying to defend Calvin’s god from evil. He has to rob aspects of Libertarian Freedom and claim they belong to compatibilism. Take for example his claim that in Calvinism humans are “self-determined”. Dr. Robert Kane – in arguing for Libertarian Freedom – makes the same argument in the Oxford Handbook of free will.
So the only way a Calvinist can defend Calvin’s god from evil – is by SMUGGLING in some aspect of Libertarian Freedom while refusing to acknowledge what he’s doing.
If Libertarian freedom doesn’t exist – and all decisions are in bondage to desires which one has no control over – then Calvin’s god has no control over his desires, and all of his decisions are in bondage to them. He acts out of his desires and doesn’t have the capacity to act out of RATIONAL decision-making.
br.d writes, “The Calvinist Philosopher knows that he can’t use Plantinga’s defense against the Atheist’s argument – and he (as a determinist) doesn’t have an argument that can defeat it.”
Sure they do:
1. The universe exists.
2. Only God could create the universe.
Therefore God exists.
3. Evil exists in the universe.
Therefore, both God and evil exist.
Well – that looks like a sure winner
I suggest you present your solution to any of the academical journals of Christian Philosophy right away.
Perhaps the University of Oxford where a lot of the peer reviewed submission are on this topic
I’m sure with that masterful formulation – it will make you the dominant thinking on the subject! :-]
br.d writes, ‘I’m sure with that masterful formulation – it will make you the dominant thinking on the subject! ”
Nothing masterful on my part. I just took Craig’s argument for the existence of God and added the obvious premise that evil is present in the world. It’s like you said, ‘Well – that looks like a sure winner.” It is. From what I can tell, that argument is dominant today. I don’t see anyone arguing against Craig.
br.d
I’m sure with that masterful formulation – it will make you the dominant thinker on the subject! ”
rhutchin
Nothing masterful on my part. I just took Craig’s argument for the existence of God and added the obvious premise that evil is present in the world. It’s like you said, ‘Well – that looks like a sure winner.” It is. From what I can tell, that argument is dominant today. I don’t see anyone arguing against Craig.
br.d
Well that means you’ve come up with a solution that Dr. Craig didn’t come up with.
And since Dr. Craig stands as a contributing member of the discussion within academia – then that places you there as well.
So one shouldn’t keep that to himself when its within him to bring the current status of academia up to a higher level.
The whole of Christian philosophy is waiting for it! :-]
br.d writes, “The whole of Christian philosophy is waiting for it!’
Waiting for what, Craig wrote a book in 1979 explaining it.
br.d
The whole of Christian philosophy is waiting for it!’
rhutchin
Waiting for what, Craig wrote a book in 1979 explaining it.
br.d
Well – that’s interesting – he apparently is not aware of what you think he wrote
He had a debate with an internationally recognized Atheist – ( I believe it was Sam Harris)
During that debate Harris asserted the classic “Problem of Evil” (which you claim has been solved consistent with Theological Determinism)
Harris thought he had Dr. Craig over a barrel.
But Dr. Craig laughed and said
“Mr. Harris thinks that believing in God presupposes Theological Determinism”
He then went on to unfold a parallel of Alvin Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense” which is internationally recognized as only viable under the presumption of Libertarian Freedom.
So since Dr. Craig is not a Theologian Determinist – Harris’ argument failed.
So if you’ve found something within one of Dr. Craig’s books that assumes the opposite – I think Dr. Craig would be similarly amused.
br.d writes, “During that debate Harris asserted the classic “Problem of Evil” (which you claim has been solved consistent with Theological Determinism)”
Go back and read what I said, There, you will see that I said, “I just took Craig’s argument for the existence of God and added the obvious premise that evil is present in the world.”
Craig argued for the existence of God and did so persuasively. Given that God exists and evil exists (by simple observation), there can be no problem of evil since both have been shown to exist and one does not disallow the other. If there is a problem, that problem is explaining why God tolerates evil but that is not the problem of evil. I assume you know what the problem of evil is all about.
rhutchin
Go back and read what I said, There, you will see that I said, “I just took Craig’s argument for the existence of God and added the obvious premise that evil is present in the world.”
br.d
Perhaps you might go back to my original post on this – which was to affirm that Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense” is internationally recognized (and that includes Dr. Craig) as the defeater to the classic “Problem of Evil”. and which is only viable with Libertarian Freedom.
And that is why he laughed when Harris assumed he was a Theological Determinist and therefore had him over a barrel.
So I’m sure he would be amused by a Theological Determinist finding something in one of his books that asserts the opposite.
br.d writes, ‘Perhaps you might go back to my original post on this – which was to affirm that Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense” is internationally recognized (and that includes Dr. Craig) as the defeater to the classic “Problem of Evil”. and which is only viable with Libertarian Freedom. ”
You said, ““The Calvinist Philosopher knows that he can’t use Plantinga’s defense against the Atheist’s argument – and he (as a determinist) doesn’t have an argument that can defeat it.” Thus, I presented an argument that does not depend on LFW. So, what is your point. Are you going to argue that Craig’s proof for the existence of God is not valid or are you going to argue that evil does not exist? If neither, what is your point?
rhutchin
You said, ““The Calvinist Philosopher knows that he can’t use Plantinga’s defense against the Atheist’s argument – and he (as a determinist) doesn’t have an argument that can defeat it.”
Thus, I presented an argument that does not depend on LFW.
So, what is your point. Are you going to argue that Craig’s proof for the existence of God is not valid or are you going to argue that evil does not exist? If neither, what is your point?
br.d
Ok then – you presented an argument that does not presuppose Libertarian Freedom as a solution other than Alvin Plantinga’s “Free Will Defense”. Go ahead and present it! All academia is waiting for it!
The only possible outcome for that formulation is “GOD IS the Sole Author of EVIL”
BR.D have you noticed how consistently Universal Divine Determinism is present in all of Calvinist doctrines.
They do shape shifting to make it harder to detect but recently a Calvin follower was making the case that God Determines the Ends (Hell or Heaven for each individual before the creation of the World) AND that GOD ALSO determines the means.
“God ordains the means as well as the Ends”
That is simply another way of saying to the person who is “Elected by God for Hell” that absolutely everything he does on his way to God’s predetermined End (Hell) has already been determined for him to do.
“God ordains the means as well as the Ends” is just another “clever” way to say the same thing. Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Yes – Universal Divine Causal Determinism functions as canon for the Calvinist mind.
He uses it as a plumb-line – and all interpretation of scripture must conform to it.
The problem then – is that so many verses end up being twisted into IRRATIONAL pretzels.
In Universal Divine Causal Determinism – a human cannot have one thought, desire, or action that is UP TO HIM – as all things are determined *FOR* him.
But then you have narratives in scripture where Jesus or god acts like that is FALSE.
And the Calvinist mind has to invent all sorts of contorted reasons to get around those contradictions.
Either that or he shuts his mind off to that contradiction and makes-believe it doesn’t exist.
When you watch RH’s posts – you often see both strategies.
So many square-circles are cloaked behind subtle language tricks in order to convince himself they aren’t contradictions.
Imagine all of the years of work involved in a person trying to make contradictions disappear!
Same Old distortion (error). Just new clothes to cover it over. Trying to make it appear like they are maybe saying something different. BUT no it is the same old stuff just a new dance. These new dance moves are very creative but they all end up at the same place…God is the sole author of Evil. God’s name is blasphemed, and His name is profaned over and over again with new twists.
Yes – and we are to believe that all that tap-dancing is supposed to be the Gospel?
As if truth of God is manifest in DOUBLE-SPEAK?
br.d writes, “Universal Divine Causal Determinism functions as canon for the Calvinist mind.”
Based on Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Even you don’t try to argue against this verse.
Then, “In Universal Divine Causal Determinism – a human cannot have one thought, desire, or action that is UP TO HIM – as all things are determined *FOR* him.”
Not in Calvinism. In Calvinism, God makes man in His image. This means that man is independent and self-determining so that God does not initiate thoughts, or desires or action by the man. However, God understands the man He created and thereby knows the thoughts and desires that consume him or could consume him and the actions he wants to take – even before they enter his mind. God does not have to initiate a thought, desire, or action in the man. That is a builtin ability by virtue of being made in God’s image. As God is sovereign, He can bring the plans of a man to nothing or can harden the desires he has. Alternatively, God can soften his heart for the gospel and let the gospel change his thoughts, desires and actions.
rh writes:
“. . . God makes man in His image. This means that man is independent and self-determining so that God does not initiate thoughts, or desires or action by the man. However, God understands the man He created and thereby knows the thoughts and desires that consume him or could consume him and the actions he wants to take – even before they enter his mind. God does not have to initiate a thought, desire, or action in the man. That is a builtin ability by virtue of being made in God’s image. As God is sovereign, He can bring the plans of a man to nothing or can harden the desires he has. Alternatively, God can soften his heart for the gospel and let the gospel change his thoughts, desires and actions.”
Great thoughts that most non-Calvinists would affirm. Unfortunately, they are utterly preposterous under Calvinism, which asserts that God has predetermined every thought, desire, impulse, word and action of every human being long before they were ever born. Once again you are trying to do the ol’ switcheroo and pretend like Calvinism merely asserts foreknowledge. Were this true, all non-Calvinists would be on board. There would not have been centuries of disagreement. I’m not sure you can erase centuries of history and just arbitrarily change the meaning of Calvinism now. But feel free to join those of us who do affirm foreknowledge rather than predeterminism. You’ll find us very welcoming.
Agreed TS00…If that was what Calvinism is, then many of the disagreements would be completely gone. But RH is getting skilled at sounding like an IN-Determinist. Even in his soul he must know that what Calvinism teaches is an error. Otherwise why cover up the central tenant of Calvinism – Meticulous divine determinism. Why make it LOOK this way when he knows it is really not this way. Maybe RH is being converted and has repented of Calvinism. Let’s see if he is consistent. Or is he playing the “Now you see me (Calvinist) Now you don’ t” (in hiding again). With this post he (the Calvinist) is in hiding.
GraceAdict
Why make it LOOK this way when he knows it is really not this way.
br.d
Dr. William James’s
-quote
“Compatibilism is a quagmire of evasion which steals the name of freedom to mask its underlying determinism.”
Immanuel Kant
-quote
“Compatibilism is a wretched subterfuge – attempting to solve problems with word jugglery”
TS00 writes, “Unfortunately, they are utterly preposterous under Calvinism, which asserts that God has predetermined every thought, desire, impulse, word and action of every human being long before they were ever born.”
Pretty much everyone, other than Open Theists of Future Theists, believes that God is omniscient in knowing every detail of the future. Once God created the universe, the future was immutably made certain. This is not an issue identified only with Calvinists. Many non-Calvinists believe that God is omniscient with regard to the future.
Then, “Once again you are trying to do the ol’ switcheroo and pretend like Calvinism merely asserts foreknowledge.”
Foreknowledge is just that part of omniscience that deals with future events. By foreknowledge, God knows all events in the future perfectly. Everyone who asserts foreknowledge also asserts omniscience.
Then, “But feel free to join those of us who do affirm foreknowledge rather than predeterminism.”
If God has foreknowledge then those things of which He has foreknowledge are predetermined. As God is sovereign, His was the final say as to what would be determined and how. For example, when God created the universe, He knew that Christ would be crucified and He determined that this would be accomplished through a conspiracy between the Jews and the Romans. This is based on God’s infinite understanding of all things occurring at any time in history and He has had this infinite understanding from eternity past.
You must agree that the future has been predetermined even if you quibble about God being the one who has predetermined the future.
rhutchin
You must agree that the future has been predetermined even if you quibble about God being the one who has predetermined the future.
br.d
Its called being LOGICALLY consistent.
Either every future [X] is predetermined by Calvin’s god or it isn’t.
Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay – for anything else comes of evil
Not to mention that it is simply one philosophical position that foreknowledge demands predetermination. We know that Open Theists believe otherwise, and I don’t know if this is exactly the same, but it is entirely possible that God ‘foreknows’ all of the possibilities of each and every future event, depending upon our actions. Thus, God foreknew that if David went to Keilah Saul would come down and he would be betrayed. Thus Jesus prayed about avoiding the trauma ahead of him via his execution. How could God foreknow something that did not happen? Why would Jesus ask about not doing something that was eternally set in stone? I suspect that God’s foreknowledge is far more complex than the determinists imagine.
Well – what you just described is typically called “Divine Middle Knowledge”
It is the knowledge that god has of each and every creature – whereby he can know what that creature would choose in any given circumstance – given his infallible knowledge of that creature’s inclinations etc.
And in that case the choice the creature made would not be pre-determined by God – but the creature would be (using Calvinist vernacular) “merely” permitted to be SOLE determiner of his own choice.
This view is actually called Molinism.
And in Calvinism “mere” permission is just another term for Libertarian Freedom – and Calvin rejects it.
So what rhutchin has done is pasted the LABEL “Calvinism” onto a glass full of Molinism.
He has a patch-work theology, which incorporates Divine Middle Knowledge while at the same time he claims to reject Libertarian Freedom, by simply stealing aspects of Libertarian Freedom and labeling them as something else.
So he has his own personal hybrid form of Calvinism
Is he not saying that God, through total depravity and man’s inability, as parameters set by God, has determined the outcome already. It, to all intents and purposes, looks like man’s free will desires are at play. But we all know that we are just programmed to choose the path to extinction. All Calvin’s god has to do is sit back and watch the show, which he already knows how it ends.
Perhaps, this is a form of Calvinism; I don’t know? But the lucky few get chosen to be re-programmed for the path to eternal bliss.
Who could have thunk it?
Well – strict Theological Determinism doesn’t make room for man to have any autonomy at all.
And its not unusual for a Calvinist to accuse a Non-Calvinist of worshiping human autonomy.
But if you read rhutchin’s posts – he really does make the very same statements one would expect from an Arminian etc.
So if he were an Arminian here posting those statements – another Calvinist reading them would probably reprimand him and accuse him of robbing god of sovereignty or worshiping human autonomy.
John Calvin understood his system represents moral and logical problems for the believer.
So he gives instructions:
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
What he is saying here is that you are to believe everything is determined in every part.
But go about your office *AS-IF* that is not true – in order to live normally.
So Calvin really does believe that everything in every part is determined specifically by god.
Another think you’ll find Calvinists saying – is “If it happened then god must have determined it to happen”
You see!
According to that thinking – absolutely nothing happens that Calvin’s god did not specifically determine.
The problem they then face is how that resolves morally.
It makes Calvin the author of evil.
Also Calvin himself rejects the idea that anything is “merely” permitted to happen.
Calvin called that idea revolting because it shows a sign of disrespect for divine sovereignty.
So in strict Calvinism every neurological impulse that enters into your brain is specifically determined by Calvin’s god.
Br.d
“So Calvin really does believe that everything in every part is determined specifically by god.”
“So in strict Calvinism every neurological impulse that enters into your brain is specifically determined by Calvin’s god.”
“The problem they then face is how that resolves morally. It makes Calvin the author of evil.”
Aidan:
I thought, perhaps, RH might not be a strict Calvinist in terms of what you’ve laid out. But, on the other hand, if its a case of hiding the truth about Calvin’s God; then it would seem that they know the doctrine is morally wrong. It certainly does make Calvin’s god the root cause of every evil act that has ever been committed. The fact that they are trying to put that on the true God of the bible, is profane and nothing short of blasphemy!
Well – when we say “they know it is morally wrong” I think all of the indicators are there for an open minded person to be able to see.
But due to their investment, they can’t allow themselves to see it.
So they are going to emphatically claim they don’t know any such thing.
And I should have added what Calvinist James White asserts.
That if any event – no matter how miniscule – comes to pass without Calvin’s god specifically authoring it, then that event would be void of purpose and would engender despair.
An example he uses is the rape of a small girl.
He emphatically asserts that if that rape was not specifically determined by Calvin’s god then it would be a purposeless event.
Br.d:
“And I should have added what Calvinist James White asserts.
That if any event – no matter how miniscule – comes to pass without Calvin’s god specifically authoring it, then that event would be void of purpose and would engender despair.”
“An example he uses is the rape of a small girl.
He emphatically asserts that if that rape was not specifically determined by Calvin’s god then it would be a purposeless event.”
Aidan:
That is truly disgusting and sick! What is wrong with these people? It beggars belief that someone could justify something like that. What kind of mind concocts a god like that, let alone want to serve it! I hadn’t really thought it through to that extent. All I can say, is that the scriptures make clear that, “God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil” (Eccl. 12:14). We would do well to remain fearful about what we have spoken in His name!
Aidan
What kind of mind concocts a god like that, let alone want to serve it!
br.d
Well many are convinced that it started with Augustine spending a century of his life immersed in Gnosticism and then more years than that in NeoPlatonism – and they his mixing of those doctrinal systems into his Catholic understanding of Christianity.
Both the Gnostic system and the NeoPlatonist system contain “Good-Evil” Dualism – where “Good” and “Evil” are believed to be Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary.
Calvinist John Edwards states why Evil is necessary:
-quote
“the shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the other do, and also the glory of his goodness, love and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.”
And yet, all it does is exalt evil to eternally Co-Exist with good in the very nature of their god. Since he is the source of every evil, it has Co-Existed with him in eternity, where they say he foreknew what he was going to do and planned every detail. The likes of Edwards don’t seem to think much of the One of whom it says, that ‘He is light and in Him is no darkness at all’ (1 Jon. 1:5).
It seems more like they need evil to exalt their own egocentric teaching.
Aidan
It seems more like they need evil to exalt their own egocentric teaching.
br.d
Yes – I agree – to me its pretty obvious they do need evil – I think because they need to explain how it manifests in a world in which nothing happens unless a god authors it.
But I also take note that their thinking always ends up being irrational.
And in Theological Determinism it logically follows – the THEOS is the SOURCE/ORIGIN of everything that comes to pass including evil.
But any sound logic that reflects badly on their system they will refuse to acknowledge
So they punt to mystery – and claim that evil has no source or origin.
Or they make-believe that events that occur within a causal chain don’t have a source.
Any time one scrutinizes their system using sound logic – it collapses into self-contradictions.
And that is why they use scripture as their primary tool of argument.
You remember the lawyer who tempted Jesus in Luke 10?
Jesus asked him two questions
1) What does the scripture say
2) How do *YOU* read it
That lawyer answered the first question by quoting scripture verbatim – just exactly like Calvinists do
And that lawyer obfuscated answering Jesus’ second question – just exactly like Calvinists often do
In other words, they want to claim their doctrine is demanded by scripture
While hiding the fact that what is being demanded is how *THEY* read it
Br.d:
You remember the lawyer who tempted Jesus in Luke 10?
Jesus asked him two questions
1) What does the scripture say
2) How do *YOU* read it
“In other words, they want to claim their doctrine is demanded by scripture
While hiding the fact that what is being demanded is how *THEY* read it”
Aidan:
That’s an excellent response which shows that those two very fundamental questions can either be used to bring ourselves in line with the truth, or to deceive and hide the truth. We see that same battle being played out between Christ and the devil in His temptation in the wilderness.
Mth. 4:6-7 – and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:
‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’
and,
‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’ ”
Nice post Aidan! Yes
Aidan writes, ‘We see that same battle being played out between Christ and the devil in His temptation in the wilderness.
Mth. 4:6-7 – and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:
He shall give His angels charge over you,’
and,‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’ ””
Jesus does not deny the truth of that which Satan quoted. The meaning was exactly what Satan said. Jesus said it would be tempting God for Him to do what Satan said. Thus, even you should not deny the truth of Ephesians 1.
rhutchin
Thus, even you should not deny the truth of Ephesians 1.
br.d
How many Calvinists does it take to manufacture a straw-man? :-]
rhutchin: “Thus, even you should not deny the truth of Ephesians 1.”
br.d: “How many Calvinists does it take to manufacture a straw-man? ”
LOL!!! That.s probably the closest you will ever get to denying Ephesians.
rhutchin
Thus, even you should not deny the truth of Ephesians 1.”
br.d
How many Calvinists does it take to manufacture a straw-man? ”
rhutchin
LOL!!! That.s probably the closest you will ever get to denying Ephesians.
br.d
What is a Calvinist Straw-man’s favorite past time?
Clutching at straws! :-]
In order to sustain their faulty system, Calvinism relies on a false perception of evil. Evil is not something God created. Evil is the absence of good, that is, ‘not-good’. When men refuse to value the life and well-being of others, evil is the result. When men refuse to love others as self, evil is the result. Evil is always the end result of a neglect of God’s good and perfect will – the absence of the good that God both desires and commands.
When man refuses to do the good that God would have him to do, the result is not-good, or Evil. Thus, under Calvinism, you have God commanding that men do good and ordaining that men not do what he commands (and desires) them to do. This creates a schizophrenic god, who both wills that men do good, and wills that men not do good.
As these two antithetical wills supposedly co-exit, man is held responsible for obeying the one will of God, which is opposed to the other will of God. Confusing? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Absurd? Yes. But that’s Calvinism for you. Compatibilism is essentially god-schizophrenia.
This definition of evil is good to know. It educates me a little more. But, they say, “Evil is not something God created?” Yet, he ordained it, willed it, and desired it? Therefore, it wouldn’t have come about except for him! Semantics of the lowest order!
Aidan
Semantics of the lowest order!
br.d
Bulls-eye Aidan!
When someone has to DOUBLE-SPEAK their way out of every tight corner – you know that isn’t divinely inspired
I listened to a recorded talk between a Non-Calvinist and Calvinist theologian the other day
I was not surprised to hear the non-Calvinist scholar bring up the subject of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
And was the Calvinist put off by that statement, or did he DOUBLE-DOWN on the DOUBLE-SPEAK?
That’s the issue of spiritual pride isn’t it!
Well – throughout the program, the Calvinist host and the Calvinist theologian made little subtle remarks at different times – displaying hints of contempt for the non-Calvinist theologian.
The Calvinist host of the program bristled at DOUBLE-SPEAK being brought up.
But the Calvinist theologian was a little more professional and simply said he didn’t see any.
Fair play to the non-Calvinist for having the courage to say what was needed.
TS00 writes, “Evil is not something God created. Evil is the absence of good, that is, ‘not-good’.”
“Evil” is not an entity or a created thing. We use the term. “evil,” to describe actions that God has declared wrong – “Thou shalt not…” or opposed to that which God says is good – “Love your neighbor.”
Then, “under Calvinism, you have God commanding that men do good and ordaining that men not do what he commands (and desires) them to do.”
So, God says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery. God then creates David with the ability to desire – to love, to hate, etc. David brings Bathsheba to his bed to commit adultery. God, of course, is aware of this and has the power and authority to prevent the whole affair. He doesn’t. Your conclusion, “This creates a schizophrenic god, who both wills that men do good, and wills that men not do good.” Is that the best you can do?
rhutchin
We use the term. “evil,” to describe actions that God has declared wrong – “Thou shalt not…” or opposed to that which God says is good – “Love your neighbor.”
br.d
Never expect a Calvinist to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes – Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will declares “evil” wrong.
While with his SECRET will – he FIRST CONCEIVES it in every part.
And then DOES NOT PERMIT people from escaping the “evil” he CONCEIVES
Westminster Confession
-quote
Although god knoweth whatsoever *MAY* or *CAN* come to pass upon all supposed *CONDITIONS*.
Yet hath He NOT decreed anything because He foresaw it as future
Or as that which *WOULD* come to pass upon such conditions.
John Piper
-quote
God looks at evil through his wide lense – and sees that evil brings glory to him and this gives him pleasure.
Yes – the problem of evil is the big bugaboo of Calvinism.
That’s why they play a tap-dance with “mere” permission
Explicitly rejecting it one minute – and then smuggling in some camouflaged form of it the next.
TSOO,
I think you are being a little too generous here! I don’t think RH, has conceded as much as you think. He likes to use counterfeit language that makes it look almost like the truth. I’m not as well versed on Calvinism as you are, but let’s break it down by looking at how RH defines things.
rh writes:
“. . . God makes man in His image. This means that man is independent and self-determining so that God does not initiate thoughts, or desires or action by the man. However, God understands the man He created and thereby knows the thoughts and desires that consume him or could consume him and the actions he wants to take – even before they enter his mind. God does not have to initiate a thought, desire, or action in the man. That is a builtin ability by virtue of being made in God’s image. As God is sovereign, He can bring the plans of a man to nothing or can harden the desires he has. Alternatively, God can soften his heart for the gospel and let the gospel change his thoughts, desires and actions.”
AIDAN:
1. “God makes man in His image” – Notice how limited RH’s definition is of that. He has limited it to man being – independent and self determining – BASED ON MAN’S DESIRES and THOUGHTS OF COURSE!
2. Notice then that RH adds in a qualifying “However”– However what RH? Either man is totally independent and self determining, or he’s not.
But what does RH say? He says, – “However, God understands the man He created and thereby knows the thoughts and desires that consume him or could consume him and the actions he wants to take – even before they enter his mind. God does not have to initiate a thought, desire, or action in the man.”
What’s RH talking about? – GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE!
3. Then he says, – “As God is sovereign, He can bring the plans of a man to nothing or can harden the desires he has. Alternatively, God can soften his heart for the gospel and let the gospel change his thoughts, desires and actions.”
What’s RH talking about? – GOD’S PREDETERMINATION!
– (elect and non-elect alike)
And from reading some of his other posts, RH seems to make foreknowledge and predetermination, pretty much as one and the same thing.
I wonder what a Calvinist believes God predetermines??? Hmmm!!
Yes a whole lot of Calvinists are actually semi-Calvinists :-]
br.d
Universal Divine Causal Determinism functions as canon for the Calvinist mind.”
rhutchin
Based on Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Even you don’t try to argue against this verse.
br.d
The fallacy here is to conflate scripture with a human interpretation of scripture.
And thus AUTO-MAGICALLY assume the Calvinist interpretation is canon.
In Universal Divine Causal Determinism – a human cannot have one thought, desire, or action that is UP TO HIM – as all things are determined *FOR* him.”
rhutchin
Not in Calvinism. In Calvinism, God makes man in His image……etc.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin
This is another example of going about your office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. your every thought, desire, action) are determined in every part”
Still following Calvin’s instructions I see! :-]
rhutchin: “Based on Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Even you don’t try to argue against this verse.”
br.d: The fallacy here is to conflate scripture with a human interpretation of scripture.”
The fallacy here is to define the straightforward rendering of a verse as an interpretation. If the verse does not mean what it appears to mean, what do you think it means (without involving an interpretation of the Scripture).
rhutchin
Based on Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Even you don’t try to argue against this verse.”
br.d
The fallacy here is to conflate scripture with a human interpretation of scripture.”
rhutchin
The fallacy here is to define the straightforward rendering of a verse as an interpretation. If the verse does not mean what it appears to mean, what do you think it means (without involving an interpretation of the Scripture).
br.d
If you don’t think your brain interprets data – then you have a bigger problem that this!
Jesus asks the lawyer who temps him two questions
1) What does the scripture say?
2) How do *YOU* read it?
You can take up your claim that you don’t’ interpret scripture with Jesus personally.
You don’t need my help with that.
And in the mean time – your interpretation is presuppositional – and simply designed to affirm Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Which will eventually lead you into IRRATIONAL dead ends and self contradictions
Which then the typical way of escape is being intellectually dishonest
This is the problem that Calvinists have, and other dogmatists. They are convinced that their interpretation of scripure equals the one, true, certain meaning. The honest, humble person realizes that NONE of their interpretations of scripture can be absolutely, unquestionably accurate.
This reality terrifies the dogmatist, whose authority rests upon his absolute certainty that he is always right. There are a few things of which I am utterly certain: that God is good, loving, faithful and trustworthy, for example. But his communications to us have not only gone through the fingers of mere mortal men, they have also been copied and translated by mere men, without the benefit of original autographs.
This introduces, by necessity, a certain degree of uncertainty. That is not to say that we can no nothing about what God intends us to know, but that it requires a good deal of careful study, and tossing out interpretations that negate and contradict the more obvious facts, such as the good and trustworthy character of God. I will freely throw out doctrines of the trinity, atonement theories, eschatology scenarios, and pretty much anything I ‘think’ scripture teaches, but I will never throw out my belief in the complete goodness and trustworthiness of God. That trumps all.
TS00 writes, “The honest, humble person realizes that NONE of their interpretations of scripture can be absolutely, unquestionably accurate.”
That’s fine. One can always advance a different understanding of a term, verse, or Scripture. People do it all the time. A good example is the first few verses of Romans 9. Calvinists say that Paul’s concern is for the individual salvation of Jews. Others say that Paul is speaking of corporate election of Israel to service. Then we have different views on harmonizing two Scripture such as (1) “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” and (2) “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” It happens. So, what happens, then? It is as you say, “…it requires a good deal of careful study, and tossing out interpretations that negate and contradict the more obvious facts…”
In this present discussion, br.d does not advance an interpretation of Ephesians 1:11. In fact, br.d pretty much never advances an interpretation of any Scripture that disagrees with Calvinism. I see that as an affirmation of Calvinism.
rhutchin
br.d does not advance an interpretation of Ephesians 1:11. In fact, br.d pretty much never advances an interpretation of any Scripture that disagrees with Calvinism. I see that as an affirmation of Calvinism.
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – you’ve provided an example of how your thinking works to interpret data
In this case – how you interpretation of br.d not advancing an interpretation.
Interestingly enough – your thinking pattern follows a pattern we see in politics right now.
President Trump – will appeal to the supreme court for a decision on a legal mater.
When Adam Schiff sees him doing that – he interprets that as an affirmation of obstruction of justice
So you can be proud to know – you and Adam Schiff share the same thinking pattern resulting in your interpretation
So we have another good example:
IRRATIONAL thinking will always result in an IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data. :-]
br.d writes, “Thank you rhutchin – you’ve provided an example of how your thinking works to interpret data
In this case – how you interpretation of br.d not advancing an interpretation.”
LOL!!! The lengths br.d goes to avoid saying anything.
br.d
“Thank you rhutchin – you’ve provided an example of how your thinking works to interpret data
In this case – how you interpretation of br.d not advancing an interpretation.”
rhutchin
LOL!!! The lengths br.d goes to avoid saying anything.
br.d
I’m sorry to say – that perception is totally yours alone rhutchin.
So Mr. Spock counts that now as FALSE perception #15
I still think Calvin’s god is having fun giving you those. :-]
So TRUE!
Sometimes I wonder if they really believe their interpretation is infallible – or whether their just playing a con game with fingers crossed behind their backs because some people do occasionally fall for that con game.
But the funny part is – according to their own doctrine – not one Calvinist is guaranteed to be elect – let alone infallible.
Under the scrutiny of logic – It doesn’t take long for a house of cards to fall apart.
RH writes: “God then creates David with the ability to desire – to love, to hate, etc. David brings Bathsheba to his bed to commit adultery. God, of course, is aware of this and has the power and authority to prevent the whole affair. He doesn’t.
Your conclusion, “This creates a schizophrenic god,
GA: The first part of that statement is totally true and you are sounding like an IN-Determinist. What Calvinism at select times hides is that God is the one who decreed for David to sin. Not that it was from his Free will as implied in your statement which is shape shifting that Calvinism employs. BUT That is NOT what Calvinism teaches. RH might be slowing converting to a free will idea…or is he just playing games again?
GraceAdict
[The Calvinist] might be slowing converting to a free will idea…or is he just playing games again?”
br.d
If history repeats itself – it is most certainly the later.
And I think if we focus primarily on what is called “mere” permission in Calvinism – we can clearly see the game being played is the classic SHELL-GAME.
Strict and consistent Calvinism totally rejects “mere” permission – because it entails Libertarian Freedom
But then just wait and watch – and you will see how “mere” permission gets SMUGGLED back in – in camouflaged form.
As Ravi Zacharias says:
Any time you deny an absolute, sooner or later you will SMUGGLE one back in.
And this is done by DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points
GraceAdict writes, ” What Calvinism at select times hides is that God is the one who decreed for David to sin.”
No Calvinist hides this.. As God is present when David embarks on his adultery, it is God who has the power and authority to stop the adultery and God decides to do nothing thereby decreeing the adultery. Of course, God understood these events before He created the universe and His decision was made before He created.
Then, ‘Not that it was from his Free will as implied in your statement which is shape shifting that Calvinism employs. BUT That is NOT what Calvinism teaches.”
David’s actions were prompted by his sexual desire for Bathsheba. Therefore, David had compatibilistic freedom. For David to display LFW, his action would have had to be spontaneous without any prior desire. The Scriptures clearly explain that David plotted to get Bathsheba to fulfill his sexual desire., so it could not have been spontaneous as LFW requires.
Then, “RH might be slowing converting to a free will idea…or is he just playing games again?”
I maintain that people act from their desires – a notion rejected by LFW.
GraceAdict writes, ” What Calvinism at select times hides is that God is the one who decreed for David to sin.”
rhutchin
No Calvinist hides this.. As God is present when David embarks on his adultery, it is God who has the power and authority to stop David from…..etc
br.d
Yeh – and Calvin’s god is going to stop something from happening that was never going to happen unless he decreed it to happen in the first place!
Like the engineer who decreed his bio-robot to walk only 5 feet
And then claimed he restrained it from walking 10 feet :-]
In a fully deterministic world – divine restraint and prevention are really nothing more than deterministic SIMULATIONS of restraining and preventing events that were never going to happen.
br.d writes, “Yeh – and Calvin’s god is going to stop something from happening that was never going to happen unless he decreed it to happen in the first place!”
Once God decides, His decision becomes immutable. God doesn’t stop something He has decreed. You understand this. However, for other people, you have to explain it with God acting in present time. Telling them that God decided in eternity past just seems to confuse them.
br.d
“Yeh – and Calvin’s god is going to stop something from happening that was never going to happen unless he decreed it to happen in the first place!”
rhutchin
Once God decides, His decision becomes immutable. God doesn’t stop something He has decreed. You understand this.
br.d
TRUE
And therefore it is DOUBLE-SPEAK to say something is being “restrained” that was never going to happen in the first place.
rhutchin
However, for other people, you have to explain it with God acting in present time. Telling them that God decided in eternity past just seems to confuse them.
br.d
FALSE
Once a person understands that Calvinism represents a FULLY deterministic world – one can connect the dots.
These are actually events that were never actually going to be actualized in the first place.
Because the only way they could possibly happen is by immutable decree.
To say an event was “restrained” when that event was never ever actually going to happen.
In a FULLY deterministic world – divine restraint and divine prevention is only LOGICALLY possible via a deterministic SIMULATION.
br.d writes, ‘Once a person understands that Calvinism represents a FULLY deterministic world – one can connect the dots.”
God is omniscient and has a perfect knowledge of the future. Once God creates, everything else falls in line.
Then, ‘These are actually events that were never actually going to be actualized in the first place.
Because the only way they could possibly happen is by immutable decree.”
That decree would have to have been included in the original decree made in eternity past.
Then, “To say an event was “restrained” when that event was never ever actually going to happen.”
In the course of time some events would be initiated (e.g., the impregnation of Mary) or it could not happen and some events would need to be restrained (e.g., the protection of Israel) or it could not have happened. God’s immutable decree included God acting in time to bring about His decree.
Then, “In a FULLY deterministic world – divine restraint and divine prevention is only LOGICALLY possible via a deterministic SIMULATION.”
Not really. We have many examples where God’s restraint was an integral part of His decree. God restrained the Jews until the proper time for Christ to be crucified. Saul was restrained on the road to Damascus and completely turned around.
br.d
Once a person understands that Calvinism represents a FULLY deterministic world – one can connect the dots.
rhutchin
God is omniscient and has a perfect knowledge of the future. Once God creates, everything else falls in line.
br.d
That’s what sets Calvinism apart – its a 100% deterministic world.
These are actually events that were never actually going to be actualized in the first place.
Because the only way they could possibly happen is by immutable decree.
rhutchin
That decree would have to have been included in the original decree made in eternity past.
br.d
And thus EVERYTHING in EVERY PART is 100% scripted in advance.
To say an event was “restrained” when that event was never ever actually going to happen
rhutchin
God’s immutable decree included God acting in time to bring about His decree.
br.d
Right – every micro-part of it TOTALLY and COMPLETELY pre-determined to follow a micro-second-by-micro-second SCRIPT.
In a FULLY deterministic world – divine restraint and divine prevention is only LOGICALLY possible via a deterministic SIMULATION.”
rhutchin
Not really.
br,d
That depends upon how “really” is perceived within a person’s brain
The human brain is capable of accepting SIMULATIONS as real
rhutchin
We have many examples where God’s restraint was an integral part of His decree. God restrained the Jews until the proper time for Christ to be crucified. Saul was restrained on the road to Damascus and completely turned around.
br.d
Congratulations! Those narratives are all LOGICALLY coherent within an IN-deterministic world.
However in a FULLY Deterministic world:
It is a LOGICAL impossibility to restrain what is never ever going to come to pass.
And what is DECREED to come to pass – is LOGICALLY impossible to restrain or prevent.
And NOTHING is even going to start to can come to pass without it being immutably DECREED.
And thus the only LOGICAL possibility is a to create **SIMULATIONS** of divine restraint and divine prevention.
SIMULATING events that never had any chance of even starting to come to pass – making them look *AS-IF* they were going to come to pass in order to be prevented..
So here we are again with Calvin’s THINKING process
Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (in this case SIMULATED events) are not determined in every part
This is Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
It is a psychological consequence of a FULLY deterministic world.
br.d
“Right – every micro-part of it TOTALLY and COMPLETELY pre-determined to follow a micro-second-by-micro-second SCRIPT.
In a FULLY deterministic world – divine restraint and divine prevention is only LOGICALLY possible via a deterministic SIMULATION.”
rhutchin
“Not really.”
br,d
“That depends upon how “really” is perceived within a person’s brain
The human brain is capable of accepting SIMULATIONS as real”
rhutchin
“We have many examples where God’s restraint was an integral part of His decree. God restrained the Jews until the proper time for Christ to be crucified. Saul was restrained on the road to Damascus and completely turned around.”
br.d
“Congratulations! Those narratives are all LOGICALLY coherent within an IN-deterministic world.”
Perfect illustration of what I just stated.
How many times – too many to count – has br.d pointed out that if Calvi-god predetermines all things, and no other power is behind anything that comes to pass, there is nothing to restrain and nothing to prevent? Take one of rh’s favorite illustrations – Joseph being sold by his brothers.
If all of this event was predetermined by God, he would have to be playing games. He would have to first predetermine that Joseph’s brothers desire to kill Joseph, then predetermine to restrain them from doing so. For what purpose? All theater.
rh: “”We have many examples where God’s restraint was an integral part of His decree.”
Uh, no. Actually we have many examples in which God’s restraint was an integral part of his dealings with men, which only makes logical sense if he does not deterministically decree whatsoever comes to pass. Calvi-god would have nothing to interfere unless A) he had already determined that man desire to do the evil he then decides to prevent or B) men originate their own choices, under no deterministic necessity. So much doublespeak nonsense, all the time.
br.d writes, ‘That’s what sets Calvinism apart – its a 100% deterministic world.”
Actually Molinism agrees with this as the world God chooses to create under Molinism is the world described by Calvinists. In addition, anyone who believes God is omniscient – knowing all actual future events – also agrees with the Calvinists.
God has an infinite understanding of His creation and this infinite understanding enables God to work (ordain) all things according to the counsel of His will and in ordaining all things, God knows all things that will happen.
br.d
‘That’s what sets Calvinism apart – its a 100% deterministic world.”
rhutchin
Actually Molinism agrees with this as the world God chooses to create under Molinism is the world described by Calvinists.
br.d
FALSE
This reveals a very superficial knowledge of Molinism.
The difference between Molinism and Calvinism is it replaces the “UNIVERSAL” in “Universal Divine Causal Determinism” with “Particular”.
So Molinism would be “Particular Divine Causal Determinism”
rhutchin
In addition, anyone who believes God is omniscient – knowing all actual future events – also agrees with the Calvinists.
br.d
This reveals a FALSE understanding of Middle Knowledge
rhutchin
God has an infinite understanding of His creation and this infinite understanding
br.d
You might just as well be appealing to Middle knowledge with this statement.
rhutchin
which enables God to work (ordain) all things according to the counsel of His will and in ordaining all things, God knows all things that will happen.
br.d
If you listened to a dialog between Molinist Professor Kirk MagGregor and Calvinist Dr. Tony Costa on this very topic you would see that the two of them acknowledge there is a difference.
And Dr. Tony Costa expresses it as:
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god’s decrees are not influenced or based upon taking into account any knowledge concerning any conditions of what would exist concerning the creature.
br.d writes:
““In a FULLY deterministic world – divine restraint and divine prevention is only LOGICALLY possible via a deterministic SIMULATION.”
rh writes:
“Not really. We have many examples where God’s restraint was an integral part of His decree. God restrained the Jews until the proper time for Christ to be crucified. Saul was restrained on the road to Damascus and completely turned around.”
What we see here is rh holding to a doctrine that asserts one thing, then quoting scripture which contradicts this assertion, while pretending as if there is no disconnect. He is really good at playing this game. When someone points out that Calvinism contradicts scripture, he throws up similar scriptures, as if they do not also contradict. It’s the darnedest thing.
TS00 writes: What we see here is rh holding to a doctrine that asserts one thing, then quoting scripture which contradicts this assertion, while pretending as if there is no disconnect. He is really good at playing this game. When someone points out that Calvinism contradicts scripture, he throws up similar scriptures, as if they do not also contradict. It’s the darnedest thing.
GA: This Captures perfectly what RH does…when he tries to cover his error with a scripture text. I used to think maybe he didn’t see the inconsistency and disconnect and needed it pointed out but I now realize it is a TACTIC to cover up how unbiblical his statement is. This is TACTIC # 342 in the manual of Calvinist Tactics.
You are correct to call what he does as “WORD THUGGERY”
TS00 – your insights and descriptions are spot on. Much appreciated.
TS00 writes, “What we see here is rh holding to a doctrine that asserts one thing, then quoting scripture which contradicts this assertion, while pretending as if there is no disconnect. He is really good at playing this game. When someone points out that Calvinism contradicts scripture, he throws up similar scriptures, as if they do not also contradict. It’s the darnedest thing.”
What are you talking about? It would be nice if you could explain how your comment relates to the discussion. What Scripture that I cited contradicts Calvinism?
rhutchin
What are you talking about? It would be nice if you could explain how your comment relates to the discussion. What Scripture that I cited contradicts Calvinism?
br.d
TS00 hit the bulls-eye once again! :-]
This so-called corrupt nature and a lack of faith, as you know, are directly related in the doctrine of Total Depravity.
Take way the teaching of an inherited corrupt nature, and this “faith” that the special few are endowed with – falls with it.
Aidan writes, “Take way the teaching of an inherited corrupt nature, and this “faith” that the special few are endowed with – falls with it.”
Even without the corrupted nature, there is no faith. This because faith comes b hearing the gospel regardless the condition of the nature. However, Paul teaches of the inherited corrupted nature in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 1. So, how do you undo the Scripture?
RH wrote,
Even without the corrupted nature, there is no faith. This because faith comes b hearing the gospel regardless the condition of the nature. However, Paul teaches of the inherited corrupted nature in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 1. So, how do you undo the Scripture?
Aidan writes:
“Even without the corrupted nature, there is no faith” – Yeah! in babies; how then does the kingdom of heaven belong to such?
Then; “This because faith comes by hearing the gospel regardless the condition of the nature.” No, not regardless of their condition, but because they have sinned ( just like Adam and Eve did) and fallen short of the glory of God. Their condition as a result, now becomes dead in THEIR trespasses and sins. Therefore they need to BELIEVE that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all those who believe. But, men walked by faith long before the gospel was revealed.
How does Romans 8 and 1 Cor. 1 teach “inherited corrupted nature”? – Inherited – being the operative word here!
Aiden writes, “Even without the corrupted nature, there is no faith” – Yeah! in babies; how then does the kingdom of heaven belong to such?”
And Paul writes in Romans 10, “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Let’s compare this with your Scripture about babies and see if they can be reconciled.
Then, “Then; “This because faith comes by hearing the gospel regardless the condition of the nature.” No, not regardless of their condition,…”
Regardless whether a person has a corrupt nature or not, faith still comes by hearing. Your point is that faith is necessitated by one’s sin and all have sinned.
Romans 4 says, “Christ was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” Christ died to deal with sin and was resurrected to deal with righteousness or to make the corrupt nature righteous. Faith appropriates both forgiveness for sin and the imputation of righteousness.
The gospel was first preached to Adam and to God’s elect from then on.
Then, “How does Romans 8 and 1 Cor. 1 teach “inherited corrupted nature”? – Inherited – being the operative word here!”
Romans 8 divides people into flesh (unsaved) and Spirit (saved). 1 Corinthians divides people into the natural (unsaved) and spiritual (saved). Then, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him (he has no faith); nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” and “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God (they are without faith).” Since faith is a gift from God, the necessity for the gift precedes the giving of the gift. If people are born with faith, or as spiritual, there would not be a need later to give them faith or make them spiritual.
RH wrote:
And Paul writes in Romans 10, “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Let’s compare this with your Scripture about babies and see if they can be reconciled.
Aidan writes:
There is no corrupted nature in babies who are all created in the image of God. Jesus said, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore , all your passages like Romans 10 are not written for the little babies, but are for the likes of us adults, or at least those old enough to have sinned. And old enough to be able to hear, understand, and believe in order to be saved. You are wasting your time trying to apply these passages to little babies.
RH wrote:
Your point is that faith is necessitated by one’s sin and all have sinned.
Romans 4 says, “Christ was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” Christ died to deal with sin and was resurrected to deal with righteousness or to make the corrupt nature righteous. Faith appropriates both forgiveness for sin and the imputation of righteousness.
Aidan writes:
My point is that salvation is necessitated by one’s sin and all have sinned – eventually.
Therefore, all your quotations such as Romans 10, and Romans 4 above are wasted on innocent, sinless, pure creatures such as babies. By all means apply them to adults and to all who have sinned, but not to babies – for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
RH wrote:
The gospel was first preached to Adam and to God’s elect from then on.
Aidan Writes:
But in regard to the salvation which has now been revealed:
2 Tim. 1:10 – “but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,”
1 Pet. 1:12 – “To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.”
Then, “How does Romans 8 and 1 Cor. 1 teach “inherited corrupted nature”? – Inherited – being the operative word here!”
To which you quote some verses from each of these chapters with not one verse mentioning “INHERITED corrupted nature.” But you read into them that presupposition, which is never warranted, and is a huge mistake. Again, such passages only apply to those who are old enough to have sinned and to believe, not to innocent sinless children.
Aidan writes, “…all your passages like Romans 10 are not written for the little babies, but are for the likes of us adults…”
They are written to emphasize the need to be born again and thereby enabled to see and enter the kingdom of heaven (i.e., be saved). When one is born again, or reborn, he becomes as a little child. In the Scripture you cite, little children (including presumable, babies) were brought to Jesus to be blessed. It was the parents who understood who Jesus was. Even not, believers are bringing their little children to Jesus through prayer and Biblical instruction. The Scripture you cite does not seem to apply necessarily to all little children/babies but only to those brought to Jesus by others.
Then, “My point is that salvation is necessitated by one’s sin and all have sinned – eventually.”
So, your philosophy is that everyone is born as a saved person and eventually all forfeit salvation necessitating that they be saved again. It is a popular position and negates the concerns about abortion.
Then, “But in regard to the salvation which has now been revealed:
2 Tim. 1:10 – “…our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,”
1 Pet. 1:12 – “To them it was revealed…those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven…”
So, we agree on the necessity of the gospel in the salvation process, presumable because it is the means God sues to convey faith to His elect.
Then, ‘To which you quote some verses from each of these chapters with not one verse mentioning “INHERITED corrupted nature.” But you read into them that presupposition, which is never warranted, and is a huge mistake.”
Let’s add Romans 9, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” This identifies those who are the children of promise as God’s elect. It says, “nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham;” Under your philosophy, all children would be born children of promise and then lose their salvation when they sinned. However, Paul adds, “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).” So, even before Esau was born, and not based on any evil (sin) he did, he was excluded from the children of promise.
rhutchin,
You can’t resurrect from the dead until you FIRST DIE FROM BEING ALIVE.
You can’t be born AGAIN, until you first DIE from being SPIRITUALLY ALIVE.
Babies are NOT SPIRITUALLY DEAD to begin with, because they haven’t DIED SPIRITUALLY YET.
Romans 7, when you get KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, THEN YOU DIE. Then born “AGAIN” makes sense.
To say that born again means FIRST BORN NATURALLY THRU A WOMB, THEN SPIRITUALLY is NOT born AGAIN.
BORN AGAIN IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, which can’t come until you were PREVIOUSLY spiritually alive.
To put it simply, CHILDREN are NOT LOST, and why? Because the savior STILL LIVES IN THEIR BODIES. Once they KNOW their sin, then the savior DEPARTS their bodies, and that is known as SPIRITUAL DEATH, and THEN there is a need to be BORN ONE MORE TIME (AGAIN), SPIRITUALLY.
Ed Chapman
RH wrote:
Aidan writes, “…all your passages like Romans 10 are not written for the little babies, but are for the likes of us adults…”
They are written to emphasize the need to be born again and thereby enabled to see and enter the kingdom of heaven (i.e., be saved). When one is born again, or reborn, he becomes as a little child. In the Scripture you cite, little children (including presumable, babies) were brought to Jesus to be blessed. It was the parents who understood who Jesus was. Even not, believers are bringing their little children to Jesus through prayer and Biblical instruction. The Scripture you cite does not seem to apply necessarily to all little children/babies but only to those brought to Jesus by others.
Aidan writes:
Seriously? What utter nonsense!
RH wrote:
Then, “My point is that salvation is necessitated by one’s sin and all have sinned – eventually.”
So, your philosophy is that everyone is born as a saved person and eventually all forfeit salvation necessitating that they be saved again. It is a popular position and negates the concerns about abortion.
Aidan writes:
What utter nonsense! You have yet to present any scripture to prove that babies are born totally depraved with a corrupted nature. You can’t be “born as a saved person” if you never had sinned and never needed salvation in the first place. It might be more correct to say that babies are born safe. Your comment about abortion is disgusting to say the least! Tell me, what happens to your so-called non-elect babies when they die? Care to enlighten us?
Aidan wrote:
“To which you quote some verses from each of these chapters with not one verse mentioning “INHERITED corrupted nature.” But you read into them that presupposition, which is never warranted, and is a huge mistake.”
RH wrote:
Let’s add Romans 9, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” This identifies those who are the children of promise as God’s elect. It says, “nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham;” Under your philosophy, all children would be born children of promise and then lose their salvation when they sinned. However, Paul adds, “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).” So, even before Esau was born, and not based on any evil (sin) he did, he was excluded from the children of promise.
Aidan writes:
Sorry, where does it mention or infer “INHERITED corrupt nature?” Just point out the verse! In Romans 9, the apostle Paul explains God’s sovereign right to choose whomever He wants for the accomplishing of His purposes. It says nothing about applying that to their salvation. Again, babies are already safe, and are not in need of salvation. God would never cast them out of His kingdom! But for those who need salvation? Have you not read:
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:26-29).
Aiden writes, “Sorry, where does it mention or infer “INHERITED corrupt nature?” Just point out the verse! In Romans 9, the apostle Paul explains God’s sovereign right to choose whomever He wants for the accomplishing of His purposes.”
(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
RH, quotes:
(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
Aidan writes:
“Sorry, still don’t see where it mentions or infers “INHERITED corrupt nature?” In fact, it suggests that they were both innocent: “nor having done any good or evil,”
Again, no mention of “INHERITED corrupt nature” as the reason for any choice made here!
You’ll have to explain how you got that from this verse.
Aidan, and EVERYONE, too.
You had said:
“Sorry, still don’t see where it mentions or infers “INHERITED corrupt nature?” In fact, it suggests that they were both innocent: “nor having done any good or evil,”
Again, no mention of “INHERITED corrupt nature” as the reason for any choice made here!
You’ll have to explain how you got that from this verse.
My response:
I think that the word CORRUPT is being misapplied by rhutchin, and MANY in the Calvinist world. I will show why in a moment.
But, Calvinists LOVE to hammer down on Romans 5, in that we did inherit SOMETHING from the sin of Adam, and it IS corruption, but NOT the corruption that rhutchin discusses.
Calvinists are EQUATING the word corrupt the word “SIN”, thereby making it sound as tho we INHERITED A sin “NATURE”. To them, sin and corrupt are like synonyms.
Its like in the KJV the word SUFFER. Now, you are closer to England that I am, and we both speak English, but I never spoke 16th Century English. But just BETWIXT thou and I, I do SUFFER from a little back pain now and then.
I’ve since found out that the word SUFFER, in the KJV is more close to the REGULAR modern day “PERMIT”, aka PERMIT THE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME”.
Now, for the word CORRUPT:
First, From the KJV
Acts 2:27
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Acts 13:34
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Acts 13:35
Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 13:36
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
Acts 13:37
But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
———————–
Now, from the NIVR
Acts 2:27
You will not leave me in the place of the dead. You will not let your holy one rot away.
Acts 2:31
David saw what was coming. So he spoke about the Messiah rising from the dead. He said that the Messiah would not be left in the place of the dead. His body wouldn’t rot in the ground.
————————————-
OK, so the gist of it, CORRUPTION is NOT ABOUT SIN, but about the DECAYING of the body in PHYSICAL DEATH, hence we inherited physical death from Adam.
1 Corinthians 15 ALSO DISCUSSES A corrupt body (body that saw DEATH (THE ROTTING AWAY OF SKIN AND ORGANS TO THE BONE):
1 Corinthians 15:42
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1 Corinthians 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1 Corinthians 15:53
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1 Corinthians 15:54
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
————————————-
THEREFORE, rhutchin’s use of the word CORRUPTION, as meaning SIN,IS OUT OF LINE, no different than OUR USAGE of SUFFER (the little children).
The only thing we inherited from Adam, was PHYSICAL DEATH, the synonym being CORRUPT, or, THE ROTTING OF THE SKIN and ORGANS OF THE BODY.
If Adam would have eaten of the TREE OF LIFE…WE WOULD HAVE INHERITED ETERNAL LIFE.
But I never see anyone talking about THAT TREE. It’s as tho it was NEVER IN THE GARDEN, AN INSIGNIFICANT TREE THAT NO ONE TALKS ABOUT. I am always wondering why no one talks about that tree, ESPECIALLY in light of what we would have inherited.
BUT, and this is my final segment, WHAT IF ADAM NEVER ATE OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, MEANING, OBEYED GOD, BUT, ALSO NEVER ATE OF THE TREE OF LIFE, TOO????????????
WOULD ADAM HAVE LIVED ETERNALLY, OR WOULD HE HAVE DIED ANYWAY?
THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
CAN ANYONE ANSWER THAT?
SORRY FOR THE CAPS. I’M NOT SHOUTING, I AM WHISPERING VERY LOUDLY….LOL
Ed Chapman
ED, writ in the 16th century,
Calvinists are EQUATING the word corrupt the word “SIN”, thereby making it sound as tho we INHERITED A sin “NATURE”. To them, sin and corrupt are like synonyms.
Aidan writes:
That makes sense, because, otherwise, he needs to explain how you are born dead, separated from God, not having sinned? Don’t make sense! And, he still can’t find any verse that either explicitly says, or necessarily infers that babies are born with an inherited corrupt nature.
I agree that the consequence of Adam’s sin is physical death in the world. And because of him sin entered into this world. Yer on your own with the tree of life question.
Aiden,
Agreed. And most reformed folks do seem to tell me that I am on my own regarding the tree of life issue, proving that NO ONE WANTS TO GO THERE!, which baffles me to no end.
Ed
I think its just an excuse for their sin. That’s just way he made me! Keep asking for book, chapter and verse please, because there’s none! But there are plenty of verses that teach that we are born innocent, loved and belonging to the kingdom of heaven! And, none that would suggest otherwise.
If he can’t give you an explicit statement, ask not for a mere inference, but for a “necessary” inference, and if he can’t give you a necessary inference, ask for an example, and if he can’t give you and example, he’s left with nothing but Calvin; which is pretty much where he started from.
Ask Adam and Eve, you don’t need a ‘sin nature’ to commit sin.
Aidan writes, “Ask Adam and Eve, you don’t need a ‘sin nature’ to commit sin.”
That serves to emphasize the how the sin nature affects to ability of a person to not sin. Per Paul, “to be carnally minded [have a sin nature] is death…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh [have no faith] cannot please God.”
rhutchin,
Calvinists constant reference regarding carnal minded vs spiritual minded has nothing to do with the point they try to make.
example…
Jesus is the promised seed, according to Galatians.
That’s spiritual.
Isaac is the promised seed in the carnal.
That’s just a small example. The law of Moses is carnal. The law of faith is spiritual.
The law of Moses is the law of sin and death. The law of Christ is life.
That’s what it boils down to.
Stop thinking about the law of Moses, the law of sin. That’s death.
Ed Chapman
Aidan
Ask Adam and Eve, you don’t need a ‘sin nature’ to commit sin.”
rhutchin
That serves to emphasize the how the sin nature affects to ability of a person to not sin. Per Paul, “to be carnally minded [have a sin nature] is death…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh [have no faith] cannot please God.”
br.d
rhutchin – you are funny!
How many times have I seen a production of evidence that disproves your own claim
Adam and Eve did not need a sin nature to commit sin
And that “supposedly” emphasizes how a sin nature (which Adam and Eve didn’t have prior to sin) affects their ability to sin.
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin writes:
“That serves to emphasize the how the sin nature affects to ability of a person to not sin. Per Paul, “to be carnally minded [have a sin nature] is death…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh [have no faith] cannot please God.”
So you understand this comment? I must need more sleep.
In any case, what I do see is the Calvinist’s deeply illogical conception of faith. If faith is viewed as a missing object, it turns man into deliberately damaged goods. If Toyota made cars without brakes, then blamed the consumer for crashing, people would call that crazy, or evil. Yet Calvi-god makes damaged human beings missing the only element that will make them acceptable in his eyes, then blames and punishes them for its absence. This would be crazy, evil or both.
Apart from the desperate Calvinist, every other thinking person defines the word faith as an internal decision to trust in someone or something. Doctors, lawyers or any other practitioners do not mail out doses of faith to get customers – they have to demonstrate knowledge, skill and integrity in order to win customers’ trust and business.
The same is true of God. He doesn’t have to hand out secret doses of faith to get people to trust him – he simply demonstrates his trustworthiness and leaves it to the individual to choose as they will. If we do not believe he has the character, skill, power and integrity to do as he promises, that is our choice. Only Calvinism suggests that God is unable to win ‘customers’ the normal way – by an impeccable and spotless reputation.
TS00
If Toyota made cars without brakes, then blamed the consumer for crashing, people would call that crazy, or evil.
br.d
Yeh – but Calvin’s god is the sovereign gorilla of the jungle.
So according to the law of the jungle – he gets to do whatever he wants!
And on their own doctrine – the only way anyone could complain about it – is if Calvin’s god MAKES them complain – so he can then judge them for complaining.
Its quite the THEOS they’ve got there isn’t it! :-]
TS00 writes, “In any case, what I do see is the Calvinist’s deeply illogical conception of faith. If faith is viewed as a missing object, it turns man into deliberately damaged goods.”
Hebrews 11 tells us that faith is assurance and conviction. In your example, “If Toyota made cars without brakes, then blamed the consumer for crashing, people would call that crazy, or evil,” when people actually would have no assurance or conviction that Toyota cars would stop, so no one would buy Toyota cars. So, without faith (in Christ), no one has assurance and conviction that Christ is salvation, and no one would accept salvation. So, if Toyota puts brakes in its cares, people buy Toyotas. Similarly, if God gives people faith, then people accept salvation.
Then, “Apart from the desperate Calvinist, every other thinking person defines the word faith as an internal decision to trust in someone or something.”
Every thinking person defines faith as assurance and conviction. That assurance and conviction is the basis for an internal decision to trust in someone or something.
Then, “The same is true of God. He doesn’t have to hand out secret doses of faith to get people to trust him – he simply demonstrates his trustworthiness and leaves it to the individual to choose as they will.”
The Calvinist says, following John 6, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me,” God demonstrates his trustworthiness thereby the person receives assurance and conviction in Christ. With assurance and conviction, the person chooses salvation in Christ.
If a person does not believe, he has not been taught by God. We know this because Proverbs tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding and wisdom. Any one with understanding and wisdom has received these after having heard and learned from God.
rhutchin
“If Toyota made cars without brakes, then blamed the consumer for crashing, people would call that crazy, or evil,” when people actually would have no assurance or conviction that Toyota cars would stop, so no one would buy Toyota cars. So, without faith (in Christ), no one has assurance and conviction that Christ is salvation, and no one would accept salvation. So, if Toyota puts brakes in its cares, people buy Toyotas. Similarly, if God gives people faith, then people accept salvation.
br.d
rhutchin – It always amazes me that you can consider your statements RATIONAL
Here you’ve conflated a person buying a product with that person being that product.
The irony here is that in Calvinism – in both cases – one is more likely to end up with a FALSE product.
– Calvin’s god designs the vast majority of cars without brakes – so they are not Faith Worthy
– Calvin’s god gives a FALSE faith to the vast majority of people he gives faith to – making them accept a FALSE salvation.
Neither of these speaks much of FAITH WORTHINESS. :-]
br.d writes, “Here you’ve conflated a person buying a product with that person being that product.”
I think TS00 got it wrong. Toyota produces cars that people buy like God produces salvation that a person accepts. No one buys a Toyota without brakes as no one accepts salvation without faith. If Toyota installs brakes in its cars, people buy them just people accept salvation when God gives them faith.
TS00 wrote, “If Toyota made cars without brakes, then blamed the consumer for crashing, people would call that crazy, or evil,” No one would buy a car without brakes as that is really irrational. So, TS00 should have said, “If Toyota made cars without brakes, then blamed the consumer for not buying the car, that would be irrational.” Responding to my comment, TS00 could then say, “If God made people without faith, then blamed blamed for not accepting salvation, that would be irrational.” God does not do that. God makes people without faith, then judges them for their sin. The one who receives faith receives mercy; the one who does not receive faith receives justice. Neither outcome is irrational as neither receives injustice.
br.d
Here you’ve conflated a person buying a product with that person being that product.”
rhutchin
I think TS00 got it wrong. ….etc
br.d
All of that to bail yourself out!
It is fun to watch! :-]
br.d writes, “Adam and Eve did not need a sin nature to commit sin And that “supposedly” emphasizes how a sin nature (which Adam and Eve didn’t have prior to sin) affects their ability to sin.”
This is not difficult. If Adam could sin without a sin nature, how much more should a person who has a sin nature also sin.
br.d
rhutchin – you are funny!
How many times have I seen a production of evidence that disproves your own claim
Adam and Eve did not need a sin nature to commit sin
And that “supposedly” emphasizes how a sin nature (which Adam and Eve didn’t have prior to sin) affects their ability to sin.
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
This is not difficult. If Adam could sin without a sin nature, how much more should a person who has a sin nature also sin.
br.d
Sure but that additional point is peripheral to the original fallacious statement.
Aidan writes, “That makes sense, because, otherwise, he needs to explain how you are born dead, separated from God, not having sinned? Don’t make sense! ”
To be born dead is to be born unrighteous – having a sin nature – because of which one sins. ” The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.’ (Psalm 58)
Absolutely and Amen! You may get me shouting, er whispering loudly! We inherited death from Adam, not a corrupted nature. Who can imagine a God who deliberately curse innocent (unborn) men with a corrupt nature? Why in the world would he do such a thing? IT IS UNTHINKABLE. It is also untrue.
Even at the very moment when God confronted Adam and issued the warned of curse of death, he offered hope for redemption, as that was always in his plan. God does not desire death, and he certainly does not desire a corrupt, unavoidably sinful mankind.
God loves mankind. There is nothing he desires more than to rescue each of us from our deception and seduction by the evil one who uses our fleshly nature (the sensual desires necessary to continue life) against us. He also desires to grant us the freely offered remedy of the curse of death, gained for us by Jesus.
God is not our enemy. We do not need to be saved from him. This is the biggest lie of Satan, and, unfortunately, the lie that too much of christianity has embraced. Especially Calvinism.
TS00,
PREACH IT, cuz that’s it right there!
TS00 writes, “There is nothing he desires more than to rescue each of us from our deception and seduction by the evil one who uses our fleshly nature (the sensual desires necessary to continue life) against us. He also desires to grant us the freely offered remedy of the curse of death, gained for us by Jesus. ”
Same thing the Universalist says.
In saying this, the Universalist is correct, whatever errors he may otherwise hold to. I affirm the same wholly good, gracious and loving God as the Universalist, however I would maintain that God does not trespass the free choice with which he created man. Each individual must decide what he will do with the free offer of grace. Sadly, it would seem that some reject it.
I utterly reject the cruel, heartless, unloving and deceptive god of Calvinism, who creates people to destroy, while blithely claiming ‘I desire that none perish’. Who disingenuously call to the hurting, ‘Come to me, and I will give you rest’ when he never had the slightest intention of offering most of them any such thing.
God’s proclamations of love, mercy and kindness are real, and not limited to a select few. Whosoever will may come, nor is he deceptively preventing them with a secretly decreed inability that makes them unwilling and unable.
TS00 writes, “Each individual must decide what he will do with the free offer of grace. Sadly, it would seem that some reject it.”
The only reason a person rejects the free offer of grace is because they have no faith – no assurance and conviction in the trustworthiness of God. Anyone who has faith accepts the free offer of grace – because they have assurance and conviction in the trustworthiness of God.
rhutchin
The only reason a person rejects the free offer of grace is because they have no faith
br.d
Calvinist language is SO SLIPPERY!
Its more truthful to say:
The reasons a person rejects the free offer of grace is:
1) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT that grace to be a gift designated for that person
2) Calvin’s god pre-determined that person’s choice *FOR* that person before that person was born
3) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT that person to accept that gift – which was not designated for that person in the first place.
br.d writes, “Its more truthful to say:
The reasons a person rejects the free offer of grace is:
1) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT that grace to be a gift designated for that person
2) Calvin’s god pre-determined that person’s choice *FOR* that person before that person was born
3) Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT that person to accept that gift – which was not designated for that person in the first place.”
Or the short form, “God does not give a person faith.” God need only give faith to those He has chosen to give to Christ.
rhutchin
Or the short form, “God does not give a person faith.” God need only give faith to those He has chosen to give to Christ.
br.d
Oh yea – I forgot about the floppy disk called “Born TD” input into the brain at birth – replaced with the disk called “faith”.
Thanks for reminding me! :-]
Aidan writes, “Again, no mention of “INHERITED corrupt nature” as the reason for any choice made here!”
The point of Paul’s argument is that Jacob is a child of promise by election of God – Esau is not. So, where does that leave Esau? Paul responds to this in anticipating two objections to his argument, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” and “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” Paul’s conclusion, ‘What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory…”
Your view seems to be that people are born in innocence and have no need to be saved until they lose their innocence through sin. Paul argues that a person’ destiny was all decided before a person was born – (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).
rhutchin
Even without the corrupted nature, there is no faith. This because faith comes b hearing the gospel regardless the condition of the nature.
br.d
Peter Van Inwagen – (excerpts from the Consequence Argument)
-quote
But it is not “UP TO US” what immutable decrees concerning all things – are established at the foundation of the world before we exist.
And it is not “UP TO US” what the state of nature is – including our own – is decreed to be at any time
Therefore the consequence of these things is not “UP TO US”
For me – its like establishing a program within a person’s brain which immutably decrees every neurological impulse. And then calls those impulses “Totally Depraved” impulses. Then at some later time replacing that programming with a new one called “Salvific Faith” impulses.
The person is still physically the same – the programmed neurological impulses are what have changed.
Like a Solipsist asking the question “I wonder why there aren’t more of us”?
Calvinism really is a form of DOUBLE-THINK :-]
rhutchin
I maintain that people act from their desires – a notion rejected by LFW.
br.d
Only within a DEVIANT ad-hoc definition of Libertarian Freedom
Dr. Kirk Macgregor – Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion – Department Chair at McPherson College.
-quote
“Libertarian Freedom is precisely defined within Philosophy.
It is the freedom to choose between an array of options.
That choice being consistent with one’s nature.”
-end quote
And I would add two more qualifiers:
– Those options existing as real and available to choose
– One’s choice not having already been pre-determined *FOR* you – by an external mind – such as a THEOS
Dr. Kirk Macgregor – Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion – Department Chair at McPherson College.
-quote
“Libertarian Freedom is…choice being consistent with one’s nature.”
-end quote
Yep. Tgat’s what Jonathan Edwards concluded. That is also how compatibilism defines freedom to choose. If you really want LFW, you have to have a way to override your desires. If not, your desires determine your choice and that is determinism.
Dr. Kirk Macgregor – Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion – Department Chair at McPherson College.
-quote
“Libertarian Freedom is…choice being consistent with one’s nature.”
-end quote
rhutchin
Yep. Tgat’s what Jonathan Edwards concluded. That is also how compatibilism defines freedom to choose.
If you really want LFW, you have to have a way to override your desires.
If not, your desires determine your choice and that is determinism.
br.d
rhutchin – you should think before you post.
When you say “that is also how compatibilism defines freedom” – that is an IRRATIONAL statement
Compatiblism is the logical negation of Libertarian Freedom
So it is a LOGICAL impossibility for their definitions to logically equate
The precise definition of Theological Compatibilism follows:
Theological Compatibilism is identified as freedom that is reduced down to nothing more than the ability to be/do what an external mind (i.e., THEOS) as determined. In the case of human choice, one can only choose what a THEOS determines one to choose, and one is not permitted to choose otherwise.
In Calvinist vernacular “mere” permission does not exist.
Compatiblistic freedom eliminates:
1) The ability to “DO OTHERWISE” (than what the THEOS determines)
2) The availability of alternative possibilities – (from what the THEOS determines).
3) Anything being UP TO YOU (since all things are UP TO the THEOS)
As Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” shows:
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those thoughts, choices, desires, and actions are framed within the boundaries of nature, which exist at the time in which they are actualized in our lives.
3) But it is not *UP TO US* what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we were born.
4) And neither is it *UP TO US* what attributes of nature – including our own – exist at any time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US.
br.d writes, “When you say “that is also how compatibilism defines freedom” – that is an IRRATIONAL statement”
Compatibilism defines freedom as choosing according to one’s desire. Nothing irrational about that. What is irrational is choosing against one’s desire.
Then, “Compatiblism is the logical negation of Libertarian Freedom So it is a LOGICAL impossibility for their definitions to logically equate”
That is why freedom to choose under LFW cannot be a determined choice, determined by one’s desire. Where the Theos determines the nature of the person to be corrupt and lacking faith, there can be no LFW. When the Theos overrides the corrupt heart by a new birth and conveys faith, greater freedom is accorded the person. However, as Paul explains in Romans 7, the old nature is still present and still affects the freedom with which one chooses.
Then, “In Calvinist vernacular “mere” permission does not exist.”
This means that God is the final arbiter of every decision that is made. God is never disinterested or uninvolved in His creation.
Then, “Compatiblistic freedom eliminates:
…
3) Anything being UP TO YOU (since all things are UP TO the THEOS)”
Actually, compatibilistic freedom involves the desire of the person. Thus, it is up to you. The crucifixion of Christ resulted from actions taken by the Jews with the Romans as that was their desire.
Then, “If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist. ”
Made certain by God but not made necessary by the person. Obviously, with God ebing omniscient, everything was necessarily determined the minute God created.
Then, ‘5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US.”
People are full participants in the choices they make as they do the things they desire to do – recognizing the limitations posed by a corrupt nature and a lack of faith..
br.d
When you say “that is also how compatibilism defines freedom” – that is an IRRATIONAL statement”
rhutchin
Compatibilism defines freedom as choosing according to one’s desire. Nothing irrational about that. What is irrational is choosing against one’s desire.
br.d
That is an aspect of compatiblism – but they are not defined exactly the same.
To say that they are is IRRATIONAL
Compatibilism is the logical negation of Libertarian Freedom
So it is a LOGICAL impossibility for their definitions to logically equate”
rhutchin
That is why freedom to choose under LFW cannot be a determined choice, determined by one’s desire.
br.d
TRUE
With Libertarian Freedom a THEOS can:
– Make a choice from a range of options
– Those options existing as LOGICALLY possible options
– That choice not being determined *FOR* the THEOS by an external mind
– That choice being consistent with the THEOS’s nature
rhutchin
Where the Theos determines the nature of the person to be corrupt and lacking faith, there can be no LFW.
br.d
Its more TRUTHFUL to say where the THEOS determines *ALL* attributes of a person then – obviously LFW is ruled out.
rhutchin
When the Theos overrides the corrupt heart by a new birth and conveys faith,
br.d
In this case Calvin’s god would be overriding the very thing he DECREED – since NOTHING can come to pass otherwise.
Take out the previously DECREED neurological programming – and replace it with a different neurological program.
rhutchin
greater freedom is accorded the person. However, as Paul explains in Romans 7, the old nature is still present and still affects the freedom with which one chooses.
br.d
This is consistent with Libertarian Freedom – as one person’s options can be different from another person’s options
A person who is not addicted to drugs will have more options than one who is.
And In Calvinist vernacular “mere” permission does not exist.”
rhutchin
This means that God is the final arbiter of every decision that is made. God is never disinterested or uninvolved in His creation.
br.d
Since Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things which come to pass – including every neurological impulse – that makes Calvin’s god the *ONLY* “arbiter”
So calling Calvin’s god the “final” arbiter is simply a way of SMUGGLING in “mere” permission in camouflaged form
In Theological Determinism it LOGICALLY follows – nothing is UP TO YOU (since all things are UP TO the THEOS)”
rhutchin
Actually, compatibilistic freedom involves the desire of the person. Thus, it is up to you.
br.d
FALSE
In order for that to be true – Calvin’s god would not be the determiner of a person’s desires
So here you are following Calvin’s instructions again
Going about your office *AS-IF* nothing (in this case desires) are determined in any part.
As Peter van Inwagen states in the “Consequence Argument”
“If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist. ”
rhutchin
Made certain by God but not made necessary by the person. Obviously, with God ebing omniscient, everything was necessarily determined the minute God created.
br.d
TRUE – but irrelevant.
You need to read the first statement in Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument”
-quote
“If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true then…..
It has nothing to do with Theological Fatalism
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US.”
rhutchin
People are full participants in the choices they make as they do the things they desire to do – recognizing the limitations posed by a corrupt nature and a lack of faith..
br.d
Try as you might to escape the LOGICAL consequences of determinism – the closes thing you’ll accomplish is to:
“Go about your office *AS-IF* certain things are not determined in every part”
John Calvin understood this – and that’s why he gave those instructions – and its why you manifest his *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
Teen: ‘Can I have the car tonight?’Dad: ‘No. I warned you last weekend that if you stayed out all hours of the night you could no longer use my car.’Teen: ‘But I didn’t stay out ALL hours of the night. I was in by 3, which means I was home some hours of the night.’
The teen knew exactly what his father meant, and his father knows his son knew what he meant, and the teen knows his father knows . . . It is all just game playing, word-thuggery and deceptive semantics in an attempt to escape punishment on technicalities. This is exactly the way so many Calvinists twist scripture and play word games. Don’t they realize that rational people can see through their games?
That isn’t something we would want to post about a specific participant here – as it moves into being an ad hominem which we restrain ourselves from doing here. So it would be better to make a statement like this non-personal.
So lets not do that.
However, just because I wouldn’t post something – doesn’t mean I haven’t thought it a hundred times.
Apologies.
Thanks my friend – and please let me know if you see me do the same! :-]
Please remove.
Your wish is my command! :-]
br.d writes, “Compatiblism is the logical negation of Libertarian Freedom”
So compatibilism focuses on the desires of a person as being the source of one’s choices and LFW would deny a role to desire in determining a person’s choices. If LFW does remove desire as the determinant of one’s choice, then salvation would not involve LFW as salvation is a choice determined by a desire to be free from the effects of sin and unrighteousness. So, why even care about LFW?
br.d
Compatiblism is the logical negation of Libertarian Freedom”
rhutchin
So compatibilism focuses on the desires of a person as being the source of one’s choices
br.d
That represents a deviated philosophical position.
Determinism is OFFICIALLY recognized as following a principle of CAUSE & EFFECT.
It is a LOGICAL impossibility for an EFFECT to be the source of itself.
rhutchin
and LFW would deny a role to desire in determining a person’s choices.
br.d
Now that position represents your own personal philosophy – and is no where acknowledged
rhutchin
If LFW does remove desire as the determinant of one’s choice, then salvation would not involve LFW as salvation is a choice determined by a desire to be free from the effects of sin and unrighteousness. So, why even care about LFW?
br.d
This follows the FALLACY of false dichotomy. -( i.e., that desire is the SOLE contributor of choice.) which is LOGICALLY absurd.
Under this FALLACY all of Calvin’s god’s choices would be dictated SOLELY by desires which he has no RATIONAL way of controlling.
br.d writes:
“Then, “In Calvinist vernacular “mere” permission does not exist.”
rh writes:
“This means that God is the final arbiter of every decision that is made. God is never disinterested or uninvolved in His creation.”
Uh, no. God merely being the final arbiter is still God only giving mere permission. This is NOT what Calvinism demands in its very well-documented system. This is an attempt to pretend like Calvinism does not require God’s meticulous predetermination of all things, including any ‘desire’ or ‘decision’ of men. Non-Calvinists, yes, believe that God is ‘the final arbiter’ and merely permits men to choose to disregard his will and commands, without determining that they must do so. Deception, deception, deception.
TS00 writes, “This is an attempt to pretend like Calvinism does not require God’s meticulous predetermination of all things, including any ‘desire’ or ‘decision’ of men. Non-Calvinists, yes, believe that God is ‘the final arbiter’ and merely permits men to choose to disregard his will and commands, without determining that they must do so.”
Because God is never disinterested or uninvolved in His creation, there can be no “mere” permission where mere permission is the default outcome from a disinterested and uninvolved God. There can only be permission with God’s approval. God cannot merely permit people to disobey His commands; God must approve that disobedience by His decision not to exercise His sovereign power to prevent the disobedience. Whether one is Calvinist or non-Calvinist, he recognizes that God is the final arbiter of all that happens and is thereby the determiner of all that happens.
rhutchin
Because God is never disinterested or uninvolved in His creation
br.d
Crime investigators call this “Distancing Language”
Question:
Did you kill your wife sir?
Answer
I’m never disinterested in my wife!
Its LOGICALLY INCOHERENT for someone to be “disinterested” in what one CAUSES to come to pass
There is also no legitimate difference between ‘mere permission’ and ‘permission with approval’. Both indicate that approval is not present, but merely permission.
I’m not sure what this means?
Perhaps you can give an example?
However for SOT101 readers who are not familiar with “mere” permission
It is a qualified form of permission that is unique to Calvinism.
Calvinism sees a difference between divine permission vs human permission.
For example, If I have a bottle of water and I am Calvin’s god – and I move that bottle to the west.
Then I “permitted” that bottle to move to the west.
But in so doing I did not permit that bottle to move in any other direction.
I did not permit that bottle to do-otherwise.
Here the Calvinist uses “permitted” as a replacement word for CAUSED
So when a Calvinist says:
“I don’t know why god permitted that 7 year old girl to be raped”
What he really means is:
“I don’t know why god CAUSED that 7 year old girl to be raped”
They don’t like the word CAUSE in statements concerning evil events.
So they replace the word CAUSE with the word “permit”.
And you can see how it works to distance Calvin’s god from the evil.
However with human’s permission is different.
For example, a commanding officer can give permission to a private to speak freely.
But in this case the commanding officer does not CAUSE the private to speak the words he speaks.
So Calvinists call this “mere” permission
In other words “mere” permission is not CAUSATIVE.
br.d writes, “So when a Calvinist says:
“I don’t know why god permitted that 7 year old girl to be raped”
What he really means is:
“I don’t know why god CAUSED that 7 year old girl to be raped”
In other words, “I don’t know why God did not decree in eternity past to intervene to stop the 7 year old girl being raped.” AS God could have decreed otherwise, He is the cause by virtue of His creation of the universe. Had God not created the universe, the girl would not have been raped – she never would have lived.
rhutchin states:
”
My response:
So, when in the KJV, Jesus states: “Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children,”
You guys really take that SERIOUS? You want children to SUFFER so that God gets PLEASURE? For the sake of ALLAH, maybe. Sounds like you should be MUSLIM!
Ed Chapman
chapmened24 writes, “You guys really take that SERIOUS? You want children to SUFFER so that God gets PLEASURE?”
LOL!!! Great use of “suffer” to make a joke.
Don’t ever accuse me of not being funny with a sense of humor!! LOL
ED
br.d
So when a Calvinist says:
“I don’t know why god permitted that 7 year old girl to be raped”
What he really means is:
“I don’t know why god CAUSED that 7 year old girl to be raped”
rhutchin
In other words, “I don’t know why God did not decree in eternity past to intervene to stop the 7 year old girl being raped.
br.d
If that’s what a Calvinist thinks then he’s revealing an infantile brain
Its a simple equation:
No rape DECREE = No rape.
A RATIONAL mind knows that what Calvin’s god DECREED – was a man rape a 7 year old girl.
And Calvin’s god intervening in his own DECREES is just Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK
rhutchin
AS God could have decreed otherwise
br.d
Calvin’s god glorifies himself with the evil he DECREES.
The more hideous the evil – the more glory.
rhutchin
Had God not created the universe, the girl would not have been raped – she never would have lived.
br.d
It shouldn’t require an advanced ADULT brain to connect these dots.
No rape DECREE = NO rape
rh writes:
“People are full participants in the choices they make as they do the things they desire to do – recognizing the limitations posed by a corrupt nature and a lack of faith.”
This is rh’s latest new phraseology. He has been cornered so many times he always has to think of some new way to not say what he means. It is, as usual, gobbledy-gook nonsense. ‘People are full participants in the choices they make’ – which is then completely footnoted away by adding ‘recognizing the limitations posed by a corrupt nature and a lack of faith’. In other words, people are not free to make any choices, because Calvi-god cursed them with a corrupt nature and withheld the ‘faith’ antidote.
Being ‘full participants in the choices they make’ is not the point in contention. We all see that Calvi-god uses man-props to do his dirty work. The issue, as always, is who originates and causes any event – God’s predetermination or man’s freely made, optional choice. This is the sticking point, and always what Calvinists try to get around with their loaded, nonsensical language.
TS00 writes, “‘People are full participants in the choices they make’ – which is then completely footnoted away by adding ‘recognizing the limitations posed by a corrupt nature and a lack of faith’. In other words, people are not free to make any choices, because Calvi-god cursed them with a corrupt nature and withheld the ‘faith’ antidote.”
The Scriptures are clear about two things: (1) people have corrupt natures, and (2) people have no faith and cannot have faith without hearing the gospel. Those are characteristics that explain the choices people make. Other characteristics are less than full knowledge of the environment in which they live; even less understanding of what they know; and a lack of godly wisdom with which to make decisions. So, you are correct – “people are not free to make any choices.” That’s life as we find it regardless whether you attribute this condition to God or not. The end result is what Genesis 6 tells us of the pre-flood population, “LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Then, “The issue, as always, is who originates and causes any event – God’s predetermination or man’s freely made, optional choice. This is the sticking point, and always what Calvinists try to get around with their loaded, nonsensical language.”
Calvinists acknowledge the obvious. Adam sinned and became corrupted and his descendants were similarly corrupted. God understood all this before He created the universe and in creating the universe, God set everything in motion to play out exactly as He understood it would. Many events were predicated on God’s actions – God created Adam and Eve; God enabled Satan to enter the garden to tempt Eve; God did nothing to help Eve as she was tempted and then did nothing as Eve handed the fruit to Adam; God brought the flood of Noah; God choose Abraham to provide a descendant to give birth to Christ, etc.
rhutchin
The Scriptures are clear about two things: (1) people have corrupt natures….
br.d
Peter van Inwagen – from the “Consequence Argument”
-quote
But it is not “UP TO US” – what DECREES were established at the foundation of the world before we exist
And it is not “UP TO US” – what DECREES established what nature would be at any time – including our own nature.
Therefore the consequences of these things are not “UP TO US”
rhutchin
Calvinists acknowledge the obvious. Adam sinned
br.d
An intellectually honest person would acknowledge the following:
1) Calvin’s god DID NOT PERMIT Adam to disobey the SECRET will
2) Calvin’s god DID NOT PERMIT Adam to obey the ENUNCIATED will
3) Calvin’s god DID NOT make any alternative possible for Adam – (at pain of falsifying the immutable DECREE)
br.d
Ex- Calvinist Daniel Gracley – in his book “A Closer Look at Calvinism”
-quote
This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse….. Thus I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions, which in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario.”
rhutchin: “The fallacy here is to define the straightforward rendering of a verse as an interpretation. If the verse does not mean what it appears to mean, what do you think it means (without involving an interpretation of the Scripture).”
br.d: “If you don’t think you’re brain interprets data – then you have a bigger problem that this!”
Nothing productive from br.d here.
rhutchin
Nothing productive from br.d here.
br.d
Of course that opinion is totally understandable.
However, illuminating IRRATIONAL under the microscope of LOGIC is productive.
At least for some! :-]
Great post BR.D – This is so true about Calvinism…and this is what I have seen in action.
BR.D. writes
“COMFORTING THOUGHTS FOR THE SINNING CALVINIST
The sinning Calvinist can take comfort in knowing that no mater how much he disobeys the ENUNCIATED will – he will always be in perfect obedience to the SECRET will.
Yes – it is true – he is taught that in all his sinning – he is “out of sink” with what Calvin’s god says.
But he can take comfort in knowing that he is perfectly obedient to everything Calvin’s god wills…
All of his continual sinning is in full compliance to Calvin’s god’s plan for his life.
As a matter of fact Calvin’s god DOES NOT PERMIT him to do otherwise and DOES NOT MAKE AVAILABLE any alternative.” end quote
GA. You hit it out of the park… if the Calvinist really cared about Glorifying God they would NOT say things that make it clear that God is the author of sin.
Satan’s greatest feat in deception is to have people believe wrong things about God.
A.W. Tozer “The most important thing about us is what comes to our minds when we think about God.”
Through Calvinism Satan has successfully profaned the Holy name of God and then taught the followers of Calvin to say it all glorifies God, no matter how evil and vile it is. Then if you can’t understand how it could be so…well they tell you “it is a mystery and if you were humble enough like me you would simply accept it.”
They give people HOG WASH to drink and then tell them to humbly drink and the more mature you become the easier it goes down.
GraceAdict
They tell them to humbly drink – and the more mature you become the easier it goes down.
br.d
Yes!
And unfortunately the more mature – the more the conscience becomes seared with a hot iron – and the greater expertise at hiding it.
Not an envious position for anyone to be in I’m afraid!
I certainly consider myself blessed – having been spared from falling into it!
Good post. Would appreciate your thoughts at consideringthebible.com.
Ed posted this one directed to Aidan:
“And what you say means nothing to me, either. Your truth is NOT my truth.”
———-Here’s My Reaction for that————
Ed, just cool down. I guess you’re becoming irritated now with the “Water dunking show off”. I think Aidan our friend here is trying to pin you down against the wall with his question to you, i.e.: “How many baptism do we have today? Please don’t rest your case here. Keep on debating with him.
By the way, we have the same beliefs on the OSAS even if you are not a Calvinist. Very nice… we have a very strong tie up…
Hey jt,
Oh I’ve moved on from that. I’ve got no I’ll will against Aidan, and we are on friendly terms…i think.
But, we’ll soon find out who is right, and who is wrong when we die.
I refuse to accuse anyone of being a heretic, because that’s not what I’m trying to do on this blog.
What I’m looking for, is that people stop, stop, stop basing their beliefs on the writings of dead people, and just stick to one book and dissect the one book, and not to look to commentators.
I have a saying. The preacher reports, we decide.
But the way it is now with you guys, it’s, dead people decided FOR you, so, you take dead people’s conclusions, and preach that, so that you won’t be out of line with the dead people’s conclusions.
It’s like, you don’t question it. You salute, and obey.
That’s not how I roll. I have to question things, because I have to make a decision in my own mind, not on a dead person conclusion, but my own.
And, my own aligns with NON CALVINISM very well.
I consider my conversation with Aidan to be a minor issue, where a Baptist would consider it to be a major one. I’m not Baptist. So I really could care less.
By custom, all churches do dunk in water, so it’s not like I wasn’t dunked. You and I both agree on this issue, and just see it as an outward view of an inward experience.
In my view, what Aidan believes in this is harmless, all because we do indeed do the custom.
All is good. Good to hear from you jt .
Ed Chapman
Thanks Bud
Thanks Ed, God Bless you…. By the way, do you celebrate Christmas during the month of December? . We would be glad also to hear from our friend Aidan in response to that issue
Of course I do. I’ve learned of the freedom we have in Christ, knowing I can celebrate anything I want, anytime I want, no restrictions.
Is it a sin to do good on December 25?
Giving gifts?
Purim, a Jewish holiday, not commanded by God, but celebrated in the book of Esther, even in the days of Jesus.
If the excuse not to is based on Catholics and pagans, that’s a sorry excuse. Those who don’t are missing out.
But, then this gets into the eating meat offered to idols.
We can eat meat offered to idols. Not only that, we can eat meat offered to idols within the temple of the idol itself.
And why?
Knowledge.
Knowledge of what?
The idol isn’t real. It’s fake.
So, it’s only a sin to those who don’t have that knowledge yet, called, baby Christians who still thinks that those idols really do exist.
I celebrate Easter and Halloween, too.
Can anyone explain how trying to score a KIT-KAT chocolate bar is evil?
And I didn’t know that Ishtar loved chocolate bunnies, either.
The people that refuse to celebrate, in not judging them, but they need some serious KNOWLEDGE that there is no such thing as a pagan God.
1 Corinthians chapter 8, I believe.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
ONE of the many contentions of NOT celebrating Christmas is in regards to…
“a ‘Star” from the east guided 3 wisemen (magi) coming to a stop over a stable.
MANY Christian “PHILOSOPHERS” have concluded that these MAGI are MAGICIANS, star gazers, etc.
But, I heard another explanation…MAGISTRATES, meaning, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, hence 3 Kings from ORIENT as mentioned in a CHRISTMAS SONG.
Strong’s Concordance gives a HINT of that, taking it back to the HEBREW of the root word of the Greek “magi”, regarding a Babylonian OFFICIAL, and further indications of other words, such as “captain”, etc., which pertain to government officials.
Can you imagine the DEVIL giving Gold to Jesus as a gift, when the Devil wanted Jesus to not even be born to begin with?
Well, Jesus was born in a manger, probably needing CLOTHING more than GOLD, but that GOLD brought RICHES to the FAMILY of Jesus. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
So, Jesus wasn’t born on December 25. When was he born? Many think September. Well, subtract 9 months from that, and what do we get? IF LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION…well…There may be something to that!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “MANY Christian “PHILOSOPHERS” have concluded that these MAGI are MAGICIANS, star gazers, etc.”
I’ve heard that the Magi were astronomers explaining why they noticed the star and could understood the uniqueness of the star.
That’s what some say, but I’m not convinced completely. obviously, they had a bunch of expensive gifts, so they knew something from that star. My guess is, and I have heard this, that those in Babylon knew of a coming messiah, learned from the Jews who lived there. I can’t remember the details, it’s been many years since I heard the details. But I think it’s worth looking into. How a star gets into the conversation, I don’t remember.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
OH, one last thing, jt, is that some thing that the OT mentioning of GOLD AND SILVER, etc., on a TREE is God telling us not to have a Christmas Tree.
I have to laugh at that, because a TREE, or WOOD was used to CARVE out a STATUE of an IDOL, and once carved, it would be overlayed with MELTED Gold, etc. So it’s not discussing a Christmas Tree.
There is such weird concepts out there that people are using to take FREEDOM from Christians, by instituting RULES AND REGULATIONS that just isn’t a part of Christianity.
When are people gonna learn that we have FREEDOM.
Romans 14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
1 Corinthians 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
Or, are we gonna be held hostage by INSTITUTIONS that dictates the BOUNDARIES of our freedom? Is that really freedom?
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
And one final thing, jt, is one of America’s founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. He STOPPED going to church, not because he was an “unbeliever”, but because his preacher was MORE interested in making people better CHURCH GOERS than better CITIZENS.
In short, the preacher was preaching the LOVE GOD part REALLY WELL.
But neglected to preach on the LOVE PEOPLE part. How we treat others is PROOF of the LOVE GOD part, but his preacher just didn’t get it.
In the Jewish Holiday of Purim, from the book of Ester, that God never commanded, we see a CUSTOM of GIFT GIVING.
We also know that there really was a person by the name of CLAUS who was a Christian, hence ST. NICKCLAUS or SANTA CLAUS.
The word SANTA is another form of the word SAINT, and we know that the word SAINT is in relation to the word CHRISTIAN.
And what did this SAINT do? The story is real, but made into a CHILDREN’S story of a fat jolly old man from the North Pole. Nothing evil about that.
Ed Chapman
Not a problem, my friend!!
Thank you Ed for your very generous revelation about the celebrations that you embrace like Christmas in December, giving gifts, issues concerning the maggis who visited the baby Jesus in the manger, Christmas tree issue, etc..
I don’t like Holloween my friend, In our country the Catholics celebrate and exult satan and the wearing of all kinds of costumes of all sorts of evil spirits on the street and by nightlife party goers. I also don’t like Santa Claus that was made as a substitute for Jesus by both children and adults in our country. Santa Claus was made so famous and widely known by both adults and children rather than Jesus Christ.
It is really “The Good News of God’s Choice” for God not to reveal the exact date of the birth of Christ in the form of a 100 % mortal being. Though there is No explicit command in Scripture to celebrate Jesus’ birth, I think same as what you say it’s not a sin to do good, adore, and worship Christ in the month of December. Merry Christmas Ed. God Bless you…
Thank you jt . All those things are harmless fun. Halloween, a costume party . No different than telling a scary story white camping, at night, near a campfire. Nothing evil about it. And we are not worshipping the devil in any holiday. But that’s something that you have to make up your mind on. If you get guilt from it, then tho you, it’s a sin. That’s what the bible states.