PDA

View Full Version : Calvinists' Dilemma



Pages : [1] 2

Samie
March 18th, 2016, 01:13 PM
There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repentIt appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 18th, 2016, 01:21 PM
There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached call people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repentIt appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

It's good to see you appear to be seeking truth rather than merely accepting your churches indoctrination. I wish you well.

genuineoriginal
March 18th, 2016, 04:57 PM
It appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
Your attempt to turn your dogmas into another gospel only prove that you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
You should stop trying to claim that your dogma is the gospel, or you will just be another beloved57 bot.


There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

Will any Calvinist please explain?
I am not a Calvinist, but have read enough of their statements to know that the Elect Calvinists believe that only they are able to repent.

You seem to have forgotten that many are called, but few are chosen (elect).

All people everywhere are called to repentance, but the Calvinists believe that few are chosen (elect) to respond to that call.

Of course, that belief is just a distortion of the real Gospel.

jamie
March 18th, 2016, 05:07 PM
You seem to have forgotten that many are called, but few are chosen (elect).


Few are chosen for the first resurrection. The rest are called at the second resurrection.

Samie
March 19th, 2016, 12:00 AM
Your attempt to turn your dogmas into another gospel only prove that you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
You should stop trying to claim that your dogma is the gospel, or you will just be another beloved57 bot.What dogma are you referring to, brother? Do you know of even one of what you said are my dogmas? If Yes, then please specify. Because if you can't specify even one, then you will appear as just an accuser of a brother. And that would cause THE accuser of the brethren to rejoice.


I am not a Calvinist, but have read enough of their statements to know that the Elect Calvinists believe that only they are able to repent.

You seem to have forgotten that many are called, but few are chosen (elect).

All people everywhere are called to repentance, but the Calvinists believe that few are chosen (elect) to respond to that call.

Of course, that belief is just a distortion of the real Gospel.And what is the real gospel that you know? That UNLESS people first ACCEPT by faith the gift of salvation, they can NOT possibly be in Christ? If it is, then squarely address the OP in the other thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117065-Arminians-Dilemma&p=4653407&viewfull=1#post4653407), instead of pretending no Arminian dilemma exists.

Samie
March 22nd, 2016, 02:52 PM
I bubbled this thread up lest Calvinists forget their dilemma.

genuineoriginal
March 22nd, 2016, 03:44 PM
And what is the real gospel that you know?

Revelation 14:6-7
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Samie
March 24th, 2016, 02:57 PM
It appears the Calvinists' dilemma is here to stay. It's been 5 days and counting.

Samie
March 27th, 2016, 02:39 PM
It appears the Calvinists' dilemma is here to stay. It's been 5 days and counting.It's been 8 days. Still no Calvinist in sight.

Samie
March 27th, 2016, 03:07 PM
Your attempt to turn your dogmas into another gospel only prove that you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
You should stop trying to claim that your dogma is the gospel, or you will just be another beloved57 bot.
What dogma are you referring to, brother? Do you know of even one of what you said are my dogmas? If Yes, then please specify. Because if you can't specify even one, then you will appear as just an accuser of a brother. And that would cause THE accuser of the brethren to rejoice.Unanswered. 10th day since asked.

Samie
March 27th, 2016, 03:11 PM
It's been 8 days. Still no Calvinist in sight.Not 8. It's 9. Still no Calvinist in sight including the tulipbee who claimed he/she had been here.

Lon
March 27th, 2016, 10:51 PM
Will any Calvinist please explain?
Yep. Only the elect will repent. Calling you to repent, only the unrepentant will be held accountable for his/her unrepentance and unbelief. Do they have a choice? They are acting according to that nature. Question: Does God only find sinner who are 'willing' to repent? See, that's the Arminian answer and the OV answer. The Calvinist answer goes further: God is not only satisfied with those who 'would/might' come, but compels men and women to come. God even struck Saul blind, such is the Loving tenacity of God. Not only does He 'offer' He 'seeks' and 'saves' that which is lost. In the end, you are arguing over how Sovereign God is and how tenacious His love. You realize that Calvinists believe God's Love more particular (that He called you by name) and more tenacious than a general "come all ye who are heavy laden." While I am not opposed to the general call, I know and He knows who and who will not come and then, He chases after a few stubborn who He knows such effort will save as well. It is a particular and effectual love as such. While you may not agree, do you have a particular problem with incredibly tenacious and specific love that saved a wretch like you (and like me as the song goes)?


Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.
:idunno: Why? (Sometimes you say the darndest most prejudice things, Samie)

Epoisses
March 27th, 2016, 10:59 PM
Peter said he was elect by the foreknowledge of God. Peter was an apostle who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was a leader in the early church. For us to say we are elect today is usually presumption and ignores Christ's admonition that those who are faithful until death will receive a crown of life. Calvinists who boldly proclaim they are elect are ignorant idiots destitute of grace. Those who truly have received grace never brag about it.

Lon
March 27th, 2016, 11:09 PM
Peter said he was elect by the foreknowledge of God. Peter was an apostle who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was a leader in the early church. For us to say we are elect today is usually presumption and ignores Christ's admonition that those who are faithful until death will receive a crown of life. Calvinists who boldly proclaim they are elect are ignorant idiots destitute of grace. Those who truly have received grace never brag about it. "Idiot?" "Moron?" :doh: Jeremiah 9:24 1 Corinthians 1:31 2 Corinthians 10:16-18 Nice try I suppose, Epo, but no dice. Nobody is paying attention to who you think is a moron or idiot nor that those are particularly 'mature Christian' sentiments. You are cutting your proverbial credibility throat by mindless banter that is unnecessary.
2 Timothy 2:25

Arthur Brain
March 27th, 2016, 11:16 PM
Yep. Only the elect will repent. Calling you to repent, only the unrepentant will be held accountable for his/her unrepentance and unbelief. Do they have a choice? They are acting according to that nature. Question: Does God only find sinner who are 'willing' to repent? See, that's the Arminian answer and the OV answer. The Calvinist answer goes further: God is not only satisfied with those who 'would/might' come, but compels men and women to come. God even struck Saul blind, such is the Loving tenacity of God. Not only does He 'offer' He 'seeks' and 'saves' that which is lost. In the end, you are arguing over how Sovereign God is and how tenacious His love. You realize that Calvinists believe God's Love more particular (that He called you by name) and more tenacious than a general "come all ye who are heavy laden." While I am not opposed to the general call, I know and He knows who and who will not come and then, He chases after a few stubborn who He knows such effort will save as well. It is a particular and effectual love as such. While you may not agree, do you have a particular problem with incredibly tenacious and specific love that saved a wretch like you (and like me as the song goes)?


:idunno: Why? (Sometimes you say the darndest most prejudice things, Samie)

Couldn't God strike everyone with an epiphany along the likes of Saul? Seems like you're saying (though not meaning to perhaps) that the 'elect' are more 'moral' as to heed a call.

Lon
March 27th, 2016, 11:33 PM
Couldn't God strike everyone with an epiphany along the likes of Saul?
That seems logical.


Seems like you're saying (though not meaning to perhaps) that the 'elect' are more 'moral' as to heed a call. Well, you are correct and sharp, because that is indeed implied. I am not sure how the Arminian thinks of the call, but to me, it does seem to imply that 'only the moral' will heed a call in that case to me as well. I think in this sense, you are asking good questions. Somewhere between Calvinism and others is the answer, but it does seem to me, that the Calvinists were wise to leave this entirely in the counsel and mercies of a Loving God who is effectual, loving, tenacious, just, and right. What then is the answer? For the Calvinist, a mystery and explaining that to others, an unsatisfactory one, especially if they cannot articulate it well. For the Arminian and others like them? A call that morality alone responds to, I think. At least, this is what I understood when I was there. To me, it seem Freewill must/necessarily amount to prepossession of morality and value else the person is lost. In that case, it also becomes a 'limited atonement.' Open Theists will say "God doesn't know who they are, or will be" yet it rewards only them and is particular all the same. In the end, we both are trying to get away from 'favoritism' and express and effectual love. In this respect I like leaving the 'mystery' of it in the hands of one I know is loving, right, good, just, and tenacious. Genesis 18:25 It however leaves the mystery a mystery and some people are 1) bothered by unknowns even with strong knowns like love and trustworthy and 2) are bothered more by the "limited" implications than the actual of being loved. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved!" It is something only the elect will bank on OR it is something that the one who banks on it will be called 'elect.' To me, that verse is a great equalizer and a great hope for those who are perishing, yet want hope. You strike me as one who seeks that hope. The cart/horse fight of threads like this are inconsequential in comparison, to me.

Epoisses
March 28th, 2016, 08:16 AM
"Idiot?" "Moron?" :doh: Jeremiah 9:24 1 Corinthians 1:31 2 Corinthians 10:16-18 Nice try I suppose, Epo, but no dice. Nobody is paying attention to who you think is a moron or idiot nor that those are particularly 'mature Christian' sentiments. You are cutting your proverbial credibility throat by mindless banter that is unnecessary.
2 Timothy 2:25

Like anyone pays attention to your intellectual idiocracy.

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 01:38 AM
Yep. Only the elect will repent. Calling you to repent, only the unrepentant will be held accountable for his/her unrepentance and unbelief. . . .You're not a full-blooded Calvinist, are you Lon?

Jesus said that unless people repent they perish. To whom does Jesus' statement apply?

1. If it applies to the elect, then, the elect shall perish unless they repent.
2. If it applies to the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent.

Nice try, Lon. Sadly, the Calvinists remain mired in their dilemma. You may try again.

Lon
March 29th, 2016, 02:08 AM
Jesus said that unless people repent they perish. To whom does Jesus' statement apply?

1. If it applies to the elect, then, the elect shall perish unless they repent.
2. If it applies to the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent.

Nice try, Lon. Sadly, the Calvinists remain mired in their dilemma. You may try again.
:nono: You are making an assumption mistake. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born-again. Fact.

The problem is that Nicodemus could not, in fact, 'born-again' himself. Fact.

Inadvertently, you are making the assumption that 'repent' is an ability that man 'can' do. If he/she could, there would have been absolutely no need for the Cross. I believe and preach the cross. It makes no difference, whatsoever, whether you 'think' you were able to repent or enabled to repent. What matters is that it happened. Learn where we agree and pay attention to specifics and details that make the difference in our theologies. It was eureka moment like "I cannot born-again myself" that have lead me to a Calvinist stance. I am not caught up on terms, I'm not trying to follow Apollos as and Apollosite or Paul as a Paulist, or Calvin as a Calvinist. I would also tend to acquiesce I may or may not be full-blooded Calvinist. I do believe Christ isn't desirous of any to perish, for instance. I'd suggest I am Calvinist, but don't always explain things as other Calvinists. I think, for instance, atonement is indeed limited, if even by the sense that only those made-right, are atoned for, because specifically that is what it means definition-wise. It was always the only real beef I had with Calvinism before I acceded. I'd likely have been seen as Amyraldian prior.

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 02:47 AM
You are making an assumption mistake.I did not assume, Lon. I quoted Christ.

He told His hearers that unless they repent they perish. Was He addressing only the elect in His audience, or only the non-elect, or both?

If only the elect, then the elect perish if they don't repent, and that's against Calvinism.
If only the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent, and that's also against Calvinism.
If both, then Elect or non-Elect, both perish if they don't repent, and that's against Calvinism as well.

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 03:04 AM
. . .
I think, for instance, atonement is indeed limited, if even by the sense that only those made-right, are atoned for, because specifically that is what it means definition-wise. It was always the only real beef I had with Calvinism before I acceded. I'd likely have been seen as Amyraldian prior.Scriptures say all died when Christ died, and those who died with Him were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected. How?

On the cross, God fashioned us all into the Body of His Son thereby creating a New Man: Christ the Head, humanity the Body. When the Head died, the Body died with Him; when the Head resurrected the Body was made alive TOGETHER with Him. Hence, we all were atoned for.

But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.

To be blotted out from the book of life is to be detached from the body of Christ, removed from membership in the Family of God. The good news is, there is hope while alive, for it is only after one dies that judgment is rendered whether to blot his name or not from the book of life.

Lon
March 29th, 2016, 03:45 AM
Scriptures say all died when Christ died, and those who died with Him were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He resurrected. How?

On the cross, God fashioned us all into the Body of His Son thereby creating a New Man: Christ the Head, humanity the Body. When the Head died, the Body died with Him; when the Head resurrected the Body was made alive TOGETHER with Him. Hence, we all were atoned for.

But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.

To be blotted out from the book of life is to be detached from the body of Christ, removed from membership in the Family of God. The good news is, there is hope while alive, for it is only after one dies that judgment is rendered whether to blot his name or not from the book of life.
I used to belong to an Arminian church. You've described a universal atonement here, well. Judas was lost, before universal atonement. Jezebel was evil before the atonement *(I'm not arguing here, trying to explain why I yet think atonement limited, regardless).

A Calvinist believes God in omniscience, knows who and who will not be saved, long before it happens (so do most Christians). Logically, I think a universal atonement can work (I'm not against Arminians, just am not one and obviously disagree). It seems to me, however, logically, omniscient atonement works, conversely. We embrace our particular systems as they must necessarily work. As a Calvinist works through this, from God's perspective 1) He forsees man's need 2) provides atonement and 3) Obviously in foreknowledge knows who responds and thus only provides atonement for those with whom it would be effectual (sorry, this is a bit simple, so not quite the accurate reflection of Calvinism, but I think close enough at least to convey the consistency, if crude and awkward, God doesn't 'just' respond, that'd still be an Arminian position, though yet different from a universal atonement, so there are Arminians too, that disagree with your particular universal atonement position).
Again, I see both logically working within the frame-work they are given. Most systematic theologies are complete buy-ins and I 'think' most disagreements are about how well one understands another's whole system or not. -Lon

Lon
March 29th, 2016, 04:12 AM
I did not assume, Lon. I quoted Christ.

He told His hearers that unless they repent they perish. Was He addressing only the elect in His audience, or only the non-elect, or both?
Both were within hearing. I'd suggest only the elect would appreciate the message. Both of us have ONLY a Christian responding (or potential/pre- Christian more closely to what you believe).


If only the elect, then the elect perish if they don't repent, and that's against Calvinism.
You are yet thinking of it as a response, a command. I don't view it as a command, but an expressed condition that must happen. Like with Nicodemus, Jesus doesn't command 'repent' here. He isn't giving a 'direction.' He is 'explaining' a condition, imho. You say you are getting this but I'm not sure yet, but perhaps now?

If only the non-elect, then the non-elect won't perish if they repent, and that's also against Calvinism.
I 'think' you are seeing this as an offer. Jesus is not saying 'repent or else' here to a crowd. He is teaching about a condition. There is 'no direction/command' given here. He is explaining a condition to be met. IOW, he is explaining their need, whether they are capable of meeting that need or not. Between us, I'm the Calvinist who believes they 'cannot' meet the need and only Christ, soon, would do so.

If both, then Elect or non-Elect, both perish if they don't repent, and that's against Calvinism as well.
Is it fair that a poor child is born in an African country, and dies of malnutrition? No, it is not fair, but does the child have a say? Can he/she choose to live with me instead? No, sadly, still he/she has no choice but I should look into adoption (have done this through Compassion Int). So, here is what I'd say: "Unless you are born in a country where there is sufficient food and water, you will die of malnutrition and lack." There is no 'born-myself into the proper country" (I hate even using this analogy but perhaps it will prompt others sponsors). I simply gave an assessment, a condition that must be met, regardless if a child can do anything about it. This passage, has not command or directive verb. Look at it, it simply gives the condition, much like the one in this example. Jesus doesn't say 'repent.' He says 'unless' (condition/explanation of that condition).

Epoisses
March 29th, 2016, 08:41 AM
:nono: You are making an assumption mistake. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born-again. Fact.

The problem is that Nicodemus could not, in fact, 'born-again' himself. Fact.

Inadvertently, you are making the assumption that 'repent' is an ability that man 'can' do. If he/she could, there would have been absolutely no need for the Cross. I believe and preach the cross. It makes no difference, whatsoever, whether you 'think' you were able to repent or enabled to repent. What matters is that it happened. Learn where we agree and pay attention to specifics and details that make the difference in our theologies. It was eureka moment like "I cannot born-again myself" that have lead me to a Calvinist stance. I am not caught up on terms, I'm not trying to follow Apollos as and Apollosite or Paul as a Paulist, or Calvin as a Calvinist. I would also tend to acquiesce I may or may not be full-blooded Calvinist. I do believe Christ isn't desirous of any to perish, for instance. I'd suggest I am Calvinist, but don't always explain things as other Calvinists. I think, for instance, atonement is indeed limited, if even by the sense that only those made-right, are atoned for, because specifically that is what it means definition-wise. It was always the only real beef I had with Calvinism before I acceded. I'd likely have been seen as Amyraldian prior.

It's important to realize that the Calvinist always presents man as an island unto himself. We know this is false because Satan and his temptaions are influencing us towards evil and God thru the Holy Spirit is influencing us towards Christ. Jesus said when the Spirit comes he will reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to lead all men to the foot of the cross and repentance. The Calvinist assertion that fallen man by himself cannot come to repentance is actually true. But it ignores the biblical assertion that fallen man aided by the drawing of Christ and the Holy Spirit can come to repentance. The Calvinist rejects the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the world or all sinners.

Derf
March 29th, 2016, 12:13 PM
Inadvertently, you are making the assumption that 'repent' is an ability that man 'can' do. If he/she could, there would have been absolutely no need for the Cross. Hi Lon.
I'm not so sure this is true. Just because someone can repent without help, doesn't mean they don't need to be saved:
From their specific sins prior to repentance (repentance implies prior sins)
From original sin/curse of death all men are under

There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 01:29 PM
Both were within hearing. I'd suggest only the elect would appreciate the message. Both of us have ONLY a Christian responding (or potential/pre- Christian more closely to what you believe).


You are yet thinking of it as a response, a command. I don't view it as a command, but an expressed condition that must happen. Like with Nicodemus, Jesus doesn't command 'repent' here. He isn't giving a 'direction.' He is 'explaining' a condition, imho. You say you are getting this but I'm not sure yet, but perhaps now?

I 'think' you are seeing this as an offer. Jesus is not saying 'repent or else' here to a crowd. He is teaching about a condition. There is 'no direction/command' given here. He is explaining a condition to be met. IOW, he is explaining their need, whether they are capable of meeting that need or not. Between us, I'm the Calvinist who believes they 'cannot' meet the need and only Christ, soon, would do so.

Is it fair that a poor child is born in an African country, and dies of malnutrition? No, it is not fair, but does the child have a say? Can he/she choose to live with me instead? No, sadly, still he/she has no choice but I should look into adoption (have done this through Compassion Int). So, here is what I'd say: "Unless you are born in a country where there is sufficient food and water, you will die of malnutrition and lack." There is no 'born-myself into the proper country" (I hate even using this analogy but perhaps it will prompt others sponsors). I simply gave an assessment, a condition that must be met, regardless if a child can do anything about it. This passage, has not command or directive verb. Look at it, it simply gives the condition, much like the one in this example. Jesus doesn't say 'repent.' He says 'unless' (condition/explanation of that condition).The call to repent is a command, Lon. Scriptures say so: ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repentQuite clear that unless people - Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect - repent, they perish, as Christ said. It's either don't repent and perish, or, repent and not perish. And to not perish is to have life everlasting, as Christ Himself said.

The gospel that Jesus preached COMMANDS people to repent. And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good. And Jesus assures us that overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.

Seems clear to me that God's command for all people everywhere to repent as embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached is against Calvinism. And that's the Calvinists' dilemma.

Ask Mr. Religion
March 29th, 2016, 01:55 PM
There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.


Never in Scripture is repentance given a treatment that implies repentance is means to our being born-again versus the way faith is credited with the instrumentality of accomplishing one's re-birth (e.g. Eph. 2:8).

Unless you are now moving towards rejection of the lost man's total inability in your ongoing walk towards open theism, what one ought to do as their duty is no implied warrant one can do (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?77413-Does-God-know-all-things-that-are-have-been-and-will-be/page30&p=2823854#post2823854), hence the need for regeneration such than one will actually possess the ability to do what they ought to do.

AMR

Samie
March 29th, 2016, 02:45 PM
The call to repent is a command, Lon. Scriptures say so: ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repentQuite clear that unless people - Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect - repent, they perish, as Christ said. It's either don't repent and perish, or, repent and not perish. And to not perish is to have life everlasting, as Christ Himself said.

The gospel that Jesus preached COMMANDS people to repent. And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good. And Jesus assures us that overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.

Seems clear to me that God's command for all people everywhere to repent as embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached is against Calvinism. And that's the Calvinists' dilemma.11 days gone by and still counting.

Lon
March 29th, 2016, 05:45 PM
It's important to realize that the Calvinist always presents man as an island unto himself. We know this is false because Satan and his temptaions are influencing us towards evil and God thru the Holy Spirit is influencing us towards Christ. Jesus said when the Spirit comes he will reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to lead all men to the foot of the cross and repentance. The Calvinist assertion that fallen man by himself cannot come to repentance is actually true. But it ignores the biblical assertion that fallen man aided by the drawing of Christ and the Holy Spirit can come to repentance. The Calvinist rejects the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the world or all sinners.

I would think the Freewill theist more of an island to himself. I'm a bit perplexed you'd think Calvinist think that because Romans 9 says we are but owned, and clay in the Potter's hands. We are even accused of being His puppets and robots so it is strange to here 'island' in someone's next breath. I'd like to see that unpacked a bit more. Thanks.

Greek2Me
March 29th, 2016, 05:48 PM
I've been long searching for a forum where an actual "discussion" was possible (minus the "incindiary rhetoric" that appears about five or six lines down in the comments of about everyplace I've looked so far). Hopefully this will be such a place. So Maranatha all!

While I understand the difficult balance between the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Men, there is one point of Reform Theology that I have wrestled with for years, that being: If God has "predestined" (in an absolute sense) who will be saved (to the exclusion of those who are NOT among the Elect), then it seems that it has nothing to do with "righteousness" or even "judgement" (in any judicial sense). If God has made some men incapable of repenting, then how does He "judge" them worthy of punishment? If He made them incapable of behaving any other way than as sinners, how does he "judge" them as unrighteous? It would be like me building a car from scratch but then calling it "junk" because it does not mow grass, wouldn't it? It seems as though the only way God could judge men as unrighteous would be if they were CAPABLE of choosing to do right but FAILING to do so. I think there is a vast chasm between "knowing" who would repent and "determining" who would repent. It seems as though the Calvinist position puts ALL responsibility on God, allowing those of Reform thinking to absolve themselves from evangelism (why preach to those who either can't repent or who will do so whether we preach or not) and from personal holiness (if I'm saved, my sin won't matter and if I'm NOT, well, I might as well enjoy this world while I can).

Would somebody care to discuss this part of the "Calvinist Dilemma" with me?

Thanks in advance.

Greek2Me

Lon
March 29th, 2016, 06:05 PM
The call to repent is a command, Lon. Scriptures say so: ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repentInterestingly, you are using a Reformed translation ;)
We are jumping from John at this point because Acts requires its context to explain the one verse. Read the surrounding passage, because this then would become a longer discussion, and moving from one topic to exegesis of Acts and what it means. Such is ever the problem of cherry-picking verses. Let me ask the first preliminary question: What does Paul say men must repent 'of' in this chapter? Is it salvation 'turning-away' from (definition of repentance) in this particular chapter, or have we changed subjects? There are many who do believe Paul is talking about repentance unto salvation, but Paul in the previous verse said that men thought god was idols made of metal and wood and specifically, he is saying all men are commanded to repent of that ignorance, and that He was declaring Himself known. It is a challenge to the whole earth, as the gospel must be. "Change your thinking (repent) there is only one God, and only the choice of Christ if you are going to follow Him, the only one that exists." (my paraphrase of that 17:30


Quite clear that unless people - Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect - repent, they perish, as Christ said. It's either don't repent and perish, or, repent and not perish. And to not perish is to have life everlasting, as Christ Himself said.
You've done just as Jesus Christ Our Lord God and Savior had done: He and you have explained a condition and given no direction (at this point). It 'may' be implied you are directing repentance, but if you are not, I just made a mistake, especially if one must be born-again and cannot born-again himself. Oddly, you do, truly, believe one can born-again himself. Is that a fair assessment? Do you believe all men can born-again themselves? You seem to be implying exactly that.


The gospel that Jesus preached COMMANDS people to repent. And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good. And Jesus assures us that overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
So we can make ourselves new creations? We can born-again ourselves? :think:


Seems clear to me that God's command for all people everywhere to repent as embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached is against Calvinism. And that's the Calvinists' dilemma.
I 'think' you have a greater dilemma because I don't think I can make myself a new creation or born-again myself simply by repentance (a change of mind). I think, rather that a change of mind comes 'from' being a new (change) creation. We are asking about the proverbial cart and horse and chicken/egg, but it 'seems' illogical to me that I can born-again myself or new creation myself. I've ALWAYS (even within Arminian walls) believed only God can make me a new creation, and only in and through Christ, could I be born again.

Lon
March 29th, 2016, 06:13 PM
Hi Lon.
I'm not so sure this is true. Just because someone can repent without help, doesn't mean they don't need to be saved:

From their specific sins prior to repentance (repentance implies prior sins)
From original sin/curse of death all men are under

There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.

This is the Arminian position, yes. I too, think you are distancing yourself from some Arminians with this post as well. There are some that would have no Divine enablement or interaction specifically because such violates their independent freewill in their minds. I'd suggest then, that you agree with me regarding Divine enablement, but I am thinking it would become a different discussion than this that I'm having with a few of the freewill theists here.

patrick jane
March 29th, 2016, 07:19 PM
I believe we have free will in that we choose to believe or not.

Nick M
March 29th, 2016, 08:04 PM
Justice for sin is universal. Life is voluntary for those that humble themselves and admit they needed a savior.

Ask Mr. Religion
March 30th, 2016, 01:24 AM
While I understand the difficult balance between the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Men, there is one point of Reform Theology that I have wrestled with for years, that being: If God has "predestined" (in an absolute sense) who will be saved (to the exclusion of those who are NOT among the Elect), then it seems that it has nothing to do with "righteousness" or even "judgement" (in any judicial sense).
@Greek2Me (http://theologyonline.com/member.php?u=13993)

One might say that when God began to create, the lump of clay contemplated by God (http://www.romans45.org/articles/sup_infr.htm) was a fallen mass of humanity, out of which He elected a great number no man can number; the rest justly left in their sins in Adam. Given the Federal Headship of Adam (http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter29.htm), when he failed in his probationary period to "do this and live", all his progeny failed. It was just as if each of us were there in the Garden sinning as Adam sinned on our behalf. At this juncture then, no one deserves any mercy from God, yet mercy was extended to some determined by only God's own pleasure and not by any merit on the one's to whom mercy was given.


If God has made some men incapable of repenting, then how does He "judge" them worthy of punishment

God did not make them incapable of repenting. The inability of man to not sin is not the way man was made. Adam was made upright, but mutable, being able to sin or not to sin. When he sinned, the result is that all are born sinners, able only to sin more or sin less, because they are sinners. The fall of man brought about this terrible state of affairs. All of Adam's progeny possess no moral ability to do what they ought to do spiritually. It is only until the Holy Spirit regenerates the lost, a quickening from spiritual death to life, that they now are morally able.

There are some extremists, a vocal minority, so-called hyper-Calvinists (http://www.romans45.org/articles/hypercal.htm), who will claim God actually goes out of His way to make sure the lost in Adam stay that way. This is a minority view and not the orthodox Reformed view. This article explains the matter in some detail: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

If you have questions after digesting all the the linked content above, I am sure one of us will be able to answer them.

AMR

Samie
March 30th, 2016, 09:42 AM
Interestingly, you are using a Reformed translation ;)
We are jumping from John at this point because Acts requires its context to explain the one verse. Read the surrounding passage, because this then would become a longer discussion, and moving from one topic to exegesis of Acts and what it means. Such is ever the problem of cherry-picking verses. Let me ask the first preliminary question: What does Paul say men must repent 'of' in this chapter? Is it salvation 'turning-away' from (definition of repentance) in this particular chapter, or have we changed subjects? There are many who do believe Paul is talking about repentance unto salvation, but Paul in the previous verse said that men thought god was idols made of metal and wood and specifically, he is saying all men are commanded to repent of that ignorance, and that He was declaring Himself known. It is a challenge to the whole earth, as the gospel must be. "Change your thinking (repent) there is only one God, and only the choice of Christ if you are going to follow Him, the only one that exists." (my paraphrase of that 17:30There is no change of subject. I quoted Christ calling people to repent. You countered it was not a command. I showed you Scriptures saying God COMMANDS people everywhere to repent. You say it is specific to repentance of idol-related ignorance. Granting you are correct that the repentance referred to in Acts 17:30 is specific to idol-related ignorance, yet the fact that all men everywhere are commanded, then Calvinism's Elect are likewise commanded. And should Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect refuse to repent, they perish, Christ said. And we are back to square one: the Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.

You've done just as Jesus Christ Our Lord God and Savior had done: He and you have explained a condition and given no direction (at this point). It 'may' be implied you are directing repentance, but if you are not, I just made a mistake, especially if one must be born-again and cannot born-again himself. Oddly, you do, truly, believe one can born-again himself. Is that a fair assessment? Do you believe all men can born-again themselves? You seem to be implying exactly that.Am not implying anything. It's Scriptures that say God caused people to be born again thru the resurrection of Jesus:ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
So we can make ourselves new creations? We can born-again ourselves? :think:No. I already said God caused our being born-again. Having been fashioned into His Body on the cross, we died with Christ, and when the Head resurrected, we - His Body - were likewise made alive TOGETHER with Him.

I 'think' you have a greater dilemma because I don't think I can make myself a new creation or born-again myself simply by repentance (a change of mind). I think, rather that a change of mind comes 'from' being a new (change) creation. We are asking about the proverbial cart and horse and chicken/egg, but it 'seems' illogical to me that I can born-again myself or new creation myself. I've ALWAYS (even within Arminian walls) believed only God can make me a new creation, and only in and through Christ, could I be born again.Yes, only God can make a new creation. And He did that for us all when He made us alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected our Lord from the grave. Again, repentance is overcoming evil with good. And overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.

The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved. You could try again.

Ask Mr. Religion
March 30th, 2016, 05:27 PM
I showed you Scriptures saying God COMMANDS people everywhere to repent.
Of course He does. Per Romans 1 it is the very duty of all mankind to acknowledge the revelation of God in His first book, the book of general revelation—creation—such that man is without excuse to deny the existence of God. Even our Lord's, you must be born again, is an imperative.

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13).

Where is the volitional element to assent to faith given the clear passages of Holy Writ that clearly demonstrate the unsaved cannot possibly possess or claim, for they are spiritually dead and in need of re-birth? We are not “born again” as a result of something we did(as in repenting, then somehow believeing), but solely on the basis of God's sovereign will and power. Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, the fruit of that belief will be simultaneously repentance, in the same sense that life must come before activity. "..not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). The regenerated person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10; I Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24).

“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The word again (anothen) literally means “from above.” Unlike our first birth, which is horizontal, divine rebirth is vertical—it comes “from above.” The origin of regeneration is supernatural, not the natural work of our volition. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

“Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:4-6). Like Nicodemus some argue from a process perspective, as in the birthing labor and delivery process. But note that Our Lord uses the word, gennao (born), that refers to the concept of generational descent. Jesus focuses not on the birth process or experience that one may assume, but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed to the child. What kind of birth is Christ referring to? A birth in which the Divine nature is imparted to the soul. Our Lord states that our first birth reproduced in us the nature of our parents: “...that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” But, then Jesus concludes that our new birth implants within us the Divine nature: “...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The thrust of the argument should be clear: regeneration is supernatural. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change of nature of the heart, not our “volitional will”.

In John 3:7, Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'” As noted above, the unsaved possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing for they are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

As Jesus states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. He uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a logical necessity, that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation. Some will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Jesus, instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it, is teaching exactly the opposite. Jesus is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.

One may complain that Our Lord's telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, His objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but jesus clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.

The “new birth” is no more or less than the monergistic, sovereign, and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration (re-birth, quickening) is immediate. Faith is the gracious first fruit gift of God in regeneration (Ephesians 2:8). Following regeneration the sinner synergistically responds to the life-giving voice of the Jesus Christ (John 5:25) just as Lazarus immediately responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. In regeneration, and regeneration alone, God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is the grace that is irresistible. God’s gift of faith enables the newborn soul of a person to function spiritually, an ability the person did not have prior to his quickening (John 3:3; John 3:5; I Corinthians 2:14). The gift also gives the person the ability to believe, that is "ears to hear" (Revelations 2:7; Revelations 2:11; Proverbs 20:12; Matthew 11:15).

Regeneration in summary:

From the preceding we see that regeneration is a birth (John. 3:3-8; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23-25; I John 3:9; I John 5:1), a creation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24), the Divine creative act of speaking into existence that which previously did not exist, a resurrection (Ephesians 2:1; I John 3:14; John 5:24), the Divine act of giving life to one who is dead in their trespasses and in their sins. All the images, birth, creation, resurrection, speak to the immediacy of God’s work of grace in the soul. Did the baby play an active role in his own birth, or what the baby a passive party in the work of external factors bringing about his birth? Did man help God create the universe or was that creation the sole work of God? Can man raise the dead to life or the corpse of Lazarus play an active role in his own resurrection? No, for God and only God is the active party, the only Creator, and life-giver at the moment of regeneration.

Jesus says in John 5:25, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” He teaches here that God’s effectual calling is always successful when He calls the dead in sin to spiritual life, that the dead will hear His voice (not the preacher, or the parent, or the personal witness), that there will be life, and that it is an irresistible certainty.

Regeneration comprises the implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in man, radical change of the controlling disposition of the soul, which, under the influence of the Spirit, gives birth to a life that moves in a Godward direction. This change affects the whole man: the intellect, I Corinthians 2:14-15; II Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 3:10; the will, Psalms 110:3; Philippians 2:13; II Thessalonians 3:5; Hebrews 13:21; and the feelings or emotions, Psalms 42:1-2; Matthew 5:4; I Peter 1:8.

Regeneration, exclusively a Divine act (monergistic), is an instantaneous change of a man's nature, affecting at once the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally. That regeneration is an instantaneous change has two implications: (1) that regeneration is not a work that is gradually prepared in the soul, as the Roman Catholics and all Semi-Pelagians teach; there is no intermediate stage between life and death; one either lives or is dead; and (2) that regeneration is not a gradual and synergistic process like sanctification.

Three possible explanations for regeneration:

There are only three possible explanations for the efficient cause of regeneration: the human will, the truth, the Holy Spirit.

The human will is incapable of cooperating or doing anything to assist. Man is incapable—so plainly taught in the Scriptures, John 5:42; Romans 3:9-18; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:23; Romans 8:7; II Timothy 3:4, and of the Scripture truth that it is God who inclines the will, Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13.

The truth was the view of Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney. It assumes that the work of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the evangelistic preacher only in degree. Both work by persuasion only. But this theory is very unsatisfactory. The truth can be a motive to holiness only if it is loved, yet the natural man does not love the truth, but hates it (Romans 1:18; Romans 1:25). Consequently the truth, presented externally, cannot be the efficient cause of regeneration.

The only adequate view is that the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of regeneration. The Holy Spirit works directly on the heart of man and changes its spiritual condition. There is no cooperation of the sinner, spiritually dead in his sins, in this work whatsoever. It is the work of the Holy Spirit directly and exclusively (Ezekial 11:19; John 1:13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13). Thus regeneration must be conceived monergistically. God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever. This, of course, does not mean, that man does not cooperate in later stages of the work of redemption. It is quite evident from Scripture that he does. Accordingly, we must distinguish between regeneration and conversion.

Conversion contrasted from regeneration:
Conversion, as spoken of by those that came before us, is not an unusual, once-for-all, extraordinary, inexplicable experience through which one passes from the "dark night of the soul" to rapturous union with God. Instead conversion is a daily characteristic of a believing, regenerated child of God. Conversion ought to take place and does take place every day of a person’s life. As long as the believing child of God lives here in this world, that person is a believer who does battle with sin, not only in the world about him, but in his own flesh. This person is not yet perfect. He is not yet brought into the everlasting joy that shall be the inheritance of the people of God in glory. Here he is in the church militant. Here he must do battle. Here he carries with him the body of his death. Conversion has a beginning, continues through life, and is completed when the elect soul goes to glory. The continual nature of this action is what we generally associate with sanctification, but, as the great church divines insisted, sanctification is of the same nature as conversion.

Conversion is "a daily killing of the old man." We are told in Scripture to make our calling and election sure by giving diligence to add to our faith (2 Peter 1:5-7). Insofar as we do so we are being renewed or converted daily. This is one of the major pastoral problems associated with the punctiliar conversion paradigm, in that there is a tendency to create a mindset which elevates experience over instruction. Rather than practice being made to conform to principle, it is usually the case that the conversion experience becomes the rule for distinguishing truth and falsehood. The teaching of decisional regeneration is the reason for much of a Christian's misunderstanding of what conversion truly is. It is a seeking of experience over transformation. It's an unwillingness of some to actually seek maturity and, instead, want to recapture an emotional feeling. In fact, these persons do not feel like they're growing unless the emotional feelings are present. It is not, then, a clinging to Christ and the Gospel to work within us to will and do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), but a constant seeking after fresh experience. Such persons do not cling to sound doctrine after a while but instead collect teachers to tickle their ears and give them shows.

Thus, though God alone is the author of conversion, it is important to stress, against any suggestions of a false passivity, that there is also cooperation of man in conversion which follows regeneration. In the Old Testament shubh (to turn about), the word most often used to denote conversion, is used 74 times of conversion as a deed of man, and only 15 times, of conversion as a gracious act of God. The New Testament represents conversion as a deed of man 26 times, and speaks of it only 2 or 3 times as an act of God. [/u]It should be kept in mind, however, that this activity of man always results from a previous work of God in man[/U] (Lamentations 5:21; Philippians 2:13). That man is active in conversion is quite evident from such passages as Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 18:11; Ezekiel 18:23; Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, and others.

Returning to my opening statement, we should see that one's duty to seek after God does not imply one is capable of performing said duty due to besetting sinful natures. Nor does God's commands imply that acknowledging He exists, per Romans 1 for example, that man can then save himself. The general revelation of God is not salvific revelation, as is Scripture. General revelation is warrant enough for God to condemn the unbeliever, who knows He exists, yet suppresses this truth in unrighteousness, failing to seek after the God declared all around Him in creation, the God who promises none that seek Him will be lost to Him.

AMR

Lon
March 30th, 2016, 06:16 PM
There is no change of subject. I quoted Christ calling people to repent. You countered it was not a command. I showed you Scriptures saying God COMMANDS people everywhere to repent. You say it is specific to repentance of idol-related ignorance. Granting you are correct that the repentance referred to in Acts 17:30 is specific to idol-related ignorance, yet the fact that all men everywhere are commanded, then Calvinism's Elect are likewise commanded. And should Calvinism's Elect or Non-Elect refuse to repent, they perish, Christ said. And we are back to square one: the Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved. :nono: You are just scripture hopping and using a framework that applies to one thing, as if it could be superimposed upon another text. Scripture hopping is never a good idea. We can sometimes do it to present like-passages, but it is best just to stay within a scriptural context and not jump from one to the other. It also makes for an incredibly long side-trail and distraction so, with absolutely no authority but perhaps a call to reason and time-consumption, I say: "Don't do it."

Am not implying anything. It's Scriptures that say God caused people to be born again thru the resurrection of Jesus:ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deadNo. I already said God caused our being born-again. Having been fashioned into His Body on the cross, we died with Christ, and when the Head resurrected, we - His Body - were likewise made alive TOGETHER with Him. Re-read your own words: "...God caused people to be born again..." Amen!

Yes, only God can make a new creation. And He did that for us all when He made us alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected our Lord from the grave. Again, repentance is overcoming evil with good. And overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life. Amen. We are well on our way.


The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved. You could try again.
Not when you are doing half my work for me and agreeing with me. I'm not sure what winning an argument looks like in your neck of the woods :think: :cheers:

Derf
March 30th, 2016, 09:26 PM
This is the Arminian position, yes. I too, think you are distancing yourself from some Arminians with this post as well. There are some that would have no Divine enablement or interaction specifically because such violates their independent freewill in their minds. I'd suggest then, that you agree with me regarding Divine enablement, but I am thinking it would become a different discussion than this that I'm having with a few of the freewill theists here.

I'm still thinking through the divine enablement (not that I've got everything else already figured out :)). Of course there's something that prevents our salvation by our own works, but does that mean that none can ever repent without God doing it for them? Maybe, but it seems a little backward to command people to do something and then withhold the capability to do so. So, what if the "divine enablement" is the death of Jesus Christ, rather than some internal meddling God does with our thought process. Then we are enabled to become the children of God, but children of God are defined by their recognition of God as their Father--that He gets to tell them what to do--which equals "repentance". So a recognition of God as the lawgiver that needs to be obeyed can happen without that enablement, but without the death of Christ, the penalty for sin still remains to be paid by each and every one of us.

patrick jane
March 30th, 2016, 09:38 PM
We are not under penalty of sin anymore, we are not under the law

Lon
March 31st, 2016, 01:01 AM
I'm still thinking through the divine enablement (not that I've got everything else already figured out :)). Of course there's something that prevents our salvation by our own works, but does that mean that none can ever repent without God doing it for them? For a double-pred Calvinist, yes. In a nutshell, they do not believe that God has a Prescriptive and Decretive Will. Basically, they think it isn't possible specifically because then to some degree, in their mind, God wouldn't be in control, and such would then have a less than omnipotent God, by their reckoning. Conversely, the Arminian claims too, that the rest of us Calvinists are being inconsistent, and only God's Decretive will can logically exist (the rest of this is a bit long, so you can skip it if you wish until your next line and my response or just jump down to 'short-answer.' Your choice).

Long-answer: Imho (and it is humble 'cause I'm still trying to work through and present this well), God made everything and doesn't make mistakes. He said creation was good, including man. Man could not sin under a good creation, and in fact, God is the one who put a tree in the Garden and forbid it. it might be assumed at that point that this is when God gave man a 'free' will, but I don't think that can be the case. Man is 'good' so there is no desire to do something against a good nature. I think it takes a serpent in the Garden. I'd think, saying 'no' to a good and perfect creation cannot end in man eating from the forbidden tree. It is like me writing a computer program. It can only do what I give it to do. That is, I think that those who promote a free-will a God's purpose, actually have God writing in sin, without realizing it. I'm not sure if I get away from that, but it is why I at least believe Freewill is not from God, as we know it and is only the result of disobedience 'from' God. IOW, as far as I understand it, it is the very act of deciding against God, that makes a will to choose possible in the first place, and it took the serpent messing to introduce it, or I don't think it'd be possible.

So, for me, God allowed and even planned for the eventuality, thus He is not just reactionary, but like the double-pred suggests, all-knowing so completely in control of all outcomes, being both the One who made it, and has already set in motion the plan for the remedy. However, the 'inception' of sin and freewill can be part of God's plan in the sense that He could have drawn many different ways to end sin malady. His will then, as He decided how He was going to remedy it, is considered prescriptive. It isn't reactionary because the plan is already set prior to the occurrence. One might at that point still call God the Author of sin, hence the rest of the accusation against all of Calvinists, and not the double-preds. However, this accusation is easily led back to all Christians. Here is the really nuts and bolts (I think): The single-pred Calvinist like me, gets the blame because I embrace it BUT the only thing the Arminian, and even the Open Theist (who is basically a proponent of Free Will as gifted/designed by God), are doing, is not recognizing they have exactly the same problem/accusation with only deniability protecting them. If God planned for Jesus, before the creation of the world, as scripture says, then even in the Open View with God as Omni-competent, God is responsible for planning for the occurrence of sin, 'before the creation of the world.'

Short-answer: Knowing something ahead of time and planning for it does not make one author of the event. We know that a separate player is given in the story and that being is indeed the author and instigator of sin. Rather, God sees the intrusion, knows the consequences, and plans around the event to thwart it. That's what Prescriptive means. in this case. God "Decreed" creation was good and then, after sin, "Prescribed" the remedy of His Son, to get it back to that state of good.


Maybe, but it seems a little backward to command people to do something and then withhold the capability to do so. So, what if the "divine enablement" is the death of Jesus Christ, rather than some internal meddling God does with our thought process. Then we are enabled to become the children of God, but children of God are defined by their recognition of God as their Father--that He gets to tell them what to do--which equals "repentance". So a recognition of God as the lawgiver that needs to be obeyed can happen without that enablement, but without the death of Christ, the penalty for sin still remains to be paid by each and every one of us.
This is why I'm not hung up on Arminianism, or even people who are adamantly opposed to Calvinism. God meets us where we are. When we are Saved, we are immediately being reworked as the new creations we are made to be, but this is unfinished until 1 John 3:2
(as far as I understand). Christ's work is completed. I think we are here to be lights, and to learn something, to love one another, and learn to do so better, and to learn something, as well as to go through God's process of Salvation and experiencing it. Perhaps too, so that when we are like Him, seeing Him face to face, having lived in sin, there is NO WAY we are going back. I'm not sure and still looking to scriptures for more indepth answers here, but this is where I am presently in my thinking. I am completely open to input and correction as well as scriptures to point me further. -Lon

Samie
March 31st, 2016, 03:30 AM
I showed you Scriptures saying God COMMANDS people everywhere to repent.
Of course He does.And that command is against Calvinism.

Calvinism teaches that Calvinism's Elect can NEVER perish, while the non-elect is SURE to perish.

On the other hand, Christ told His audience - possibly composed of both Calvinism's Elect and non-elect - that should they not repent, they perish.

As per Christ words, it can be inferred that if Calvinism's Elect REFUSE to repent, they perish. And that's against Calvinism. And if the non-elect repent, they won't perish. And that's against Calvinism as well.

Calvinism's Dilemma remains unresolved.

Samie
March 31st, 2016, 04:01 AM
:nono: You are just scripture hopping and using a framework that applies to one thing, as if it could be superimposed upon another text. Scripture hopping is never a good idea. We can sometimes do it to present like-passages, but it is best just to stay within a scriptural context and not jump from one to the other. It also makes for an incredibly long side-trail and distraction so, with absolutely no authority but perhaps a call to reason and time-consumption, I say: "Don't do it."Isn't the Bible its own interpreter? And the passages I used are all about repentance. God the Father commanded it. Jesus said His words are His Father's. If the Father commanded people everywhere to repent, will not Jesus command the same in His call to repentance embodied in the gospel that He preached?

Re-read your own words: "...God caused people to be born again..." Amen!
Amen. We are well on our way.

Not when you are doing half my work for me and agreeing with me. I'm not sure what winning an argument looks like in your neck of the woods :think: :cheers:As to being born again, you presumed I am teaching self-regeneration, that people of their own selves be born-again. I simply pointed out you were wrong in your presumption because Scriptures say and it is what I teach that God caused our being born-again through the resurrection of Christ.

Your attempt at resolving the Calvinists' Dilemma rested on two arguments: 1. Jesus' call to repentance is not a command, and 2) I was teaching self-regeneration.

I showed Scriptures that debunked your arguments. The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.

Samie
March 31st, 2016, 04:45 AM
Of course He does. Per Romans 1 it is the very duty of all mankind to acknowledge the revelation of God in His first book, the book of general revelation—creation—such that man is without excuse to deny the existence of God. Even our Lord's, you must be born again, is an imperative.

“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13).

Where is the volitional element to assent to faith given the clear passages of Holy Writ that clearly demonstrate the unsaved cannot possibly possess or claim, for they are spiritually dead and in need of re-birth? We are not “born again” as a result of something we did(as in repenting, then somehow believeing), but solely on the basis of God's sovereign will and power. Birth is the necessary prerequisite of belief, the fruit of that belief will be simultaneously repentance, in the same sense that life must come before activity. "..not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). The regenerated person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10; I Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24).

“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The word again (anothen) literally means “from above.” Unlike our first birth, which is horizontal, divine rebirth is vertical—it comes “from above.” The origin of regeneration is supernatural, not the natural work of our volition. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

“Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:4-6). Like Nicodemus some argue from a process perspective, as in the birthing labor and delivery process. But note that Our Lord uses the word, gennao (born), that refers to the concept of generational descent. Jesus focuses not on the birth process or experience that one may assume, but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed to the child. What kind of birth is Christ referring to? A birth in which the Divine nature is imparted to the soul. Our Lord states that our first birth reproduced in us the nature of our parents: “...that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” But, then Jesus concludes that our new birth implants within us the Divine nature: “...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The thrust of the argument should be clear: regeneration is supernatural. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change of nature of the heart, not our “volitional will”.

In John 3:7, Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'” As noted above, the unsaved possess no inherent ability to save themselves by their own choosing for they are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

As Jesus states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. He uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a logical necessity, that regeneration is essential, imperative, absolutely necessary for salvation. Some will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Jesus, instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it, is teaching exactly the opposite. Jesus is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.

One may complain that Our Lord's telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, His objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but jesus clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.

The “new birth” is no more or less than the monergistic, sovereign, and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration (re-birth, quickening) is immediate. Faith is the gracious first fruit gift of God in regeneration (Ephesians 2:8). Following regeneration the sinner synergistically responds to the life-giving voice of the Jesus Christ (John 5:25) just as Lazarus immediately responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. In regeneration, and regeneration alone, God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient. This is the grace that is irresistible. God’s gift of faith enables the newborn soul of a person to function spiritually, an ability the person did not have prior to his quickening (John 3:3; John 3:5; I Corinthians 2:14). The gift also gives the person the ability to believe, that is "ears to hear" (Revelations 2:7; Revelations 2:11; Proverbs 20:12; Matthew 11:15).

Regeneration in summary:

From the preceding we see that regeneration is a birth (John. 3:3-8; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23-25; I John 3:9; I John 5:1), a creation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24), the Divine creative act of speaking into existence that which previously did not exist, a resurrection (Ephesians 2:1; I John 3:14; John 5:24), the Divine act of giving life to one who is dead in their trespasses and in their sins. All the images, birth, creation, resurrection, speak to the immediacy of God’s work of grace in the soul. Did the baby play an active role in his own birth, or what the baby a passive party in the work of external factors bringing about his birth? Did man help God create the universe or was that creation the sole work of God? Can man raise the dead to life or the corpse of Lazarus play an active role in his own resurrection? No, for God and only God is the active party, the only Creator, and life-giver at the moment of regeneration.

Jesus says in John 5:25, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” He teaches here that God’s effectual calling is always successful when He calls the dead in sin to spiritual life, that the dead will hear His voice (not the preacher, or the parent, or the personal witness), that there will be life, and that it is an irresistible certainty.

Regeneration comprises the implanting of the principle of the new spiritual life in man, radical change of the controlling disposition of the soul, which, under the influence of the Spirit, gives birth to a life that moves in a Godward direction. This change affects the whole man: the intellect, I Corinthians 2:14-15; II Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 3:10; the will, Psalms 110:3; Philippians 2:13; II Thessalonians 3:5; Hebrews 13:21; and the feelings or emotions, Psalms 42:1-2; Matthew 5:4; I Peter 1:8.

Regeneration, exclusively a Divine act (monergistic), is an instantaneous change of a man's nature, affecting at once the whole man, intellectually, emotionally, and morally. That regeneration is an instantaneous change has two implications: (1) that regeneration is not a work that is gradually prepared in the soul, as the Roman Catholics and all Semi-Pelagians teach; there is no intermediate stage between life and death; one either lives or is dead; and (2) that regeneration is not a gradual and synergistic process like sanctification.

Three possible explanations for regeneration:

There are only three possible explanations for the efficient cause of regeneration: the human will, the truth, the Holy Spirit.

The human will is incapable of cooperating or doing anything to assist. Man is incapable—so plainly taught in the Scriptures, John 5:42; Romans 3:9-18; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:23; Romans 8:7; II Timothy 3:4, and of the Scripture truth that it is God who inclines the will, Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13.

The truth was the view of Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney. It assumes that the work of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the evangelistic preacher only in degree. Both work by persuasion only. But this theory is very unsatisfactory. The truth can be a motive to holiness only if it is loved, yet the natural man does not love the truth, but hates it (Romans 1:18; Romans 1:25). Consequently the truth, presented externally, cannot be the efficient cause of regeneration.

The only adequate view is that the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of regeneration. The Holy Spirit works directly on the heart of man and changes its spiritual condition. There is no cooperation of the sinner, spiritually dead in his sins, in this work whatsoever. It is the work of the Holy Spirit directly and exclusively (Ezekial 11:19; John 1:13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:16; Philippians 2:13). Thus regeneration must be conceived monergistically. God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever. This, of course, does not mean, that man does not cooperate in later stages of the work of redemption. It is quite evident from Scripture that he does. Accordingly, we must distinguish between regeneration and conversion.

Conversion contrasted from regeneration:
Conversion, as spoken of by those that came before us, is not an unusual, once-for-all, extraordinary, inexplicable experience through which one passes from the "dark night of the soul" to rapturous union with God. Instead conversion is a daily characteristic of a believing, regenerated child of God. Conversion ought to take place and does take place every day of a person’s life. As long as the believing child of God lives here in this world, that person is a believer who does battle with sin, not only in the world about him, but in his own flesh. This person is not yet perfect. He is not yet brought into the everlasting joy that shall be the inheritance of the people of God in glory. Here he is in the church militant. Here he must do battle. Here he carries with him the body of his death. Conversion has a beginning, continues through life, and is completed when the elect soul goes to glory. The continual nature of this action is what we generally associate with sanctification, but, as the great church divines insisted, sanctification is of the same nature as conversion.

Conversion is "a daily killing of the old man." We are told in Scripture to make our calling and election sure by giving diligence to add to our faith (2 Peter 1:5-7). Insofar as we do so we are being renewed or converted daily. This is one of the major pastoral problems associated with the punctiliar conversion paradigm, in that there is a tendency to create a mindset which elevates experience over instruction. Rather than practice being made to conform to principle, it is usually the case that the conversion experience becomes the rule for distinguishing truth and falsehood. The teaching of decisional regeneration is the reason for much of a Christian's misunderstanding of what conversion truly is. It is a seeking of experience over transformation. It's an unwillingness of some to actually seek maturity and, instead, want to recapture an emotional feeling. In fact, these persons do not feel like they're growing unless the emotional feelings are present. It is not, then, a clinging to Christ and the Gospel to work within us to will and do His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), but a constant seeking after fresh experience. Such persons do not cling to sound doctrine after a while but instead collect teachers to tickle their ears and give them shows.

Thus, though God alone is the author of conversion, it is important to stress, against any suggestions of a false passivity, that there is also cooperation of man in conversion which follows regeneration. In the Old Testament shubh (to turn about), the word most often used to denote conversion, is used 74 times of conversion as a deed of man, and only 15 times, of conversion as a gracious act of God. The New Testament represents conversion as a deed of man 26 times, and speaks of it only 2 or 3 times as an act of God. [/u]It should be kept in mind, however, that this activity of man always results from a previous work of God in man[/U] (Lamentations 5:21; Philippians 2:13). That man is active in conversion is quite evident from such passages as Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 18:11; Ezekiel 18:23; Ezekiel 18:32; 33:11; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30, and others.

Returning to my opening statement, we should see that one's duty to seek after God does not imply one is capable of performing said duty due to besetting sinful natures. Nor does God's commands imply that acknowledging He exists, per Romans 1 for example, that man can then save himself. The general revelation of God is not salvific revelation, as is Scripture. General revelation is warrant enough for God to condemn the unbeliever, who knows He exists, yet suppresses this truth in unrighteousness, failing to seek after the God declared all around Him in creation, the God who promises none that seek Him will be lost to Him.

AMRThanks for the explanation. FYI, I am not against being born again as God's work FOR man. In fact, I teach all of us in Adam's race were born-again because God caused us to be born-again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In the OP, repentance is the issue, not being born-again.

Derf
March 31st, 2016, 07:55 AM
Unless you are now moving towards rejection of the lost man's total inability in your ongoing walk towards open theism, what one ought to do as their duty is no implied warrant one can do (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?77413-Does-God-know-all-things-that-are-have-been-and-will-be/page30&p=2823854#post2823854), hence the need for regeneration such than one will actually possess the ability to do what they ought to do.

AMR

Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I affirmed man's total inability--to be saved apart from the works of Christ. But man is not totally unable to do other things. He can walk, and talk, and work, and invent, and discover, and take dominion of God's creation, according to what God told him to do. And he can do those same things in an evil way.

He is "conceived in sin" (meaning, I think, that he is coming from a sinful father back to Adam, else Jesus also would be conceived in sin) and has a tendency to sin (a "nature"). But he can also repent. What good does repentance do? Without the blood of Jesus, I think, nothing toward salvation, but possibly something in this life.

If my "ongoing walk toward open theism", as you say, is the problem, then it seems like you have a problem with considering scripture and trying to discern what it means. Not that I'm saying open theism is the only way to interpret scripture, but because I think that Calvinism has to ignore some scripture.

Grosnick Marowbe
March 31st, 2016, 08:15 AM
I believe we have free will in that we choose to believe or not.

Yep.

Lon
March 31st, 2016, 08:22 AM
Isn't the Bible its own interpreter? And the passages I used are all about repentance. God the Father commanded it. Jesus said His words are His Father's. If the Father commanded people everywhere to repent, will not Jesus command the same in His call to repentance embodied in the gospel that He preached? Yes. I'm a big proponent of that idea, especially when going through a passage that is narrative, but it is a careful and not haphazard discipline AND less of the time, by and far. Again, however, I'm not sure overlaying one idea upon the other works here. You can't just say that 'turn from believing this' in one verse means that repentance is a command to become regenerate in the other, especially when you agree only God can do that. Once you said that, 'my' dilemma as you call it, became your dilemma as well. All who are Christians are called elect. If you were Mid Acts, you'd not even bring up the gospels because they believe their call to repent was only to Jews, so, specifically, it is only a certain number of Arminians that would even come up with this dilemma. MAD doesn't believe it exists, and neither do we Calvinists. It comes from your own concept about what it means, and that group just happens to be Arminian.

As to being born again, you presumed I am teaching self-regeneration, that people of their own selves be born-again. I simply pointed out you were wrong in your presumption because Scriptures say and it is what I teach that God caused our being born-again through the resurrection of Christ.
Explain that. You know that Christians are called 'the elect.' Do you believe the 'elect' can stop being Christian? Can a new creation become an old creation again? You've stated a bit of this in your first opening post, but I'm trying to understand how entailed you think ths dilemma is because you mention that we believe you can't become unelected.

Your attempt at resolving the Calvinists' Dilemma rested on two arguments: 1. Jesus' call to repentance is not a command, and 2) I was teaching self-regeneration.
Even 'if' God commands all to repent and come to Christ and be born again under His hand, only the elect do, in everybody's Bible. So, whether Calvinist or other, we all believe in what the scripture calls 'the elect.' It is Biblical. The only thing you are arguing is 'how' we are the elect. We've established together that He calls all men to repent and specifically that means to realize that there is only one God from Acts 17:30. Even in Mark 1:14,15 and Luke 13:3,5, the first is John the Baptist's call to repentance to the Jews, to turn from their sins under Judaism. Then, in Luke 13, it is also a call to Jews to repent of sins. Jesus gave examples of men who had died because of rebellion and told them that they weren't the worst of sinners and used it as a warning to tell them to stop sinning. So even these are not about a born-again experience. Christ hadn't died yet. The promise of the Holy Spirit hadn't been revealed. We do repent from sin, but we are talking about which comes first and what verses you'd use to discuss that.

I showed Scriptures that debunked your arguments. The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.
You showed scripture that you thought did that, but were incorrect.

Samie
March 31st, 2016, 03:51 PM
"All who are Christians are called elect."Not only Christians. Contingent upon and because of what God has done for all of humanity through Christ, I believe all in Adam's race are the elect. All were written in the book of life but only overcomers will not be blotted out from it.

Explain that.Again, Scriptures say God caused us to be born again through the resurrection of Jesus. Having been fashioned into His Body on the cross, we died with Him; when He - the Head - resurrected, we - His Body - were made alive TOGETHER with Him, hence spiritually alive and therefore born again.

You know that Christians are called 'the elect.'Again, all in Adam's race compose the elect; not only Christians.

Do you believe the 'elect' can stop being Christian? Can a new creation become an old creation again? No. But one MAY live an old creation lifestyle and let evil overcome him instead of him overcoming evil. We are parts of His Body. As the 'ear' cannot by itself detach itself from being part of the Body, so no part of the Body of Christ can cease being part of His Body. Unless Christ Himself REMOVES one from being part of His Body by blotting his name from the book of life. The good news is judgment to blot or not comes AFTER a person dies. There's hope while alive.

You've stated a bit of this in your first opening post, but I'm trying to understand how entailed you think ths dilemma is because you mention that we believe you can't become unelected.It's Calvinism that teaches one can't become unelected, while the non-elect are sure to perish. On the other hand, Jesus told His audience - probably composed of Calvinism's Elect and non-elect - that unless they repent they will all perish. It can be inferred from Christ's statement that should the elect refuse to repent, they perish, and that's against Calvinism. And if the non-elect repent they won't perish, and that's against Calvinism as well.

The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.

patrick jane
March 31st, 2016, 04:51 PM
in your mind same e

Ask Mr. Religion
March 31st, 2016, 04:51 PM
Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I affirmed man's total inability--to be saved apart from the works of Christ. But man is not totally unable to do other things. He can walk, and talk, and work, and invent, and discover, and take dominion of God's creation, according to what God told him to do. And he can do those same things in an evil way.

He is "conceived in sin" (meaning, I think, that he is coming from a sinful father back to Adam, else Jesus also would be conceived in sin) and has a tendency to sin (a "nature"). But he can also repent. What good does repentance do? Without the blood of Jesus, I think, nothing toward salvation, but possibly something in this life.

If my "ongoing walk toward open theism", as you say, is the problem, then it seems like you have a problem with considering scripture and trying to discern what it means. Not that I'm saying open theism is the only way to interpret scripture, but because I think that Calvinism has to ignore some scripture.
Your post clearly states (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4662908#post4662908) in the context of God's calling men to repent that men ought to be able to repent...in that context. Now you move the goal posts to discussing repentance outside of God's calling men to repent, the salvific context of such a call by God. So which is it? How am I to understand that, well, you really meant this or that, when all I have is your plain words? Taking me to task for what you have written is not a burden I should be given, rather your infelicitous use of words lies at the root, no?

No matter, the next time I am moved to respond directly to you I will first ask if what you wrote actually means what you wrote. :AMR:

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
March 31st, 2016, 04:56 PM
And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good.
Then you have your own personal definition of what "repent" means. Why should anyone play by your rules versus the actual meaning of repentance (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4664281#post4664281)?

AMR

Samie
March 31st, 2016, 06:32 PM
Jesus sid:KJV Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

NAS Luke 13:3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" is, I think, a statement citing a condition that will bring about a definite result.

condition #1: refusal to repent
result #1: perish

condition #2: repent
result #2: not perish

What composed Jesus' audience?
I think His audience is composed of Calvinism's Elect and the non-elect.

How many among His audience did Jesus say will perish unless they repent?
All, I guess, because He said "Unless you repent, you will ALL likewise perish".

In like manner, how many among His audience will NOT perish should they repent?
All, I think.

And since All will perish unless they repent, that should include Calvinism's Elect.
And that's against Calvinism.

And since All will NOT perish if they repent, that should include the non-elect.
And that's against Calvinism, as well.

That's the Calvinists' Dilemma. Yet unresolved, 12 days and counting.
Could anyone please stand up for the Calvinists and squarely address the issue?

Samie
March 31st, 2016, 07:29 PM
And for me, to repent is to overcome evil with good.
Then you have your own personal definition of what "repent" means. Why should anyone play by your rules versus the actual meaning of repentance (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4664281#post4664281)?

AMRFor me, man's repentance (Greek metanoia - change of mind) is to overcome evil with good, while for you, it is to be born again, as gleaned from your linked post.

I think "to repent or not" is man's response to God's command for people everywhere to repent. The prophet Ezekiel recorded a statement from God:

KJV Ezekiel 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

And Paul adds:

KJV Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Hence, when one is faced with the opportunity of doing evil, he changes his mind and does good instead. For me, that's repentance.

But for you to repent is to be born again. And in your linked post, to be born again is God's work FOR man. Why would God COMMAND people to repent if that is actually commanding them to be born again when it is His work and not man's because God knows man cannot cause himself to be born again?

For me, to be born again is God's work of making people spiritually alive, empowering them to overcome evil with good having fashioned them into the Body of His Son on the cross. Made alive first, that is, born again first, before one can repent, before one can overcome evil with good.

God's act of making us alive was done when He made us alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected Jesus from the grave. And attached to Christ Who is our Strength for overcoming, we have His Power that energizes us to be able to repent, that is, to overcome evil with good.

And because all had been empowered, all are commanded to repent, to overcome evil with good. Those who refuse to repent, Jesus said, will perish. Those who repent, those who overcome evil with good, will NOT perish. Their names, Jesus assures us, will NOT be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

Derf
March 31st, 2016, 08:37 PM
Jesus sid:KJV Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

NAS Luke 13:3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" is, I think, a statement citing a condition that will bring about a definite result.

condition #1: refusal to repent
result #1: perish

condition #2: repent
result #2: not perish

What composed Jesus' audience?
I think His audience is composed of Calvinism's Elect and the non-elect.

How many among His audience did Jesus say will perish unless they repent?
All, I guess, because He said "Unless you repent, you will ALL likewise perish".

In like manner, how many among His audience will NOT perish should they repent?
All, I think.

And since All will perish unless they repent, that should include Calvinism's Elect.
And that's against Calvinism.

And since All will NOT perish if they repent, that should include the non-elect.
And that's against Calvinism, as well.

That's the Calvinists' Dilemma. Yet unresolved, 12 days and counting.
Could anyone please stand up for the Calvinists and squarely address the issue?

I think you missed the import of the word "likewise" in that passage. It seems to indicate perishing by sudden calamity, possibly at the hand of non-Jews. Indeed that was what happened to them 40 years later.

Derf
March 31st, 2016, 08:45 PM
Your post clearly states (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4662908#post4662908) in the context of God's calling men to repent that men ought to be able to repent...in that context. Now you move the goal posts to discussing repentance outside of God's calling men to repent, the salvific context of such a call by God. So which is it? How am I to understand that, well, you really meant this or that, when all I have is your plain words? Taking me to task for what you have written is not a burden I should be given, rather your infelicitous use of words lies at the root, no?

No matter, the next time I am moved to respond directly to you I will first ask if what you wrote actually means what you wrote. :AMR:

AMR

Woah there, Cowboy! What are you saying repentance means in the context you are referring to? I think Samie hit the nail on the head when he said you equated "repentance" with being "born again". If that's what you think, then I can see why my post riled you so. But why should we define "repentance" so rigidly?

Lon
March 31st, 2016, 09:42 PM
It's Calvinism that teaches one can't become unelected, while the non-elect are sure to perish. On the other hand, Jesus told His audience - probably composed of Calvinism's Elect and non-elect - that unless they repent they will all perish. It can be inferred from Christ's statement that should the elect refuse to repent, they perish, and that's against Calvinism. And if the non-elect repent they won't perish, and that's against Calvinism as well.

The Calvinists' Dilemma remains unresolved.Ah, I see why you are having a dilemma with Calvinists here. If Jesus says to an elect, he must repent, it is already a given that he/she'd do so. Look, I give you a mitt, put it on your hand, and hand you a ball in your throwing hand. I teach you how to throw a ball and say 'throw the ball.' I then look at a whole group of kids, turning from you and say: unless you throw the ball, you cannot be on this team. You already know, as one that is made able to throw that ball, that you can do it. You've been enabled.

Ask Mr. Religion
March 31st, 2016, 10:45 PM
Woah there, Cowboy! What are you saying repentance means in the context you are referring to? I think Samie hit the nail on the head when he sails you equated "repentance" with being "born again". If that's what you think, then I can see why my post riled you so. But why should we define "repentance" so rigidly?
It is quite simple:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4661173&viewfull=1#post4661173

Do not read what Samie has to say about what he/she thinks I have said, rather what I have actually said.

AMR

Samie
April 1st, 2016, 06:07 AM
Ah, I see why you are having a dilemma with Calvinists here. If Jesus says to an elect, he must repent, it is already a given that he/she'd do so. Look, I give you a mitt, put it on your hand, and hand you a ball in your throwing hand. I teach you how to throw a ball and say 'throw the ball.' I then look at a whole group of kids, turning from you and say: unless you throw the ball, you cannot be on this team. You already know, as one that is made able to throw that ball, that you can do it. You've been enabled.Yes, I've been enabled to throw the ball. That's precisely the reason why I won't be in the team if I REFUSE to throw the ball. And that's against Calvinism. Jesus told ALL His hearers that UNLESS they repent, they will ALL likewise perish. ALL were enabled; all are accountable. Both Calvinism's Elect and non-elect.

Looks like the Calvinists' Dilemma is here to stay.

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 09:39 AM
It is quite simple:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4661173&viewfull=1#post4661173

Do not read what Samie has to say about what he/she thinks I have said, rather what I have actually said.

AMR

I'm just saying that Samie verbalized the thought that came to my mind from your post--I have plenty to disagree with in Samie's posts. You have re-iterated the same thing here. I think we're all in agreement that you think that repentance is equal to being born again. No need to send me off to read other posts, if that's what you believe--just say it. (And yes, before you ask, I did read your other post to try to understand what you were saying.)

What I'm saying is that while repentance is inextricably intertwined with salvation, there is also a repentance that doesn't include salvation. Would you disagree with that?

Calvinism is pretty quick to quantify words, and rightly so in many cases. "All men" doesn't always mean "all men", for instance. Maybe it can/should be done here, too. "Repentance" doesn't always mean "repentance unto salvation".

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 10:43 AM
Long-answer: Imho (and it is humble 'cause I'm still trying to work through and present this well), God made everything and doesn't make mistakes. He said creation was good, including man. Man could not sin under a good creation, and in fact, God is the one who put a tree in the Garden and forbid it. it might be assumed at that point that this is when God gave man a 'free' will, but I don't think that can be the case. Man is 'good' so there is no desire to do something against a good nature. I think it takes a serpent in the Garden. I'd think, saying 'no' to a good and perfect creation cannot end in man eating from the forbidden tree. It is like me writing a computer program. It can only do what I give it to do. That is, I think that those who promote a free-will a God's purpose, actually have God writing in sin, without realizing it. I'm not sure if I get away from that, but it is why I at least believe Freewill is not from God, as we know it and is only the result of disobedience 'from' God. IOW, as far as I understand it, it is the very act of deciding against God, that makes a will to choose possible in the first place, and it took the serpent messing to introduce it, or I don't think it'd be possible.

...
-Lon

I decided to address the long answer, since we've talked about this subject before.

2 points:
1. If it takes a serpent to introduce sin to man, where did the serpent get the adversarial nature. At some point someone has to introduce the idea of sin without it being God's fault.

2. The computer analogy breaks down when you talk of a perfect programmer, with perfect equipment, with perfect knowledge, that applies perfectly to all that he does. Thus, if a good creation can become bad, it can't do so at the intent of the programmer, but only at the intent of one of his creations--you can pick Satan, or you can pick Adam, but the resulting conclusion is the same--someone had to have a free will that allows them to follow a different code than God's, or God had to code the sin directly .

Personally, I think you've missed the boat on thinking that freewill is the bad thing (I think you've heard that from me before). I tried to describe it to a non-virtual friend of mine this way:

Imagine that I built a bunch of robots and coded them to stand around me all day, saying "Derf is the greatest!" or "Derf knows everything!" or "Holy, holy, holy!" or whatever statement of praise you want to think of. Remember that these robots are not really thinking of these things by themselves, but they are just programmed to say these things, and, if I were a perfect programmer, they would never fail to do so. What would you think of me? (My friend said, "That would be creepy.")

But instead, if I were able to make an entity that could think and act on its own, and it, seeing the wondrous works that Derf did and was doing for it, decided to say those things (well, maybe not the Holy, holy, holy), it would not be creepy, but somewhat expected.

The only way that those statements of praise really mean something to me is if my little entity can NOT say those things--that it has the power to say whatever it wants to, and it still chooses to say those things--of its own accord. Then they mean something.

You can try this (the first scenario) for yourself. Pick up any programming instruction manual and find the "Hello, World!" program. Replace the words "Hello, World!" with "Lon is the greatest!" and make sure you include an infinite loop. Start the program and sit back to bask in the glow of praise from your monitor. Aaaaaaaaaah! How good that feels to be praised by your creation! Now do that on every computer you have and maybe borrow some of your friends. Then ask them to ask their friends to put your program on their computers and smart phones and tablets, etc, etc. Soon you will have billions of computers shouting your praises.

Creepy, huh?

Lon
April 1st, 2016, 12:26 PM
I decided to address the long answer, since we've talked about this subject before.

2 points:
1. If it takes a serpent to introduce sin to man, where did the serpent get the adversarial nature. At some point someone has to introduce the idea of sin without it being God's fault.I agree, but not being told the story of that particular, we can't even speculate well. I guess "None of your business" is the frustrating answer. I cannot account for that particular with what I believe, only can go as far as scripture allows at that point. So, the short answer is I have no idea, nor can easily think of how that scenario would or could play out. I do think however, that it has to play out with God not authoring sin, at least as far as you and I are concerned for this discussion and where our systematic theologies agree. That is to say, both yours and mine have fallen angels and Satan as one of them.


2. The computer analogy breaks down when you talk of a perfect programmer, with perfect equipment, with perfect knowledge, that applies perfectly to all that he does. Thus, if a good creation can become bad, it can't do so at the intent of the programmer, but only at the intent of one of his creations--you can pick Satan, or you can pick Adam, but the resulting conclusion is the same--someone had to have a free will that allows them to follow a different code than God's, or God had to code the sin directly .
Yes to the first part, but wasn't the serpent's introduction of lies and half-truths the actual rewriting of the code (not that I'm disagreeing on the second part, just asking)?



Personally, I think you've missed the boat on thinking that freewill is the bad thing (I think you've heard that from me before). I tried to describe it to a non-virtual friend of mine this way:

Imagine that I built a bunch of robots and coded them to stand around me all day, saying "Derf is the greatest!" or "Derf knows everything!" or "Holy, holy, holy!" or whatever statement of praise you want to think of. Remember that these robots are not really thinking of these things by themselves, but they are just programmed to say these things, and, if I were a perfect programmer, they would never fail to do so. What would you think of me? (My friend said, "That would be creepy.") Didn't I do that with my kids, though? I didn't create, but procreated them, and taught them to say "I love you" and "Ma ma/Da da." Is it then creepy when they say "I love you" or my name? :nono:


But instead, if I were able to make an entity that could think and act on its own, and it, seeing the wondrous works that Derf did and was doing for it, decided to say those things (well, maybe not the Holy, holy, holy), it would not be creepy, but somewhat expected. Realize too, we are unworthy of praise. Some of the creepy and unworthy comes from the fact that we are not, in fact, "The Worlds Best Dad" like my T-shirt says (I took them to Disneyland that year, of course they thought that, and I seldom wear it so as not to wear it out and remind them often). I think too, you are describing mindlessly repeating something rather than freewill per say.


The only way that those statements of praise really mean something to me is if my little entity can NOT say those things--that it has the power to say whatever it wants to, and it still chooses to say those things--of its own accord. Then they mean something. Naw, I've taught my dog to say "I luv u." Now it is really not that, because dogs can't vocalize, but it is fairly evident before this that she loves living with us. My son and daughters didn't choose to live with me. They really don't have a freewill, per say, to live somewhere else or choose another set of parents. It is actually my 'loving them' that elicits the same response. Thus, it is pavlovian and so programmed to a degree. For this, Love begets love, even if it is programmed, there is nothing wrong with that, because of the 'way' we are programmed. The very thing that enables it, is the thing that it is, so I do not have a problem, but I did at one time, like you, and I even think 'creepy' was part of it until I thought through it some more and came to these conclusions.


You can try this (the first scenario) for yourself. Pick up any programming instruction manual and find the "Hello, World!" program. Replace the words "Hello, World!" with "Lon is the greatest!" and make sure you include an infinite loop. Start the program and sit back to bask in the glow of praise from your monitor. Aaaaaaaaaah! How good that feels to be praised by your creation! Now do that on every computer you have and maybe borrow some of your friends. Then ask them to ask their friends to put your program on their computers and smart phones and tablets, etc, etc. Soon you will have billions of computers shouting your praises.

Creepy, huh? I've had to do this in Fortran, Basic, and C++
I haven't written a program heralding my praises. Yet another reason it is creepy is simply because we are not to be worshipped. Praised is okay, "you did good" and I'd be okay with the programmed accolades. "I am a nice shark. Fish are friends, not food."

Samie
April 1st, 2016, 01:56 PM
Seems like the Calvinists have hung up in their attempt to resolve their dilemma.

Samie
April 1st, 2016, 02:00 PM
I have plenty to disagree with in Samie's posts.That's fine with me, brother. Can you point out some, please?

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 03:22 PM
Just so you know Lon, you present a problem with your responses. You go into such detail that the responses to your responses quickly exceed reasonable size. It's a good problem, however, because you deal directly with what I write, and I appreciate that.

I agree, but not being told the story of that particular, we can't even speculate well. I guess "None of your business" is the frustrating answer. I cannot account for that particular with what I believe, only can go as far as scripture allows at that point. So, the short answer is I have no idea, nor can easily think of how that scenario would or could play out. I do think however, that it has to play out with God not authoring sin, at least as far as you and I are concerned for this discussion and where our systematic theologies agree. That is to say, both yours and mine have fallen angels and Satan as one of them.But you DO speculate. (I'll leave it to you to judge how well :).) You say that freewill wasn't available until Satan introduced a choice. I say that's speculative. I'd also say choices were there already. God presented animals to Adam to see what he would name them--Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish and subdue the earth. Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam didn't do it at first--why not? He had no reason to believe anything but what God told him, just like our children have no reason to believe other things at first than what we tell them. Satan didn't introduce freewill, he just introduced the idea to disobey God. Does an idea make us sin or able to sin?

And regarding fallen angels--they had to fall from something; their "first estate" as Jude puts it. I don't think it's much speculation to say they were not programmed to "fall" or it wouldn't be a "fall".



Yes to the first part, but wasn't the serpent's introduction of lies and half-truths the actual rewriting of the code (not that I'm disagreeing on the second part, just asking)?I don't think so. If you are talking about the rewriting of the code that made us have a sin nature, or become as good as dead, that could not have happened until they actually did the deed (or contemplated it to the point of lusting after the fruit, perhaps). Else when Jesus was tempted by Satan, the same damage would have been applied to Jesus. The fact that he was able to resist says the re-writing was due to the actual sin being the problem, not the temptation.



Didn't I do that with my kids, though? I didn't create, but procreated them, and taught them to say "I love you" and "Ma ma/Da da." Is it then creepy when they say "I love you" or my name? :nono:
It would be creepy if they said "I love your" without meaning it. Their understanding may not be full at the beginning, or even after 10 or 20 or 30 years, but they mean it. But our love to them is expressed by hugs and talking to them and feeding them and giving them some capability to do more and more according to their own freewill (like Adam naming the animals) as they get old enough to handle it. We teach them way more than to just say "I love you." We, hopefully, teach them how to love us. I don't think it's a proper comparison with computer programs, despite some similarities. It is a decent comparison with Adam and Eve in the garden, though. And according to what you are saying, our kids are moving from a state of not having freewill to a state of having freewill as they grow. Is that Satan doing that, too?


Realize too, we are unworthy of praise. Some of the creepy and unworthy comes from the fact that we are not, in fact, "The Worlds Best Dad" like my T-shirt says (I took them to Disneyland that year, of course they thought that, and I seldom wear it so as not to wear it out and remind them often). I think too, you are describing mindlessly repeating something rather than freewill per say.The robots mindlessly repeat--yes. That's the very point. "Mindless" suggests the opposite of "willfulness".

As far as being unworthy of praise, I beg to differ. "if there be anything praiseworthy..." (Phil 4:8) is not just talking about God, but about people doing things that God likes. Your raising your kids in the fear and admonition of God is praiseworthy. And we should constantly think about how to do those kinds of things rather the the opposite. That doesn't mean we boast in our abilities apart from Christ, but Christ teaches us to do praiseworthy things.



Naw, I've taught my dog to say "I luv u." Now it is really not that, because dogs can't vocalize, but it is fairly evident before this that she loves living with us. My son and daughters didn't choose to live with me. They really don't have a freewill, per say, to live somewhere else or choose another set of parents. It is actually my 'loving them' that elicits the same response. Thus, it is pavlovian and so programmed to a degree. For this, Love begets love, even if it is programmed, there is nothing wrong with that, because of the 'way' we are programmed. The very thing that enables it, is the thing that it is, so I do not have a problem, but I did at one time, like you, and I even think 'creepy' was part of it until I thought through it some more and came to these conclusions.I'm not sure which part you think "creepy" in your description, but I think it would be creepy for God to make a bunch of robots that stand around and say Holy, Holy, Holy all day long. The puppet analogy is stronger in this instance, but illustrates the same thing. Imagine God sticking His hand in a puppet and saying (to Himself) "You are holy" every 3 seconds for eternity. The creep-factor is definitely in the relationship-less action rather than in our unworthiness, imho.



I've had to do this in Fortran, Basic, and C++
I haven't written a program heralding my praises. Yet another reason it is creepy is simply because we are not to be worshipped. Praised is okay, "you did good" and I'd be okay with the programmed accolades. "I am a nice shark. Fish are friends, not food." But we ARE worshiped by our children when they say "I love you." That may bother some folks, but it's true. Later on they find out that we aren't really so worthy of some of that worship. "Worship" is defined as "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration." (Dictionaries like to add "to a deity", but it wasn't always used so.) That's exactly what transpires between a child and his father. And that's what Jesus said we are supposed to be like in our coming to Him.

In fact, if you wrote a program to herald your own achievements, the only good I think it would provide is when OTHER people see it and notice it--so it still requires another person in the loop==more relationship requirement. You wouldn't derive any benefit from seeing the praise from computers. But relationships are two-way.

One more way of thinking about this, and i'll stop. If the person is coded a certain way, and God is the perfect programmer, remember that God programmed the whole system, not just the person. You have to step back to see the bigger picture, which has the same problem. If the whole system is messed up by sin, and God programmed everything that is in the system, then God is either not a very good programmer, or He is and He programmed sin into the program.

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 03:33 PM
That's fine with me, brother. Can you point out some, please?
Hi Samie,

The first is that by requiring a response from someone that isn't willing or ready to respond, you think that you've somehow won an argument.

But besides that, I don't think you've presented a dilemma at all. If the Elect in Calvinism are those that are called to repentance, and actually repent, which they are, then there's no confusing them with those that are called to repentance, don't repent, and "likewise perish".

Which, coupled with the first, makes the whole OP hard to answer, not because of difficulty in refuting, but in difficulty understanding what you are getting at.

Just my opinion...
Derf

Samie
April 1st, 2016, 06:34 PM
Hi Samie,

The first is that by requiring a response from someone that isn't willing or ready to respond, you think that you've somehow won an argument.

But besides that, I don't think you've presented a dilemma at all. If the Elect in Calvinism are those that are called to repentance, and actually repent, which they are, then there's no confusing them with those that are called to repentance, don't repent, and "likewise perish".

Which, coupled with the first, makes the whole OP hard to answer, not because of difficulty in refuting, but in difficulty understanding what you are getting at.

Just my opinion...
DerfI was thinking I have made my points clear in the OP.

I believe ALL in Adam's race comprise the Elect. For the Calvinists, not everyone.

From the Calvinists' perspective, the audience of Jesus in Luke 13 could well be composed of the Calvinism's elect and the non-elect. And Jesus was telling them that unless they repent, they will ALL likewise perish. Hence, those who repent, among His audience, won't perish, while those who refuse to repent will perish, elect or not. And that's against Calvinism.

I don't think that's difficult to understand, is it?

Calvinism teaches the elect are for whom Christ died, and hence they are the only ones in Christ and are spiritually alive. While on the other hand, the non-elect are NOT part of the Body of Christ, and are therefore spiritually dead. Christ told His disciples that apart from Him they can do NOTHING. If the disciples can do NOTHING, can the non-elect do SOMETHING, like repenting?

Scriptures say that God commands all people everywhere to repent. And that command applies both to Calvinism's elect and the non-elect. So why would God command the non-elect to repent knowing that they are NOT capable of repenting?

Did you for even one moment think of asking your dog to sing?

And that's half the Calvinists' dilemma. The other half next post.

Lon
April 1st, 2016, 07:46 PM
Seems like the Calvinists have hung up in their attempt to resolve their dilemma.

You even have nonCalvinists telling you it isn't a dilemma. Declaring victory? It is pointless, Samie. Why? Because "it doesn't bother Calvinists" only you :noway: I was going to use a "Don't confuse me with facts" meme, but you'd not think I meant you by it.

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 08:33 PM
Did you for even one moment think of asking your dog to sing?
Apparently Lon does, as he said he taught his dog to say "I wuv u."

I should probably wait until you post the other half of the dilemma, but let me explain. I don't think there is no dilemma, I just think Calvinism is fairly consistent on this point. When they say Christ only died for the elect, then say that only the elect can repent, that doesn't mean one can't "call" other than the elect to repentance.

To me, and I suppose to you, it seems ludicrous for God to "call" someone to repentance that can't respond, won't respond, and then get angry when they don't respond. Goes back to that programming thing Lon and I were talking about. If God programmed them to work a certain way, then they became broken through new programming (leaving aside how that happened), then expecting them to work a different way--getting angry that they don't--is an exercise in futility, seems to me.

But if they have some kind of capability to repent, then don't, I can see why God would be wrathful.

And I think I agree with your illustration about the dog--if God gave the dog no capacity for song, yet gets mad when he doesn't sing, is God a wise, all-knowing, God? seems like He's not to me.

But I also don't think your "repent or you will likewise perish" verses are talking about salvific repentance or eternal-life perishing, if I can describe it that way.

Crucible
April 1st, 2016, 08:50 PM
...

Lon
April 1st, 2016, 09:18 PM
Just so you know Lon, you present a problem with your responses. You go into such detail that the responses to your responses quickly exceed reasonable size. It's a good problem, however, because you deal directly with what I write, and I appreciate that.
But you DO speculate. (I'll leave it to you to judge how well :).) You say that freewill wasn't available until Satan introduced a choice. I say that's speculative. I'd also say choices were there already. God presented animals to Adam to see what he would name them--Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish and subdue the earth. Adam could have refused, but why would he? God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam didn't do it at first--why not? He had no reason to believe anything but what God told him, just like our children have no reason to believe other things at first than what we tell them. Satan didn't introduce freewill, he just introduced the idea to disobey God. Does an idea make us sin or able to sin?
One more way of thinking about this... If the person is coded a certain way, and God is the perfect programmer, remember that God programmed the whole system, not just the person. You have to step back to see the bigger picture, which has the same problem. If the whole system is messed up by sin, and God programmed everything that is in the system, then God is either not a very good programmer, or He is and He programmed sin into the program.
My scriptural understanding leaves the inception of sin, or rather passes it along. The serpent entering the Garden, and crafty, is the Genesis introduction. I can go that far, as it is scripture. After that, I would be speculating. I would admit to drawn conclusion, but only insofar as I think I came to it through scripture reading.

JAnd regarding fallen angels--they had to fall from something; their "first estate" as Jude puts it. I don't think it's much speculation to say they were not programmed to "fall" or it wouldn't be a "fall". True. "How" is the question I that I'd speculate, not the fact. We both agree (again) that God is not the author of sin (in case this was missed the first time).


JI don't think so. If you are talking about the rewriting of the code that made us have a sin nature, or become as good as dead, that could not have happened until they actually did the deed (or contemplated it to the point of lusting after the fruit, perhaps). Else when Jesus was tempted by Satan, the same damage would have been applied to Jesus. The fact that he was able to resist says the re-writing was due to the actual sin being the problem, not the temptation.
It has to fit our systematic scripture conceptions. At the least, you and I are reading scriptures and showing that, whether there is disagreement. In this case 'Now the serpent was more crafty than any other..." drives that summation.

JIt would be creepy if they said "I love your" without meaning it. Their understanding may not be full at the beginning, or even after 10 or 20 or 30 years, but they mean it. But our love to them is expressed by hugs and talking to them and feeding them and giving them some capability to do more and more according to their own freewill (like Adam naming the animals) as they get old enough to handle it. We teach them way more than to just say "I love you." We, hopefully, teach them how to love us. I don't think it's a proper comparison with computer programs, despite some similarities. It is a decent comparison with Adam and Eve in the garden, though. And according to what you are saying, our kids are moving from a state of not having freewill to a state of having freewill as they grow. Is that Satan doing that, too? We both recognize the phenomena of meaning behind the words. I also am not disagreeing that we have a will, just the way we got it. The 'meaning' behind what drives this is how it has to work, given we certainly do have to choose. I'd suggest, however, that prior it would only be a choice of how best to convey love, not to choose not to do it. That we choose to do it, against a sin nature does provide a meaningfulness to the expression of love in contrast to it, because it is truly against the sin nature. In that, the contrast does indeed explain and contrast love. Further, God did allow the Fall, but for me, it is yet sin that causes the contrast and meaning.

The robots mindlessly repeat--yes. That's the very point. "Mindless" suggests the opposite of "willfulness".
I think it a response of 'how' love will be returned is the better than 'if' love will be returned.


As far as being unworthy of praise, I beg to differ. "if there be anything praiseworthy..." (Phil 4:8) is not just talking about God, but about people doing things that God likes. Your raising your kids in the fear and admonition of God is praiseworthy. And we should constantly think about how to do those kinds of things rather the the opposite. That doesn't mean we boast in our abilities apart from Christ, but Christ teaches us to do praiseworthy things.

I'm not sure which part you think "creepy" in your description, but I think it would be creepy for God to make a bunch of robots that stand around and say Holy, Holy, Holy all day long. The puppet analogy is stronger in this instance, but illustrates the same thing. Imagine God sticking His hand in a puppet and saying (to Himself) "You are holy" every 3 seconds for eternity. The creep-factor is definitely in the relationship-less action rather than in our unworthiness, imho.
:nono: I've seen a few interacting robot movies. Though completely programmed, they do not creep me out. Algorithms allow for branching responses. I think we acknowledge each other's creep factor, not sure we can do much about it.

But we ARE worshiped by our children when they say "I love you." That may bother some folks, but it's true. Later on they find out that we aren't really so worthy of some of that worship. "Worship" is defined as "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration." (Dictionaries like to add "to a deity", but it wasn't always used so.) That's exactly what transpires between a child and his father. And that's what Jesus said we are supposed to be like in our coming to Him. I haven't had my kids bow to me yet...


In fact, if you wrote a program to herald your own achievements, the only good I think it would provide is when OTHER people see it and notice it--so it still requires another person in the loop==more relationship requirement. You wouldn't derive any benefit from seeing the praise from computers. But relationships are two-way. Revelation 4:8;19:4

Epoisses
April 1st, 2016, 09:28 PM
Calvinists like Lon believe that God is the author of sin thru the serpent. Anyone who can't see that their doctrine is antichrist and not worthy. Everything that God created was perfect at inception. Sin is a violation of the Divine will, a violation of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is presented by the Calvinist as an impenetrable wall of the Almighty but the reality of the situation on the ground is that it has been breached. Sin refutes God's sovereignty.

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 11:16 PM
I haven't had my kids bow to me yet...But adore you? I would guess at some point they did. If the "worship" is only bowing, the muslims do that well.


Revelation 4:8;19:4Yes, but not robotic or puppetic (new word!) These are sentient beings who can fall that are recognizing the glories of their creator and giving un-forced praise and adoration.

Derf
April 1st, 2016, 11:20 PM
Calvinists like Lon believe that God is the author of sin thru the serpent. Anyone who can't see that their doctrine is antichrist and not worthy. Everything that God created was perfect at inception. Sin is a violation of the Divine will, a violation of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is presented by the Calvinist as an impenetrable wall of the Almighty but the reality of the situation on the ground is that it has been breached. Sin refutes God's sovereignty.

I assume you mean that sin refutes the Calvinist's definition of sovereignty. I think I agree, but most Calvinists turn the meanings around to something they can stomach a little better, using the "God is not the author of sin", excuse.

I think the better definition of sovereignty allows for something out of God's direct desires, but ending with God's desires. And Calvinists would claim some agreement here (but with different wording, no doubt), calling it decreed vs revealed will.

Lon
April 2nd, 2016, 01:16 AM
But adore you? I would guess at some point they did. If the "worship" is only bowing, the muslims do that well.
Yes, but not robotic or puppetic (new word!) These are sentient beings who can fall that are recognizing the glories of their creator and giving un-forced praise and adoration.
What of the angels in those verses? "Can" they do otherwise? Aren't they doing what they were made/created to do???

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 02:27 AM
You even have nonCalvinists telling you it isn't a dilemma. Declaring victory? It is pointless, Samie. Why? Because "it doesn't bother Calvinists" only you :noway: I was going to use a "Don't confuse me with facts" meme, but you'd not think I meant you by it.Are you NOT a Calvinist, Lon?

Not declaring victory. Simply declaring what I perceive is happening since you were not able to resolve the dilemma. Or should I say you failed?

Knowing they couldn't, why would God command the non-elect to repent and then punish them if they don't? And that's among the Calvinists' dilemma. Yet you close your eyes and say there's no dilemma.

Not very much unlike ostrich-burying-its-head-in-the-sand defense, isn't it?

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 03:00 AM
Apparently Lon does, as he said he taught his dog to say "I wuv u."And when his dog can't, did Lon get mad and threw his dog inside a burning furnace?


I should probably wait until you post the other half of the dilemma, ...It's coming soon.

. . . but let me explain. I don't think there is no dilemma, . . .So Lon has no more non-Calvinist left saying there is no dilemma?

I just think Calvinism is fairly consistent on this point. When they say Christ only died for the elect, then say that only the elect can repent, that doesn't mean one can't "call" other than the elect to repentance.Consistently wrong?


To me, and I suppose to you, it seems ludicrous for God to "call" someone to repentance that can't respond, won't respond, and then get angry when they don't respond. Goes back to that programming thing Lon and I were talking about. If God programmed them to work a certain way, then they became broken through new programming (leaving aside how that happened), then expecting them to work a different way--getting angry that they don't--is an exercise in futility, seems to me.

But if they have some kind of capability to repent, then don't, I can see why God would be wrathful.

And I think I agree with your illustration about the dog--if God gave the dog no capacity for song, yet gets mad when he doesn't sing, is God a wise, all-knowing, God? seems like He's not to me.But still the Calvinists can't see their dilemma. Or shall I say REFUSE to see?


But I also don't think your "repent or you will likewise perish" verses are talking about salvific repentance or eternal-life perishing, if I can describe it that way.If the gospel is God's power to save, and the call to repent is embodied in the gospel that Christ preached, I don't see why the call can not be salvific since Jesus said he came to call sinners to repentance. And the "repent or you will likewise perish" verses talk about sinners.

Lon
April 2nd, 2016, 04:54 AM
Are you NOT a Calvinist, Lon?

Not declaring victory. Simply declaring what I perceive is happening since you were not able to resolve the dilemma. Or should I say you failed?
I think you are still failing to see the problem here. 1) Calvinists do not hold to a universal atonement, you do. 2) A universal atonement is the only way your dilemma would/could work and we don't believe or hold to it. 3) No dilemma, except for one who holds to a universal atonement, which is not a Calvinist, therefore ONLY your dilemma. 4) /thread


Knowing they couldn't, why would God command the non-elect to repent and then punish them if they don't? And that's among the Calvinists' dilemma. Yet you close your eyes and say there's no dilemma.
1) in the parable, is the wheat apart from the tares are they all mixed together? Matthew 13:24-30
2) If mixed together, though in the hearing of weeds, who is the farmer concerned with? If he talks to the field, who is he talking to? While growing, do the wheat know they aren't tares, or must they be told? Is a 'calling' part of their election?

Not very much unlike ostrich-burying-its-head-in-the-sand defense, isn't it?
It could be, but simply repeating a one-liner that your dilemma hasn't satisfactorily been met, 1) doesn't make it mine, just yours that you have with Calvinism and 2) nothing that matters unless you can compel a Calvinist to be bothered by the dilemma, and to do that, you have to show it is actually part of their belief system. A coach calling "in order to be on this team, you must be able to throw a ball" may already know who is able and be providing fair warning for those kids who can't. Is the coach talking to kids that can throw a ball at that point? If so, such also assures that kid he will be on the team. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." I'd suggest a call to repent provides the believer with assurance and provides the unrepentant unbeliever with fair warning. Isn't that also the Arminian take, to some degree?

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 08:14 AM
As promised, here's part of the other half of the Calvinists' Dilemma:

While Calvinists teach that Christ did not die for every man in Adam's race, but only for some specific persons they call the elect who they say cannot perish but is sure of life everlasting, God in Scriptures doesn't seem to agree and instead tells us through prophet Jeremiah:NKJ Ezekiel 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.And judgment comes after a person dies:NKJ Hebrews 9:27 ... it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgmentWhen Christ comes again, He will reward every man according to what each has done (Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12; Rom 2:5-11).

Even Christ Himself speaks of the children of the kingdom perishing:KJV Matthew 8:11-12 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.And Paul tells of branches being broken off:NKJ Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Looks like Scriptures don't teach no elect can't perish. And that's part of the Calvinists' Dilemma.

There's more to come.

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 09:06 AM
I think you are still failing to see the problem here. 1) Calvinists do not hold to a universal atonement, you do. 2) A universal atonement is the only way your dilemma would/could work and we don't believe or hold to it. 3) No dilemma, except for one who holds to a universal atonement, which is not a Calvinist, therefore ONLY your dilemma. 4) /thread

1) in the parable, is the wheat apart from the tares are they all mixed together? Matthew 13:24-30
2) If mixed together, though in the hearing of weeds, who is the farmer concerned with? If he talks to the field, who is he talking to? While growing, do the wheat know they aren't tares, or must they be told? Is a 'calling' part of their election?It looks like you are saying that Jesus was addressing the elect in His audience. Granting that I understood you correctly, so Jesus was saying to the elect: "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". If Jesus tells that to Calvinists now, Lon, won't they sort of remind Him, Hey, Lord, the elect cannot perish! Seems like the Lord will be obliged to point out Matt 8:11 - 12.

It could be, but simply repeating a one-liner that your dilemma hasn't satisfactorily been met, 1) doesn't make it mine, just yours that you have with Calvinism and 2) nothing that matters unless you can compel a Calvinist to be bothered by the dilemma, and to do that, you have to show it is actually part of their belief system. A coach calling "in order to be on this team, you must be able to throw a ball" may already know who is able and be providing fair warning for those kids who can't. Is the coach talking to kids that can throw a ball at that point? If so, such also assures that kid he will be on the team. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." I'd suggest a call to repent provides the believer with assurance and provides the unrepentant unbeliever with fair warning.What if those able kids REFUSE to throw the ball? Will the coach, knowing they simply refused, admit them to the team? My answer is Yes, IF the coach is a Calvinist, like you, Lon. But I don't think Jesus, Who said that even children of the kingdom could be thrown out, is a Calvinist.


Isn't that also the Arminian take, to some degree?You can ask an Arminian, I'm not. Arminians believe in a universal BUT conditional atonement. I believe in a universal, unconditional atonement. Unlike Calvinism's limited atonement, I believe in unlimited atonement that Christ died for all of Adam's race. Hence every man is among the Elect. But just like what Jesus said, Unless the elect repent, they will all likewise perish.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 2nd, 2016, 02:44 PM
What I'm saying is that while repentance is inextricably intertwined with salvation, there is also a repentance that doesn't include salvation. Would you disagree with that?
Well, of course I would agree. Repentance is a word that applies to many things. My quibble is with the presumption that calls for repentance prior to the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially Samie's argument.


"Repentance" doesn't always mean "repentance unto salvation".I agree.

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
April 2nd, 2016, 03:14 PM
Calvinists like Lon believe that God is the author of sin thru the serpent. Anyone who can't see that their doctrine is antichrist and not worthy. Everything that God created was perfect at inception. Sin is a violation of the Divine will, a violation of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is presented by the Calvinist as an impenetrable wall of the Almighty but the reality of the situation on the ground is that it has been breached. Sin refutes God's sovereignty.
This is naive word salad.

Nothing contravenes God's sovereignty, else there is something more sovereign than God, and then God is but some lesser god to the so-called contravening principle you are claiming.

Do you seriously believe God did not ordain, for His own good purposes, the sinful action of a moral creature in that God was clueless that the moral creature, e.g., the devil, would act accordingly? Do you honestly believe there are moral agents running about outside the sovereignty of God? What do you think sovereignty means? No, contrary to your nonsense, the existence of sin confirms God's sovereignty, else God is some hand-wringing, impotent being among the Greek Pantheon of gods, lamenting the actions of moral agents He has no rule over. Yours is the view that meaningless evil exists and God is not able, nor willing, to do something about it.

The sovereignty of God means the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psalm 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

Take some instruction from Pink (http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/2813/7643/3381/sogo.pdf) on the topic:

The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence.

To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psalm 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i. e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any.


God has a morally sufficient purpose for evil. No doubt one of those purposes is to display His mercy and justice such that His full glory be made manifest. God's glory includes all His attributes, for all God's attributes inhere one another and cannot be separated out as things or parts of God, for God cannot be decomposed into constituent parts (https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2013/09/27/theological-primer-the-simplicity-of-god/), and thus is His attributes.

AMR

Lon
April 2nd, 2016, 04:20 PM
It looks like you are saying that Jesus was addressing the elect in His audience. Granting that I understood you correctly, so Jesus was saying to the elect: "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". If Jesus tells that to Calvinists now, Lon, won't they sort of remind Him, Hey, Lord, the elect cannot perish! Seems like the Lord will be obliged to point out Matt 8:11 - 12.
"How" do we know we are elect and 'when?' Before we turn toward Christ? We can't remind of what we don't know. Jesus hadn't died yet so there is no salvation other than by trusting in God, and doing sacrifices following Jewish law and customs. Jesus is either or both only talking to a Jewish audience (which is of course the case, they were the only ones there hearing this), or He was talking to them so they would write it down, that Jews and gentiles would note the point after His work was completed. Either way, it still amounts to a description of what must take place, as a preliminary. Like the baseball analogy, having to throw the ball is a condition to be met. The coach has to actually teach the skill to some, and correct the skill in others. The coach may well know who is who by experience past. God certainly knows, but the kids don't. Telling kids the condition does not ensure that every kid will make the team. Only those able/enabled will make the cut.

What if those able kids REFUSE to throw the ball? Will the coach, knowing they simply refused, admit them to the team? My answer is Yes, IF the coach is a Calvinist, like you, Lon. But I don't think Jesus, Who said that even children of the kingdom could be thrown out, is a Calvinist. I'm never sure why a systematic theology is attacked, rather than appreciated. All of our systematics carry problems for another's systematic. Not one of us has exactly the same systematic. I don't have to become just like you to be right with God, nor do you have to become a Calvinist. I ask simply that you appreciate, or endeavor, at least, to appreciate this answer: As a Calvinist-type coach according to you analogy, I would have done all I could to ensure those kids that can make the team, will make the team. God, in omniscience, knows already. It only makes His tenacity assured, that all who can play and are willing, will indeed make the team. The kid that doesn't want to, and God would know, can be encouraged to try, because that is what try-outs are all about. Leaving baseball analogy, I am assured that God only knows how to be effective in His calling and is even tenacious with those who are tough-sells. He knows which can be turned around. Ephesians 2:8-10, to me, explains an irresistible grace and an efficacious atonement and election. I believe the repeated use of the word election, would be an odd term other than as it can only apply to God choosing those saved. It is a word, I think, that demands a purposefulness (in Loving tenacity) to seek and save those lost. I think you can at least appreciate it, though not Calvinist, in this sense: God saves all that will/can be saved. There are none lost that He can help it (a little awkward for proper Calvinist doctrine, but I'm still fairly new at Calvinism so forgive, at times, some of the awkward).


You can ask an Arminian, I'm not. Arminians believe in a universal BUT conditional atonement. I believe in a universal, unconditional atonement. Unlike Calvinism's limited atonement, I believe in unlimited atonement that Christ died for all of Adam's race. Hence every man is among the Elect. But just like what Jesus said, Unless the elect repent, they will all likewise perish. As in universal salvation? Can you explain this a bit further? It is a bit off topic, I'm just wanting to know your position that I might best be able to explain the Calvinist position for future conversation. Thanks -Lon

patrick jane
April 2nd, 2016, 04:30 PM
You can ask an Arminian, I'm not. Arminians believe in a universal BUT conditional atonement. I believe in a universal, unconditional atonement. Unlike Calvinism's limited atonement, I believe in unlimited atonement that Christ died for all of Adam's race. Hence every man is among the Elect. But just like what Jesus said, Unless the elect repent, they will all likewise perish.


Adam's race was destroyed in the flood. Noah then filled the earth

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 05:10 PM
Well, of course I would agree. Repentance is a word that applies to many things.Not the repentance embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached which is salvific repentance.

In the account where Jesus told His audience "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish", perishing sinners are the issue. And Jesus said He was sent to call sinners to repentance. And repentance is embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached. And the gospel is God's power to save.

Hence, the repentance Jesus spoke about concerns salvation. And it is God's goodness that leads the elect to repentance, through the Holy Spirit. To be among the elect is to have been first regenerated, made spiritually alive. And then one can repent.

And if the elect refuse to repent, then they perish. For Calvinism, there is no possibility the elect could be lost. But Jesus said there will be from among the elect who will be doomed (Matt 8:11 - 12).


My quibble is with the presumption that calls for repentance prior to the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially Samie's argument.Repentance PRIOR to the regenerative act of the HS? Is that even possible?

That brings us back to a similar scenario where Lon would be asking his dog to sing the Star-Spangled Banner, gets mad when the dog barks instead of sing, and then throws his dog into a burning furnace!

And that is the scenario painted by Calvinists saying only Calvinism's elect can repent relative to God's commanding ALL people everywhere to repent. Why would God COMMAND all when not everyone had been enabled?

This is why I had been shouting in many threads that all in Adam's race compose the elect.

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 05:24 PM
Adam's race was destroyed in the flood. Noah then filled the earthOhh-ohhh, Patrick. Did you soon forget Noah descended from Adam? Read Gen 5 as reminder.

Epoisses
April 2nd, 2016, 05:35 PM
This is naive word salad.

lol. That's actually kind of funny.

To say that God ordained sin makes you a Satan.......hissssssss

patrick jane
April 2nd, 2016, 05:44 PM
Ohh-ohhh, Patrick. Did you soon forget Noah descended from Adam? Read Gen 5 as reminder.
Just testing you

Samie
April 2nd, 2016, 06:27 PM
"How" do we know we are elect and 'when?' Before we turn toward Christ?By faith, Lon, the faith of the Son of God, when the Holy Spirit makes us aware of that fact. It's the HS Who leads the children of God, remember?


We can't remind of what we don't know.I agree.


Jesus hadn't died yet so there is no salvation other than by trusting in God, and doing sacrifices following Jewish law and customs.There is only ONE WAY, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifices can't cleanse people from sin (Heb 10:11).


Jesus is either or both only talking to a Jewish audience (which is of course the case, they were the only ones there hearing this), or He was talking to them so they would write it down, that Jews and gentiles would note the point after His work was completed.Shifting sand defense? In an earlier post you were telling me the farmer was talking to the wheat instead of tares, though wheat and tares are intermixed with each other in Jesus' audience. And the wheat are the elect. Now, you are saying, He was talking to only the Jews. And many Jews rejected Him. That brings you back again to the dilemma where the elect (Jews) could be lost.


Either way, it still amounts to a description of what must take place, as a preliminary. Like the baseball analogy, having to throw the ball is a condition to be met. The coach has to actually teach the skill to some, and correct the skill in others. The coach may well know who is who by experience past. God certainly knows, but the kids don't. Telling kids the condition does not ensure that every kid will make the team. Only those able/enabled will make the cut.I think it is better said, only those enabled "could" (instead of "will") make the cut". Remember Matt 8:11 - 12?


I'm never sure why a systematic theology is attacked, rather than appreciated.The issue is preaching the gospel, Lon. And Jesus told His disciples the gospel of the kingdom MUST be preached to all the world as witness to all nations and ONLY THEN can He come. And despite the preaching for centuries of Catholic, Calvinist and Arminian brands of gospel, still the Lord hasn't come. Why? I surmise the gospel Jesus wanted preached had NOT yet been preached to the world. Just maybe. And I could not, by His Spirit, keep silence.


All of our systematics carry problems for another's systematic.Show me the problems my position has against Scriptures, please. You could start another thread for that purpose. This thread is to show what I perceive are Calvinism's inconsistencies against Scriptures.


Not one of us has exactly the same systematic. I don't have to become just like you to be right with God, nor do you have to become a Calvinist.I agree. That's why I believe your name and mine and that of all others were all written in the book of life because God had made us ALL right with Him. He has ALREADY reconciled us all to Himself by the death of His Son! But only overcomers will NOT be blotted out from it.


I ask simply that you appreciate, or endeavor, at least, to appreciate this answer: As a Calvinist-type coach according to you analogy, I would have done all I could to ensure those kids that can make the team, will make the team. God, in omniscience, knows already. It only makes His tenacity assured, that all who can play and are willing, will indeed make the team. The kid that doesn't want to, and God would know, can be encouraged to try, because that is what try-outs are all about. Leaving baseball analogy, I am assured that God only knows how to be effective in His calling and is even tenacious with those who are tough-sells. He knows which can be turned around. Ephesians 2:8-10, to me, explains an irresistible grace and an efficacious atonement and election. I believe the repeated use of the word election, would be an odd term other than as it can only apply to God choosing those saved. It is a word, I think, that demands a purposefulness (in Loving tenacity) to seek and save those lost. I think you can at least appreciate it, though not Calvinist, in this sense: God saves all that will/can be saved. There are none lost that He can help it (a little awkward for proper Calvinist doctrine, but I'm still fairly new at Calvinism so forgive, at times, some of the awkward).Although, I don't agree your answer is 100% correct, your request is granted. Your answer is hereby appreciated, brother.

As an aside, however, regarding the phrase you used "to seek and save those lost", I ask you to please contemplate even for a short while upon this simple question: Have you lost anything that is not previously in your position?


As in universal salvation? Can you explain this a bit further? It is a bit off topic, I'm just wanting to know your position that I might best be able to explain the Calvinist position for future conversation. Thanks -LonYes, universal salvation. But entirely different from what Bociferous and his Universalist allies are proposing.

You may have already noticed this above in this post and in other threads where I said all our names were written in the book of life. This was all because of what God through Christ has done FOR man. All grace because of God's love; NOT an iota of human participation. God gave us this grace through Christ BEFORE the world began! see 2 Tim 1:8-10. This is what I call the Past Tense of Salvation, or the First Dimension of the Gospel. All of Adam's race benefited, whether they know it or not; whether they like it or not.

And there are two more tenses. Present and Future.

Lon
April 2nd, 2016, 09:26 PM
Although, I don't agree your answer is 100% correct, your request is granted. Your answer is hereby appreciated, brother.
Amen

As an aside, however, regarding the phrase you used "to seek and save those lost", I ask you to please contemplate even for a short while upon this simple question: Have you lost anything that is not previously in your position? I already have because it is actually part of the Calvinist view of the elect. We all belong to God (Romans 9), even the unsaved. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills.
A few verse for the coffee table:


2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
2Co 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.


Yes, universal salvation. But entirely different from what Bociferous and his Universalist allies are proposing.

You may have already noticed this above in this post and in other threads where I said all our names were written in the book of life. This was all because of what God through Christ has done FOR man. All grace because of God's love; NOT an iota of human participation. God gave us this grace through Christ BEFORE the world began! see 2 Tim 1:8-10. This is what I call the Past Tense of Salvation, or the First Dimension of the Gospel. All of Adam's race benefited, whether they know it or not; whether they like it or not.

And there are two more tenses. Present and Future. Thanks. We have a number of the other kind on TOL and I had to be certain with whom I was conversing. Thanks for taking the time. Blessings in Him -Lon

Ask Mr. Religion
April 3rd, 2016, 10:41 AM
And that is the scenario painted by Calvinists saying only Calvinism's elect can repent relative to God's commanding ALL people everywhere to repent. Why would God COMMAND all when not everyone had been enabled?
The doctrine of the free or well-meant offer of the gospel depends in part on a theological distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. God’s decretive will is what God has resolved to carry out Himself. God’s preceptive will refers to God’s commandments and ethical expectations for humans.

It is not illogical or schizophrenic for Apostle Paul to desire all sinners to be saved, on the one hand, and yet to affirm God only decrees some sinners to be saved, on the other hand. Paul did not know, nor do we, who God did and did not elect unto salvation.

We are commanded to preach the gospel promiscuously and rest in the fact that none who call upon the name of the Lord will be turned away. Attempting to bring the decretive will of God into the command to go into the world is an unsanctioned desire to peek behind the curtain to see what God is up to, contrary to Deut. 29:29. We must give priority to the revealed will (the preceptive will) of God over the secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient (http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=164) for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel.

Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

The gospel offer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Holy Scripture teaches it in express terms. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a sinner addressed with the offer, "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." Your hypothetical universalism is an invention of the human brain. It is pure sentimentality. It begins with an anthropocentric view of God's love and works its way like leaven through the Scripture's soteriological system until it has taken away the assurance of faith. Your hypothetical universalism swallows up the bread of life in pure conjecture. Having no real basis in the saving work of Christ, your view has to create artificial categories and speak of hypotheticals as if they were real.

Particular redemption is true because it sets forth an actual, real redemption of men as sinners, and the gospel offers this particular redemption to sinners as such. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.

We are to regard repentance and faith as the means by which the great commandment to love God and love our neighbor finds fulfillment. This duty to love God and neighbor existed before the fall and Adam certainly enjoyed the ability to do so. Our love of God is therefore still obligatory, and the means through which it is to be realized, namely repentance and faith, are likewise obligatory. All mankind owe God our love and trust by the very fact that all are His rational creatures. Adam had the ability to love and trust God before the Fall. All are still responsible to love and trust God despite the Fall.

Note that an imperative (the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel) cannot be deduced from an indicative (man has the creaturely power within him to do as he is told). Romanists, Arminians, openists, and you assume that the biblical call to perfection implied it is a possibility. Thanks be to God Luther knew better!

What can be and what ought to be are not necessarily coordinate. That all who hear the Good News are under obligation to repent and believe, irrespective of election or reprobation, is not disproved by the reality of the fallen mind. After all, the elect had carnal minds, too, when they first heard the gospel. God's command to believe presupposes man's ability to do so. Two reasons should suffice. Firstly, in consideration of man's original ability, lost by the fall. Secondly, from a renewed ability, in which the Holy Spirit determines the will of the elect so that they can receive and embrace the gospel offer. The rabid Hyper-Calvinist will deny this "duty-faith" on the basis that man now has no ability to believe, but the proper response to that nonsense is that the Creditor does not lose His right simply because the Debtor has lost his estate.

In summary, fallen man is duty-bound to repent and believe in Christ—even though left to himself he is unable. Biblically speaking, responsibility to God does not imply or necessitate ability on our part. Yet, the basis and motive for the gospel call is not man's duty, but the grace of God in Christ. God everywhere in Scripture commands what man cannot supply, such that we may pray as did Augustine, Demand what You will, O Lord, and give what You demand.” Faith and repentance are not merely duties; they are also gifts of God. The warrant to believe is the revealed will (preceptive will) of God, but the gift to believe (actual salvation) is decreed by God (decretive will).


This is why I had been shouting in many threads that all in Adam's race compose the elect.
From my response above this is why you will continue to do so. You have your answers, but you just don't like them and continue to "shout" about. Try closing your mouth and opening your mind by reviewing all that I have posted in response to you. Your failure to identify salvation as the object of the decretive will of God turns salvation into a duty to be performed by man, which makes the gospel a new law—Neonomianism.

AMR

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 02:25 PM
In other words he doesn't believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and has to go so far as to change the meaning of the word world to fit his Calvinist paradigm. Jesus didn't actually die for everyone on the cross. He had a list of who's naughty and nice and only died for them - oh wait that's Santa Claus.

Samie
April 3rd, 2016, 04:17 PM
Thanks for your response, AMR.
The doctrine of the free or well-meant offer of the gospel depends in part on a theological distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. God’s decretive will is what God has resolved to carry out Himself. God’s preceptive will refers to God’s commandments and ethical expectations for humans.God's decretive will is to save the spiritually dead by making them spiritually alive. This He did when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son such that when Christ the Head died, the Body died; and when the Head resurrected, His Body was likewise resurrected TOGETHER with Him, born again into a living hope.


It is not illogical or schizophrenic for Apostle Paul to desire all sinners to be saved, on the one hand, and yet to affirm God only decrees some sinners to be saved, on the other hand.Disagree.

Not simply Paul, but God Himself desires ALL men to be saved:1 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.Because God desires ALL to be saved, Paul said Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL:1 Timothy 2:5-6 NIV 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time. Paul AFFIRMED all sinners died with Him being His Body, and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He rose from the grave. Hence ALL had been made spiritually alive, being part of the Body of Christ.

Why did Jesus come to earth: To save sinners. 1 Tim 1:15

Who sinned: ALL sinned, every one in Adam's race, hence ALL are sinners. Rom 3:23

For whom did Jesus die: He died for ALL, for every man. 2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:9

What did Paul conclude since Jesus died for ALL: ALL died. 2 Cor 5:14, 15.

How could ALL die when only Jesus died: God fashioned ALL into the Body of His Son on the cross. Eph 2:11-19

When were they made alive: made alive TOGETHER with Christ. Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13

Who caused people to be born again and how: 1 Peter 1:3 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead


Paul did not know, nor do we, who God did and did not elect unto salvation[/[U]U]. God knows. He wants all to be saved. So, He must have elected all unto salvation, otherwise had He elected only some, then there is partiality with Him as far as man's salvation is concerned. But there is no partiality with God. The above given verses speak for themselves that Paul knows God elected ALL, and saved (past tense) us ALL, not just some. BUT of this ALL, only the overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.

Comments on the remaining parts of your post comes next.

patrick jane
April 3rd, 2016, 05:40 PM
The above given verses speak for themselves that Paul knows God elected ALL, and saved (past tense) us ALL, not just some. BUT of this ALL, only the overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
.

What does it take to be an overcomer ?

Samie
April 3rd, 2016, 05:43 PM
We are commanded to preach the gospel promiscuously and rest in the fact that none who call upon the name of the Lord will be turned away. Attempting to bring the decretive will of God into the command to go into the world is an unsanctioned desire to peek behind the curtain to see what God is up to, contrary to Deut. 29:29. We must give priority to the revealed will (the preceptive will) of God over the secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel.What you refer to as God's "secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience", had already been revealed. Hence, it is no longer secret that ALL - Jews and Gentiles alike - were made part of the Body of Christ on the cross. Eph 2:11-19; 3:3-6.


Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

The gospel offer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Holy Scripture teaches it in express terms. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a sinner addressed with the offer, "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." Your hypothetical universalism is an invention of the human brain. It is pure sentimentality. It begins with an anthropocentric view of God's love and works its way like leaven through the Scripture's soteriological system until it has taken away the assurance of faith. Your hypothetical universalism swallows up the bread of life in pure conjecture. Having no real basis in the saving work of Christ, your view has to create artificial categories and speak of hypotheticals as if they were real.Gulp... I could drown in your theological jargons, but no, Scripture's on my side, I guess.

"Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." This does not apply to my position, so why bring it up? I have always maintained that Jesus died for ALL, as Scriptures EXPLICITLY say (2 Cor 5:14, 15). No IF's, no BUT's. And that's what you call my 'hypothetical universalism', an invention of the human brain. Who's brain? Paul's? I simply quoted him. And Paul says he has the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). So there, it's Christ's 'universalism' likewise. And since you castigate the idea, it is quite clear who you are up against.


Particular redemption is true because it sets forth an actual, real redemption of men as sinners, and the gospel offers this particular redemption to sinners as such. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.If instead of 'particular', you change it to 'general redemption', that would be more Scripturally wholesome. When you mentioned that Paul, when actually it is God Himself who, desires ALL sinners to be saved, as gleaned from 1 Tim 2:4, he also said that it is for this ALL that Jesus gave Himself as ransom, v6. I wonder why it appears you are now hinting the ALL in v4 is not the ALL in v6.


We are to regard [I]repentance and faith as the means by which the great commandment to love God and love our neighbor finds fulfillment. This duty to love God and neighbor existed before the fall and Adam certainly enjoyed the ability to do so. Our love of God is therefore still obligatory, and the means through which it is to be realized, namely repentance and faith, are likewise obligatory. All mankind owe God our love and trust by the very fact that all are His rational creatures. Adam had the ability to love and trust God before the Fall. All are still responsible to love and trust God despite the Fall.The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility. Your newly born daughter is not responsible for doing the laundry, is she? Hence, you never asked her to do the laundry. So if God COMMANDS all people everywhere to repent, they must be capable of repenting, and if they don't, then, Christ said they perish.

But you teach that Calvinism's Elect cannot perish, hence, who are you against? Me? Not just against me because I simply believe in what Jesus said and in what other parts of Scriptures say that the elect is not exempt from perishing. see Matt 8:11-12; Rom 11:22.

Comments for the remainder of your post come next...

Samie
April 3rd, 2016, 05:57 PM
What does it take to be an overcomer ?It takes the Power of Christ Who is our Strength to overcome evil. And attached to Him being part of His Body, you, Patrick, have His Power to overcome. You, Patrick, just like Paul, through Christ, can do all things, among which is overcoming evil with good.

Hence, if in the final analysis God decides that Patrick is NOT an overcomer and blots his name from the book of life, he has no one else to blame but himself, for it is not a question of INABILITY, but one of REFUSAL to overcome evil with good. For instead of using Christ's Strength to overcome evil with good, Patrick used it for doing evil.

And by Patrick, I mean all of us, brother.

flintstoned
April 3rd, 2016, 06:27 PM
Hi Lon.
I'm not so sure this is true. Just because someone can repent without help, doesn't mean they don't need to be saved:
From their specific sins prior to repentance (repentance implies prior sins)
From original sin/curse of death all men are under

There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.

That would be an unsupported assumption.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 3rd, 2016, 06:30 PM
The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility.
No. Responsible means someone can hold you to account, nothing more. Responsibility presumes there is someone that can hold another to account...God. And in my post I explained giving at least two reasons why man can be considered able to do as God commands. I also pointed you here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?77413-Does-God-know-all-things-that-are-have-been-and-will-be&p=2823854&viewfull=1#post2823854) for more details in a previous post.

Morally, all are responsible to God for all that they do, think, or say. The accountability to God is not requiring one possesses any ability to obey, too. Accountability is the key to responsibility. No one is responsible if there is no higher authority that can hold them into account. Stop trying to also assign responsibility to God (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?38999-ARCHIVE-Open-Theism-part-2&p=1684030&viewfull=1#post1684030) for these hard sayings by diluting the Scriptures to mean something else (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?38999-ARCHIVE-Open-Theism-part-2&p=1477831&viewfull=1#post1477831).

Abilities, per se, are real or perceived mitigating issues that may or may not be taken into account by the one holding another responsible as to guilt or innocence. In other words, one's abilities do not escape the fact that one can be held accountable.

From your continued ignoring of my posts, I have to assume you just want to argue and not actually digest what those of us responding to you actually have said. Spurgeon had your sort in mind (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?51812-ARCHIVE-Open-Theism-part-3&p=1967059&viewfull=1#post1967059).

AMR

flintstoned
April 3rd, 2016, 06:43 PM
It appears the Calvinists' dilemma is here to stay. It's been 5 days and counting.


I don't know what dilemma you are referring to. Of course the elect have to repent! The elect also have to believe, be regenerated, etc. The elect are unsaved sinners just like the rest of the world, until they are brought to eventual belief and salvation by God, through Jesus Christ.

patrick jane
April 3rd, 2016, 06:51 PM
I don't know what dilemma you are referring to. Of course the elect have to repent! The elect also have to believe, be regenerated, etc. The elect are unsaved sinners just like the rest of the world, until they are brought to eventual belief and salvation by God, through Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:13 KJV

Derf
April 3rd, 2016, 07:54 PM
Well, of course I would agree. Repentance is a word that applies to many things. My quibble is with the presumption that calls for repentance prior to the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially Samie's argument.

I agree.

AMR
Then you don't believe in man's total inability? Man can repent of some things prior to regeneration?

Ask Mr. Religion
April 3rd, 2016, 08:27 PM
Then you don't believe in man's total inability? Man can repent of some things prior to regeneration?
Have I misunderstood you? Men can reason. Even unregenerate men. They just cannot reason rightly on spiritual matters. The depravity of man and his inability is spiritual. Men do good things all the time, civil good. Yet those acts are but sins for they are done without the motives to glorify God.

I have repented of many bad habits and acts long before I was born anew. So there is repentance that is non-salvific that happens all the time among men who use their God-given reason.

Man's depravity and inability is spiritual. Man's reason and will functioning properly in relation to temporal things is used in Scripture to prove man's inexcusableness when it comes to the evil use of his reason and will in things pertaining to God. Man is made to do good. His powers of reason and volition are made to function this way. It is the deceitful heart which presents the lie as truth and evil as good. We need go no farther than the explanation which the Bible provides.

The rationality of the choice requires a motive. Voluntariness is the essence of the choice. A voluntary action is one which finds its principle from within the agent and which proceeds with knowledge of the end. Rational spontaneity includes voluntariness so that the choice of the will is a genuine act of self-determination, which we call the liberty of spontaneity, as opposed to the liberty of indifference of the Arminians, etc. Evil fathers give good gifts to their children. Why? This is their flesh and blood for which they feel a binding affection. It may also be that their own honor is tied up with it; and there may be many other ulterior motives factoring into it. But the giving of a fish or bread as opposed to a scorpion or a stone is a conscious act of their own choosing and flows voluntarily from their own individual person. They do not do it to the glory of God, and it does not flow from a heart purified by faith, and is therefore a sinful act; but so far as the formal act is concerned it is something good which they voluntarily choose to do.

AMR

flintstoned
April 3rd, 2016, 08:32 PM
I don't know what dilemma you are referring to. Of course the elect have to repent! The elect also have to believe, be regenerated, etc. The elect are unsaved sinners just like the rest of the world, until they are brought to eventual belief and salvation by God, through Jesus Christ.


Romans 10:13 KJV

And? I don't disagree with this verse. What does it have to do with what I posted?

patrick jane
April 3rd, 2016, 08:37 PM
And? I don't disagree with this verse. What does it have to do with what I posted?
You're preaching works salvation

Epoisses
April 3rd, 2016, 10:37 PM
What does it take to be an overcomer ?

You need to overcome.

Samie
April 4th, 2016, 06:22 AM
. . .

From your continued ignoring of my posts, I have to assume you just want to argue and not actually digest what those of us responding to you actually have said. Spurgeon had your sort in mind (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?51812-ARCHIVE-Open-Theism-part-3&p=1967059&viewfull=1#post1967059).

AMRI have painstakingly answered your posts. It's you who seemed to have simply read the last paragraph of my post that's why you don't know I have answered them. Or, you are hesitant to address those posts, why? Here are those:

When you said:
The doctrine of the free or well-meant offer of the gospel depends in part on a theological distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. God’s decretive will is what God has resolved to carry out Himself. God’s preceptive will refers to God’s commandments and ethical expectations for humans.I responded with:God's decretive will is to save the spiritually dead by making them spiritually alive. This He did when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son such that when Christ the Head died, the Body died; and when the Head resurrected, His Body was likewise resurrected TOGETHER with Him, born again into a living hope.When you said:
It is not illogical or schizophrenic for Apostle Paul to desire all sinners to be saved, on the one hand, and yet to affirm God only decrees some sinners to be saved, on the other hand.I responded with:Disagree.

Not simply Paul, but God Himself desires ALL men to be saved:
1 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Because God desires ALL to be saved, Paul said Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL:
1 Timothy 2:5-6 NIV 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Paul AFFIRMED all sinners died with Him being His Body, and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He rose from the grave. Hence ALL had been made spiritually alive, being part of the Body of Christ.

Why did Jesus come to earth: To save sinners. 1 Tim 1:15

Who sinned: ALL sinned, every one in Adam's race, hence ALL are sinners. Rom 3:23

For whom did Jesus die: He died for ALL, for every man. 2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:9

What did Paul conclude since Jesus died for ALL: ALL died. 2 Cor 5:14, 15.

How could ALL die when only Jesus died: God fashioned ALL into the Body of His Son on the cross. Eph 2:11-19

When were they made alive: made alive TOGETHER with Christ. Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13

Who caused people to be born again and how: 1 Peter 1:3 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead When you said:
Paul did not know, nor do we, who God did and did not elect unto salvation.I responded with:God knows. He wants all to be saved. So, He must have elected all unto salvation, otherwise had He elected only some, then there is partiality with Him as far as man's salvation is concerned. But there is no partiality with God. The above given verses speak for themselves that Paul knows God elected ALL, and saved (past tense) us ALL, not just some. BUT of this ALL, only the overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.When you said:
We are commanded to preach the gospel promiscuously and rest in the fact that none who call upon the name of the Lord will be turned away. Attempting to bring the decretive will of God into the command to go into the world is an unsanctioned desire to peek behind the curtain to see what God is up to, contrary to Deut. 29:29. We must give priority to the revealed will (the preceptive will) of God over the secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel.I responded with:What you refer to as God's "secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience", had already been revealed. Hence, it is no longer secret that ALL - Jews and Gentiles alike - were made part of the Body of Christ on the cross. Eph 2:11-19; 3:3-6.When you said:
Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

The gospel offer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Holy Scripture teaches it in express terms. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a sinner addressed with the offer, "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." Your hypothetical universalism is an invention of the human brain. It is pure sentimentality. It begins with an anthropocentric view of God's love and works its way like leaven through the Scripture's soteriological system until it has taken away the assurance of faith. Your hypothetical universalism swallows up the bread of life in pure conjecture. Having no real basis in the saving work of Christ, your view has to create artificial categories and speak of hypotheticals as if they were real.I responded with:Gulp... I could drown in your theological jargons, but no, Scripture's on my side, I guess.

"Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." This does not apply to my position, so why bring it up? I have always maintained that Jesus died for ALL, as Scriptures EXPLICITLY say (2 Cor 5:14, 15). No IF's, no BUT's. And that's what you call my 'hypothetical universalism', an invention of the human brain. Who's brain? Paul's? I simply quoted him. And Paul says he has the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). So there, it's Christ's 'universalism' likewise. And since you castigate the idea, it is quite clear who you are up against.When you said:
Particular redemption is true because it sets forth an actual, real redemption of men as sinners, and the gospel offers this particular redemption to sinners as such. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.I responded with:If instead of 'particular', you change it to 'general redemption', that would be more Scripturally wholesome. When you mentioned that Paul, when actually it is God Himself who, desires ALL sinners to be saved, as gleaned from 1 Tim 2:4, he also said that it is for this ALL that Jesus gave Himself as ransom, v6. I wonder why it appears you are now hinting the ALL in v4 is not the ALL in v6.And in your last post, you simply lifted this:The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility.But my whole response is this:The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility. Your newly born daughter is not responsible for doing the laundry, is she? Hence, you never asked her to do the laundry. So if God COMMANDS all people everywhere to repent, they must be capable of repenting, and if they don't, then, Christ said they perish.

But you teach that Calvinism's Elect cannot perish, hence, who are you against? Me? Not just against me because I simply believe in what Jesus said and in what other parts of Scriptures say that the elect is not exempt from perishing. see Matt 8:11-12; Rom 11:22.
So, you are not considering what I have posted and simply ignored them, and then turn around and tell me I am the one ignoring your posts. Why?

Do you want readers of this thread to conclude that your keeping silence on my responses to what you have said means you cannot refute through Scriptures what I have posted?

Samie
April 4th, 2016, 08:14 AM
No. Responsible means someone can hold you to account, nothing more. Responsibility presumes there is someone that can hold another to account...God. And in my post I explained giving at least two reasons why man can be considered able to do as God commands. I also pointed you here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?77413-Does-God-know-all-things-that-are-have-been-and-will-be&p=2823854&viewfull=1#post2823854) for more details in a previous post.

Morally, all are responsible to God for all that they do, think, or say. The accountability to God is not requiring one possesses any ability to obey, too. Accountability is the key to responsibility. No one is responsible if there is no higher authority that can hold them into account. Stop trying to also assign responsibility to God (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?38999-ARCHIVE-Open-Theism-part-2&p=1684030&viewfull=1#post1684030) for these hard sayings by diluting the Scriptures to mean something else (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?38999-ARCHIVE-Open-Theism-part-2&p=1477831&viewfull=1#post1477831).

Abilities, per se, are real or perceived mitigating issues that may or may not be taken into account by the one holding another responsible as to guilt or innocence. In other words, one's abilities do not escape the fact that one can be held accountable.Disagree.

For the Father: Undo heavy burdens. Isa 58:6
For the Son: My yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:30
For Solomon: Do good within your ability. Prov 3:27
For apostle Paul: God does not allow temptation beyond man's ability to bear. 1 Cor 10:13

For the scibes and Pharisees: Bind heavy burdens hard to bear. Matt 23:4
For AMR: "The accountability to God is not requiring one possesses any ability to obey"

So even if one is NOT able, AMR will hold him accountable. It appears AMR's position on responsibility leans heavily on the side of the scribes and Pharisees.

Derf
April 4th, 2016, 11:42 AM
Have I misunderstood you? Men can reason. Even unregenerate men. They just cannot reason rightly on spiritual matters. The depravity of man and his inability is spiritual. Men do good things all the time, civil good. Yet those acts are but sins for they are done without the motives to glorify God.

I have repented of many bad habits and acts long before I was born anew. So there is repentance that is non-salvific that happens all the time among men who use their God-given reason.

Man's depravity and inability is spiritual. Man's reason and will functioning properly in relation to temporal things is used in Scripture to prove man's inexcusableness when it comes to the evil use of his reason and will in things pertaining to God. Man is made to do good. His powers of reason and volition are made to function this way. It is the deceitful heart which presents the lie as truth and evil as good. We need go no farther than the explanation which the Bible provides.



Ok, so you said before that there is a repentance that is not unto salvation. And you've said here that men CAN repent at least to some degree, prior to regeneration. And you've clarified that the things men can't do are the spiritual things. I'm going to assume that you by "spiritual" you mean "things of God", as there are likely some things which are "spiritual" that aren't of God, since there are spirits that are fallen--correct me if I'm wrong here.

So I think what you are saying is that the right kind of repentance, the kind that is necessary for salvation, is a "spiritual" repentance, right?

What, then, does a "spiritual" repentance look like? How is it different from the other kind of repentance? And which kind was God demanding of Cain in Gen 4:6-7?




The rationality of the choice requires a motive. Voluntariness is the essence of the choice. A voluntary action is one which finds its principle from within the agent and which proceeds with knowledge of the end. Rational spontaneity includes voluntariness so that the choice of the will is a genuine act of self-determination, which we call the liberty of spontaneity, as opposed to the liberty of indifference of the Arminians, etc. Evil fathers give good gifts to their children. Why? This is their flesh and blood for which they feel a binding affection. It may also be that their own honor is tied up with it; and there may be many other ulterior motives factoring into it. But the giving of a fish or bread as opposed to a scorpion or a stone is a conscious act of their own choosing and flows voluntarily from their own individual person. They do not do it to the glory of God, and it does not flow from a heart purified by faith, and is therefore a sinful act; but so far as the formal act is concerned it is something good which they voluntarily choose to do.

AMRSo if God says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and an unregenerate does that, by giving his children bread instead of a scorpion, you're saying that it is sin?

Is that not calling good evil?

Between the two thoughts, then--the first that only "spiritual" repentance (which remains to be defined) is of any use, and the second that loving thy neighbor as thyself is sin without the spiritual component of faith--we have nothing to tell the unregenerate in terms of how to behave. Telling him to repent is useless, because he can't repent without becoming regenerate, which he can't do. And if we say, for instance, "Do not murder" to an unregenerate, we are actually telling him to sin, because obeying the law without faith is really sin.

You've also put God in a particularly hairy situation. If God tells the unregenerate to do anything at all, He is prompting him to sin. If He says "Go, commit murder!", God authors sin, or at the very least, acts in opposition to His character. If He says "Do not commit murder", God authors sin, or at the very least, tempts people to sin. God, therefore has nothing He can say to the unregenerate.

Now there's a dilemma we can all wrap our teeth around!!

Samie
April 4th, 2016, 02:21 PM
. . .

Now there's a dilemma we can all wrap our teeth around!!I am anxious of how AMR and company address the dilemmas surrounding Calvinism so far presented in this thread. They are too competent to just shrug them off.

Crucible
April 4th, 2016, 02:57 PM
I am anxious of how AMR and company address the dilemmas surrounding Calvinism so far presented in this thread. They are too competent to just shrug them off.

:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 4th, 2016, 10:00 PM
Ok, so you said before that there is a repentance that is not unto salvation. I am still bewildered by what seems to be a surprise to you that folks can repent of various things. If you have some agenda in all of this I prefer you make it plain.


I'm going to assume that you by "spiritual" you mean "things of God", as there are likely some things which are "spiritual" that aren't of God, since there are spirits that are fallen--correct me if I'm wrong here.
I do not know why anything related to the reality of God, including the reality that evil and good angels exist is somehow excluded. Why does this matter for the topic at hand?


What, then, does a "spiritual" repentance look like? How is it different from the other kind of repentance?
It is a repentance toward God for one's sins against God. As I have discussed, there is a repentance which is not toward God. Paul did not merely preach repentance but repentance toward God (Acts 20:21). And there is a repentance which is fatally faulty, because it is not toward God. This is not the repentance which the Spirit of God works in a soul. Rather repentance toward God is repentance of sin as sin and of rebellion against Law as rebellion against God. True spiritual repentance is repentance of sin as sin—not of this sin, nor of that sin, but of the whole mass. We repent of the sin of our nature as well as of the sin of our practice. We bemoan sin within us and without us. We repent of sin itself as being an insult to God. Repentance and faith are born of the same Spirit of God. Which comes first? Temporally? Logically? I can only look to Scripture which teaches us God must act firstly and grants faith, of which repentance can only be a fruit, a first fruit, of said faith. Arguing over their ordering is much like asking when the cart starts, which spoke of the wheel moves first? Repentance and faith come together.


So if God says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and an unregenerate does that, by giving his children bread instead of a scorpion, you're saying that it is sin?

Is that not calling good evil?The good is that which is done for obedience and glory to God. All actions of the unregenerate, even their civil good acts, are the filthy expressions of their moral depravity. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God, in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:12-17; Romans 7:5-24). Let's be clear what the bondage of the will is for man in his naturally fallen condition. He has no freedom to will spiritual good. So far as man's psychological constitution is concerned, he still has the power to will the good as he conceives it. Fallen man cannot will spiritual good—man's chief end—to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31; Psalm 73:24-28; John 17:21-23).


Between the two thoughts, then--the first that only "spiritual" repentance (which remains to be defined) is of any use, and the second that loving thy neighbor as thyself is sin without the spiritual component of faith--we have nothing to tell the unregenerate in terms of how to behave. Telling him to repent is useless, because he can't repent without becoming regenerate, which he can't do. And if we say, for instance, "Do not murder" to an unregenerate, we are actually telling him to sin, because obeying the law without faith is really sin.Why murder? Even the every day drawing of one's breath without consideration that this very breath is something worthy of praise to God is enough warrant to condemn him. Most fail to grasp the magnitude of their state without God. They fail because they hate God with every breath they draw. Rather the natural man (the unregenerate) would admit it truthfully than hide behind a benign, indifferent passivity that expresses itself aggressively in their failure to honor God in their daily walk.

Why are you trying to import the secret will of God into the clearly revealed will of God? All who call upon the Lord will not be lost to Him. How is this useless to anyone? Let's not try to ascend to the throne of God and ask Him to make room for us as we sit beside Him to observe how He rules. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved is the promiscuously exhorted call of the gospel. How exactly do you know who can or who cannot repent and believe? Did you read this (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4667384&viewfull=1#post4667384)? Rather the man exhorted to call upon the name of the Lord does so and is saved. Then he may contemplate the means by which he was brought out of his state of spiritual death, being overwhelmed by the mercy and wonder of God's ways.


You've also put God in a particularly hairy situation. If God tells the unregenerate to do anything at all, He is prompting him to sin. If He says "Go, commit murder!", God authors sin, or at the very least, acts in opposition to His character. If He says "Do not commit murder", God authors sin, or at the very least, tempts people to sin. God, therefore has nothing He can say to the unregenerate.

You are twisted up in your own confused logic based upon an unstated and underlying premise that you know exactly who is the elect of God and who is not. Until you can establish that premise, your "logic" fails.

God cannot tell anyone to commit murder. Murder is an unlawful act. God cannot sin (see the definition of sin above). God is within His right to command the killing of someone, and it would be a sin to not obey such a command from God. Rather God cannot act in opposition to His own holy being. Furthermore, the preceptive will if God—that which He commands—serves to heap coals of guilt upon the disobedient unregenerate, further confirming their state of wrath under God. I prefer not to take up the task of acquitting God of being in a "hairy situation" as do the Arminians and open theists, who presume to judge how God should do things. God is the Judge, we are the judged. Let's keep that always in mind.

This is a free Kindle ebook (as of today) that you may want to read:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B6EV5PM

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
April 4th, 2016, 10:10 PM
:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.
It is Samie's way or the highway. No matter how thoroughly a response is given, it is waved off and followed by yet more distractions such that one is left wondering, "What is it we were originally discussing?" Sigh.

I have exhausted my patience with the back and forth and if you should ever see me responding directly to an unrepentant Samie in the future feel obliged to rebuke me.

AMR

MarshSwihart
April 5th, 2016, 12:12 AM
Have you considered what Christ prayed in John 17:9? It seems Jesus is making a distinction between the elect and the world?

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 5th, 2016, 12:25 AM
Have you considered what Christ prayed in John 17:9? It seems Jesus is making a distinction between the elect and the world?

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

You must consider who is being spoken to. The answer is, the lost sheep of the House of Israel. It's extremely important that we "Rightly Divide" the written word of God. The whole Bible is for us (Gentiles) however, not all of it pertains to us. Matthew through John speaks to the lost sheep of Israel. Those books do not pertain to the Gentiles. The Apostle Paul was chosen by God to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Romans through Philemon)

Grosnick Marowbe
April 5th, 2016, 12:31 AM
Without rightly dividing the word one will find contradiction and confusion. A good example of that is in the book of James, where James says that faith without works is dead. James is speaking to the scattered tribes of Israel, not to the Gentiles. Whereas, Paul preaches faith without works to the Gentiles.

MarshSwihart
April 5th, 2016, 01:09 AM
What about Paul's comment to the Ephesians 1? God chose his elect before he created the world?

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us[b] for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known[c] to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Samie
April 5th, 2016, 07:33 AM
:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.

Samie
April 5th, 2016, 07:47 AM
It is Samie's way or the highway. No matter how thoroughly a response is given, it is waved off and followed by yet more distractions such that one is left wondering, "What is it we were originally discussing?" Sigh.

I have exhausted my patience with the back and forth and if you should ever see me responding directly to an unrepentant Samie in the future feel obliged to rebuke me.

AMRExhausted? We are just warming up.

But I have a suggestion. Please help Crucible with post #116 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4668839&viewfull=1#post4668839). Help in addressing the post, not in making excuses nor in running away and hide.

Lon
April 7th, 2016, 12:29 AM
Without rightly dividing the word
Realize "rightly" is defined as 'according to our Systematic Theology. That is, whatever we carry with us needs to coincide with our exegesis consistently. I tend to appreciate MAD, though not agree on all points. It is, a fairly easy systematic theology to grasp, comparatively, because it is consistent in how it works. It is pretty simple to grasp "Only Pauline epistles apply."

one will find contradiction and confusion.
Especially if we carry our own conclusions with us when we examine another's theology. I think it takes a purposeful awareness and familiarizing with another's to be able to examine it as self-standing. I 'try' to climb into another's systematic but again, MAD (& I think Calvinism) is easier to pick up on.


A good example of that is in the book of James, where James says that faith without works is dead. James is speaking to the scattered tribes of Israel, not to the Gentiles. Whereas, Paul preaches faith without works to the Gentiles.For me, and most Calvinists, it isn't works as in 'keeping your salvation' that we think James is saying. It is hard because 'dead' implies that, but we read it as "of no earthly good" ala Ephesians 2:10. We'd say, practically, that a believer will follow his/her new nature. We also embrace the parable of the unfruitful tree that has God's orchardman tending the tree so it will grow. For us, James is talking about our need to be effective in the world as well as practically being worked on as His new creation, before 1 John 3:2 I realize MAD just overshoots the need to explain James or the epistles of John altogether, and that works too, because I think we come to similar or the same conclusions regarding ourselves. Calvinist gentiles don't keep Jewish thank offerings, Passover, or other Jewish observances or celebrations either. Like you, we believe Christ finished all work and we are complete in Him. In Him -Lon

Derf
April 7th, 2016, 12:41 PM
Hi AMR,
Sorry it took so long to respond.

I am still bewildered by what seems to be a surprise to you that folks can repent of various things. If you have some agenda in all of this I prefer you make it plain.


I do not know why anything related to the reality of God, including the reality that evil and good angels exist is somehow excluded. Why does this matter for the topic at hand?


It is a repentance toward God for one's sins against God. As I have discussed, there is a repentance which is not toward God. Paul did not merely preach repentance but repentance toward God (Acts 20:21). And there is a repentance which is fatally faulty, because it is not toward God. This is not the repentance which the Spirit of God works in a soul. Rather repentance toward God is repentance of sin as sin and of rebellion against Law as rebellion against God. True spiritual repentance is repentance of sin as sin—not of this sin, nor of that sin, but of the whole mass. We repent of the sin of our nature as well as of the sin of our practice. We bemoan sin within us and without us. We repent of sin itself as being an insult to God. Repentance and faith are born of the same Spirit of God. You didn't answer my question about Cain (as far as I could tell). The reason I asked that is because God didn't go into those kind of details with him that you have here. Cain's sin was a direct act toward God that was unacceptable to God. And God didn't tell him he needed to repent of the sins of mankind or of his "nature" or of a whole mass. God's message was fairly simple to Cain--"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." You would have God say to Cain, "Even if you do what is right, you will not be accepted, because what you do is evil, even if what you do is good."


Which comes first? Temporally? Logically? I can only look to Scripture which teaches us God must act firstly and grants faith, of which repentance can only be a fruit, a first fruit, of said faith. Arguing over their ordering is much like asking when the cart starts, which spoke of the wheel moves first? Repentance and faith come together.I'm not sure how this applies to our conversation. I agree that it's hard to tell the difference between the two. Repentance implies that you believe God when He tells you you did something wrong, and belief in God (who He is, and what He wants us to do) IS faith. But I wasn't arguing order, I was arguing ability. But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross. Why have the cross at all--God should have just given the special sauce to the ones He wanted to save in the first place.



The good is that which is done for obedience and glory to God. All actions of the unregenerate, even their civil good acts, are the filthy expressions of their moral depravity.Just so we're clear here--Jesus said it was possible for evil people to give good gifts to their children, but you are saying that they are not good gifts, because they are "filthy expressions of their moral depravity". I would think you would be bothered by calling evil that which Jesus called good.


Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God, in the inward state and habit of the soul, as well as in the outward conduct of the life, whether by omission or commission (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:12-17; Romans 7:5-24). Let's be clear what the bondage of the will is for man in his naturally fallen condition. He has no freedom to will spiritual good. So far as man's psychological constitution is concerned, he still has the power to will the good as he conceives it. Fallen man cannot will spiritual good—man's chief end—to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31; Psalm 73:24-28; John 17:21-23).That "If..." to Cain sure looms large, though, don't you think? Especially when followed by "But you must rule over it [sin or maybe the desire to sin]." I think Samie was trying to make this point--that it doesn't make sense for God to call someone to repentance, like He did Cain--directly, purposefully, and expecting the better results--in words, but not in His secret desires. If God calls to Cain to repent, verbally, but Cain is not able to repent because God does not really call Cain to repent (spiritually or whatever the category is), then God is making Himself out to be a liar--which we know he isn't. Maybe, just maybe, God was actually calling Cain to repent, and Cain had the ability to repent, but he didn't exercise that ability. But that ability to repent, nor the repentance itself, wouldn't absolve Cain of his guilt--that is only absolvable by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.



Why murder? Even the every day drawing of one's breath without consideration that this very breath is something worthy of praise to God is enough warrant to condemn him. Most fail to grasp the magnitude of their state without God. They fail because they hate God with every breath they draw. Rather the natural man (the unregenerate) would admit it truthfully than hide behind a benign, indifferent passivity that expresses itself aggressively in their failure to honor God in their daily walk.Why did I pick murder? Murder (as a topic) is convenient and extreme. The scenario works for any sin God tells the unregenerate to avoid. If the doing of those things that God commands is sin when performed by the unregenerate, then God's telling the regenerate to do them is opposed to His nature.




Why are you trying to import the secret will of God into the clearly revealed will of God? All who call upon the Lord will not be lost to Him. How is this useless to anyone? Let's not try to ascend to the throne of God and ask Him to make room for us as we sit beside Him to observe how He rules. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved is the promiscuously exhorted call of the gospel. How exactly do you know who can or who cannot repent and believe? Did you read this (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4667384&viewfull=1#post4667384)? Rather the man exhorted to call upon the name of the Lord does so and is saved. Then he may contemplate the means by which he was brought out of his state of spiritual death, being overwhelmed by the mercy and wonder of God's ways.That's all very nice, but doesn't address the issue.



You are twisted up in your own confused logic based upon an unstated and underlying premise that you know exactly who is the elect of God and who is not. Until you can establish that premise, your "logic" fails. I have never claimed that I can tell who is elect and who is not. But God certainly should know who His elect is and who is not. And if He calls someone to repent (like Cain), who doesn't repent (like Cain), you negate the effectiveness of His call by saying it wasn't the right kind of call--it was a fake call to repentance (not a "general" call, since it was specific to Cain).


God cannot tell anyone to commit murder. Murder is an unlawful act. God cannot sin (see the definition of sin above). God is within His right to command the killing of someone, and it would be a sin to not obey such a command from God. Rather God cannot act in opposition to His own holy being. Furthermore, the preceptive will if God—that which He commands—serves to heap coals of guilt upon the disobedient unregenerate,... while they obey the secret will of God! God apparently being unable to decide what His real will is--for them to commit murder or for them not to commit murder. So He tells the unregenerate "Do not kill!" by his "preceptive" will but makes sure that they do kill by His "secret" will. So either God's preceptive will is evil (since that's not what God really wants for the unregenerate), or His secret will is evil (since the bible tells us it is evil). Oh, what a dilemma!


further confirming their state of wrath under God. I prefer not to take up the task of acquitting God of being in a "hairy situation" as do the Arminians and open theists, who presume to judge how God should do things. God is the Judge, we are the judged. Let's keep that always in mind.

AMRAnd you can only tell what God really wants by seeing what people do (His "secret" will), not by reading His word. And if His word doesn't really tell us what God wants, then His word is either useless or a lie.

Lon
April 7th, 2016, 01:20 PM
Hi AMR,

You didn't answer my question about Cain (as far as I could tell). The reason I asked that is because God didn't go into those kind of details with him that you have here. Cain's sin was a direct act toward God that was unacceptable to God. And God didn't tell him he needed to repent of the sins of mankind or of his "nature" or of a whole mass. God's message was fairly simple to Cain--"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." You would have God say to Cain, "Even if you do what is right, you will not be accepted, because what you do is evil, even if what you do is good." Jumping in for a moment to simply add a bit of perspective, not trying to run interference, though it is after a fashion :(

It is also a wee long, so only if it helps...

This is a harder passage because not many details spell it out plainly. I worked over this passage pretty well a few times. What I came away from was this: 1)Abel gave an animal whereas Cain gave vegetables and fruit of the land. I guess that either he had withheld the choicer produce for a thank offering, or it was unsuitable for a sin offering. Cain, not raising livestock, would have had to buy/trade with his brother. Because God rejected his offering, I think all that is said to Cain is specifically about offering rightly, a sin offering.

So, for me, to answer your question, I believe God wasn't giving Cain a prescription about not ever sinning again, but specifically how to take care of sin the right way and as a picture of Christ. In a nutshell, I see the difference between Cain and Abel a lot like we see today. Some people think Jesus is an example to follow, especially cults and works-oriented denominations. They are offering their best fruits to God. Abel, conversely, is a picture of those who trust in the work of Jesus Christ alone. The story of Mary and Martha is similar: One was 'working to please' which can easily lend to pride and an elevated picture of what we can offer God. Cain's offering was, I think, a pride thing like this as well. It is giving to God, not what He demands because of our sin, but rather what we think wrongly, will please Him, and usually with a bit of arrogance and self-importance. "No one comes to the Father but by Me." We have to trust, and this is what we do to do it right. Otherwise sin, with pride at the forefront, is crouching at our door.

Derf
April 7th, 2016, 03:19 PM
Jumping in for a moment to simply add a bit of perspective, not trying to run interference, though it is after a fashion :(

It is also a wee long, so only if it helps...

This is a harder passage because not many details spell it out plainly. I worked over this passage pretty well a few times. What I came away from was this: 1)Abel gave an animal whereas Cain gave vegetables and fruit of the land. I guess that either he had withheld the choicer produce for a thank offering, or it was unsuitable for a sin offering. Cain, not raising livestock, would have had to buy/trade with his brother. Because God rejected his offering, I think all that is said to Cain is specifically about offering rightly, a sin offering.

So, for me, to answer your question, I believe God wasn't giving Cain a prescription about not ever sinning again, but specifically how to take care of sin the right way and as a picture of Christ. In a nutshell, I see the difference between Cain and Abel a lot like we see today. Some people think Jesus is an example to follow, especially cults and works-oriented denominations. They are offering their best fruits to God. Abel, conversely, is a picture of those who trust in the work of Jesus Christ alone. The story of Mary and Martha is similar: One was 'working to please' which can easily lend to pride and an elevated picture of what we can offer God. Cain's offering was, I think, a pride thing like this as well. It is giving to God, not what He demands because of our sin, but rather what we think wrongly, will please Him, and usually with a bit of arrogance and self-importance. "No one comes to the Father by Me." We have to trust, and this is what we do to do it right. Otherwise sin, with pride at the forefront, is crouching at our door.

Hi Lon,
2 thoughts:
1. I appreciate your comment about the lack of information in the passage and that there are a couple ways of looking at it, as you outlined (maybe more, but at least 2).
2. I agree God was giving a prescription for taking care of sin the right way, and I would say "with Christ's sacrifice in mind" instead of "as a picture of Christ". Just as the sacrifices of animals didn't really take away the Israelites' sins, neither would Cain's OR Abel's, if that was what was intended. But on the other hand, the offering of those sacrifices did take away the Israelites' sins, after a fashion (Leviticus 4:20–35). What is that fashion? The offerer of the sacrifice is doing so in the faith that God will take away his sins, because God told him that He would (not that "it" would). But the offerer is acting in faith BY doing what God commanded. The action doesn't do the trick, but the faith is still in the Lord to take away the sins. How that happens is revealed later (Hebrews 10:4–11). The faith is genuine, and the actions don't do the job; we are not saved by our works, it is by faith, but our works show our faith.

In the same way "if you do right" seems to mean that if Cain would do what he was supposed to do in that passage, he would be accepted--not on the basis of his works, but on the basis of his faith that is evidenced in his works--that he has repented of doing his own thing, and is willing to do what God requires.

But if we from the outset say that whatever Cain does is evil (including following God's instructions!), the evidence is withheld; it is not allowed to show the faith.

Cain obviously wasn't doing the right thing--it might have been a heart condition (seems likely), but it was evidenced in his sacrifice. But it was possible for him to be accepted, unless God was speaking speciously, by starting to do the right thing ("repenting", showing faith that God really is in charge).

Ask Mr. Religion
April 7th, 2016, 09:06 PM
Hi AMR,
Sorry it took so long to respond.
You didn't answer my question about Cain (as far as I could tell). The reason I asked that is because God didn't go into those kind of details with him that you have here. Cain's sin was a direct act toward God that was unacceptable to God. And God didn't tell him he needed to repent of the sins of mankind or of his "nature" or of a whole mass. God's message was fairly simple to Cain--"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." You would have God say to Cain, "Even if you do what is right, you will not be accepted, because what you do is evil, even if what you do is good."
I ignored it because I saw it for what it was...unrelated to the topic at hand.

The rhetorical question put to Cain has the same purpose as the exhortation of the later prophets: “Learn to do right!” (Isaiah 1:17; Amos 5:14). God reproves the impious Cain, charging Him with ingratitude from his contempt towards his status as first-born son. Cain had the wrong view of offering sacrifice to God from faith, a will-worship attitude, along the lines of "God ought to accept from the labor of my hands that which I deem worthwhile." Cain was prideful of what he had done "So, why shouldn't God accept that which I have wrested from this ground? I have submitted to this curse, broken my back for this curse; I think God owes me to receive from my work."

Abel was a diligent worshipper of God, Cain worshipped perfunctorily, and God rightfully magnifies Cain's sin for not even trying to at least imitate Abel, whom Cain should have surpassed a the first-born son should do from the honor and dignity of the position. The "dominion" in Genesis 4 is not about dominion of sin, but about Cain's right as firstborn over his brother, Abel. It is about who receives the blessing and serves as priest of the family. When God had respect to Abel and his offering, the younger was chosen over the elder. So Cain became angry and unhappy. Cain was instructed that if he did well he would retain his dominion. Even afterwards, having done wrongly, there was a sin-offering at hand which he could sacrifice. Now if Cain made this sacrifice, the order of the family would be restored by Abel submitting to Cain and then Cain would retain his priority as first-born son. Yet, Cain refused the sin-offering, choosing to take matters into his own hands by killing his competitor. Cain is thus cast out of the family altogether, which gives rise to two families, in fulfilment of the curse of Gen. 3:15 concerning two seeds.

Nothing in the passage contains the warrant of possession of inherent ability you are seeking for defending salvific repentance is possible by the unregenerate.



But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross.


I am going to stop now, Derf. Under the guise of seeking to actually understand apparently lies mocking disdain towards anything sincerely offered up.

AMR

Samie
April 8th, 2016, 03:20 AM
I am going to stop now, Derf.It is understandable that one has to stop when one's way is blocked. And obviously the dilemmas of Calvinism presented in this thread blocked the Calvinists' way.

Seems Crucible has not stopped. He did not stop running away, I guess. Or did he hide? For the sake of new thread readers, here's my last interaction with Crucible:
:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.To which I responded:
Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.And since then, Crucible, the competent one, seemed to have chosen to run away. Or did he hide?

Still waiting, Crucible. 4 days and counting. Show your competence, brother. I have asked AMR to help you. But I guess he preferred not to. He knows a winning proposition when he sees one.

Derf
April 9th, 2016, 02:16 PM
I am going to stop now, Derf. Under the guise of seeking to actually understand apparently lies mocking disdain towards anything sincerely offered up.

AMR
Mocking disdain if the concept it speaks against is decidedly true, but that's what the discussion part of this forum is all about, is it not? To discern the truth, as best we can? If so, then it isn't mocking disdain to ask the question, is it? If not, then we can just all presume that our view is correct, get incensed when someone questions it, and just disband to our separate corners.

But I'll apologize for the form of the question, if that offends you.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 9th, 2016, 03:43 PM
Derf
I have painstakingly provided you with clear explanations and rationale in answer to your questions. Yet, at the end of the day, your response is to hold me to ridicule with mockery:


But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross. Why have the cross at all--God should have just given the special sauce to the ones He wanted to save in the first place.

If you can point to a single instance where anything I have written can be taken to mean the active and passive obedience of Our Lord is unnecessary for one's salvation, I would be happy to beg apologies for my poor communication skills. On this point, I remain confident that cannot be done for I am not given to infelicitous speech on such a sacred topic, especially since not a few lie in wait to pounce upon my words and contort them into implying something never communicated.

Your previous appeal to discussion forums for hammering out details and differences is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to assume that when one is pointed to more and weighty explanations of things explained such that effective discussion my proceed, you derisively dismiss your interlocutor behind mockery purporting to summarize all of my responses as but an appeal that negates the works of Our Lord. It was unsavory of you to do such a thing. I took you to be more willing to consider that your current views are subject to revision when presented with more thoroughgoing rebuttals. I was mistaken. Shame on me. I won't make the same mistake again.

You have your answers. God was calling upon Cain to repent of his anger and resentment such that he could regain his rightful status as first-born son and personal dominion thereof. Nothing in the account relates to salvific repentance, a repentance no man possesses the ability to perform prior to God acting first.

AMR

Samie
April 10th, 2016, 04:41 AM
Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."6 days and counting, yet no rebuttal from Calvinists.

Samie
April 11th, 2016, 07:08 AM
God was calling upon Cain to repent of his anger and resentment such that he could regain his rightful status as first-born son and personal dominion thereof. Nothing in the account relates to salvific repentance, a repentance no man possesses the ability to perform prior to God acting first.

AMRGod already acted first. He predestined all of us to adoption as children in Christ, and that includes Cain. In the garden, that same day Adam fell into sin, instead of man dying, another died in his place. That first death in Eden pointed forward to the death of the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. No wonder Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

That's God acting first. Does that satisfy your requirement for salvific repentance?

Derf
April 11th, 2016, 03:39 PM
Derf
I have painstakingly provided you with clear explanations and rationale in answer to your questions. Yet, at the end of the day, your response is to hold me to ridicule with mockery:

But what you say makes me wonder if the cross is not what saves, rather there's some special sauce God gives to the elect that makes them able to believe in the cross. Why have the cross at all--God should have just given the special sauce to the ones He wanted to save in the first place.

If you can point to a single instance where anything I have written can be taken to mean the active and passive obedience of Our Lord is unnecessary for one's salvation, I would be happy to beg apologies for my poor communication skills. On this point, I remain confident that cannot be done for I am not given to infelicitous speech on such a sacred topic, especially since not a few lie in wait to pounce upon my words and contort them into implying something never communicated. Thanks for bearing with me in this. I'm quite sure I'm as equally guilty of poor communication and likely more so.

If someone needs to be good before they can be saved, we are all without hope. Yet that seems to be what Calvinism says--that we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ. If we are regenerated anyway (by definition "a new creation"), of what purpose is the blood of Christ? I know you didn't try to say anything to suggest Christ's obedience is not required, nor do I think you would say/write that--ever. But if we are saved by something besides Christ's blood sacrifice, such as being regenerated by something God does to get us to the point where we can accept the sacrifice of Christ (or "special sauce" in my less than respectful words), why didn't God just give us that something without needing to sacrifice His only son? If instead Christ's blood saves us, and while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, then is that something extra superfluous to the gospel? This is a legitimate question, as I hope you will agree.


Your previous appeal to discussion forums for hammering out details and differences is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to assume that when one is pointed to more and weighty explanations of things explained such that effective discussion my proceed, you derisively dismiss your interlocutor behind mockery purporting to summarize all of my responses as but an appeal that negates the works of Our Lord. It was unsavory of you to do such a thing. I took you to be more willing to consider that your current views are subject to revision when presented with more thoroughgoing rebuttals. I was mistaken. Shame on me. I won't make the same mistake again.I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to here. Is it your explanation of Cain's required repentance? If so, I'll respond to that below. If not, I've apparently lost your point. I'm certainly willing to consider revision to my views, but I'm a bit of a stubborn rebuttee, and prefer to work through the meanings, intended and otherwise, before changing, or perhaps solidifying, my views.


You have your answers. God was calling upon Cain to repent of his anger and resentment such that he could regain his rightful status as first-born son and personal dominion thereof. Nothing in the account relates to salvific repentance, a repentance no man possesses the ability to perform prior to God acting first.

AMRI appreciate this explanation--it seems like a good one to me, and I hadn't heard it explained that way before. But, I'd have to say that it seems to fall a little flat when compared to Esau's situation. Esau was under a similar condemnation for rejecting his birthright (a dominion mandate), and being unable to repent, "though he sought for it with tears". And Esau is regularly used to show our helplessness to come to faith without the irresistible "effectual call" to the elect in Calvinism (or the "prevenient grace" in Arminianism. Both of these seem to point to something extra--and perhaps say that Christ's blood, if that's not what is being talked about, is not enough to save us.)

So if we apply that to Cain in the same way it is applied to Esau, we see that God's proposed acceptance of Cain ("if you do right, you will be accepted" rephrased in the positive sense from Gen 4:7) was more than just an appeal to Cain to continue to pursue his inherited dominion-taking task. Or if it wasn't more than that, then Esau's lack of repentance was merely in earthly matters rather than spiritual matters--as you stated it, "God reproves the impious Cain, charging Him with ingratitude from his contempt towards his status as first-born son. (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4671205&viewfull=1#post4671205)" That statement of yours seems to fit Esau's case like a glove, don't you think? And therefore, even earthly repentance must somehow be restricted ("though he sought for it with tears"), or perhaps spiritual repentance need not be ("if you do right, you will be accepted").

I don't disagree with God acting first. "While we were still weak [totally unable?], at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." (Rom 5:6). But does He act twice first? Once when Christ died, and again to do something else--something extra?

Samie
April 13th, 2016, 05:17 AM
One thing admirable of some Calvinists: they keep quiet when they know theirs is a losing proposition.

Samie
April 22nd, 2016, 05:40 AM
I need to bubble this thread up.

It's been 18 days and counting, and still no rebuttal from the Calvinists. Again:
If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

chrysostom
April 22nd, 2016, 05:46 AM
One thing admirable of some Calvinists: they keep quiet when they know theirs is a losing proposition.

they never change their position
-they just change the meaning of words
-makes dialogue very difficult

Lon
April 23rd, 2016, 08:11 PM
Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.

Really simple imho: You missed the previous verses that SPECIFICALLY say who He is talking about:

Mat 8:6 "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly."
Mat 8:7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him."
Mat 8:8 But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.
Mat 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
So, seated with Abraham and Co. will be some Jews, but among them would be some like the centurion (gentiles).
It was a prophecy concerning Christ's work and the eventual addition of gentiles, as far as most of us would understand that passage.

Were the Jews a 'chosen' people? Yes but Paul told us in Romans that not all Israel was Israel by heart. They were just born within the community. God has ALWAYS chosen people one at a time. My kids were born into a Christian home. They were NOT born Christians. Every Calvinist must be born again. Simply being 'Calvinist' doesn't save a Calvinist or Arminian, an Arminian (which of course is a given).

Samie
April 23rd, 2016, 08:52 PM
Really simple imho: You missed the previous verses that SPECIFICALLY say who He is talking about:

So, seated with Abraham and Co. will be some Jews, but among them would be some like the centurion (gentiles).
It was a prophecy concerning Christ's work and the eventual addition of gentiles, as far as most of us would understand that passage.

Were the Jews a 'chosen' people? Yes but Paul told us in Romans that not all Israel was Israel by heart. They were just born within the community. God has ALWAYS chosen people one at a time. My kids were born into a Christian home. They were NOT born Christians. Every Calvinist must be born again. Simply being 'Calvinist' doesn't save a Calvinist or Arminian, an Arminian (which of course is a given).Let's take the phrase "subjects of the kingdom" who will be thrown outside into outer darkness.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?

Lon
April 23rd, 2016, 09:03 PM
Let's take the phrase "subjects of the kingdom" who will be thrown outside into outer darkness.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?
The analogy had those not of the kingdom welcomed and those in the kingdom by some association, thrown out.

Inductive theology has this differentiation between Jews and gentiles. Deductive theology would be to take the principles given here and apply them liberally toward other circumstances. Again, I think the only deductive message is that of a prophetic nature. Liberally, you can apply that to just about anything, but deductive theology doesn't carry the strength beyond inductive meaning.

Samie
April 23rd, 2016, 09:10 PM
The analogy had those not of the kingdom welcomed and those in the kingdom by some association, thrown out.Yes, and that looks like against Calvinism. So you really need to directly address my question.

Why evade answering the question, Lon? I just want to know what your answer is. Again:

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?

If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?

Lon
April 23rd, 2016, 09:36 PM
Yes, and that looks like against Calvinism. So you really need to directly address my question.

Why evade answering the question, Lon? I just want to know what your answer is. Again:
Incorrect, I answered.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect?
In this example? No. Why? Because even the gentiles are not the subjects of the kingdom, yet they are the ones included. Such would then make them subjects? Or just those who can stay?


If No, then Calvinism's elect are those who are NOT subjects of the kingdom of God?
Correct, we are the gentile subjects of this analogy/prophecy.

Samie
April 23rd, 2016, 09:52 PM
Incorrect, I answered.

In this example? No. Why? Because even the gentiles are not the subjects of the kingdom, yet they are the ones included. Such would then make them subjects? Or just those who can stay?


Correct, we are the gentile subjects of this analogy/prophecy.Thanks Lon.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect? You answered "No".

That's precisely the reason, if you are correctly representing Calvinism, why it really looks like Calvinism is teaching against what Christ Himself taught.

For Calvinism, what Jesus called subjects of the kingdom of God, are not among Calvinism's elect; while those not among the "subjects of the kingdom", Calvinism considers as the elect.

Lon
April 23rd, 2016, 10:47 PM
Thanks Lon.

Are the "subjects of the kingdom" among Calvinism's elect? You answered "No".

That's precisely the reason, if you are correctly representing Calvinism, why it really looks like Calvinism is teaching against what Christ Himself taught. Again, He was talking to Jews at this point so we certainly are not teaching against Him. I remind you I told you that this was 'deduced' (deductive). Inductive comes from the text directly. Deductive is what we 'think' applies from the text but what we are logicking away from it. For future reference, whatever is not agreed upon and not explicit from scripture, cannot be used in argument.


For Calvinism, what Jesus called subjects of the kingdom of God, are not among Calvinism's elect; while those not among the "subjects of the kingdom", Calvinism considers as the elect.
You aren't seeing what is applied on the time-line and when it changes, imho. It is my estimation that this is ONLY applicable to Jews in this point of time. A change-over doesn't automatically mean we extrapolate from earlier directives. There was a dramatic change from the Law to the gospel. Paul, for example, preached against Judaizing in Galatians.

Samie
April 23rd, 2016, 10:54 PM
For Calvinism, what Jesus called subjects of the kingdom of God, are not among Calvinism's elect; while those not among the "subjects of the kingdom", Calvinism considers as the elect.Seems NOT unlike calling good evil, and evil good.NKJ Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Lon
April 23rd, 2016, 10:58 PM
Seems NOT unlike calling good evil, and evil good.NKJ Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Looks more like stabbing blindly with bias, in the dark...

Samie
April 23rd, 2016, 11:06 PM
Again, He was talking to Jews at this point so we certainly are not teaching against Him. I remind you I told you that this was 'deduced' (deductive). Inductive comes from the text directly. Deductive is what we 'think' applies from the text but what we are logicking away from it. For future reference, whatever is not agreed upon and not explicit from scripture, cannot be used in argument.


You aren't seeing what is applied on the time-line and when it changes, imho. It is my estimation that this is ONLY applicable to Jews in this point of time. A change-over doesn't automatically mean we extrapolate from earlier directives. There was a dramatic change from the Law to the gospel. Paul, for example, preached against Judaizing in Galatians.Let's try to apply it to the Jews, as you wanted it applied.

The Jews are the descendants of Jacob whom God called Israel. In the OT, the Jews are referred to as Israel. The Father called Israel His elect. Jesus said the words He speak are not His own but His Father's. So what Jesus calls the subjects of the kingdom of God which you said refer to the Jews or Israel, are God's elect.

But for Calvinism, God's elect is not Calvinism's elect.

It really looks like Calvinism teaches opposite what God through Christ taught.

Samie
April 23rd, 2016, 11:37 PM
Let's try to apply it to the Jews, as you wanted it applied.

The Jews are the descendants of Jacob whom God called Israel. In the OT, the Jews are referred to as Israel. The Father called Israel His elect. Jesus said the words He speak are not His own but His Father's. So what Jesus calls the subjects of the kingdom of God which you said refer to the Jews or Israel, are God's elect.

But for Calvinism, God's elect is not Calvinism's elect.

It really looks like Calvinism teaches opposite what God through Christ taught.If Calvinism's elect is NOT God's elect and vice-versa, then the teaching of Calvinism regarding the elect is not from God. And if not from God, then, . . .

The conclusion is obvious.

Lon
April 23rd, 2016, 11:50 PM
If Calvinism's elect is NOT God's elect and vice-versa, then the teaching of Calvinism regarding the elect is not from God. And if not from God, then, . . .

The conclusion is obvious.
Don't take this as a slam, just a inability: I don't think you are cut out for theology discussion. You miss more and don't seem to comprehend what the rest of us are able to get and understand. I realize AMR and others have told you the same. Just chalk this up to yet another who thinks and assesses the same about you. If you learn something, you can move on to something you are actually good at. If not, we can just put up with you, nod our heads, but think something else about you in the back of our minds...

Samie
April 24th, 2016, 12:41 AM
Don't take this as a slam, just a inability: I don't think you are cut out for theology discussion. You miss more and don't seem to comprehend what the rest of us are able to get and understand. I realize AMR and others have told you the same. Just chalk this up to yet another who thinks and assesses the same about you. If you learn something, you can move on to something you are actually good at. If not, we can just put up with you, nod our heads, but think something else about you in the back of our minds...Completely understood, brother. But at least you tried to defend Calvinism. Sadly, you seemed to have miserably failed.

Going back to where our discussion started a couple of hours ago, your failure more likely than not simply underscored the fact that to defend Calvinism in this issue is, borrowing your phrase, "a bit beyond the prowess of about every [Calvinist] member of TOL".

Samie
April 24th, 2016, 12:48 AM
20 days after it was asked someone finally stood up for Calvinism. Good try.

Maybe another Calvinist wants to defend Calvinism in this issue:
If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Lon
April 24th, 2016, 12:51 AM
Completely understood, brother. But at least you tried to defend Calvinism. Sadly, you seemed to have miserably failed.
Thanks, said at least in a way that leaves room for the needed doubt.


Going back to where our discussion started a couple of hours ago, your failure more likely than not simply underscored the fact that to defend Calvinism in this issue is, borrowing your phrase, "a bit beyond the prowess of about every [Calvinist] member of TOL".
Well, of course you are free to turn it around. I'm simply saying you aren't grasping the pertinent to the conversation. I 'think' I explain things fairly clearly, if a bit overtly simplistic. I've also seen others talking with you explain the answer in ways I understand, but appreciate that you do not. Between all conversation, is probably not even a 'desire' to understand. That's where it stops being conversation, even more so if it is inability rather than desire. I could keep going, but all I am saying is that most will not entertain 'yet another' proverbial nail in the Calvinists coffin when you are just going to move on looking for another. It is very much 'agenda' at that point, Samie.

Crusades tend to only ever be seen as fanatical. Other fanatics enjoin them, but that is a rather small and eclectic audience. You can blow-horn your victory at that point, but most of us don't picket outside office buildings with a blow-horn, nor get handcuffed and arrested. There might be a need or nitch filled by it, but I don't think most of us actually appreciate that kind of thing and prefer to go through other stable channels. It is rather similar on TOL as well. We do have a few street-corner crusaders. They don't tend to do will in negotiation or defining discussions. They aren't really interested in that.

So, when I said not your strength, I wasn't implying you had none, perhaps the protestor on the street has a significant place in society. :idunno:

Samie
April 24th, 2016, 02:43 AM
Thanks, said at least in a way that leaves room for the needed doubt.


Well, of course you are free to turn it around. I'm simply saying you aren't grasping the pertinent to the conversation. I 'think' I explain things fairly clearly, if a bit overtly simplistic. I've also seen others talking with you explain the answer in ways I understand, but appreciate that you do not. Between all conversation, is probably not even a 'desire' to understand. That's where it stops being conversation, even more so if it is inability rather than desire. I could keep going, but all I am saying is that most will not entertain 'yet another' proverbial nail in the Calvinists coffin when you are just going to move on looking for another. It is very much 'agenda' at that point, Samie.Hi Lon;

I think there's no need to sour-grape after what's been posted in our short-lived discussion. Our posts speak for themselves.

Jews are God's elect. Scriptures say so EXPLICITLY. But Christ said many of them will be thrown out into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And that's against Calvinism.

The Calvinists' dilemma seems to remain unresolved thus far. 20 days and counting.

Lon
April 24th, 2016, 01:27 PM
The Calvinists' dilemma seems to remain unresolved thus far. 20 days and counting.
I realize it 'seems' that way to you. All of my previous points address that fact. You can keep counting what 'seems' to be, to you.

I suppose it is a bit sour, but I'm only troubled that theological discussion doesn't 'seem' to make sense to you. You 'seem' a bit sour toward Calvinists and worse, for not 'seeming' to grasp answers given nor 'seemingly' willing to look into sincere answers. It is this 'seeming' disdain against another's sincerity in trying to answer your question that might further sour any further conversation. "Why" and "bother" will quickly become the only response. Such will be accompanied by ignore-list relegation, occasional but half-hearted interaction from some, and generally an avoidance of your threads by all but a few. There are a few Calvinists on TOL that will entertain the sour dialogue. I'm not one of them. There is a point where I feel I need to cut losses or be bled to death by more razoring. You'll note that my response is increasingly headed that way. When dialogue is no longer honoring Christ, no longer meaningfully conveying mutually uplifting dialogue, no longer progressing toward the meaningful, I try to leave before it gets ugly and/or casts dispersion mutually upon our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a debate website, but I try to not do it without purpose. -Lon

Lets just say 'you win' so you can stop counting? You don't 'seem' to be interested in truth. It is a general dismissal that such is possible, even when counterfacts have been sufficiently given that would stop a sincere person from 'counting.' "Maybe I've been given sufficient reason to stop counting" I'll leave you to your 20days and counting...It doesn't look honest to me, doesn't 'seem' like you are concerned with Christ, but it 'seems' yourself and whatever you deem your prowess, by concern.

Robert Pate
April 25th, 2016, 10:05 AM
There are Calvinists who are fond of calling themselves and some others the Elect. The Elect, as per Calvinism, are specific persons for whom Christ died, and are assured of salvation with no possibility of getting lost.

However, the gospel that Jesus preached calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), because said He, unless people repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

Obviously, Jesus' call to repentance also applies to Calvinism's Elect, because Scriptures teach that God commands ALL people to repent:ESV Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repentIt appears that the gospel Calvinism teaches is different from the gospel that Jesus preached. And Scriptures warn people of preaching another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

Will any Calvinist please explain?

Your silence could mean indirect admission that indeed you are preaching a gospel different from the gospel of Christ.

Of course its another Gospel. In the true Gospel Jesus atones for the sins of the world, 1 John 4:14. In the true Gospel "God so loves the world that he gives his only begotten Son" John 3:16.

The Calvinist Gospel is not about Christ at all, it's about being predestinated, which is a false Gospel.

Robert Pate
April 25th, 2016, 10:13 AM
I realize it 'seems' that way to you. All of my previous points address that fact. You can keep counting what 'seems' to be, to you.

I suppose it is a bit sour, but I'm only troubled that theological discussion doesn't 'seem' to make sense to you. You 'seem' a bit sour toward Calvinists and worse, for not 'seeming' to grasp answers given nor 'seemingly' willing to look into sincere answers. It is this 'seeming' disdain against another's sincerity in trying to answer your question that might further sour any further conversation. "Why" and "bother" will quickly become the only response. Such will be accompanied by ignore-list relegation, occasional but half-hearted interaction from some, and generally an avoidance of your threads by all but a few. There are a few Calvinists on TOL that will entertain the sour dialogue. I'm not one of them. There is a point where I feel I need to cut losses or be bled to death by more razoring. You'll note that my response is increasingly headed that way. When dialogue is no longer honoring Christ, no longer meaningfully conveying mutually uplifting dialogue, no longer progressing toward the meaningful, I try to leave before it gets ugly and/or casts dispersion mutually upon our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a debate website, but I try to not do it without purpose. -Lon

Lets just say 'you win' so you can stop counting? You don't 'seem' to be interested in truth. It is a general dismissal that such is possible, even when counterfacts have been sufficiently given that would stop a sincere person from 'counting.' "Maybe I've been given sufficient reason to stop counting" I'll leave you to your 20days and counting...It doesn't look honest to me, doesn't 'seem' like you are concerned with Christ, but it 'seems' yourself and whatever you deem your prowess, by concern.

You are a Calvinist sympathizer. You see nothing wrong with these people that degrade the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and make it worthless.

Crucible
April 25th, 2016, 02:36 PM
"All objections to predestination proceed from the wisdom of the flesh"
~Martin Luther

Samie
April 25th, 2016, 03:08 PM
I realize it 'seems' that way to you. All of my previous points address that fact. You can keep counting what 'seems' to be, to you.

I suppose it is a bit sour, but I'm only troubled that theological discussion doesn't 'seem' to make sense to you. You 'seem' a bit sour toward Calvinists and worse, for not 'seeming' to grasp answers given nor 'seemingly' willing to look into sincere answers. It is this 'seeming' disdain against another's sincerity in trying to answer your question that might further sour any further conversation. "Why" and "bother" will quickly become the only response. Such will be accompanied by ignore-list relegation, occasional but half-hearted interaction from some, and generally an avoidance of your threads by all but a few. There are a few Calvinists on TOL that will entertain the sour dialogue. I'm not one of them. There is a point where I feel I need to cut losses or be bled to death by more razoring. You'll note that my response is increasingly headed that way. When dialogue is no longer honoring Christ, no longer meaningfully conveying mutually uplifting dialogue, no longer progressing toward the meaningful, I try to leave before it gets ugly and/or casts dispersion mutually upon our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a debate website, but I try to not do it without purpose. -Lon

Lets just say 'you win' so you can stop counting? You don't 'seem' to be interested in truth. It is a general dismissal that such is possible, even when counterfacts have been sufficiently given that would stop a sincere person from 'counting.' "Maybe I've been given sufficient reason to stop counting" I'll leave you to your 20days and counting...It doesn't look honest to me, doesn't 'seem' like you are concerned with Christ, but it 'seems' yourself and whatever you deem your prowess, by concern.You have not given counterfacts relative to what Jesus taught that there are from the elect who will perish. You thought what you gave were counterfacts, but they are not when viewed under the lens of Scriptures.

In Matt 8:11-12, you said Jesus was referring to the Jews when he used the phrase "subjects of the kingdom" who will be thrown outside to darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and according to you the Jews are not among Calvinism's elect. But according to the Bible, God called the Jews (or the Israelites) His elect.

For Lon: Jews are NOT among Calvinism's elect.
For God: Israel is His elect. (Isa 45:4)

Since Jesus' words are those of His Father's, then God's elect is Jesus' elect, but NOT Calvinism's elect. Ergo, Calvinism teaches against what Jesus taught.

Your turn, Lon. This time, please give valid counterfacts relative to the issue being discussed. And to be valid, they must be Bible-based.

Lon
April 25th, 2016, 07:46 PM
Your turn, Lon. This time, please give valid counterfacts relative to the issue being discussed. And to be valid, they must be Bible-based.


...you aren't grasping the pertinent to the conversation. I 'think' I explain things fairly clearly...others talking with you explain the answer in ways I understand, but appreciate that you do not. ...where it stops being conversation....most will not entertain 'yet another' proverbial nail in the Calvinists coffin...you are just going to move on looking for another. It is very much 'agenda' at that point, Samie.

Crusades tend to only ever be seen as fanatical. :idunno:

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 09:44 AM
OK, Lon. Thank you for throwing in the towel. At least you tried, but sadly, failed.

The Calvinists Dilemma remains unresolved. For other Calvinists who want to try and bail out Calvinism, here again:
If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Derf
April 26th, 2016, 09:56 AM
OK, Lon. Thank you for throwing in the towel. At least you tried, but sadly, failed.

The Calvinists Dilemma remains unresolved. For other Calvinists who want to try and bail out Calvinism, here again:

I think you lost that exchange. Lon is right that you are completely unresponsive to what he was saying. I'm not Calvinist, but your tactics (not your arguments, as they are vacuous, at best) make people want to go do something more productive.

Crucible
April 26th, 2016, 09:56 AM
There is no Calvinist dilemma you moron :doh:

Put a sock in it- Reformed theology cannot be refuted because it mirrors your own presumptions- it is immune to reproof just as, let's say, Einstein's relativity. You cannot refute it Broseph :)

Derf
April 26th, 2016, 10:30 AM
There is no Calvinist dilemma you moron :doh:

Put a sock in it- Reformed theology cannot be refuted because it mirrors your own presumptions- it is immune to reproof just as, let's say, Einstein's relativity. You cannot refute it Broseph :)

I'm not sure what that means. In reverse order:

Einstein's relativity is not immune to reproof except if it is completely proven. Since it is constantly subjected to testing, not everybody believes it is sufficiently proven--though it has survived significant testing.

Calvinism may very well be like that; it deserves respect for a comprehensive explanation, but it is hardly "completely proven".

Calvinism is just a subset of "Reformed theology", as evidenced by some pretty severe disagreements among Reformed theologians, living and dead. Which means that a goodly chunk of "Reformed theology" is indeed open to reproof, at least according to those disagreeing (and often very vocal) Reformed theologians.

As to mirroring one's "own presumptions", is that a reference to Samie's descriptions? Or a generic reference?

And as to Calvinist dilemmas, I presented some evidence of such earlier. And the proliferation of Calvinistic denominations due to disagreements is a fairly strong evidence of dilemmas within Calvinism, scriptural or otherwise.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 11:35 AM
There is no Calvinist dilemma you moron :doh:

Put a sock in it- Reformed theology cannot be refuted because it mirrors your own presumptions- it is immune to reproof just as, let's say, Einstein's relativity. You cannot refute it Broseph :)It's been 21 days, and that's what you have come up with? Remember, that post was initially for you, but you ran away. So Lon took up the cudgels for you, but failed in his attempt.

Here again:
:rotfl:

You've done nothing more than randomly throw whatever you think is against Calvinism- all which is frankly weak and due to your inability to understand or accep predestination theology.

The only thing 'competent' is you're incompetence, in which you compensate for by getting people to chime in with your biases.
Weak? And me, incompetent? Let's see where your competence brings you.

If Calvinism teaches the truth, why could it not stand the test of Scriptures? Example:

Calvinism teaches NONE of the elect can perish.

Christ teaches there are from the elect who will perish:Matthew 8:11-12 NIV 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Can you wiggle out from this Calvinist dilemma, competent one? It is weak, you say. Then bring out all what Calvinism has and resolve this dilemma brought against it by what Christ Himself declared.

I will wait either for you to address the above issue, or you may prefer to fabricate all sorts of excuses. You could even run away and hide. Your choice, competent one.Are you ready to discuss now, or run away again?

Crucible
April 26th, 2016, 02:27 PM
It's been 21 days, and that's what you have come up with? Remember, that post was initially for you, but you ran away. So Lon took up the cudgels for you, but failed in his attempt.

Here again:Are you ready to discuss now, or run away again?

Discuss what? That you've rehashed the same 'point' for three weeks straight, and no matter how it's shown to you to be false, you keep sitting here with exactly this over and over?

I'm not running away, you are just running your mouth with the same old thing. Is there an end to it? Find it, please.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 03:51 PM
Discuss what? That you've rehashed the same 'point' for three weeks straight, and no matter how it's shown to you to be false, you keep sitting here with exactly this over and over?

I'm not running away, you are just running your mouth with the same old thing. Is there an end to it? Find it, please.You haven't even tried. Afraid?

Lon
April 26th, 2016, 09:45 PM
OK, Lon. Thank you for throwing in the towel. At least you tried, but sadly, failed.

The Calvinists Dilemma remains unresolved. For other Calvinists who want to try and bail out Calvinism, here again:
Well, realize we've been over similar before. It took me a few posts, but you did concede there was an answer:


Although, I don't agree your answer is 100% correct, your request is granted. Your answer is hereby appreciated, brother.I think too, that a third party assessment is worth a second look here as well:

I think you lost that exchange. Lon is right that you are completely unresponsive to what he was saying. I'm not Calvinist, but your tactics (not your arguments, as they are vacuous, at best) make people want to go do something more productive.

I've two posts on page 9 that I believe adequately address your new dilemma.

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 09:32 AM
Well, realize we've been over similar before. It took me a few posts, but you did concede there was an answer:
I think too, that a third party assessment is worth a second look here as well:Scripture is the final arbiter.

I've two posts on page 9 that I believe adequately address your new dilemma.I don't think they did. You have not adequately explained how the "subjects of the kingdom" are not among the elect as you claimed.

You said they are Jews and the Jews are the elect of God. They are the original branches. But many branches were broken off. Hence, the elect can be broken off and thrown into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Lon
April 27th, 2016, 12:48 PM
Scripture is the final arbiter.
I don't think they did. You have not adequately explained how the "subjects of the kingdom" are not among the elect as you claimed.

You said they are Jews and the Jews are the elect of God. They are the original branches. But many branches were broken off. Hence, the elect can be broken off and thrown into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Pretty much would make you Arminian at that point. If I've lost my salvation, can I get it back? What would you recommend, if not, to one who has already lost it? Your theology will have a few of us in a church 'without God' or simply giving up the lost cause after that point. Not a lot of hope in your theology, is there? :think:

Samie
April 28th, 2016, 08:50 AM
Pretty much would make you Arminian at that point. If I've lost my salvation, can I get it back? What would you recommend, if not, to one who has already lost it? Your theology will have a few of us in a church 'without God' or simply giving up the lost cause after that point. Not a lot of hope in your theology, is there? :think:No one loses salvation. As long as one is part of the Body of Christ, he is heaven-bound. Man cannot detach himself from the Body of Christ much like the ear cannot remove itself from being attached to the head. UNLESS Christ Himself detaches one from being part of His Body by blotting out his name from the book of life. It's Jesus Who Himself blots out non-overcomers from the book of life. And a person is judged an overcomer or not, only AFTER he dies. There's hope while alive. And it's God through Christ Who does the judging. His judgment is righteous and fair and He shows no partiality. No one need worry. We're in good Hands.

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 12:39 PM
It's Jesus Who Himself blots out non-overcomers from the book of life.


No one need worry. We're in good Hands.
Forgive me for being neurotic or seeing this as incongruent. As a Calvinist, with perseverance of the saints, I have reconciliation but with synergism as opposed to monergism, I'd be troubled by this. That is, if I were a synergist, this would not give me hope. I was greatly tossed between the two as a synergist.

Samie
April 28th, 2016, 03:35 PM
Forgive me for being neurotic or seeing this as incongruent. As a Calvinist, with perseverance of the saints, I have reconciliation but with synergism as opposed to monergism, I'd be troubled by this. That is, if I were a synergist, this would not give me hope. I was greatly tossed between the two as a synergist.The debate between synergism and monergism came about because both Calvinists and Arminians honestly believed in the lie that people are born spiritually dead in sin (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth).

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 03:41 PM
The debate between synergism and monergism came about because both Calvinists and Arminians honestly believed in the lie that people are born spiritually dead in sin (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth).

Well, that explains a lot about where your head is at. Not really in sync with any creed or council then? :think:

Samie
April 28th, 2016, 04:10 PM
Well, that explains a lot about where your head is at. Not really in sync with any creed or council then? :think:What I really care about is whether my position is in sync with Scriptures. I could be wrong, but UNLESS shown from Scriptures that I am, then I can't believe otherwise.

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 04:23 PM
What I really care about is whether my position is in sync with Scriptures. I could be wrong, but UNLESS shown from Scriptures that I am, then I can't believe otherwise.

I think that goes without saying. Of topic, but Consider: Galatians 6:6 1 Corinthians 12:27 Romans 12:5 Acts 2:46 Hebrews 10:24-25 2 Peter 1:20

Samie
April 28th, 2016, 05:26 PM
I think that goes without saying. Of topic, but Consider: Galatians 6:6 1 Corinthians 12:27 Romans 12:5 Acts 2:46 Hebrews 10:24-25 2 Peter 1:20My position views every man as part of the Body of Christ unless Christ Himself has blotted out one's name from the book of life. I don't consider myself as being alone in that Body. That's absurd. Our being in His Body is all God's work FOR man through Christ. And there is no partiality with Him.

I want to be shown how my position is unscriptural and whether it resulted only from my erroneous interpretation of Scriptures, if indeed it is.

Derf
April 29th, 2016, 09:47 PM
I'm curious. How did everyone come to be part of the BOC ?

Samie
April 30th, 2016, 11:31 AM
I'm curious. How did everyone come to be part of the BOC ?I have explained it in many different threads, and just recently, here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365).

Derf
May 1st, 2016, 12:02 AM
I have explained it in many different threads, and just recently, here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365).
I read some of those posts. I've been thinking along the same lines, if I understand what you're saying--that Christ's death was effective for the whole human race, and one has to reject Christ to be put in the other camp.

But I don't think scripture backs it up. For instance, 1Jn 2:19, and 2 Pet 2:20-22, and Heb 6:4-6 all seem to talk about a state where non-believers weren't part of the body, then became so in some way (maybe faked), then left.

And in fact, Jesus' words to Nicodemus in John 3 seemed to indicate that there was something extra that needed to happen to get someone into the kingdom, not something that needed to be avoided to keep from getting thrown out, as you seem to think.

But if you want to keep developing your theory, I'll listen, as long as you don't mind some critiques.

Samie
May 1st, 2016, 01:30 AM
I read some of those posts. I've been thinking along the same lines, if I understand what you're saying--that Christ's death was effective for the whole human race, and one has to reject Christ to be put in the other camp.

But I don't think scripture backs it up. For instance, 1Jn 2:19, and 2 Pet 2:20-22, and Heb 6:4-6 all seem to talk about a state where non-believers weren't part of the body, then became so in some way (maybe faked), then left.

And in fact, Jesus' words to Nicodemus in John 3 seemed to indicate that there was something extra that needed to happen to get someone into the kingdom, not something that needed to be avoided to keep from getting thrown out, as you seem to think.

But if you want to keep developing your theory, I'll listen, as long as you don't mind some critiques.There is only one reason why one is refused entry into the heavenly portals and instead thrown into the lake of fire: his name is not found written in the book of life. Rev 20:15; 21:27.

Why not there? It was blotted out (Exo 32:33). But overcomers will not be blotted out from it (Rev 3:5).

To be in the BOC is to have one's name in the BOL. And judgment whether to blot a name or not from the BOL occurs AFTER a person dies (Heb 9:27). There's hope while alive.

As to being born again, Scriptures tell us God caused us to be born again through the resurrection of Jesus (1 Pet 1:3). We were made alive TOGETHER with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13) because we died with Him when He died (2 Cor 5:14, 15; Gal 2:20), being His Body with all our sins on the cross (Eph 2:11-19; 1 Pet 2:24).

beloved57
May 1st, 2016, 06:59 AM
I read some of those posts. I've been thinking along the same lines, if I understand what you're saying--that Christ's death was effective for the whole human race, and one has to reject Christ to be put in the other camp.

But I don't think scripture backs it up. For instance, 1Jn 2:19, and 2 Pet 2:20-22, and Heb 6:4-6 all seem to talk about a state where non-believers weren't part of the body, then became so in some way (maybe faked), then left.

And in fact, Jesus' words to Nicodemus in John 3 seemed to indicate that there was something extra that needed to happen to get someone into the kingdom, not something that needed to be avoided to keep from getting thrown out, as you seem to think.

But if you want to keep developing your theory, I'll listen, as long as you don't mind some critiques.

Unbelievers that Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10, so the death of Christ effectively effected reconciliation for them He died for while they are enemies of God. That's not true of all men.

Derf
May 1st, 2016, 03:00 PM
Unbelievers that Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10, so the death of Christ effectively effected reconciliation for them He died for while they are enemies of God. That's not true of all men.
What's not true of all men? Rom 5:10 talks of having been ("were") reconciled by His death, and afterward being ("shall be") saved by His life. How does that work? Sounds like you are agreeing with Samie, that we are all reconciled at the time of His death, but something else happens afterward.

beloved57
May 1st, 2016, 04:36 PM
What's not true of all men? Rom 5:10 talks of having been ("were") reconciled by His death, and afterward being ("shall be") saved by His life. How does that work? Sounds like you are agreeing with Samie, that we are all reconciled at the time of His death, but something else happens afterward.
Not all men are reconciled to God while they are enemies, most are under God's wrath and condemnation as they are enemies Jn 3:18,36. Not so if Christ died for you Rom 5:10.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Derf
May 1st, 2016, 09:38 PM
Not all men are reconciled to God while they are enemies, most are under God's wrath and condemnation as they are enemies Jn 3:18,36. Not so if Christ died for you Rom 5:10.

But Christ said He came not into the world to condemn the world (Jn 3:17 the verse before the one you cited). So if Jesus came so that the world might be saved, and "most" in the world are under God's wrath and condemnation, because they didn't believe in Jesus, and they didn't have a chance to believe in Jesus, then it sounds like Jesus was lying--He really did come into the world to condemn those that He knew wouldn't believe--because He decided before the world began that they wouldn't believe, according to you, but His presence here (definitely by God's hand) together with their unbelief (which you say is by God's hand, since Jesus didn't come to reconcile them) is what condemns them, according to the verse you cited.

Back to those pernicious dilemmas.

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 12:35 AM
But Christ said He came not into the world to condemn the world (Jn 3:17 the verse before the one you cited). So if Jesus came so that the world might be saved, and "most" in the world are under God's wrath and condemnation, because they didn't believe in Jesus, and they didn't have a chance to believe in Jesus, then it sounds like Jesus was lying--He really did come into the world to condemn those that He knew wouldn't believe--because He decided before the world began that they wouldn't believe, according to you, but His presence here (definitely by God's hand) together with their unbelief (which you say is by God's hand, since Jesus didn't come to reconcile them) is what condemns them, according to the verse you cited.

Back to those pernicious dilemmas.
Post 177 and 175 you understand the points made with scripture?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 12:23 PM
Post 177 and 175 you understand the points made with scripture?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think I understand the points you are trying to make with scripture. What I pointed out was that the scriptures you cited don't seem to make those points for you. Think through it a bit and try again.

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 01:13 PM
I think I understand the points you are trying to make with scripture. What I pointed out was that the scriptures you cited don't seem to make those points for you. Think through it a bit and try again.
Ok, please review them with me.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 03:07 PM
Ok, please review them with me.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's what I thought I was doing. I responded to both of your posts, putting the verses in context and pointing out what I thought was wrong with your use of them.

Now it's your turn to explain why I am wrong.

Crucible
May 2nd, 2016, 03:31 PM
What I really care about is whether my position is in sync with Scriptures. I could be wrong, but UNLESS shown from Scriptures that I am, then I can't believe otherwise.

If you were in sync with the Scriptures, you would be Reformed.

It's just that simple, really. You all make a thousand threads demonizing the inevitable. The Bible has Tulip written all over it like a fingerprint, I don't know how one can sit there and deny what is utterly incontrovertible.

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 04:17 PM
That's what I thought I was doing. I responded to both of your posts, putting the verses in context and pointing out what I thought was wrong with your use of them.

Now it's your turn to explain why I am wrong.
You thought wrong. Explain to me what the points are I made.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Samie
May 2nd, 2016, 04:26 PM
If you were in sync with the Scriptures, you would be Reformed.

It's just that simple, really. You all make a thousand threads demonizing the inevitable. The Bible has Tulip written all over it like a fingerprint, I don't know how one can sit there and deny what is utterly incontrovertible.I am reformed, as per Scriptures, not what you think what a Reformed is.

Your Tulip all over Scriptures? So why can't you point even one verse that hints people are born dead in sin? You even ran away from a post directly addressed to you because you can find no haven from Scriptures.

All mouth and no Scriptures makes no sense at all.

Samie
May 2nd, 2016, 04:29 PM
The false belief that people are born dead in sin led Calvinism to preach a wrong gospel.

Crucible
May 2nd, 2016, 04:51 PM
I am reformed, as per Scriptures, not what you think what a Reformed is.

Your Tulip all over Scriptures? So why can't you point even one verse that hints people are born dead in sin? You even ran away from a post directly addressed to you because you can find no haven from Scriptures.

All mouth and no Scriptures makes no sense at all.

There is a difference between being cursed through ancestral sin, and being 'born a sinner'. A person is not actually born a sinner, for a very obvious reason- you have to first sin to be sinner.

Amazingly simple, but people have gotten carried away with calling it something else.

Total depravity is something due to the curse of Original Sin. This is something agreed upon by both Arminians and Calvinists- about the only thing they do agree on actually.

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 05:11 PM
You thought wrong. Explain to me what the points are I made.


I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the points you made, how am I going to be able to help you understand them better.

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 05:14 PM
I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the points you made, how am I going to be able to help you understand them better.

Then you are wasting my time !

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 05:40 PM
Then you are wasting my time !

I guess so. That's why you started this conversation, right? http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4690882&viewfull=1#post4690882

If you're looking for someone to argue with, I can oblige you, I suppose, but if you're looking for someone to make your arguments for you, I don't think I qualify. I doubt I would do them justice.

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 05:41 PM
I guess so. That's why you started this conversation, right? http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4690882&viewfull=1#post4690882

If you're looking for someone to argue with, I can oblige you, I suppose, but if you're looking for someone to make your arguments for you, I don't think I qualify. I doubt I would do them justice.
Look,if you don't want to discuss the points I made, leave me alone.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 05:46 PM
Look,if you don't want to discuss the points I made, leave me alone.

Ok you're funny enough that I'm intrigued. Tell me what your points are again, 'cause when I was already leaving you alone, you made some points, and I don't remember what they were.

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 05:48 PM
Ok you're funny enough that I'm intrigued. Tell me what your points are again, 'cause when I was already leaving you alone, you made some points, and I don't remember what they were.
Please get lost

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 05:51 PM
Please get lost

:confused:
Does that mean you don't want me to post in this thread, or does that mean you don't want me to respond to your posts responding to mine?

And I'm glad you said "please".

beloved57
May 2nd, 2016, 06:01 PM
:confused:
Does that mean you don't want me to post in this thread, or does that mean you don't want me to respond to your posts responding to mine?

And I'm glad you said "please".
Do I need to block you out ?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Derf
May 2nd, 2016, 06:14 PM
Do I need to block you out ?
Maybe you need to. But if you want to actually have a conversation, you should respond to what I said to you instead of getting me to respond to me (that's not a typo). I've quoted our whole conversation below, if it helps any. It reads in reverse chronological order. See if you can figure out where we lost continuity. And just to help, I changed the text color to show the last time either of us said anything intelligent and on topic. You might notice that my last intelligent post is after yours. Should we go back to that point? Or just drop it?


:confused:
Does that mean you don't want me to post in this thread, or does that mean you don't want me to respond to your posts responding to mine?

And I'm glad you said "please".


Please get lost



Ok you're funny enough that I'm intrigued. Tell me what your points are again, 'cause when I was already leaving you alone, you made some points, and I don't remember what they were.


Look,if you don't want to discuss the points I made, leave me alone.



I guess so. That's why you started this conversation, right? http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4690882&viewfull=1#post4690882

If you're looking for someone to argue with, I can oblige you, I suppose, but if you're looking for someone to make your arguments for you, I don't think I qualify. I doubt I would do them justice.


Then you are wasting my time !


I'm sorry, but if you don't understand the points you made, how am I going to be able to help you understand them better.


You thought wrong. Explain to me what the points are I made.



That's what I thought I was doing. I responded to both of your posts, putting the verses in context and pointing out what I thought was wrong with your use of them.

Now it's your turn to explain why I am wrong.


Ok, please review them with me.



I think I understand the points you are trying to make with scripture. What I pointed out was that the scriptures you cited don't seem to make those points for you. Think through it a bit and try again.


Post 177 and 175 you understand the points made with scripture?



But Christ said He came not into the world to condemn the world (Jn 3:17 the verse before the one you cited). So if Jesus came so that the world might be saved, and "most" in the world are under God's wrath and condemnation, because they didn't believe in Jesus, and they didn't have a chance to believe in Jesus, then it sounds like Jesus was lying--He really did come into the world to condemn those that He knew wouldn't believe--because He decided before the world began that they wouldn't believe, according to you, but His presence here (definitely by God's hand) together with their unbelief (which you say is by God's hand, since Jesus didn't come to reconcile them) is what condemns them, according to the verse you cited.

Back to those pernicious dilemmas.


Not all men are reconciled to God while they are enemies, most are under God's wrath and condemnation as they are enemies Jn 3:18,36. Not so if Christ died for you Rom 5:10.



What's not true of all men? Rom 5:10 talks of having been ("were") reconciled by His death, and afterward being ("shall be") saved by His life. How does that work? Sounds like you are agreeing with Samie, that we are all reconciled at the time of His death, but something else happens afterward.


Unbelievers that Christ died for are reconciled to God while they are enemies Rom 5:10, so the death of Christ effectively effected reconciliation for them He died for while they are enemies of God. That's not true of all men.

Ask Mr. Religion
May 3rd, 2016, 12:35 AM
There is a difference between being cursed through ancestral sin, and being 'born a sinner'. A person is not actually born a sinner, for a very obvious reason- you have to first sin to be sinner.

Amazingly simple, but people have gotten carried away with calling it something else.

Total depravity is something due to the curse of Original Sin. This is something agreed upon by both Arminians and Calvinists- about the only thing they do agree on actually.
As he was our federal representative, all sinned in Adam, just as if we were really there with him in the garden. Accordingly, all are born sinners, hence we sin. From the teachings of Scripture, this has been the position of the church militant for over a thousand years.

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007&viewfull=1#post4559007

In general, Arminians and Calvinists are not in agreement at all (http://goo.gl/ZbXvXL) about the total inability of the lost:

24132
[Click to enlarge]


Arminian view of the lost:
Although human nature was seriously affected by the Fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

Reformed/Calvinist view of the lost:
Because of the Fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore he will not—indeed he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ—it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive with a new heart. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation—it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God. See: Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 22:29, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Psalm 130:3, Psalm 143:2, Proverbs 20:9, Job 14:4, Job 15:14-16, Ecclesiastes 7:20,29, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 13:23, Jeremiah 17:9, 2 Chronicles 6:36, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:3,19,44,65, Romans 3:9-18, Romans 5:6,12, Romans 5:18-19, Romans 6:16-20, Romans 7:18, 23-24, Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-5, Ephesians 4:18, 2 Timothy 2:26-26, 1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 5:19, Titus 3:3,5.

AMR

csuguy
May 3rd, 2016, 03:04 AM
Even before Christ came and died for our sins and the general outpouring of the Holy Spirit, yet even then fallen man was capable of keeping the Law, of doing what is good and right. God does not command from us that which is impossible for us. This, among other things, is one of the deep errors of Calvinism - to deny our ability to keep God's commands, to propose that God condemns us for sinning when we have no choice in the matter. They abandon the notions of a loving God, of a just God, in favor of sovereignty above all else.


Deuteronomy 30:11-20 For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it [q]out of reach. 12 It is not in heaven, [r]that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, [s]that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

15 “See, I have set before you today life and [t]prosperity, and death and [u]adversity; 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [v]and possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may liveyou and your [w]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for [x]this is your life and the length of your days, [y]that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

There are those who are incapable of keeping the Law, as Paul points out:


Romans 8:6-8 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

And thus we find that the determining factor in whether one is able to keep the Law or not is one's heart and mind. Have you set your heart and mind upon God, upon the Spirit? Or are they set upon the flesh, upon worldly things?

chrysostom
May 3rd, 2016, 03:15 AM
They abandon the notions of a loving God, of a just God, in favor of sovereignty above all else.


they also deny God the ability to create a free will

csuguy
May 3rd, 2016, 03:22 AM
they also deny God the ability to create a free will

Indeed, they never consider that God, being Sovereign, is capable of limiting himself, of choosing to relinquish some control, so as to provide us the capacity for free-will and such. They probably can't imagine why he might do such a thing - since they are focused on power and authority over all else.

beloved57
May 3rd, 2016, 04:15 AM
they also deny God the ability to create a free will

God having the ability to create man with a freewill and God actually creating man with a freewill are two different things !

Robert Pate
May 3rd, 2016, 06:45 AM
As he was our federal representative, all sinned in Adam, just as if we were really there with him in the garden. Accordingly, all are born sinners, hence we sin. From the teachings of Scripture, this has been the position of the church militant for over a thousand years.

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007&viewfull=1#post4559007

In general, Arminians and Calvinists are not in agreement at all (http://goo.gl/ZbXvXL) about the total inability of the lost:

24132
[Click to enlarge]


Arminian view of the lost:
Although human nature was seriously affected by the Fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

Reformed/Calvinist view of the lost:
Because of the Fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore he will not—indeed he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ—it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive with a new heart. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation—it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

AMR

So, you want to believe that God does not love the world, John 3:16, but that he only loves "Some Certain Persons" of which you happen to be one of? Goody, goody for you.

Samie
May 3rd, 2016, 07:29 AM
There is a difference between being cursed through ancestral sin, and being 'born a sinner'. A person is not actually born a sinner, for a very obvious reason- you have to first sin to be sinner.

Amazingly simple, but people have gotten carried away with calling it something else.

Total depravity is something due to the curse of Original Sin. This is something agreed upon by both Arminians and Calvinists- about the only thing they do agree on actually.Well, I wonder why AMR does not agree with you (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4692351&viewfull=1#post4692351).

Crucible cannot find any verse from the Bible hinting that people are born spiritually dead in sin, hence he was forced to say that people are not actually born sinners. But AMR is very emphatic that people are born dead in sin, despite the absence of the verse. Disagreement among Calvinists naturally results because there is no clear Scriptural basis of what is being taught.

But I guess Scriptures are clear that people are born NOT dead in sin, as shown in the Biblical description of the incarnate Christ (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4690140&viewfull=1#post4690140).

Crucible
May 3rd, 2016, 04:28 PM
Well, I wonder why AMR does not agree with you (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117063-Calvinists-Dilemma&p=4692351&viewfull=1#post4692351).

Crucible cannot find any verse from the Bible hinting that people are born spiritually dead in sin, hence he was forced to say that people are not actually born sinners. But AMR is very emphatic that people are born dead in sin, despite the absence of the verse. Disagreement among Calvinists naturally results because there is no clear Scriptural basis of what is being taught.

But I guess Scriptures are clear that people are born NOT dead in sin, as shown in the Biblical description of the incarnate Christ (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4690140&viewfull=1#post4690140).

The verse that you derive the 'born sinner' thing from doesn't even agree with you- the Bible says straight up that you are born INTO sin.

And
AMR is Presbyterian, I am Reformed Baptist- we are both Calvinists, but have our differences. Our differences are small- like this subject. It's not exactly apples and oranges.

Robert Pate
May 4th, 2016, 08:08 AM
The verse that you derive the 'born sinner' thing from doesn't even agree with you- the Bible says straight up that you are born INTO sin.

And
AMR is Presbyterian, I am Reformed Baptist- we are both Calvinists, but have our differences. Our differences are small- like this subject. It's not exactly apples and oranges.

All are born into sin and need to be born again by the word of God, which is the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23.

Samie
May 4th, 2016, 08:25 AM
The verse that you derive the 'born sinner' thing from doesn't even agree with you- the Bible says straight up that you are born INTO sin. Where in the Bible does it say people are born dead in sin? In an earlier post you say people are not actually born sinners; now you are saying people are born into sin.


And
AMR is Presbyterian, I am Reformed Baptist- we are both Calvinists, but have our differences. Our differences are small- like this subject. It's not exactly apples and oranges.Is that small when you are on the other end of the issue while AMR is on the opposite end? You say people are NOT born sinners, AMR says people are born sinners.

Samie
May 4th, 2016, 08:29 AM
All are born into sin and need to be born again by the word of God, which is the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23.If "born dead in sin" is your "born into sin", where in the Bible does it say all are born into sin? I want to know where's that verse. Thank you in advance.

beloved57
May 4th, 2016, 08:47 AM
All are born into sin and need to be born again by the word of God, which is the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23.

One must be born of God to hear God's words John 8:47

beloved57
May 4th, 2016, 08:50 AM
So, you want to believe that God does not love the world, John 3:16, but that he only loves "Some Certain Persons" of which you happen to be one of? Goody, goody for you.

God does love the World, but whose the World is the question.

beloved57
May 4th, 2016, 08:52 AM
So, you want to believe that God does not love the world, John 3:16, but that he only loves "Some Certain Persons" of which you happen to be one of? Goody, goody for you.

The world does mean certain particular persons apart from the rest.

Robert Pate
May 7th, 2016, 12:19 PM
If "born dead in sin" is your "born into sin", where in the Bible does it say all are born into sin? I want to know where's that verse. Thank you in advance.

King David wrote..."In sin did my mother conceive me" Psalm 51:5.

Robert Pate
May 7th, 2016, 12:21 PM
The world does mean certain particular persons apart from the rest.


The "world" means all of humanity.

Robert Pate
May 7th, 2016, 12:22 PM
One must be born of God to hear God's words John 8:47

So, you are saved before you are saved. really stupid.

Robert Pate
May 7th, 2016, 12:23 PM
God does love the World, but whose the World is the question.

The dictionary says all of humanity.

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 12:34 PM
The "world" means all of humanity.

No where does it say that ! The word world is used generally to mean only part of humanity, so you have lied !

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 12:37 PM
The dictionary says all of humanity.

The world means part of humanity in the scripture, your dictionary is wrong !

The greek word kosmos as in Jn 3:16 means:



any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 12:38 PM
So, you are saved before you are saved. really stupid.

The Gospel is stupid / foolishness to you who are perishing !

One must be of God to hear Gods Words Jn 8:47, thats stupid to you !

Epoisses
May 7th, 2016, 12:39 PM
No where does it say that ! The word world is used generally to mean only part of humanity, so you have lied !

In Romans 5 Adam's sin is passed on to all men or the many or the world. Are there any men or women who are not under the condemnation of death?

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 12:43 PM
In Romans 5 Adam's sin is passed on to all men or the many or the world. Are there any men or women who are not under the condemnation of death?

It only means part ! Yes there are men and women who are not under condemnation and wrath even while enemies Rom 5:10, they are reconciled to God instead by Christs death for them. I have preaching this for years now !

Epoisses
May 7th, 2016, 12:48 PM
It only means part ! Yes there are men and women who are not under condemnation and wrath even while enemies Rom 5:10, they are reconciled to God instead by Christs death for them. I have preaching this for years now !

All men and women are born condemned because of Adam's sin. Adam actually means mankind because all men proceeded from him.

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 12:50 PM
All men and women are born condemned because of Adam's sin. Adam actually means mankind because all men proceeded from him.

Thats a lie, men and women Christ died for are born reconciled to God Rom 5:10 !

Epoisses
May 7th, 2016, 12:52 PM
Thats a lie, men and women Christ died for are born reconciled to God Rom 5:10 !

Just as sin is passed on to all mankind so the free gift is given to all mankind as an inheritance.

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 12:53 PM
Just as sin is passed on to all mankind so the free gift is given to all mankind as an inheritance.

Men and Women Christ died for are born reconciled to God while being enemies Rom 5:10 !

Epoisses
May 7th, 2016, 12:55 PM
All men and women are born with a sin polluted body that dies. There is no one that has the spiritual body that never dies that Adam had before the fall and Christ had after the resurrection. That is given to the saved at the 2nd coming.

Samie
May 7th, 2016, 02:08 PM
The following cannot be proven from the Bible:

1. that Jesus died for only some and not all people in Adam's race (Calvinists dilemma)
2. that all people are born spiritually dead in sin (both Arminians and Calvinists dilemma)

beloved57
May 7th, 2016, 02:09 PM
All men and women are born with a sin polluted body that dies. There is no one that has the spiritual body that never dies that Adam had before the fall and Christ had after the resurrection. That is given to the saved at the 2nd coming.
Those sinners Christ died for are born reconciled to God while they are enemies in sinful bodies Rom 5:10

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Epoisses
May 7th, 2016, 08:14 PM
The following cannot be proven from the Bible:

1. that Jesus died for only some and not all people in Adam's race (Calvinists dilemma)
2. that all people are born spiritually dead in sin (both Arminians and Calvinists dilemma)

#2 is easily proven, read Romans 3.

Samie
May 7th, 2016, 09:56 PM
#2 is easily proven, read Romans 3.We have discussed this in another thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365)and you were not able to show the verse that says people are born spiritually dead in sin.

But if you have already found that verse you were not able to provide in the other thread, then point it to me now, please. What verse(s)?

Epoisses
May 7th, 2016, 10:14 PM
We have discussed this in another thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365)and you were not able to show the verse that says people are born spiritually dead in sin.

But if you have already found that verse you were not able to provide in the other thread, then point it to me now, please. What verse(s)?

It does say that but you're to biased to see it.

We don't become sinners, we are born that way.

Samie
May 7th, 2016, 11:06 PM
It does say that but you're to biased to see it.How could you say I'm biased to see it when I haven't seen one because you haven't pointed to any verse that says people are born spiritually dead in sin?

Epoisses
May 8th, 2016, 01:56 PM
How could you say I'm biased to see it when I haven't seen one because you haven't pointed to any verse that says people are born spiritually dead in sin?

The verses say exactly that! You just can't see it because you're blinded by your fleshly wisdom.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;  10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Rom. 3:9-18

All are under sin because they inherited their fallen nature from Adam.

Samie
May 8th, 2016, 08:34 PM
The verses say exactly that! You just can't see it because you're blinded by your fleshly wisdom.In a healthy discussion, there's really NO need for your last statement, is there?

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;  10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. Rom. 3:9-18So those are the verses that, for you, say people are born spiritually dead in sin? Let's try to analyze.

There are THREE (3) groups referred to: 1, the "we"; 2, the Jews; and 3, the Gentiles. The Jews and Gentiles are collectively referred to as "they".

Are the "we" born again? Yes? If Yes, we have the same answer. How about the "they"? Are the "they" born again, too? Your answer could be "No". I answer, "Yes".

Hence, for me, the 3 groups are all born again, that is, they are able to sin and able to not sin, but all three chose to sin.

For you, the "we" are born again, the "they" are not. Yet Paul says the "we" are no better than the "they", hence the 3 groups are in equal footing.

If you answered "Yes" that the "we" are born again, then you agree to my definition of "born again" as being able to sin and able to not sin. If you answered "No", then Paul was not born again, being among the "we". So you have no recourse but to answer "Yes".

So, when were the "we" born again? Your answer could be "when they believed". But believing is not possible for those born spiritually dead in sin because one born spiritually dead in sin is able to sin and not able to not sin. The fact that the "we" were able to believe proves they are able to not sin and therefore born NOT spiritually dead in sin.

Epoisses
May 8th, 2016, 09:15 PM
Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. You reject the verses so I can't help you. Sinners need a savior and if we are not sinners then we save ourselves which is the lie of the devil.

Samie
May 9th, 2016, 12:01 PM
Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. You reject the verses so I can't help you. Sinners need a savior and if we are not sinners then we save ourselves which is the lie of the devil.It's not the verses I reject. What I reject is the meaning you attach to those verses.

Epoisses
May 9th, 2016, 02:01 PM
It's not the verses I reject. What I reject is the meaning you attach to those verses.

Because you're carnal and want to think you can choose your way to heaven. Keep choosing Christ and presenting your filthy rags before him. Those without the wedding garment are cast out.

Crucible
May 9th, 2016, 03:01 PM
Anti-Calvinist's Dilemma: Never being able to refute Calvinism :chuckle:

Samie
May 9th, 2016, 06:02 PM
Because you're carnal and want to think you can choose your way to heaven.God did the choosing for us when on the cross through His Son, He fashioned humanity into the Body of Christ. Being part of His Body, we don't choose our way to heaven because we are already born on our way to heaven. But you refuse to believe what God has done for you. You teach that you have a part - by believing - in being made spiritually alive to be on your way to heaven.


Keep choosing Christ and presenting your filthy rags before him.That's what you are, in fact, doing: presenting your belief to God so you can be In Christ and be on your way to heaven.

I have long told you that people are born spiritually alive, born In Christ. You refuse to believe. Instead, you teach that people are born spiritually dead in sin, and for them to become spiritually alive, people need to first believe to be in Christ and be on their way to heaven.

It will be for your own good if you stop accusing me of the crime you are the one guilty of.

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 02:22 PM
That's what you are, in fact, doing: presenting your belief to God so you can be In Christ and be on your way to heaven.

No Samie this is what the bible says: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Belief is a requirement no matter how you slice or dice the equation. Whether it's a gift or a command it does not matter.

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 02:23 PM
Anti-Calvinist's Dilemma: Never being able to refute Calvinism :chuckle:

Calvinism is for weak Christians who can't live by faith alone.

Samie
May 10th, 2016, 03:03 PM
No Samie this is what the bible says: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Belief is a requirement no matter how you slice or dice the equation. Whether it's a gift or a command it does not matter.Paul knows that the jailer is already spiritually alive so he told him to believe in the Lord, just like what transpired with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

It's a different scenario with you. You teach that people are born spiritually dead in sin, hence not able to believe, yet you require them to believe for them to become spiritually alive. You are teaching a paradox. You are asking the unconscious to go to the doctor to be revived.

Believing, which is overcoming the evil of unbelief, is possible only for the spiritually alive.

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 03:09 PM
Paul knows that the jailer is already spiritually alive so he told him to believe in the Lord, just like what transpired with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

It's a different scenario with you. You teach that people are born spiritually dead in sin, hence not able to believe, yet you require them to believe for them to become spiritually alive. You are teaching a paradox. You are asking the unconscious to go to the doctor to be revived.

Believing, which is overcoming the evil of unbelief, is possible only for the spiritually alive.

People are born spiritually dead in sin, this is a fact of scripture. The Holy Spirit is also reproving all men of sin, righteousness and a judgment to come. So even though I am spiritually dead I am being led to the foot of the cross and repentance by the Holy Spirit. Anyone that comes to Christ can never take the credit for it because of the unseen work behind the scenes that has led them there. Man in his natural state is dead in sin without hope and under a death penalty for the broken law of God.

Samie
May 10th, 2016, 03:33 PM
People are born spiritually dead in sin, this is a fact of scripture. The Holy Spirit is also reproving all men of sin, righteousness and a judgment to come. So even though I am spiritually dead I am being led to the foot of the cross and repentance by the Holy Spirit. Anyone that comes to Christ can never take the credit for it because of the unseen work behind the scenes that has led them there. Man in his natural state is dead in sin without hope and under a death penalty for the broken law of God.Adam was created in the image of God, and therefore created with a Godly nature. On the day of Adam's fall into sin, God did not just fold His hands and did nothing but simply allowed man's nature to morph from its original Godly nature to one you call "dead in sin without hope and under a death penalty". No, sir.

Right on that same day, God implemented the plan of redemption devised before the foundation of the world (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365). That plan was revealed in the life, death, resurrection and High Priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary of our Lord & Savior, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Do we blame someone born dark-skinned for being dark-skinned? Do we fault our dogs because they bark instead of purr?

If indeed, man's nature after the fall has changed because God did nothing to forestall the change, neither must God hold people accountable for doing things they could not do otherwise because of their evil nature.

But God forestalled the change and instead reinstated man to his pre-fall Godly state, an act that cost Him His only begotten Son. Hence, people are accountable for not overcoming evil with good because born already In Christ, they have His Power to overcome evil.

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 05:18 PM
Natural birth happens when we are born into the world. Spiritual birth happens when we receive the Holy Spirit and Christ's life is recreated in us. The natural birth happens first and the spiritual birth later. You are sadly mistaken if you think we are born again when we are born from our mother. It's just absurd at face value.

Samie
May 10th, 2016, 05:35 PM
Spiritual birth is the new birth caused by God. And that happened when Jesus rose from the dead. 1 Pet 1:3

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 05:41 PM
Spiritual birth is the new birth caused by God. And that happened when Jesus rose from the dead. 1 Pet 1:3

That life which Jesus gave to the world is cast aside by many on their way to hell. Sorry Samie but what Jesus gives to the world and what the world actually receives are two different things. God doesn't drag unrepentant sinners screaming and kicking to heaven. He let's them reap the reward for their rebellion against him.

Crucible
May 10th, 2016, 06:17 PM
You have to first understand something to rightly be against it. You all don't understand that Reformed doctrine cannot be refuted on any biblical basis, because it is in and of itself an inverted mirror of Free Grace.

Anti-Calvinists on here have the Dumb.

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 08:24 PM
You have to first understand something to rightly be against it. You all don't understand that Reformed doctrine cannot be refuted on any biblical basis, because it is in and of itself an inverted mirror of Free Grace.

Anti-Calvinists on here have the Dumb.

The great sin of Calvinism is not their espousal of free grace but in their attack on the character of God himself. The picture of the loving Father who sends his Son to die for the sins of the world is changed into the cruel tyrant who creates lost souls to live lives of futility and be damned eternally. They reject God's unconditional love which is the highest sin.

Crucible
May 10th, 2016, 08:39 PM
The great sin of Calvinism is not their espousal of free grace but in their attack on the character of God himself. The picture of the loving Father who sends his Son to die for the sins of the world is changed into the cruel tyrant who creates lost souls to live lives of futility and be damned eternally. They reject God's unconditional love which is the highest sin.

Calvinism is against Free Grace. Maybe you simply misused the word 'espousal', or perhaps didn't understand what I meant by 'inverted mirror'.

Calvinism addresses the immutability of God, something that the Catholic Church abandoned in it's desire to pontificate. There is an inherent contradiction with God's immutability and free grace.

'Sovereign election' is an inverted mirror to it, stating that God chooses who is saved, and not subject to fallen will. The elect are those who are reaped by God's providence- the mistake that the non-Reformed make is in thinking it was of themselves who chose to walk into that providence.

And
What is the real difference between God creating, knowing what would come of it, and us having free will over God predestining?
It's nothing but splitting a hair- either way, you call one something, you must call the other the same. The difference is that one takes into account God's omniscience and immutability.

Epoisses
May 10th, 2016, 08:48 PM
God is not absolutely sovereign. There are many things that he either cannot or will not do. He will not save unbelieving sinners no matter how badly they parade and pontificate!

Crucible
May 10th, 2016, 08:54 PM
God is not absolutely sovereign

And there you have it, folks. Anti-Calvinists deny God's sovereignty :Plain: