|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 1:35:06 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2038
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice,
but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that
the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay
and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
God subjected creation to futility by His own will............bound men in disobedience?
There is going to be a whole lot of God blaming going on.
You already blame God for sin, not me, KJB.
Please explain to me how God can hope for what he has already determined?
....how God can desire all men to repent, but not all do?
....how Christ could have died for the whole world, but not the whole world?
....why God would wait patiently for men to repent if man is unable to?
....why you are so comfortable knowing God causes you to sin?
You all can pat each other on the back all you want, but its not that easy!
< Message edited by rwe2156 -- 7/6/2008 1:45:21 PM >
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 1:56:02 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
What people don't understand is that God isn't to be blamed for allowing us to sin any more than a parent is to be blamed for allowing his children to suffer the consequences of his behavior so he'll learn from them and repent. So God's plan is not only perfect, it's the only plan that will bring any person to a personal knowledge of His power and His glory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 1:59:07 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
You think wrongly, then.
Well, then I am sorry for being mistaken.
quote:
giving me a link to a very long document known as WCF as an answer to my 5 very simple and straight forward questions most surely was not worth reading. All I asked for was 5 yes or no answers, not a long winded document.
FreeGrace, speaking of long winded........nope...wont even go there! lol
Better not! I only respond to your posts. 
quote:
Seriously now, the WCF may be long winded but it happens to be in line with my own long winded opinion.
Nonetheless, what I asked for was 5 quick yes or no answers, not a long document to slog through in hopes of seeing any semblance of answers.
quote:
I actually like the 1689 LBC better but they are both great confessions and I am in substantial agreement with both of them.
Fine and well. However, all I asked for was 5 simple yes or no answers.
quote:
I cant post the entire confession on here and I know it would be long winded.
There is no need to. Just post 5 quick yes or no answers.
quote:
They are long for a reason.
Yes. they were written by long winded writers. 
quote:
Many confessions are short like "I believe Jesus is God". That is a simple and short confession.
Ah, that's what I'm looking for. Short and simple yes or no answers.
quote:
The WCF and LBC try to go in depth on many Biblical matters and the people that put them together are mere men that are capable of making mistakes.
That's why I don't bother with them.
quote:
But hey, so are you.
I'm quite fallible. However, if I'm wrong about something, please elaborate as to how I am wrong. Just giving me a long post from a long document isn't helpful at all. Again, just 5 simple and quick yes or no answers.
quote:
They did their very best in studying the Word of God and giving their opinions on it as they used Scripture proof text in all sorts of areas.
I'll bet that none of the writers of that document were even asked the questions that I've asked you. so, how could that document even begin to answer my 5 simple questions that require only yes or no answers?
quote:
I think that if you hate those confessions that much, you are certainly not obligated to read them.
Hate? Why do you think I would hate them? If I hated the opinions of others, why would I even be posting on this thread? I'm actually interested in why those of other persuasions believe as they do. I've actually learned a great deal in the 2.5 years I've been here. I certainly disagree with the view of the reformed. But, hate it? No, I do not.
quote:
quote:
Quit hiding behind long winded documents. If you afraid to give me simple yes or no answers, why? the SCF doesn't answer my questions. To even suggest it does is absurd.
Like I told you, I am in substantial agreement with those confessions and they do have answers to your questions even if you do not like them.
You are not seeing my point. All I've asked for is 5 simple yes or no answers, not a long document to slog through.
quote:
quote:
OK, so in your own analogy, who was causing the assault to occur? If you say the brute, you have proven free will. But, your theology which is likened to puppetry has God as the first cause of everything. Yet your own analogy fails to demonstrate God as the first cause of the assault, unless you are suggesting that God is a brute, which I know you aren't. So, who is God in your own analogy? If the policeman, he wasn't causing the assault. He was permitting it, even though he has a moral and definitely a legal responsbility to stop it. So, your own analogy falls flat. The brute was free to do his own thing. The policeman allowed the brute the freedom to do it. You've not proved otherwise.
It proves you have no understanding of my POV. If you wanted an understanding of it, you would read my answers. And yes.....it might take more than two seconds of your time to read parts of a confession.
I'm addressing your own analogy, not your confession!
Why can't you answer my comment about the brute demonstrating free will?
How does your own analogy demonstrate that the policeman is the "first cause" of everything, must less the "first cause" of the assault? How started the assault? The brute. So, even your own analogy shows the brute had free will to start something on his own.
quote:
Since I gave you the WCF as my answer, until you read it you really dont have an understanding of my POV.
I'm asking about your very own analogy. How in the world would the WCF answer my questions regarding your own analogy? It wouldn't even know your own analogy exists!!
quote:
It is sort of unfair that you make any more accusations unless you are informed of my POV in that regard.
No, it's unfair to give me an analogy of your "pov" then refuse to answer my questions so I can even understand it. Referring to the WCF doesn't answer my questions.
quote:
I notice you do not respond to the points of God being involved in the execution of Jesus and the lying prophets.[/fquote]
What's to respond to? The Bible is clear that God was clearly involved with them. I have no problem with that. Jesus freely went to the Cross. That's free will. The lying prophets were false prophets anyway, right? So all God did was give permission to demons to influence the lies that false prophets preach. So, where is free will being comprised?
quote:
quote:
You are failing to see the reality of the analogy that you created. Evil comes from free will, as your own analogy clearly demonstrates.
Huh? Evil comes from an evil will.KJB
That is correct. God doesn't have an evil will. So God cannot be the "first cause" of sin or evil, as your theology claims.
God created free wills. It is the free wills that cause sin and evil, which you fail to see.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:15:06 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1446
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
SureHope,
When FreeGrace makes statements like;
quote:
Yet, you do not give any for support? Romans 1 does not say that all men suppress the truth. That is reformed presupposition only.
quote:
Show the wording what claims that all men suppress the truth.
I would say dont worry about it at all.
You are already right on track and FreeGrace does not understand that Romans 1 and 2 is supposed to lead the reader into a specific thought pattern.
It is not being vague or mysterious on the issue and actually comes to a very sound and clear conclusion in Romans 3. FreeGrace tries to make a complete conclusion out of Romans 1 that some people do not suppress the truth...it does not work and is a wrong conclusion. He needs to understand that Romans 1 leads into Romans 2, and Romans 2 leads into Romans 3. Amazing how that works.
Romans 1 does not give human beings any praise for their human ability at all.
The first portion of Romans 1:1-17, is more about what God did for His people and actually gives thanks to God for the faith they have!
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. and "The righteous will live by faith."
The start of Romans 2;
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
It does not mean the person did every sin mentioned. It is speaking about the universal depravity of mankind. The only thing that Christians have going for them is that God brought them to repentance and did not totally abandon them. It is not saying some are really depraved but its a good thing you are not!
More in Romans 2;
2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
If someone repented it was because God was kind and did not totally abandon them like He did to those mentioned in Romans 1. The ones that repented did many of the same things and it does not mean to include each and every thing.
Evil, greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slanderer, God-hater, insolent, arrogant, boastful, disobeyed parents, senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Romans 2 leads to Romans 3;
9What shall we conclude then?
Are we any better? Not at all!
We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
To me I see Romans 1, 2, and the conclusion in 3, as that the entire world stands under the righteous condemnation of God.
Every human being no matter if Jew or Gentile stands naturally condemned and deserving of His righteous wrath in whatever way He wills to dish it out. Romans 3 is also supposed to lead the reader into knowledge of justification.
Since all people were under condemnation.....justification would apply only to those that do not remain under condemnation. What it means is simple. Those that are justified are not condemned.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Since condemned people are justified freely by His grace.......there is nothing people can attribute to themselves in any regard to their salvation.
Romans 3 makes that point clear;
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded.
On what principle? On that of observing the law?
No, but on that of faith.
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
The point being made is that people were already condemned for breaking the law, Jew and Gentile alike.
So it is obvious that no one will be saved or even keep their salvation by keeping the law or good works.
But not only that.....men cant even boast of their faith. Why not?
Because that is the work of God and not the work of sinful condemned men.
Anyways SureHope......I just wanted to offer encouragment and support because I think you have a really good position.
Take care,
KJB
_____________________________
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:19:22 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Abraham did the believing; God did the crediting.
Excellent point, Free!
Thanks, rw. You've been giving some excellent questions to KJB!
quote:
KJB is clearly a hyper one comfortable with the puppetman/God.
Several of the reformed ones have admitted to being comfortable with it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:23:36 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
KJB: And God is not evil.
Glad to hear you say it, but how can you really believe it, friend?
God is not evil but you believe he can cause evil to occur?
Depraved man is evil and can to nothing but evil?
Saved man has imputed righteousness and still does evil?
And the Evil One himself - he's only doing the evil God allows him to do?...
.....oh, sorry - only doing what God tells him to do?
Lots of evil going on with only one to blame: God!!
Isn't your statement in really "God is not evil, once-removed"?
Kind of like God has immunity from prosecution.
God has made a deal with himself: "I will be the cause of evil but not be evil."
"Somehow I will do what cannot exist in my presence."
I will originate,
orchestrate,
perpetrate,
or manipulate the evil
that occurs and my wrath against evil will not self-destruct me.
ALL IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF SCRIPTURE!!
Amen, brother rw!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:31:25 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
God has complete control over Satan. He can bind Satan in an instant if he wants to. So when he doesn't stop Satan, Satan is doing as God wants him to.
Welcome to the thread, Carico. No one argues against the fact that God is sovereign. Are you saying that in order to be sovereign and in complete control, God is the cause of sin and evil? Why?
quote:
Yes siree, God is sovereign, not Satan. So Arminians don't believe in a sovereign God, they believe in a hippie type of love that God gives. So until they understand God's wrath, they will never understand God's love. Never. So scripture does not contradict itself. It's Arminians who have a completely different view of God than scripture tells us.
Point 1: I am not arminian. My position is called free grace, which recognizes that God created mankind in His own image as a free moral agent, capable of making choices among options available. I am also convinced that once saved, always saved.
Point 2: The Bible tells us that the reason that God "gave His Son" was because he loved the world. That is NOT some weird kind of hippie love. It is unconditional love for His own creatures.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:37:13 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
john_mark,
quote:
would it not be more to correct to say that God ordains/compels the christian to sin as opposed to allow/permit his sin. to allow or permit the sin means that the idea originates outside of God and God decides whether or not to permit/allow the action.
I dont know of all the best words to use.
It is obvious to the both of us that evil exists.
I think it is obvious to the both of us that God allows evil.
I think it is also obvious to the both of us that God can and does restrain evil at times.
It is also obvious that you are sidestepping the issue you have created with your very own analogy. It's one thing to admit that God allows evil. DUH! It's quite another thing to claim that "allowing evil" equals being the first cause of it.
The only rational explanation of sin and evil is that one's free will is the first and only cause of them.
quote:
It seems that we must come to the conclusion that since God permits evil, He must in some way desire it to exist.
That isn't even rational. You are simply trying to justify your view that God causes evil to occur.
quote:
If He did not desire it to exist, it would not exist.
Correct statement is: If He did not permit evil to exist, it would not exist. Can you see the difference here?
Where do you find any support that "desire" equals "permit"? Do you "permit" your children to get driver's licenses and drive your car? Does that mean that you "desire" that they get in an accident and lose their life? Hopefully not!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:38:23 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2050
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
hippie love
What is hippie love?
Googled results are inconclusive....
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:38:34 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
rwe2156,
"Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied.
"Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has?
You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.
But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."
The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
So what do you think?
I think God permitted Satan to express his free will against Job, with the only exception of killing him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:42:40 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1446
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
rwe2156,
quote:
You already blame God for sin, not me, KJB.
I dont think you read or understand my posts very well and frankly it is quite annoying.
Here is what I said in my own words in my own post.
Notice I make the claim that I do the same sort of thing.
quote:
Here is what Job said in response to all of that terror;
Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:
"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised."
In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
Job was certain that everything was in the hands of the Lord.
The Lord gave.....and the Lord has taken away.
I do the same sort of thing.
I worship God and I know His mighty hand is no match for me.
All He has to do is stretch out His hand and I am history!
All He has to do is stretch out His hand and my entire family of which I hold so dear to my heart would vanish.
I am aware of these things and I still worship the Lord.
He gives and He takes as everything belongs to Him to do with as He wills.......not as I will.
It is His creation and not mine or yours.
I say no matter what happens may the name of the Lord be praised!
Is that ok?
Notice the final text in Job 1;
In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
I do the same sort of thing.
I do not fully understand every detail on how and where God moves or who He causes to move and where He causes them to move.
I cannot see each and every person He abandons and leaves in their own sin or if they have been motivated by some messenger of Satan.
However,
I do not charge God with wrongdoing.
I do not accuse Him of evil.
I do not charge Him with sin.
You know what....at one time God flooded the entire earth and almost every creature it contained.
You know how He did it? He caused it to rain.
I bet there were a lot of cute little babies on the earth at that time.
I bet there were many mothers trying to save their helpless cute little babies, wondering what on earth did the little babies do to deserve such a horrible death.
I also bet that the mothers found out they were just as helpless as the little babies and they all eventually gulped down water from the flow of rain that God caused.
I can promise you this.....if you did such a thing I would charge you with wrongdoing.
I would charge you with murder.
You can bet that God would charge you also.
In any event......I do not and will not charge God with wrongdoing even though He drowned a bunch of babies.
Does that clear up my POV on that?
KJB
_____________________________
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:51:22 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
what i was getting at was that the plan to rape the girl had to be iniatiated by God for God to be the first cause. If the evil originated in the brute and God simply allows it, then God's plan was dependant on the prior intention of the brute, iow God's will was subject to the brute's actions.
if the brute decided to commit evil and God allowed it, the brute is the first cause since proir to the brute's decision to commit evil against the girl, no evil was planned by God. hope that makes sense
It make perfect sense, john_mark. However, it remains to be seen if any of the reformed ones will be able to understand it.
I've gone round and round with KJB about his policeman analogy and what is first cause. You've stated it very clearly. Intention IS required in order to be the "first cause".
For the reformed to stay consistent, they will have to admit that God actually intended for the brute to assault the girl. How absurd!
All we can know from Scripture is that God knew what would be intended to do, and that He permits some of it to occur, but not all of it. Period.
Yet, none of that means that God is the first cause.
Since the reformed repudiate the idea of free will, they will never be able to comprehend that free will is the first cause, or "intention" of all evil and sin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:55:10 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
What people don't understand is that God isn't to be blamed for allowing us to sin any more than a parent is to be blamed for allowing his children to suffer the consequences of his behavior so he'll learn from them and repent. So God's plan is not only perfect, it's the only plan that will bring any person to a personal knowledge of His power and His glory.
May I ask you a question, Carico? I can't get any of the other calvinists to answer me on this one.
When you sin, who is the cause of that sin? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 2:56:30 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2050
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
God himself cannot commit evil. But he allows Satan to entice people to sin to bring people to God for redemption. No sin, no mercy, no sin, no grace. And that's why God bound all men over to disobedience so he can have mercy on us. If God allowed man to remain perfect, then we would never turn to Him for eternal life which only He can give us. So absolutely everything in the world, good or evil is in God's plan. And that's precisely why he hardens hearts as he explained in Exodus with Pharoah.
quote:
What people don't understand is that God isn't to be blamed for allowing us to sin any more than a parent is to be blamed for allowing his children to suffer the consequences of his behavior so he'll learn from them and repent. So God's plan is not only perfect, it's the only plan that will bring any person to a personal knowledge of His power and His glory.
hmm.. Dear Carico, i dont know how to say it not to offend you, but both of these posts to me look like they are made specifially in support of FW.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 3:13:38 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2050
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
KJB,
you dont get upset, dear friend. I see rwe reading your posts very carefully, it's just you disagree with his answers , that's all. Your posts are very inspirational and nice, but as i said, for me to embrace C i need answers to questions.
If all i hear in return is beautiful preaching, that is absolutely great, indeed, i envy people who know how to be so well spoken, but it does nothing to advance understanding of the view.
In order for someone to be responsible for anything he has to have a real opporunity to do otherwise. Real, not imaginary, or theoretical, etc. We dont hold a born blind person resposible for not being able to see. How can we blame someone for the condition they are born in and cant help it? Nobody was able to address it yet.
Glad your and Mrs. K children are grown already. Otherwise, let me tell you, sweetheart, - tough luck getting away with lovely preaching, not real answers to theol questions! :))))If you were my dad , - i would be bragging on every corner what a inspirational speaker you are, but go to someone else for real answers.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 3:14:03 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
SureHope,
When FreeGrace makes statements like;
quote:
Yet, you do not give any for support? Romans 1 does not say that all men suppress the truth. That is reformed presupposition only.
quote:
Show the wording what claims that all men suppress the truth.
I would say dont worry about it at all.
You are already right on track and FreeGrace does not understand that Romans 1 and 2 is supposed to lead the reader into a specific thought pattern.
It is not being vague or mysterious on the issue and actually comes to a very sound and clear conclusion in Romans 3. FreeGrace tries to make a complete conclusion out of Romans 1 that some people do not suppress the truth...it does not work and is a wrong conclusion. He needs to understand that Romans 1 leads into Romans 2, and Romans 2 leads into Romans 3. Amazing how that works.
Where does the text claim that all men suppress the truth? Where is your support or "proof text"?
Also, please demonstrate who Cornelius suppressed the truth that God have him, along with all of mankind? Can you show this thread any proof?
quote:
Romans 1 does not give human beings any praise for their human ability at all.
That's correct. In fact, Romans 1 indicts man for suppressing the truth that God have given to mankind. So, what's your point?
quote:
We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
Now, we have a verse about the universality of mankind: all are under sin. And even the calvinists must agree that in 3:9, "all" actually means "each and every human being", not just "all kinds of" human beings.
What's odd is that the calvinists cannot accept the "all" in 3:23 as being "each and every one", because if they did, they would have to admit that Paul was including each and every human in how to be justified. 
quote:
10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
Here, Paul quotes from Psa 14 and 53, which speaks of fools, who suppress the truth that God exists.
quote:
To me I see Romans 1, 2, and the conclusion in 3, as that the entire world stands under the righteous condemnation of God.
I do too. What is your point?
quote:
Every human being no matter if Jew or Gentile stands naturally condemned and deserving of His righteous wrath in whatever way He wills to dish it out. Romans 3 is also supposed to lead the reader into knowledge of justification.
Agreed. How is one justified, KJB? "through faith in His blood" (3:25). Who ALL did Paul include in how to be justified, KJB? Whoever has sinned, that's who!
quote:
Since all people were under condemnation.....justification would apply only to those that do not remain under condemnation. What it means is simple. Those that are justified are not condemned.
You missed HOW one is justified or does "not remain under condemnation". That would be "through faith in His blood". Why did you fail to mention this? 3:25 is the means of justification.
quote:
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Yes, we know from Gen 15:6 that God credits/reckons righteousness to those who believe, like He did for Abraham. So, our (believers) righteousness comes from God, who credits it to our account on the basis of "through faith in jesus Christ", which is also the basis for our justification (v.25).
quote:
There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Since condemned people are justified freely by His grace.......there is nothing people can attribute to themselves in any regard to their salvation.
When one believes in the Blood of Christ, it is God who does the "attributing" or crediting. I really don't know why you calvinists keep thinking and claiming that FWers think that man "does" anything towards his salvation. I and others have explained it many times. Why can't you get it?
quote:
Romans 3 makes that point clear;
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded.
On what principle? On that of observing the law?
No, but on that of faith.
Correct. Since faith is NOT a work, per 4:4,5, no one can boast that they believed, even if the calvinists continue to think that the FW view allos for boasting. It doesn't.
quote:
But not only that.....men cant even boast of their faith. Why not?
Because the Bible diffentiates faith from works! If one worked for their salvation, they would be able to boast about it. But faith is not a work.
quote:
Because that is the work of God and not the work of sinful condemned men.
Yes, the salvation IS a work of God. But the faith or believing is of man. Because, as Rom 10:10 says, "man believes from the heart".
Again, man believes, and God saves. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 3:20:29 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
KJB,
you dont get upset, dear friend. I see rwe reading your posts very carefully, it's just you disagree with his answers , that's all. Your posts are very inspirational and nice, but as i said, for me to embrace C i need answers to questions.
Dear Del,
Please fasten your seat belt and place your tray in the upright and locked position and brace yourself for KJB to give you a link to a very long post, which he will claim will answer any question you might have regarding his pov and theology! That's how he answers questions about his pov!
quote:
If all i hear in return is beautiful preaching, that is absolutely great, indeed, i envy people who know how to be so well spoken, but it does nothing to advance understanding of the view.
Funny, but that's what I'm thinking, too!
quote:
In order for someone to be responsible for anything he has to have a real opporunity to do otherwise. Real, not imaginary, or theoretical, etc. We dont hold a born blind person resposible for not being able to see. How can we blame someone for the condition they are born in and cant help it? Nobody was able to address it yet.
Del, please buckle up. I'm about to address that very issue!
quote:
Glad your and Mrs. K children are grown already. Otherwise, let me tell you, sweetheart, - tough luck getting away with lovely preaching, not real answers to theol questions! :))))If you were my dad , - i would be bragging on every corner what a inspirational speaker you are, but go to someone else for real answers.
Ouch! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 3:35:13 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 351
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
TDD-
Look, it has to start somewhere.
Calvinism says it starts with God according to his sovereign choice in election.
The debate rages on.
What I want to know is:
1) How did I believe, since there are many lost people I know who do not.
2) Why do I believe, since there are many who say they are saved who don't know.
3) Who do I believe, since one man's heresy is another's doctrine.
My basic presupposition on salvation is that is is available to all
who will believe and nobody is exempt from believing. John 3:17.
It is God's desire to save everyone, but not everyone will believe. John 1:7.
It's just this simple to me: We are all potentially elect in the elect one, Jesus Christ.
I admit C does do a nice job of explaining evangelical failures, except almost every
Calvinist preacher I ever listened to says the same thing every other
good baptist preacher says: Come and be saved today!
I got Grudem's Systematic Theology book for the expressed reason
to try to understand reformed theology.
I get to the chapter on repentance and what does he say?
Repentance is a personal decision of man!!
And this guy is firmly in the reformed camp, my friend.
I think the hyper-Calvinists on this thread are simply living on
on end of the tension and will never see the whole truth.
RWE,
I am not a hyper-calvinist. I haven't read anything on this thread that would cause me to accuse anyone of that.
Hyper-Calvinism is a pejorative for a theological position which holds that it is wrong to tell unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel. Hyper-Calvinism arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Particular Baptists in the mid 1700s, and can be seen in the teachings of men like Joseph Hussey (d. 1726), John Skepp (d. 1721), Lewis Wayman (d. 1764), John Brine (d. 1765), and to some extent in John Gill (d. 1771). They denied the free offer of the gospel, and rejected the idea that a person who is not influenced by the Holy Spirit has a duty to "repent and believe" in Christ for salvation, on the basis that he does not have the ability to do so.Wickepedia
I believe that the gospel goes out to all full and free that whosoever believes may be saved.
I believe all men are commanded to repent.
(Revelation 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
We are the bride and we say to all men "come".
Having said that, I do still believe also that salvation starts with God. Men will not come to drink unless they are thirsty.
God makes us thirsty so that we will come and drink.
As John Newton said
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
_____________________________
After conversion we need bruising so that reeds may know themselves to be reeds, and not oaks.- Richard Sibbes
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 3:58:37 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
OK, if all seat belts are fastened and trays up and locked, let's begin.
I've been accused of "harping" on Romans 1. The reason is simple; God's Word is alive and powerful, sharper than any machira (two edged sword- like a dagger, one of the most dangerous weapons in the ancient world) (although not as dangerous as Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum). God's Word does not come back "empty". So, there is never any harm in "harping" about God's Word. I'm hoping sooner or later some on this thread will finally "get it".
From Romans 1 we know that God has made evident to mankind "that which is known about God is evident within them because God MADE IT EVIDENT TO THEM". (1:19)
1:20 tells us that because God has made this evidence CLEARLY SEEN, no one has any excuse. Now, what is being referenced by "no excuse".
1:21 says that "even though they KNEW GOD, they did NOT honor (reverence) Him as God, OR give thanks". That's what no one has any excuse for not doing: recognizing and honoring God AND giving thanks to Him.
Since those being referred to in Romans 1 didn't honor God or give thanks, what happened? "they became futile in their speculations, and their FOOLISH HEART (Psa 14 and 53) was darkened". iow, they did it to themselves. How? By "suppressing the truth" from 1:18.
What "truth"? The evidence that God has given to mankind, so that no one has an excuse for not recognizing, honoring and thanking God.
Even though the calvinists see no connection between Psa 14 and 53, v.22 says
"professing to be wise, THEY BECAME FOOLS:. here it is! Paul actually calls those who suppress the truth what they are: FOOLS!
Anyone who rejects truth in any form is a fool, and such rejection is tantamount to suppression of the truth.
While the calvinists claim that Romans 1 speaks of all humanity, not just fools, who say in their heart that there is no God, Cornelius is an example of an unbeliever who recognized and honored God and was thankful.
Free will is demonstrated (dare I say proven) by this: God has given evidence to everyone. Such evidence "demands a verdict", as Lee Strobel would say.
Free will is nothing more than choosing between options. Now, since God HAS made evident "that which is known about God", man is faced with 1 of 2 options: either believe that evidence, or suppress the truth of that evidence.
We already know what choice fools make. They suppress the truth that God has provided to all men in grace. Did Cornelius suppress that truth?
NO! He recognized, honored (reverenced) God and was thankful to Him.
What happens to those fools who suppress the truth? v.24 tells us: "Therefore God GAVE THEM OVER in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...". iow, God let them go. After making clear to everyone His existence, those who suppress the truth are let go. There is no more pursuing of them, or "drawing". God does not draw the fool who says there is no God.
But Cornelius was not a fool. He DID recognize, honor and thank God. What was the result? Did God "give him over to the lusts of his heart? No. God sent and angel to telll him to send for Peter to give him "words by which you will be saved", according to Acts 11:14.
At every point where God provides "further evidence", man faces a choice: either to believe it or to reject (suppress) it. Fools choose one way, and Cornelius chose the other way.
Even up to the point of Peter's message, Cornelius was free to reject what Peter said, even though the calvinists cannot see that.
This is why I believe in "progressive revelation", meaning that those who respond to the initial evidence that God gives and recognizes/honors and gives thanks to God, will be given more evidence. How many steps in such progressive revelation? Who knows, but God. But believers are placed strategically in the lives of unbelievers, exerting an influence that draws those unbelievers closer and closer to the gospel message, as many believers have testified.
For some, like Cornelius, it seems that just 2 steps were involved: the initial evidence of His existence, and the presenting of the gospel. Oh, wait. Cornelius was free to reject the message of the angel. How many people might claim that it was just a "bad dream" and roll over and go back to sleep?
So, we know that Cornelius faced "truth" at least 3 times, all of which were wrought by God".
1. When God made Himself evident to Cornelius, he could have said, there is no God, like the fool who suppresses the truth.
2. When God sent the angel, he could have dismissed the vision as merely a bad pizza or something else he ate.
3. When Peter gave the gospel, he could have rejected the message as foolishness, as many did per 1 Cor 1:18 "for the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Bottom line: when God makes truth evident, a choice is faced. To either believe it, or to reject/suppress it. That is free will.
KJB, free will has nothing to do with changing your skin color, moving mountains, or any other silly thing you come up with. It has to do with believing or rejecting truth as God reveals it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/6/2008 4:21:58 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7210
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
TDD-
Look, it has to start somewhere.
Calvinism says it starts with God according to his sovereign choice in election.
The debate rages on.
What I want to know is:
1) How did I believe, since there are many lost people I know who do not.
2) Why do I believe, since there are many who say they are saved who don't know.
3) Who do I believe, since one man's heresy is another's doctrine.
My basic presupposition on salvation is that is is available to all
who will believe and nobody is exempt from believing. John 3:17.
It is God's desire to save everyone, but not everyone will believe. John 1:7.
It's just this simple to me: We are all potentially elect in the elect one, Jesus Christ.
I admit C does do a nice job of explaining evangelical failures, except almost every
Calvinist preacher I ever listened to says the same thing every other
good baptist preacher says: Come and be saved today!
I got Grudem's Systematic Theology book for the expressed reason
to try to understand reformed theology.
I get to the chapter on repentance and what does he say?
Repentance is a personal decision of man!!
And this guy is firmly in the reformed camp, my friend.
I think the hyper-Calvinists on this thread are simply living on
on end of the tension and will never see the whole truth.
RWE,
I am not a hyper-calvinist. I haven't read anything on this thread that would cause me to accuse anyone of that.
Hyper-Calvinism is a pejorative for a theological position which holds that it is wrong to tell unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel.
Since Calvin held to unlimited atonement, I have heard that all who believe in limited atonement are "hyper" calvinists. iow, you have gone farther than Calvin himself. Seems every calvinist on this thread argues against unlimited atonement, so that would make y'all hyper calvinists.
quote:
I believe that the gospel goes out to all full and free that whosoever believes may be saved.
I believe all men are commanded to repent.
Fine and well. The real question is this: how many did Christ die for? If your answer is "only for the elect/believer/etc", you, sir, are hyper. Calvin himself didn't hold to limited atonement.
That bit of unbiblical stuff came from his successor, one Teddy Beza.
Maybe we should call y'all "beza-ites" instead of calvinists, if you are offended by the "hyper" title.
quote:
Having said that, I do still believe also that salvation starts with God. Men will not come to drink unless they are thirsty.
As does everyone on this thead who disagrees with you on other issues. The Bible tells us that men will seek God, and not because He "makes" us or "forces" us, or "causes" us. Men will seek God when they don't suppress the truth that God has made evident to them. It's that simple.
quote:
God makes us thirsty so that we will come and drink.
As John Newton said
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
Why is JN important? What is important is what God's Word says. Which is:
God has made Himself evident to everyone.
Everyone faces a choice: either believe that evidence or reject/suppress it.
Those who believe it please God, per Heb 11:6, "For without faith (believing truth) it is impossible to please God".
Those who believe that initial evidence will be given more, because the Bible promises this: "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. And I will be found by you declares the Lord." Jer 29:14
Did Cornelius "find" God? Most certainly! Were steps involved? Yes. Did he accept the evidence of each step? Yes.
To the "Beza-ites", why did God create mankind? Seems some of you have claimed that God did so to demonstrate His wrath towards some and make known the riches of His glory towards others.
This is true. We all know Rom 9:22,23. But that doesn' | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
