RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread

RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine

Message

TheosCentric -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rwe2156 quote: ORIGINAL: TheoCentric So God does not elect? You fight against scripture? (Rom 8:29 ESV) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. I fight against Scripture all the time, bro. Scripture slaps me around regularly. 1John has a great uppercut! [:D] Let me ask you - WHO was predestined, those whom he foreknew, or those who he called? Read the Scripture carefully.. Notice the sequence: foreknew....predestined.....called. Yes I do believe God elects. There are many examples of God's election, the most important being Jesus Christ, THE elect one. 1Pet 2 say what do you, Theo - God selectively chooses, or God calls based on his foreknowledge of who will believe? Here it is: "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Foreknowledge of what? Which particular men he will call and save? Or who will believe? What do you believe foreknowledge means in the scripture? Do you believe that God looks into the future to see who will believe? If so, then you believe in Open Theism, a heresy that theologians such as Greg Boyd espouse. I use to think this way until I further studied what foreknowledge really means. It's more of a foreloved, not foreknow.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond FreeGrace, quote: What is so difficult about understanding that when God makes Himself evident to mankind, that man is faced with 2 options. Either accept as true (believe) that evidence, or reject that evidence (suppression of that truth). We have Cornelius who accepted that evidence, proven by the FACT that he reverenced God and prayed continually. He did NOT suppress that truth. We also know that fools say in their hearts, there is no God. They DID suppress that truth. Enough of Cornelius, why dont you use me and my life history as your prime example? Why are you so resistant with Cornelius? He is mentioned in Scripture as an example of an unbeliever who responded to the divine revelation that God made evident to him, with the result that he began to seek God, and God provided him with more divine revelation, all the way up to the gospel. Why does his life so bother you? quote: 2 options huh? So, you reject the fact that when God gives divine revelation about Himself that man is faced with either believing it or rejecting it? Why? quote: Why use a guy like Cornelius as an example when you can use a guy like me that was as depraved as depraved could be? How do you explain ME and MY situation when I was totally opposite of Cornelius? What I know from Romans 1 is that God provided you with divine revelation about Himself. iow, at some point, you became conscious of the existence of God. And, whether you will even admit it or not, you wanted to know more about Him. Along the way, you may have become quite rebellious towards God. But, because you did want to know more about Him, He provided you with more divine revelation. That is how you came face to face with the gospel, btw. quote: How do you explain ME and MY position when I was totally opposed to God? Why did God reveal Himself to me when I was in total suppression of the truth? I did not pray at all, let alone continually. I did not reverence God......at all. Why did God reveal Himself to me when I was doing ALL the wrong things? I will be the first person to admit I suppressed the truth. I had nothing to do with God. Because God gave you divine revelation about His existence, and somewhere along the line, probably early in your childhood, you wanted to know more, even if you've forgotten that you did. And God provided you more revelation. quote: quote: So, clearly Cornelius believed that truth that God had made evident to him. I was actually involved in false religions and cults and I constantly did research into them. This demonstrates to me that you were seeking God! Just like Cornelius. quote: I was by no stretch of the imagination a good guy doing good things for my fellow man. I was involved in all sorts of bad and evil things that I would be embarrassed to even mention here. No need to. And none of this is relevant. I really don't know why all you calvinists can't separate the difference between believing what God has made evident with being a "good guy". Yes, Cornelius was a good guy, and you were not such a good guy. So what? The point is that God gave both of you divine revelation about Himself and both of you wanted to know more. Your admission that you got into false religions/cults actually demonstrates that you were seeking God. And, guess what?! You actually finally found Him. Your testimony supports my position. quote: So explain it! [:'(] Just did. Thanks for your testimony. quote: How do you explain my situation compared with wonderful Cornelius? I was doing all the wrong things and doing nothing right. You were actively seeking God, whether you will even admit it or not, by your own testimony. So, you were doing the right thing! quote: Your doctrine cant explain it. Your doctrine has no way of explaining it. Just did. [:)] quote: What happened to me was not anything free-will could have ever done. When God presented the gospel to you, did you believe it? Maybe not the first or even the 1,000th time, but did you eventually believe the gospel? If you did, that is exactly what free will is. It is believing what God makes evident to you. And you did believe what God made evident to you. quote: Free-will is no miracle. Never said it was. Don't know why you even say this. quote: What happened to me was nothing short of a miracle.....it was a miracle from God! All of God's grace is miraculous. The new birth is miraculous. quote: I know exactly how to explain it in the truth that you do not accept. It is clear; Romans 9 (NLT); 15 For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.” 16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it. 17 For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.” 18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen. Yes, He does. The question is this: to whom does He show mercy to? Those who seek Him, as you have testified and as Cornelius has demonstrated. Isas 55:6-7 says "Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord and He will have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon." Another question: to whom does He NOT show mercy? Those who suppress the truth by denying His existence OR those who "although they knew God, neither honored Him as God nor were thankful" (Romans 1:21). quote: The grace of God causes people to believe. No. The grace of God makes evident to mankind Truth about Him. Those who seek Him will find Him, as Scripture promises and you cannot deny. 2Chron 15:2, Heb 11:6b, Acts 17:27

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:27:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope FG, quote: I think it's quite telling that the reformed will not give an answer to my 5 simple questions. I think it is because you actually know what the answers are from the text, yet you cannot admit it. I clearly answered all five questions. I guess you have a short memory or didn't read my answers very carefully, but I did answer them and you thanked me. I think your statement above shows that your main purpose is trying to win an argument and not trying to understand what others are saying. Yes, you did. I was referring to everyone else. I'm sorry I didn't mention that you did answer. Why do you think that no one else is willing to answer? I'm actually trying to understand the position of others, but since they refuse to answer my simple questions, how can I understand their position? As far as "winning an argument", my purpose is showing the truth of the Bible. There are many questions and problems the reformed cannot answer. The very fact that so many won't even try to answer simple questions is a clue to that. Your answers support my position, btw. And, again, thanks for answering. I wish your reformed brothers had as much intellectual honesty as you do.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:31:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope FG, quote: Acts 17:27 doesn't speak of inability as you erroneously assume. It does speak of the purpose of God in creating mankind. I did not say that Acts 17:27 speaks of inability. I said that just as the purpose of man is to love God with all of his being is impossible for fallen man, so is seeking God - none have done it, no not one. Your conclusion has no basis. Man IS able to seek God. Cornelius is a perfect example of that. Why do you deny that when God makes evident divine revelation about Himself to man, that man cannot either believe or reject that revelation? What is the purpose of God in making divine revelation evident to man, if not for believing or rejecting it? Remember, if one has "no excuse" for doing something, that MEANS they are able to do it.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:32:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond SureHope, quote: I clearly answered all five questions. I guess you have a short memory or didn't read my answers very carefully, but I did answer them and you thanked me. I think your statement above shows that your main purpose is trying to win an argument and not trying to understand what others are saying. I am starting to think the only people that have ever really answered his questions are those that agree with his POV. [;)] As for everybody else, they are too afraid to answer......even while giving their answers. And that would include yourself, eh? LOL is right! Your link to the WCF was no answer, btw. since SH answered the 5 simple questions, why can't you? If you aren't afraid, what else?

KingJamesBond -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:36:15 AM)
rwe2156, quote: Yes I do believe God elects. There are many examples of God's election, the most important being Jesus Christ, THE elect one. How about the clear example that was given in Romans 9? God selected one to love and another to reject. It clearly states He did so before they were born and did anything. How are we going to argue with that? Since this selection (ELECTION) was made by God and it was not based on them being born or doing anything......what part of the election process do we wish give to the people and which part to God? Romans 9 is speaking about children of God; No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God’s people! 7 Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too. 8 This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. It further explains; 11 But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes; 12 he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.” 13 In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.” People think its wrong even though it is cut and dry; 14 Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not! 15 For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.” 16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it. As the sovereign God of His own creation.....He not only has the right....but He displays this right in action working as He pleases among the inhabitants of the earth. He gives mercy or witholds it. He softens and hardens as He wills. And He is good......He is better than good.....He is GREAT. 18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen. 19 Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?” 20 No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? I dont know what else to say except that it is reality. Its just the way things are. I suppose the day we build our own universe we can do it our own way....but until then....this is reality. [;)] KJB

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:42:40 AM)
quote: quote: quote: RIGINAL: TheosCentric quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace In a nutshell, Cornelius believed Truth at least 3 times: 1- when God made Himself evident to him at some point in his life, per Romans 1 2- when the angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter. He could have excused the vision as just a bad pizza or indigestion, or even a hallucination. 3- when Peter presented the gospel to him and his household. Can any of you calvinists deny any of these times when Cornelius was faced with either believing or rejecting (suppressing) the Truth that God was revealing to him? That's the exact opposite of what happens. I have pointed this out before from Romans 8:29-30. God Elects, Man responds, God saves. You don't seem to like the God elects part. It wipes away your theology, but it's there in black and white in the scripture. Please respond to the 3 times in Cornelius' life where he faced divine revelation known as Truth and believed it as an unregenerate man. My position is that God "chooses" or elects those for salvation who believe, which is essentially what 2 Thess 2:13 says. And once again, your position shows that man does something first. However, if we look at Cornelius, we have God revealing himself to Cornelius and Cornelius responding to that, which is Biblical. Actually, that is my position, as I've noted frequently. God as already done the first thing, according to Romans 1, by making the Truth of His existence evident to mankind. So, man NEVER makes the "first move", as the reformed keep thinking the FW position states. If man believes the Truth that God makes evident, and seeks Him, then God will provide more divine revelation, as Cornelius clearly demonstrates. quote: See my response to rwe on this with regards to Romans 8. It fully lists the order of God's salvation. God foreloved Cornelius and his family. He predestined Cornelius to be conformed to the image of His Son. Cornelius responded from the faith that had been granted him through grace. Who can resist God, according to Romans 8? This is not puppetry as you will so call it, I'm sure, but God revealing himself to all men, for His namesake. Some He chooses to save, some He chooses not to. Why do you reformed resist the clear teaching from Scripture that God chooses to save believers and chooses to condemn the unbelievers?

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 8:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tdd1975 Freegrace quote: quote: ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond tdd1975, You are posting about good and bad. Someone that suppressed the truth would be bad......and someone that did not suppress the truth would be good. You have it right on target! According to free-will theology, people would be saved because they did something good. According to Scripture, people are saved by grace. I'm continually amazed that the reformed seem totally unable to grasp the position of free will. The correct position of free will is that people would be saved because they believed in Christ. And, according to Scripture, people are saved by grace, through faith, something that the reformed keep forgetting to mention when they note that people are saved by grace. Why is that? I ask you if not suppressing the truth was a good thing and you said yes. In your theology saved by grace through faith didn't happen with Cornelius untill he heard the gospel, correct? Yes. quote: You have said over and over that the reason God sent the gospel to Cornelius was because he didn't suppress the truth. Yes, I did. We know from Romans 1 what God does towards those who do suppress the Truth of what He makes evident to mankind. God "gives them over to the lusts of their heart". iow, He lets them go. quote: If you were right then for someone to even have the gospel presented to them they have to do a good thing (not suppress the truth). So what? Did that "good thing" save them? No. Why can't you see the FACT that God gives divine revelation based on man wanting more information? When God makes evident Truth about Himself, man is faced with a decision: to either accept that evidence as true, or reject that evidence as false (suppression of that truth). Everyone is faced with this decision when God makes the Truth about Himself evident to all. To those who recognize Him as God and honor Him by seeking more information, He "grants" it (a favorite word among the reformed [;)]). quote: This flys in the face of our Lord's command to preach the gospel to all creatures. It absolutely DOES NOT. Giving the gospel to those who suppress the truth only becomes more indictment against them. quote: It is a false presupposition based on the human philosophy that God only helps those who help themselves. What ever in the world are you talking about? Why do you misinterpret believing divine revelation and seeking more information as "helping themselves"? Please explain this. quote: That is not the truth. God helps those who can't help themselves. I believe it is correct to say that those who recognize that God is Creator of the universe and seek Him understand that they cannot help themselves. It would be those who suppress the truth, like fools, and the humanists, who think they can help themselves. I think you are quite confused about the matter. quote: He gives life to those who are dead not to those who are already living. He gives sight to the blind not to those who already see. And the gospel is preached to the poor not those who are already rich. I fail to see what any of this has to do with anything we've been discussing. Have I said that those who bleieve the divine revelation of the Truth that God makes evident to mankind are "already living", "already seeing", and are "already rich"? I have not. So, what does any of this have to do with anything? quote: Jesus came to save sinners not those who are already godly. Correct. Why do you erroneously think that my pov is that those who have believed what God has made evident and seek Him are "already godly"? They aren't already living, seeing, rich, nor godly. Does that help understanding my pov? They are merely seeking Him, which is why He created mankind in the first place, according to Acts 17:27. Do, do you deny that too?

SureHope -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 9:12:50 AM)
FG, quote: Your answers support my position If my answers do support your position, you have failed to show it. Quite the opposite, the discussion we have been having concerning Romans 1 disdproves your possion entirely, for all have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 9:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope First, I do not fail to consider what suppressing the truth means. Is it that all men suppress the fact that God exists or is it that many know that He exists but suppress the objective truth about His attributes, about His nature and the response from us that this revelation should invoke. All men suppress something that God has made evident in all and to all. because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (Romans 1:19 NASB95) Paul tells us specifically what all men suppress. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20 NASB95) What God has made evident is not merely that He exists, but more importantly and specifically His attributes, His power and divine nature have been clearly seen. The nature of and power of God is revealed through creation for all to see and know. There is no excuse for any of us, even those who acknowledge the existence of God, for not acknowledging God appropriately. That is correct and I've not said otherwise. What men suppress is either the existence of God, like fools who say there is no God, or those who "knew God, but neither honored Him as God nor were thankful" (1:21). Your claim that all men suppress the truth is NOT supported by the text. Cornelius was cognizant of God and by his life, was seeking Him, which you cannot deny. quote: What is the appropriate response to this revelation of God through His creation? The subjective response that this should invoke within all of us is living to the glory of God and giving thanks for His providential care of us (the word translated "honor" literally means "glory"). And that is what Cornelius was attempting to do. Do you deny this? quote: For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks (Romans 1:21a NASB95) Do you want to claim that Cornelius did not honor God or gives thanks? quote: What all men suppress is the attributes of God, His power and divine nature clearly seen in creation and our duty to give honor and glory to Him in all we think and do. Since the Bible tells us that Cornelius reverenced God (God fearing) and prayed continually, he WAS giving honor to Him in all he did and thought. quote: We suppress the fact that we are obligated to give thanks to God in whom we are dependent. And, yet you apparently think that Cornelius didn't do these things? quote: The truth that all men suppress is not merely that God exists, but the revealed attributes, the power and divine nature of the God that does exist. Cornelius did NOT suppress that truth, as Acts 10 clearly indicates. quote: are homosexuals, for example, who admit to the existence of God and even go to church. Even though God has turned them over to degrading passions and a depraved mind, they still acknowledge the existence of God. What they suppress is the attributes of God, the nature and power of God. They suppress, twist and spin God to be that which He is not in order for them to continue in their darkness. I agree. And because they recognize the existence of God, did they seek Him? According to Rom 1:21, those who do "know" (recognize His existence) Him but do NOT honor Him AS God, nor are thankful are "given over to the lusts of their hearts. Do you understand this? Did God "give over to the lusts of his heart" in the life of Cornelius? No. In fact, Cornelius faced the Truth of divine revelation at least 3 times. 1- God made evident to him His existence and divine attributes per Rom 1 2 angel sent from God have him a message to send for Peter per Acts 10 3- Peter presented the gospe to Cornelius and he believed per Acts 10. In all three events when God made evident Truth to Cornelius, he responded to that truth and sought more truth. He could have "written off" the angel as a bad dream, an hallucination, a bad pizza, or whatever. But...he believed the angel and responded to what the angel said. iow, he sent for Peter. quote: t is the result of our resistance to live as we were created: to show our dependence upon God by giving thanks for His providential care and give glory to Him? Cornelius demonstrated that. quote: #000099]but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21b NASB95) Here Paul is thinking of the fools noted in Psa 14 and 53. He notes "foolish hearts" in v.21 and then calls them "fools" in v.22. Are calling Cornelius a fool? quote: are foolish. All men have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. The truth that all men suppress is His attributes, His pwere and divine nature. All men suppress the truth that we owe God lives that glorify and honor Him and lives that show our utter dependence upon Him and His provision of all that we need - giving thanks. This is what all men suppress in and by their unrighteousness You are so confused. Cornelius was not a fool. He demonstrated that he recognized God as Creator, he honored/reverenced Him and he was quite thankful, as noted by his continual prayers and alms. You have no point when you say that all men are foolish/fools. Cornelius proves you wrong. quote: stle Paul states that the wrath of God is upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Ungodliness and unrighteousness are sin. What do these ungodly and unrighteous men do? They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This could be translated, “who suppress the truth BY their unrighteousness.” So, I don’t really know what you are getting at by saying “merely sin,” but one thing I do know, the sin of suppressing the truth about God revealed in His creation brings on us the almighty righteous wrath of God. The suppression of truth is huge – it is unrighteous; it is Sin with a capital S. Either you or one of your theological brethren wanted to prove that sin was suppression of truth. But it isn't. Suppression of Truth is denial of that Truth, or refusing to be thankful for that Truth (om 1:21). quote: o, your argument was that the term “for” in verse 18 started a new paragraph and a totally new topic, which goes against the very scholars you said inserted a paragraph break between verses 17 and 18. I pointed out that these scholars agree with me that the term “for” connects verses 17 and 18 and thus show that ALL men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So, no, the confusion was not about what suppression of truth refers to, but was about ALL men suppressing the truth. All they got right was the paragraph break.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 9:16:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope FG, quote: Your answers support my position If my answers do support your position, you have failed to show it. Quite the opposite, the discussion we have been having concerning Romans 1 disdproves your possion entirely, for all have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. Your answers were of my questions regarding Cornelius, not Romans 1 specifically. The fact is that Cornelius reverenced God and was thankful as an unregenerate unbeliever at the beginning of Acts 10. You agreed. Cornelius got further divine revelation in the form of an angel, which you agreed. Cornelius believed the angel and did what the angel said to do. All along the way Cornelius demonstrated that he was a "seeker", and that God gave him more divine revelation, all of which is linked to Romans 1. Romans 1 speaks about those who suppress the truth of God's existence and deivine power and attributes. Cornelius clearly did NOT suppress or reject any of that Truth. In fact, just the opposite, he continually sought for more Truth.

TheosCentric -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 9:34:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: quote: quote: RIGINAL: TheosCentric quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace In a nutshell, Cornelius believed Truth at least 3 times: 1- when God made Himself evident to him at some point in his life, per Romans 1 2- when the angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter. He could have excused the vision as just a bad pizza or indigestion, or even a hallucination. 3- when Peter presented the gospel to him and his household. Can any of you calvinists deny any of these times when Cornelius was faced with either believing or rejecting (suppressing) the Truth that God was revealing to him? That's the exact opposite of what happens. I have pointed this out before from Romans 8:29-30. God Elects, Man responds, God saves. You don't seem to like the God elects part. It wipes away your theology, but it's there in black and white in the scripture. Please respond to the 3 times in Cornelius' life where he faced divine revelation known as Truth and believed it as an unregenerate man. My position is that God "chooses" or elects those for salvation who believe, which is essentially what 2 Thess 2:13 says. And once again, your position shows that man does something first. However, if we look at Cornelius, we have God revealing himself to Cornelius and Cornelius responding to that, which is Biblical. Actually, that is my position, as I've noted frequently. God as already done the first thing, according to Romans 1, by making the Truth of His existence evident to mankind. So, man NEVER makes the "first move", as the reformed keep thinking the FW position states. If man believes the Truth that God makes evident, and seeks Him, then God will provide more divine revelation, as Cornelius clearly demonstrates. Then, man works for his salvation? quote: quote: See my response to rwe on this with regards to Romans 8. It fully lists the order of God's salvation. God foreloved Cornelius and his family. He predestined Cornelius to be conformed to the image of His Son. Cornelius responded from the faith that had been granted him through grace. Who can resist God, according to Romans 8? This is not puppetry as you will so call it, I'm sure, but God revealing himself to all men, for His namesake. Some He chooses to save, some He chooses not to. Why do you reformed resist the clear teaching from Scripture that God chooses to save believers and chooses to condemn the unbelievers? Who among the reformed has said anything different? You're going in circles and using an argument that makes the reformed pov say something it doesn't say.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 9:48:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheosCentric quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrac]Actually, that is my position, as I've noted frequently. God as already done the first thing, according to Romans 1, by making the Truth of His existence evident to mankind. So, man NEVER makes the "first move", as the reformed keep thinking the FW position states. If man believes the Truth that God makes evident, and seeks Him, then God will provide more divine revelation, as Cornelius clearly demonstrates. Then, man works for his salvation? So you think that if man believes the divine revelation that God provides to everyone, that is seen as "works" to you? Why are you so confused? Please explain to me how believing something that God makes evident to everyone can be claimed to be a "work"? Even Rom 4:4,5 contradict you. quote: quote: quote: See my response to rwe on this with regards to Romans 8. It fully lists the order of God's salvation. God foreloved Cornelius and his family. He predestined Cornelius to be conformed to the image of His Son. Cornelius responded from the faith that had been granted him through grace. Who can resist God, according to Romans 8? This is not puppetry as you will so call it, I'm sure, but God revealing himself to all men, for His namesake. Some He chooses to save, some He chooses not to. Why do you reformed resist the clear teaching from Scripture that God chooses to save believers and chooses to condemn the unbelievers? Who among the reformed has said anything different? Just look at your quote above? Where do you include believing or unbelieving? All you note is that God chooses who to save and who not to. I've never seen any reformist note the condition upon what salvation or condemnation is based on. Every time you note that God chooses, you phrase it to look like it's not based on anything other than God's "whim", even though you don't use that term, nor would you even accept that term. But that's what you are communicating, when you fail to noate the basis upon which man is saved or condemned. One good example is the frequent quote of Eph 2:5 about we are saved by grace, when Eph 2:8 goes further to say through faith. It seems to be that the reformists are suppressing the truth about who is saved. All you note and emphasize is God's grace, and I don't deny we are saved by grace. But, it seems you reformists never want to include "through faith" as a condition for being saved. iow, you keep presenting salvation as something God just does, without any basis other than His will. Yet, John 6:40 speaks of His Will, which is to give eternal life to whosoever believes in His Son. Why do you keep leaving out the part about man must believe in order to be saved. Even Paul made that clear to the jailer in Acts 16:31. You have no excuse for leaving out the basis for our salvation.

Odeliya -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:09:56 AM)
quote: KJB: tdd1975, You are posting about good and bad. Someone that suppressed the truth would be bad......and someone that did not suppress the truth would be good Romans 3:27-28 says “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Note what these verses teach: (1) that we are not saved by works, (2) that we are saved through faith, (3) that this kind of faith that saves EXCLUDES BOASTING, (4) that this faith is contrasted with works, faith then according to the bible is not considered a work that saves you. The kind of faith that a person has when they are converted to Christianity involves humility not pride (we recognize that we are sinners, that we deserve the wrath of God and hell, that we did not deserve anything from God and yet He sent Jesus to die for our sins to die in our place, that we cannot save ourselves by any religious works, that we can only be saved when we put our trust in the Lord and HE SAVES US).

Odeliya -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:11:36 AM)
quote: According to free-will theology, people would be saved because they did something good. According to Scripture, people are saved by grace. Happy to report , dearest KJ, that in FW theology people are saved by grace. See, it's like that : if people that are sitting on the rooftop during the flood get into the lifeboat provided by rescuers , who saved them? Same here- if we are saved by God from death, and FW admits it's God and only God who saves, w/t God's work nobody would be saved, regardless how they desire it, how can we claim the highlighted above ? I dont mind criticism of FW position.I am actually here to get constructive criticism/positive commentary of C and FW from knowledgable peeps. But we have to address the reality of each position.

TheosCentric -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: TheosCentric quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrac]Actually, that is my position, as I've noted frequently. God as already done the first thing, according to Romans 1, by making the Truth of His existence evident to mankind. So, man NEVER makes the "first move", as the reformed keep thinking the FW position states. If man believes the Truth that God makes evident, and seeks Him, then God will provide more divine revelation, as Cornelius clearly demonstrates. Then, man works for his salvation? So you think that if man believes the divine revelation that God provides to everyone, that is seen as "works" to you? Why are you so confused? Please explain to me how believing something that God makes evident to everyone can be claimed to be a "work"? Even Rom 4:4,5 contradict you. My point is that you have God responding to man's actions. Did Abraham believe before or after God chose him? On what merit did Abraham choose God? quote: quote: quote: quote: See my response to rwe on this with regards to Romans 8. It fully lists the order of God's salvation. God foreloved Cornelius and his family. He predestined Cornelius to be conformed to the image of His Son. Cornelius responded from the faith that had been granted him through grace. Who can resist God, according to Romans 8? This is not puppetry as you will so call it, I'm sure, but God revealing himself to all men, for His namesake. Some He chooses to save, some He chooses not to. Why do you reformed resist the clear teaching from Scripture that God chooses to save believers and chooses to condemn the unbelievers? Who among the reformed has said anything different? Just look at your quote above? Where do you include believing or unbelieving? All you note is that God chooses who to save and who not to. I've never seen any reformist note the condition upon what salvation or condemnation is based on. Every time you note that God chooses, you phrase it to look like it's not based on anything other than God's "whim", even though you don't use that term, nor would you even accept that term. But that's what you are communicating, when you fail to noate the basis upon which man is saved or condemned. One good example is the frequent quote of Eph 2:5 about we are saved by grace, when Eph 2:8 goes further to say through faith. It seems to be that the reformists are suppressing the truth about who is saved. All you note and emphasize is God's grace, and I don't deny we are saved by grace. But, it seems you reformists never want to include "through faith" as a condition for being saved. iow, you keep presenting salvation as something God just does, without any basis other than His will. Yet, John 6:40 speaks of His Will, which is to give eternal life to whosoever believes in His Son. Why do you keep leaving out the part about man must believe in order to be saved. Even Paul made that clear to the jailer in Acts 16:31. You have no excuse for leaving out the basis for our salvation. I have always stated that we are saved through faith, and I know of know reformist who would deny that. The question is where does that faith come from? Ourselves or God. You have admitted that faith comes from God. Jesus is the author and perfecter (completer) of our faith. Not of works, lest any one should boast.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:41:45 AM)
There has been a long debate regarding the question of whether true believers can quit believing. Since kelman refuses to even acknowledge my pov that they can, and therefore differentiate between a "former believer" and an "unbeliever", which I define as one who has never believed, I have ceased responding to his posts which consistently mischaracterize my pov. However, for the rest of the crowd, my pov is not based solely on what I read in Luke 8:12 and 13, which is clear enough to me. For kelman, "believed for a while" translates into "did not savingly believe", which actually contradicts what Jesus plainly stated. There are a host of other verses which say basically the same thing, found in 1 and 2 Timothy. Here they are: 1 Tim 1:19 "keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith." Notice that the ones who have rejected faith is "in regard to their faith". 4:1 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" The Greek word for "fall away" is aphistemi, from whicih we get the word "apostacize". That word is defined as "no longer believing what you used to believe". 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Would Paul be saying that an unbeliever can be worse than an unbeliever? That would make no sense at all. 5:11 "but refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in DISREGARD TO CHRIST, they want to get married" The very next verse speaks of these young widows with sensual desires that disregard Christ as having "set aside their previous pledge". 5:15 "for some have already turned aside to follow Satan." The calvinists claim all unbelievers do this, so why would Paul even note this. Plus, he notes that "some have already turned aside", indicating that they formerly weren't. 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have WANDERED AWAY FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves with many a pang." The Greek word for "wandered away" is "apoplanaoo", which means to "go astray", "to lead away from the truth to error". It cannot be said that unbelievers can be "led away from the truth" since they aren't in the truth. 6:21 "which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith." The Greek word is "astocheo", which means to deviate or swerve from the truth. Unbelievers cannot be said to swerve from the truth since by definition they are already away from the truth. Paul is noting "some" who are now swerving from the faith. 2 Tim 2:18 "men (Hymenaeus and Philetus) who hve gone astray from the truth saying that the recurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some." Here we have the same Greek word as in 6:21. Also, their actions of swerving from the truth and saying the resurrection has already taken place caused the faith of some to be "upset". The Greek word for that is "anatrepo", meaning to overthrow or subvert. Paul is actually noting that false doctrine CAN subvert or overthrow the faith of some. 4:4 "and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." Who is Paul describing? v.3 says, "for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine". Can it be said that ANY unbeliever endures sound doctrine? Absolutely not. Paul is describing believers here, who at some point will no longer endure sound doctrine, but turn away from the truth to myths. 4:10 "for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica, Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia." Demas is an example of a believer who turned aside for the love of this present world. As if this isn't enough to convince any open minded person that a true believer can turn aside, turn away, fall away from the faith, consider this verse, which is a command to believers: 2 Tim 2:19 "Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, The Lord knows those who are His, and Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness". Paul is commanding everyone who names the Name of the Lord to abstain from wickedness. iow, believers might not abstain from wickedness. That's why Paul commands us to abstain. So we will know we are to abstain. Without this command, some believers may not know that they are to abstain from wickedness, and therefore, not abstain from it. That's what commands are for; to warn against a certain course of action.

TheosCentric -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:55:47 AM)
Freegrace, It seems that kelman painted you into such a corner that you cannot respond to his posts. Needless to say, but if one does not believe anymore, does that not make them an unbeliever?

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:56:04 AM)
quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: TheosCentric quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace Why do you reformed resist the clear teaching from Scripture that God chooses to save believers and chooses to condemn the unbelievers? Who among the reformed has said anything different? Just look at your quote above? Where do you include believing or unbelieving? All you note is that God chooses who to save and who not to. I've never seen any reformist note the condition upon what salvation or condemnation is based on. Every time you note that God chooses, you phrase it to look like it's not based on anything other than God's "whim", even though you don't use that term, nor would you even accept that term. But that's what you are communicating, when you fail to noate the basis upon which man is saved or condemned. One good example is the frequent quote of Eph 2:5 about we are saved by grace, when Eph 2:8 goes further to say through faith. It seems to be that the reformists are suppressing the truth about who is saved. All you note and emphasize is God's grace, and I don't deny we are saved by grace. But, it seems you reformists never want to include "through faith" as a condition for being saved. iow, you keep presenting salvation as something God just does, without any basis other than His will. Yet, John 6:40 speaks of His Will, which is to give eternal life to whosoever believes in His Son. Why do you keep leaving out the part about man must believe in order to be saved. Even Paul made that clear to the jailer in Acts 16:31. You have no excuse for leaving out the basis for our salvation. I have always stated that we are saved through faith, and I know of know reformist who would deny that. Of course no reformist would deny it, because, as much as they never seem to quote Eph 2:8, they know it's there. My point was that the reformists want to quote only Eph 2:5. Why do you always want to leave out "through faith"? quote: The question is where does that faith come from? Ourselves or God. That question is answered in Rom 10:10. We believe from the heart. quote: You have admitted that faith comes from God. Jesus is the author and perfecter (completer) of our faith. Faith is a noun, and generally refers to the body of what we call the "Christian faith". All of it comes from God: Our eternal life Our forgiveness Our salvation Our justification quote: Not of works, lest any one should boast. Yep. What does that have to do with believing on man's part? Rom 4:4,5 makes very clear that our believing (our faith) is distinguished from works.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 11:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheosCentric Freegrace, It seems that kelman painted you into such a corner that you cannot respond to his posts. No, he did not. I tired of his antics. He wouldn't respect my term "former believer" and consistently used "unbeliever" which I define as one who never believed. Since he doesn't want to "play fair" and purposely mischaracterize what I believe, I don't want to waste any more time with him. quote: Needless to say, but if one does not believe anymore, does that not make them an unbeliever? No, it makes them a saved former believer. Are you able to understand that? Why not respond to my post #30892 about this subject? Thanks.

TheosCentric -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 1:23:14 PM)
That was my response to 30892. Sorry if you cannot accept that a former believer is simply an unbeliever. Maybe I'm not playing fair either. So be it. Ignore my posts as well.

SureHope -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 2:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope FG, quote: Acts 17:27 doesn't speak of inability as you erroneously assume. It does speak of the purpose of God in creating mankind. I did not say that Acts 17:27 speaks of inability. I said that just as the purpose of man is to love God with all of his being is impossible for fallen man, so is seeking God - none have done it, no not one. Your conclusion has no basis. Sure does – What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:9-12 ESV) Note the context - "For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin . . . What does he do to prove this; what validation does he use to confirm his previous statement? He starts out with that term "for" again, showing here the proof of the previous statement - "all . . . are under sin" - is found in the Old Testament, "no one seeks for God." "No one seeks for God" is used as proof that "all . . . are under sin." Obviously not merely talking about a group of sinners called "fools". quote: Man IS able to seek God. Cornelius is a perfect example of that. You have not and continue not to have any scriptural proof of this. Quite the opposite is true; fallen man suppresses the truth about God and does not give Him the glory He deserves and does not give thanks for His providential care. Fallen man does not seek God - no not one. They have ALL gone astray. Scripture points to the opposite of what you claim no matter how you try to spin it. quote: Remember, if one has "no excuse" for doing something, that MEANS they are able to do it. Remember - you, I, and all others have no excuse for loving God with every fiber of our being . . . and it has proven impossible for you, I and all others. You have no scriptural basis for your presupposition. God does demand that which man is unable to fulfill on his own. His inability is his persistent unwillingness - it is a matter of the heart. God commands all of us to seek Him. None of us, including Cornelius, did so in and of ourselves. We all needed God's initiative; His gracious work within. SH

SureHope -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 2:32:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeGrace quote: ORIGINAL: SureHope FG, quote: Your answers support my position If my answers do support your position, you have failed to show it. Quite the opposite, the discussion we have been having concerning Romans 1 disdproves your possion entirely, for all have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. Your answers were of my questions regarding Cornelius, not Romans 1 specifically. But as you previously have admitted, we cannot derive any doctrine from the life of Cornelius in and of himself. Where is the doctrine about seeking God and suppressing the truth come from? Romans 1-3, which clearly states that no one seeks after God and that all have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. quote: Romans 1 speaks about those who suppress the truth of God's existence and deivine power and attributes. No, it speaks of those who suppress what is known about God: His invisible attributes, His power and divine nature. Many believe in the existence of God who suppress the truth about His attributes, His power and nature. quote: Cornelius clearly did NOT suppress or reject any of that Truth. In fact, just the opposite, he continually sought for more Truth. Since Cornelius is a human and therefore was ungodly and unrighteous, he also suppressed the truth in and by unrighteousness.

SureHope -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 2:45:55 PM)
FG, quote: Why do you deny that when God makes evident divine revelation about Himself to man, that man cannot either believe or reject that revelation? Because the apostle Paul denies it. He clearly states taht ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth by their unrigheousness, are under the wrath of God. God has revealed Himself to all men and all men are ungodly and unrighteous, and in their unrighteousness they suppress the truth. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20 ESV) Paul undeniably states that there are none who seek after God. What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Rom 3:9-11 ESV) The reason Paul quotes Psalm 14 & 53 is to prove that "all . . . are under sin," not merely a group of sinners called fools. Fallen man does have the opportunity to either believe or reject the revelation of God found in creation. Because of the hardness of his heart, he chooses to reject it - all have chosen to reject it. All are under the wrath of God becuase they have rejected it.

FreeGrace -> RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread (7/9/2008 3:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheosCentric That was my response to 30892. Sorry if you cannot accept that a former believer is simply an unbeliever. It is quite obvious that a former believer is currently an unbeliever, but one needs to recognize the distinctions that others make and at least respect their terms, instead of mischaracterizing them. quote: Maybe I'm not playing fair either. So be it. Ignore my posts as well. The issue here is whether one who has believed in Christ and is saved can quit believing. kelman rejects that, in spite of the host of verses that say otherwise. What say you?

Page: << < prev 1234 1235 [1236] 1237 1238 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI