PDA

View Full Version : What's calvinism?



Pages : [1] 2

lost anomaly
March 13th, 2004, 12:02 PM
I'm seeing all these threads abou calvinism and I have no idea what it is. Anybody want to take time to explain this to me?
Thanks:)



HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!:jump:

Sozo
March 13th, 2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

I'm seeing all these threads abou calvinism and I have no idea what it is. Anybody want to take time to explain this to me?
Thanks:)

It is a philosophical contradiction, that is based on an evil, puppeteer like god.

John Reformed
March 13th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Calvinism \Cal"vin*ism\, n. [Cf. F. Calvinisme.] The theological tenets or doctrines of John Calvin (a French theologian and reformer of the 16th century) and his followers, or of the so-called calvinistic churches.
Note: The distinguishing doctrines of this system, usually termed the five points of Calvinism, are original sin or total depravity, election or predestination, particular redemption, effectual calling, and the perseverance of the saints. It has been subject to many variations and modifications in different churches and at various times.

For more info www.reformed.org

God Bless,
John Reformed

lost anomaly
March 13th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Thanks for the site. It reall explained calvinism.:)

Swordsman
March 13th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

It is a philosophical contradiction, that is based on an evil, puppeteer like god.

Because your spritual eyes are closed my dear friend Sozo. ;)

God_Is_Truth
March 13th, 2004, 02:02 PM
in a nutshell:

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

Sozo
March 13th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Because your spritual eyes are closed my dear friend Sozo. ;)

I know hundred times more about your heresy, then you will ever learn about it in your lifetime.

Note: I have been known to exaggerate a point.

Swordsman
March 13th, 2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

I know hundred times more about your heresy, then you will ever learn about it in your lifetime.

How could you ever know my heart Sozo? Only God knows. I make no claims about your belief. Do I?

Sozo
March 13th, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

How could you ever know my heart Sozo?

It's not a heart issue, and I don't know anyone's heart. I can only judge what someone says, and Calvinism is foreign to God.

Granite
March 13th, 2004, 05:00 PM
It can also be argued that Arminianism is foreign to God's nature, so there's no point in name calling. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages in a debate.

Sozo
March 13th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

It can also be argued that Arminianism is foreign to God's nature, so there's no point in name calling. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages in a debate.

Who's name calling? :chuckle:

And you are right about Arminianism, their god is an evil schizophrenic.

Clete
March 13th, 2004, 05:35 PM
The best web site I know of that gives hard core historical facts about were the theology that we call Calvinism came from is this one...


Biblical Answers.com (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/)

This link will take you straight to an article by Bob Hill about Calvinism.

Calvinism versus the Bible (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Calvinism%20versus%20the%20Bible.htm)

The title of the article gives away Pastor Hill's anti-Calvinist position but I encourage you to read it with an open mind and weigh the arguments made by their own merits. I think you will find that Pastor Hill is second to none when it comes to intellectually honest and well documented theological positions.

Enjoy and God bless you!

Resting in Him,
Clete

By the way...
WELCOME TO THEOLOGY ONLINE!

Rolf Ernst
March 14th, 2004, 07:29 PM
Sozo! How could you? In the 9th post of this thread, you say that Calvinism is foreign to God. How could you, Sozo? Say it ain't so, Sozo!

In Mark 4:11,12 Jesus says that He speaks in parables SO THAT some men may "see not perceive;" so that they would "hear and not understand LEST THEY SHOULD TURN AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM." (caps mine, of course) For that reason, He did not speak to them without a parable. Then...when they were ALONE He explained all things to His disciples (ver. 34.) Why did He explain all things to His disciples? The answer is above in the 11th verse--because to
them it had "been given to know."

Sozo! What is this? What was Jesus' REAL reason for speaking in parables? What does that teach? Why was there a "world" for which Jesus would not pray in the garden of gethsemane just prior to His work of atonement? Of what world was He speaking?
Did it have anything to do with those whom He spoke to in parables so they would see but not percieve, so they would hear but not understand?

geralduk
March 15th, 2004, 06:10 AM
with ALL the good and "sound doctrin" it DOES have.
nevertheless it is NOT the WHOLE councel of God.

Rolf Ernst
March 15th, 2004, 07:41 PM
Geralduk--If you are speaking of Calvinisn not being the whole counsel of God, no one would agree with you more than a Calvinist.
Calvinism, as generally perceived, is merely a doctrinal view which outlines our perception of God, His dealings with men in general, and His covenants. They are, basically, the underlying principles--not the whole counsel of God. The 5 letter acrostic, TULIP, is, in itself, even further from being the whole counsel of God.

geralduk
March 16th, 2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Geralduk--If you are speaking of Calvinisn not being the whole counsel of God, no one would agree with you more than a Calvinist.
Calvinism, as generally perceived, is merely a doctrinal view which outlines our perception of God, His dealings with men in general, and His covenants. They are, basically, the underlying principles--not the whole counsel of God. The 5 letter acrostic, TULIP, is, in itself, even further from being the whole counsel of God.

I would highlight the term 'GENERALLY PERCEIVED'
and THAT is what is most at fault with many budding'theologians'
is that many it would seem have liitle grasp of his 'argument' but rather have taken aboad 'TULIP' and then think by that they understand the scriptures.
I do not believe in those matters most 'debated' about calvin that they can be reduced to 'VEIWS'
But are IMPORTANT issues in their CONTEXT.
You implication of 'tulip' would seem to deny thier tenents?
Im not here to 'argue' them.
but I WOULD 'argue' those "sound doctrins" which he taught.
and which would be BETTER understood if his 'argument' was FOLOWED from the BEGINNING to the END without JUMPING to the CONCLUSIONS before hand.
But for clarities sake as to my statement that Calvanism is not the whole council of God is that in truth they could be taken as the MILK of the WORD for it would seem that those who first heard him at the beginning of the reformation were by them ABLE TO ENDURE a great many things that those who think they know more are less able even to endure "sound doctrin" let alone persecution up to and including being burnt at the stake!

So I have to wonder that they who in some eyes knew LESS WHY then they could so MUCH MORE than those who knowing more do so much LESS!
For in truth if we enjoy ANY religios liberty and political freedom NOW it is BECAUSE they from LUTHOR onwards found the truth and KNEW HIM of whom the scriptures spoke of. and DECLARED BOLDLY before all and were HIS witnesses.
Now in truth God HAS revealed more to the church from that first "the just shall live by faith" and has PROGRESIVLY unfolded His PURPOSES untill the present day.
YET how is it that we who know more cannot do as MUCH as they who knew less?
Nor have the same ZEAL AND COMMITMENT as they did who soem say they believed not the truth!
and have less LOVE for God and the truth then they manifestly had.
and in truth it is TODAY that THE church is once again gettign entangled in those things that they payed so high a price to be free from!?
and we are in a REVERSE reformation.
and are exchanging the HOLY SPIRIT for candles once again.
Truly we are in those days where there is a "great falling away" when men will not " endure sound doctrin"
So I do not discard those things that he taught for I find them in the scriptures.
Not as MEN protray whay he said but as they are so found in all the scriptures.
Nor do I stay there but seek and am "going on to perfection"
Thankfull to God for thier ministery and faithfullness.
and seeking to "contend for THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints"
Not only of CALVIN but of LUTHOR and WESLEY and all those other men of God who " went a little further" even as the Lord bade them go they went.
and who were faithfull witnesses to and of the truth.

In anutshell then a 'catachism' of TULIP or any other doctrin does not by its repertition meen you UNDERSTAND them.
or ahve "come to a KNOWLEDGE of the TRUTH" concerning them.
Undersatnding them comes by prayer and the long continual consecutive thinking about them before God.
and allowing the HOLY SPIRIT to LEAD your thinking to that place where you are "fully persauded" of it.
Therefore my faith is NOT in tulip nor in CALVIN but in HIM of whom the scriptures speak of.
and it is HIM that I, by the grace of God folow.
and as I do so I do know the truth and the truth has set me free.

Rolf Ernst
March 16th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Well said, Geralduk. I have no heart to say anything against such a statement of faith. The Lord bless you!

smaller
March 16th, 2004, 03:40 PM
Calvinism=the belief that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them in fire forever and no matter what these people are powerless to change the course of their eventual eternal tortured destiny in fire.

Of course Arminianism and frewillism has the same belief based upon a nearly identical outcome.

helmet84
March 18th, 2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Calvinism=the belief that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them in fire forever and no matter what these people are powerless to change the course of their eventual eternal tortured destiny in fire.


I've never read a calvinist anywhere that says that is the sole purpose of God creating the majority of humanity.

-- helmet84

God_Is_Truth
March 19th, 2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by helmet84

I've never read a calvinist anywhere that says that is the sole purpose of God creating the majority of humanity.

-- helmet84

that's because most of them don't know or understand the reprocussions of their own doctrine.

smaller
March 19th, 2004, 08:47 AM
that (a)version doesn't sell very well helmet84

Apollo
March 20th, 2004, 07:08 AM
Where there is a Law, there is no free will. As soon as God said, "Thou Shalt Not," man's free will was destroyed. If man was not "free" to eat from any tree he pleased (without penalty), and if man is not "free" to reject Christ (without penalty), he is not truly free. Freedom is not freedom if the "freedom" to choose is prejudiced by a threat of punishment for choosing "wrongly."

Clete
March 20th, 2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Apollo

Where there is a Law, there is no free will. As soon as God said, "Thou Shalt Not," man's free will was destroyed. If man was not "free" to eat from any tree he pleased (without penalty), and if man is not "free" to reject Christ (without penalty), he is not truly free. Freedom is not freedom if the "freedom" to choose is prejudiced by a threat of punishment for choosing "wrongly."

Apollo,

:first:

You've just won the very first SPOTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=487285#post487285)!

Congratulations!

geralduk
March 20th, 2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Apollo

Where there is a Law, there is no free will. As soon as God said, "Thou Shalt Not," man's free will was destroyed. If man was not "free" to eat from any tree he pleased (without penalty), and if man is not "free" to reject Christ (without penalty), he is not truly free. Freedom is not freedom if the "freedom" to choose is prejudiced by a threat of punishment for choosing "wrongly."

God gave man NO liberty to DO EVIL.
But to DO GOOD.

and when men DO EVIL though as then they are promised that THEN they will or are free to do so.
In TRUTH they foind that they are BOUND and the more of THAT 'liberty' THEY TAKE the more BOUND they become.
True it is that men want the 'liberty to DO EVIL.
and by deception and the REJECTION of that which was GOOD AND EVIL in GODS SIGHT.
They did that which was "right in thier own eyes".
But let me ask you a question?

You say men are free to choose good and evil and when God said what was good and waht was evil.
When eve ate of that which was good to eat in her own eyes.
WHO'S WILL did she do?
Hers or the devils?
and was she then free as it seems in your eyes then or as it seems then of men now?

God created men "in His OWN IMAGE"
and therefore the LIBERTY He gave them was HIS OWN.
and therefore He gave them the "LIBERTY of the sons of God"

Which when they rejected the WORD of God they LOST.
Jesus therefore came to seeka nd to save that which was LOST.
AND TO SET THE CAPTIVES FREE.

Swordsman
March 20th, 2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Apollo
Where there is a Law, there is no free will. As soon as God said, "Thou Shalt Not," man's free will was destroyed. If man was not "free" to eat from any tree he pleased (without penalty), and if man is not "free" to reject Christ (without penalty), he is not truly free. Freedom is not freedom if the "freedom" to choose is prejudiced by a threat of punishment for choosing "wrongly."


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Apollo,

:first:

You've just won the very first SPOTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=487285#post487285)!

Congratulations!

Good job Apollo! It looks like you received your first POTD in just 3 posts.

I'm kinda bummed. I'll never get a POTD or a high-five from them. But then again, I don't play on their team..... ;)

Clete
March 20th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Good job Apollo! It looks like you received your first POTD in just 3 posts.

I'm kinda bummed. I'll never get a POTD or a high-five from them. But then again, I don't play on their team..... ;)

Swordsman,
I don't think you read my post very closely. :chuckle:


Apollo,

Don't take my jab at you too seriously! I'm just fooling around.
But it is sort of silly to say that we are only truly free when our actions have no consequences. Every action has consequences! The "free" world you suggest couldn't even exist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
March 20th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Swordsman,
I don't think you read my post very closely. :chuckle:

Ah! An SPOTD! Never got one of those either. I guess I don't hack you OVers off too much then. :chuckle:

Clete
March 20th, 2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Ah! An SPOTD! Never got one of those either. I guess I don't hack you OVers off too much then. :chuckle:

Keep plugin away at it. You'll get there eventually!



;) Just teasing! :chuckle:

helmet84
March 20th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Good job Apollo! It looks like you received your first POTD in just 3 posts.

I'm kinda bummed. I'll never get a POTD or a high-five from them. But then again, I don't play on their team..... ;)

Here ya go, Swordsman !

:first:

God_Is_Truth
March 20th, 2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

I've never read a calvinist anywhere that says that is the sole purpose of God creating the majority of humanity.

-- helmet84

just remembered, Z Man believes that. we've been discussing it in the do calvinists believe dangerously (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13005&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) thread. read post #86 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=486594#post486594).

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 12:26 AM
In case you freewillers think your end result is any better think again.

The end result of men's supposed freewill is the SAME RESULT as that of Calvinism. God created the majority of mankind only to torture them forever.

I believe in the Sovereignty of God, just not J. Calvins' "limited" version.

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by smaller
God created the majority of mankind only to torture them forever.


i thought you were a universalist :shocked:

Turbo
March 21st, 2004, 12:52 AM
He's saying that's what we non-universalists must believe.

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 01:00 AM
that IS what both of your camps believe....think about it....THE ETERNAL DAMNATION OF THE MAJORITY OF HUMANITY is the only thing YOU ALL have in common.

You can ask "christians" about any number of different theological terms and subjects and find a diversity of views...

but OH on that eternal damnation of others many many have found the "wide path" that leads to destruction....(of others of course)

The unbelievers have not "found" such a thing....

I am more than fully aware that LOVING both your neighbors and your enemies is a difficult thing...too much obviously for the everyday "adherent."

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 01:01 AM
oh ok. thanks for the clear up turbo.

in that case, i say that God did not create them for hell. they chose that themselves when they rejected God. why should they be with God when they don't want to be? that's like going against their will, kinda like calvinism.....

Turbo
March 21st, 2004, 01:29 AM
The Universalists' God
"I'm forcing you all to enter the straight gate; there is no gate that leads to destruction. You can thank me later."

The Calvinists' God
"I created these gates and I created you. Before I did any of that I decided who will go where. I'm forcing a few of you to go through the gate that leads to life. I'm forcing most of you to go through the gate of destruction. Deal with it. (After all, I've predestined you to deal with it.)"

The True and Living God
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14

Clete
March 21st, 2004, 08:29 AM
Well swordsman, I hope this doesn't bumb you out too badly but...



Originally posted by Turbo

The Universalists' God
"I'm forcing you all to enter the straight gate; there is no gate that leads to destruction. You can thank me later."

The Calvinists' God
"I created these gates and I created you. Before I did any of that I decided who will go where. I'm forcing a few of you to go through the gate that leads to life. I'm forcing most of you to go through the gate of destruction. Deal with it. (After all, I've predestined you to deal with it.)"

The True and Living God
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14

:first: POTD! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=487969#post487969)

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 09:29 AM
nice try turbo but lying is not profitable for anyone

and excuses for eternally damning your neighbor are worse

Rolf Ernst
March 21st, 2004, 09:37 AM
Clete--Putting words in God's mouth, hmm? Man, from his own corruption, rejects God and His Word, preferring the broad road to destruction.
God, in spite of man's corruption, determined from everlasting that He would have mercy upon certain ones despite their unworthiness, and does so----"Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy."

Those not chosen to salvation have no right to complain because they receive the choice of their own choosing. Neither can the unbeliever blame God for not choosing a greater number which might have included him, because God was under no obligation to choose even one.

helmet84
March 21st, 2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

just remembered, Z Man believes that. we've been discussing it in the do calvinists believe dangerously (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13005&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) thread. read post #86 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=486594#post486594).

No. Go read Smaller's post 18 above. He said calvinism claims that the sole purpose of creating the majority of humanity was to torture them in fire forever .

That is not what Z man is saying. That is a false conclusion that you are drawing from his words.

-- helmet84

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 09:52 AM
helmut, it is a simple fact of Calvinism that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of frying them forever and these people cannot do anything about it. They were predestined for this purpose, therefore my RIGHTful observation.

p.s. This is completely abhorrent to me. I cannot express how vile and depraved this belief is.

helmet84
March 21st, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by helmet84

No. Go read Smaller's post 18 above. He said calvinism claims that the sole purpose of creating the majority of humanity was to torture them in fire forever .

That is not what Z man is saying. That is a false conclusion that you are drawing from his words.

-- helmet84

There, I changed my emphasis for clarification -- in case Zman reads this. Zman, read post 40 above to get the context.

Oh, and Smaller. Some calvinists believe that 'eternal destruction' does not imply 'eternal torture'. Rather, 'eternal destruction' means a destruction that is eternal in its nature, i.e. once that destruction takes place, there will be no resurrection for the participants. Or in other words, it is a 'death' that is eternal. They would say that the smoke from the destruction of the wicked that is described in Revelation is symbolic in meaning, not literal.

smaller
March 21st, 2004, 10:24 AM
You are right helmet...

some are eternal annihilationists rather than eternal torturists...

Clete
March 21st, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--Putting words in God's mouth, hmm?

What are you talking about? :kookoo:

Turbo
March 21st, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by smaller

nice try turbo but lying is not profitable for anyone

and excuses for eternally damning your neighbor are worse I don't damn anyone. But you're the one who's lying, giving unbelievers a false sense of security, rather than warning them that they need to repent and accept Christ.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18


Deliver those who are drawn toward death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, "Surely we did not know this,"
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11-12

Rolf Ernst
March 21st, 2004, 05:11 PM
The young lady started this thread by asking what is Calvinism. I notice that a lot of preople who are NOT Calvinists have taken it upon them selves to answer that question and have either out of ignorance or deliberate deceit grievously misrepresented what Calvinism is. I have no recollection of an Arminian making an effort to not misrepresent the doctrines they neither understand nor have any taste for, but I expect that she knows to give no credit to someone's words even if they do not know when they should be silent.

Rolf Ernst
March 21st, 2004, 05:23 PM
Why Smaller, you little wascal, where is your authority for saying that Calvinists believe God created men for the sole purpose of frying them ferever? I ain't never seen 'at in Scripture, an' ain't never heerd any1 say so but you. Play fair now, yawl hear?

Swordsman
March 21st, 2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
in that case, i say that God did not create them for hell. they chose that themselves when they rejected God. why should they be with God when they don't want to be? that's like going against their will, kinda like calvinism.....

:confused: How is it at all possible that someone is a Christian when they do not really want to be? Have you ever heard someone say, "Well God, thanks for the salvation so that I will have eternal life, but I really wish I had the option to go to hell."???

That's absurd. Is this something Bob Enyart is teaching these days?

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

:confused: How is it at all possible that someone is a Christian when they do not really want to be? Have you ever heard someone say, "Well God, thanks for the salvation so that I will have eternal life, but I really wish I had the option to go to hell."???

That's absurd. Is this something Bob Enyart is teaching these days?

i'm not saying that about christians. i'm saying that God will save those who want to be saved (thus, christians) and won't save those who don't want to be saved (thus, not christians).

by the way i know nothing of what Bob Enyart teaches. the only place i've ever seen his work was back on this forum a while back on the debate of "does God exist" between him and Zakath.

Apollo
March 21st, 2004, 07:10 PM
Don't take my jab at you too seriously! I'm just fooling around. But it is sort of silly to say that we are only truly free when our actions have no consequences. Every action has consequences! The "free" world you suggest couldn't even exist.


Not a problem. Clete, there are consequences for our actions, negative consequences, assuming a “crime” has occurred. What was Adam’s “crime”? Picking fruit out of season? No. Exercising free will. What was the penalty? Death. We are not talking about the “consequences” of running a stop sign, or walking on the grass, both “limitations” on our “free will.” We are talking about the consequences of rejecting Christianity’s god.

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him? This, I thought, was relevant in a discussion of Calvinism. Calvinism rejects free will. Arminianism embraces free will. Yet, both systems deny free will by denying man the freedom to determine good and evil for himself. The freedom to “choose Jesus” – or else – is a strange sort of freedom.

Clete
March 21st, 2004, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Apollo

Not a problem. Clete, there are consequences for our actions, negative consequences, assuming a “crime” has occurred. What was Adam’s “crime”? Picking fruit out of season? No. Exercising free will. What was the penalty? Death. We are not talking about the “consequences” of running a stop sign, or walking on the grass, both “limitations” on our “free will.” We are talking about the consequences of rejecting Christianity’s god.

If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him? This, I thought, was relevant in a discussion of Calvinism. Calvinism rejects free will. Armenianism embraces free will. Yet, both systems deny free will by denying man the freedom to determine good and evil for himself. The freedom to “choose Jesus” – or else – is a strange sort of freedom.

But this misses the point! The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise is another topic. Besides that, it is the consequences of your actions that determine whether they are right or wrong in the first place. You pretend that God's rule against eating of the Tree of Knowledge was an arbitrary one, but you are wrong. The Tree was given as an alternative to God. Adam could have lived for thousands of years in a direct personal relationship with the living God during which he would have learned all there is to know about what it means to be good (and therefore what it means to be evil) but he CHOSE to disobey God and forfeit that relationship. And by the way, his punishment was both just and merciful.
Your thesis presumes God to be arbitrary and therefore unjust. It further is non-sequitur in that it doesn't follow as an argument against either Calvin or Armenius because your definition of ‘freedom’ is totally unrelated to either of theirs. Take your pick, either one of these reasons would be more than sufficient to reject what you've said here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
March 21st, 2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

But this misses the point! The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise is another topic. Besides that, it is the consequences of your actions that determine whether they are right or wrong in the first place. You pretend that God's rule against eating of the Tree of Knowledge was an arbitrary one, but you are wrong. The Tree was given as an alternative to God. Adam could have lived for thousands of years in a direct personal relationship with the living God during which he would have learned all there is to know about what it means to be good (and therefore what it means to be evil) but he CHOSE to disobey God and forfeit that relationship. And by the way, his punishment was both just and merciful.
Your thesis presumes God to be arbitrary and therefore unjust. It further is non-sequitur in that it doesn't follow as an argument against either Calvin or Armenius because your definition of ‘freedom’ is totally unrelated to either of theirs. Take your pick, either one of these reasons would be more than sufficient to reject what you've said here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

God_Is_Truth
March 21st, 2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

you can't boast in what all people are capable of :doh:

Swordsman
March 22nd, 2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

you can't boast in what all people are capable of :doh:

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

Sozo
March 22nd, 2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman


John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

All men are drawn to God, and yet some refuse the gift of life.

Clete
March 22nd, 2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

So, Clete. I'm assuming you "chose" God. If I am correct, then you have reason to boast about your salvation. Correct?

This is such a tired and idiotic argument! Is this the best Calvinism has to offer in an attempt to debunk those who disagree with their heresy?

Do you have something to brag about because you said, "I do" when you married your wife?

When someone gives you a gift for your birthday, do you go around bragging about how terrific it is that you accepted the gift?

If you were drowning in a swimming pool and the lifeguard threw a life preserver to you, would you get the big head and start showing off about how you were so great to have grabbed it?

Give me a break!
You (that is Calvinists in general) give people a hard time saying that they have "saved themselves" and at the same time tell people that if they don't tithe that they've stolen from God. In one breath you say that you can do nothing to be saved and in the next you put them under the law and require them to obey.
Calvinist are so internally conflicted that they can't see up from down! If you want to debate Calvinism on its merits then lets get it on, but don't waste my time with this weak crap that's designed primarily to score cheap emotional points with those who don't know anything about the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
March 22nd, 2004, 01:32 PM
OK. Gonna have to break down your post here.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is such a tired and idiotic argument! Is this the best Calvinism has to offer in an attempt to debunk those who disagree with their heresy?

Its not Calvinism at all. Its Christianity. And just because something isn't open theology doesn't mean it's heresy.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Do you have something to brag about because you said, "I do" when you married your wife?

No. God brought her into my life. I do brag about her though because I'm proud of her. She is my wife. Equally, I like to glorify God, and show and tell others what He's done for me.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
When someone gives you a gift for your birthday, do you go around bragging about how terrific it is that you accepted the gift?

No, I did nothing to "get" the gift. Same with salvation. Any concept of salvation other than salvation by grace really isn't salvation at all.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you were drowning in a swimming pool and the lifeguard threw a life preserver to you, would you get the big head and start showing off about how you were so great to have grabbed it?

No. I sure wouldn't. Good analogy though. I'll remember that one.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Give me a break!

No breaks for you Private Pfeiffer! Now drop and give me 20! ;)


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You (that is Calvinists in general) give people a hard time saying that they have "saved themselves" and at the same time tell people that if they don't tithe that they've stolen from God.

:confused: This doesn't sound anywhere near what a Calvinist might say.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
In one breath you say that you can do nothing to be saved and in the next you put them under the law and require them to obey.

Not it at all. I think you're confusing the law with exercising faith. Two completely different ideas.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Calvinist are so internally conflicted that they can't see up from down!

I would expect a comment like this from an OVer.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you want to debate Calvinism on its merits then lets get it on, but don't waste my time with this weak crap that's designed primarily to score cheap emotional points with those who don't know anything about the issues being debated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's not a debatable issue really. Salvation by grace is clearly taught in most of the NT. This view of how someone can "choose" God and create his own saving faith is not at all Biblical. I would venture to say that you know where these particular passages are, you just draw your own conclusions to fit your own personal views. Don't do that. That's why there are so many different sects of religion out there. They open their ears to a certain passage and close them for another.

And what's "weak" about John 6:44? No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. That is very clear. No need for your greek dictionary there.

God_Is_Truth
March 22nd, 2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

*Acts9_12Out*
March 22nd, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

That's not what the Bible teaches. Hear it from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation isn't like buying a car or a TV. You don't go out and shop for it.

Sword,

I ask you also (along with rolf, helmet and lee) to consider the context before ripping a verse out of context and making it a pre-text. Concerning John 6:44, we must also look at verse 45...


John 6:44,45
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Me.

So, what's the point here? Who comes to the Son? "They shall all be taught" refers to everyone. Only those who hear and have learned from the Father come to the Son.

In short, all are taught by God. Those who hear the gospel and respond (have learned) come to the Son. Quite simple, huh?

--Jeremy

Swordsman
March 22nd, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?

lost anomaly
March 22nd, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

The young lady started this thread by asking what is Calvinism. I notice that a lot of preople who are NOT Calvinists have taken it upon them selves to answer that question and have either out of ignorance or deliberate deceit grievously misrepresented what Calvinism is. I have no recollection of an Arminian making an effort to not misrepresent the doctrines they neither understand nor have any taste for, but I expect that she knows to give no credit to someone's words even if they do not know when they should be silent.

I must say I am actually surprised at the whole debate that has started because of my simple question and now I'm just confused after reading all of this. I haven't read anything about Calvinism wanting to tortuer all of mankind, but knowing my I might have misread or skipped something about that. All I know is I am more confused about Calvinism now then i was when i asked the question.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 22nd, 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?

That's why I explained John 6:44-45....

The "all" are "all" who hear and have learned who come to Christ...

--Jeremy

lost anomaly
March 22nd, 2004, 02:19 PM
I am hearing much talk of Adam and Eve on this post. Exactly how do they relate to calvinism? I'm a little fuzzy on that.

Swordsman
March 22nd, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Sword,

I ask you also (along with rolf, helmet and lee) to consider the context before ripping a verse out of context and making it a pre-text. Concerning John 6:44, we must also look at verse 45...

You mean rip it out of your context....



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
So, what's the point here? Who comes to the Son? "They shall all be taught" refers to everyone. Only those who hear and have learned from the Father come to the Son.

In short, all are taught by God. Those who hear the gospel and respond (have learned) come to the Son. Quite simple, huh?

--Jeremy

Jesus was quoting from the prophet Isaiah in chapter 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

"All thy children" or all God's children. In other words Christ is speaking of God's elect. Only those who are His elect will be taught.

And the part where you say those who "respond" or "have learned" - that is at the moment salvation takes place in their hearts. That's where they come to the Son.

So, no, this verse wasn't taken out of context as one can clearly see. Verse 45 plainly elaborates verse 44. Its amazing how the Word of God just flows together, isn't it?

*Acts9_12Out*
March 22nd, 2004, 03:31 PM
Sword,

Unfortunately, Christ's quote of Isaiah has a larger meaning...

According to John 1:9, everyone has been enlightened by Jesus Christ,


John 1:9
9 "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world."

The father has drawn everyone who will listen,


John 6:44,45
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me"

The Son draws everyone.


John 12:32
32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself"

The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ.


"But when the Helper comes . . . the Spirit of truth . . . He will testify of Me" (John 15:26).

It is up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since God did not predestinate individuals to be saved, we must be sure we take the opportunities to present the gospel of grace to everyone. We should pray for boldness to open our mouths to present the mystery just as Paul did in Ephesians 6:19,

Eph 6:19
19 "Pray . . . for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel."

In Christ, --Jeremy

God_Is_Truth
March 22nd, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

WOW! So even the non-Christians too huh. Is that what the "all" means here?

yes. all means all.

Swordsman
March 22nd, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Sword,

Unfortunately, Christ's quote of Isaiah has a larger meaning...

What else can it mean other than His elect are taught by Him? The prophet is very clear, and even Christ thought so. That's why He quoted Him.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
According to John 1:9, everyone has been enlightened by Jesus Christ,

I agree with you in a sense. Christ is the savior, or light to the world. He is the only light or savior that exists. In that sense, all have or will have some perception of the eternal light of Christ.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
The father has drawn everyone who will listen,

The Son draws everyone.

I answered these previously. No need to argue this point anymore. You know what the Scriptures are saying.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ.

Agreed.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
It is up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This response you speak of is God-given faith. The call to salvation is God intersecting in our lives and changing the heart. If you mean that its something you just decide on a whim, then you are implying faith is something developed by ourselves (i.e. salvation by works).


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Since God did not predestinate individuals to be saved, we must be sure we take the opportunities to present the gospel of grace to everyone. We should pray for boldness to open our mouths to present the mystery just as Paul did in Ephesians 6:19,

God did not predestinate individuals to be saved?!?!?!?!?! Romans 8:29-30 says otherwise. And yes, we should be very careful about how we present the gospel of grace. It isn't a gospel that allows one to boast of his salvation. Its a gospel that gives God ALL the glory due to Him. Its all about Him, not us.

Swordsman
March 22nd, 2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

yes. all means all.

I thought you were an open theist, not a universalist.

God_Is_Truth
March 22nd, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

I thought you were an open theist, not a universalist.

Jesus dying for all people does not mean all will be saved. it means that all people have the option of salvation open to them and they must make the individual decision to accept it in order to be saved.

*Acts9_12Out*
March 22nd, 2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

What else can it mean other than His elect are taught by Him? The prophet is very clear, and even Christ thought so. That's why He quoted Him.

:confused: Christ didn't "quote" Isaiah. Christ simply stated that the "prophet" made a statement similar to the statement He made.

Let's take a look...


John 6:44,45
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Me.

Isaiah 54:13
54:13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children.

Doesn't look like a direct quote to me??? :confused:

Christ said "It is written in the prophets..." and then goes on to clarify His interpretation of the passage. Christ says everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Him. The point is, all are taught by God. Whoever of the "all" that hears and has learned comes to Him. You continue,


I agree with you in a sense. Christ is the savior, or light to the world. He is the only light or savior that exists. In that sense, all have or will have some perception of the eternal light of Christ.

Sorry. That's not what John 1:9 says. Christ enlightens every man. Christ gives every man enough light to respond to the gospel. The gospel has been preached "in" every creature under heaven.


Colossian 1:23b
1:23b the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached in every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

You continue,


I answered these previously. No need to argue this point anymore. You know what the Scriptures are saying.

No, you misrepresent John 6:44,45. Christ does not "quote" Isaiah. Christ clarifies that all are taught by God. Man must respond to the gospel. You continue,


Agreed.

Good.


This response you speak of is God-given faith. The call to salvation is God intersecting in our lives and changing the heart.

You fail to substantiate this point with Scripture...


If you mean that its something you just decide on a whim, then you are implying faith is something developed by ourselves (i.e. salvation by works).

Um, no... As stated before, Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9). The gospel is preached "in" every creature (Col 1:23). The gospel is written on every person's heart (Rom 2:14-16). The heavens devlare God's handiwork (Psa 19; Rom 10:18,19). God does not predestine men to hell. Man freely chooses to reject the truth that God has put in them. You continue,


God did not predestinate individuals to be saved?!?!?!?!?! Romans 8:29-30 says otherwise.

Actually, it doesn't... Romans 8:28-30 refers to the corporate body of Christ. Another discussion I guess...


And yes, we should be very careful about how we present the gospel of grace. It isn't a gospel that allows one to boast of his salvation. Its a gospel that gives God ALL the glory due to Him. Its all about Him, not us.

Hint, Hint... Paul prays for boldness to preach the mystery. Do you have any idea what Paul is speaking of? Take a look at my siggy for further... :D

--Jeremy

Clete
March 22nd, 2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly
I must say I am actually surprised at the whole debate that has started because of my simple question and now I'm just confused after reading all of this. I haven't read anything about Calvinism wanting to tortuer all of mankind, but knowing my I might have misread or skipped something about that. All I know is I am more confused about Calvinism now then i was when i asked the question.

I don't blame you for being confused!

Calvinism basically boils down to one issue, the immutability of God.

Calvinism has been broken down into five major points that give a general outline of its basic teachings. These five points are commonly refered to as the TULIP.
Total Depravity - Man is completely incapable of any good action whatsoever including putting their faith in Christ. Unmerited Favor - God chose to grant you saving faith arbitrarily. His choice had nothing to do with who you are or what you do or what you believe. Limited Atonement - Christ's death atoned for the sins of the Elect ONLY, not for the whole world. Irresistable Grace - You have no choice in the matter. If God decides to have Grace on you then you will believe and you will be saved (period). Perseverance of the Saints - Sort of a repeat of the the last one. No matter what happens, if you are Elect, you will be saved. No one can lose their salvation no matter what.

All five of these points are not derived directly from scripture. They are logically derived from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, that He is utterly immutable. Once the conclusions are drawn then scripture is interpreted in such a way as to prop these ideas up but I submit that reverses the propper order of things. Regardless of how many proof text they site, their entire house of cards crumbles to the ground if God can be shown to change in any way.

And by the way, this is not just my opinion. Calvinism's history can be clearly documented step by step by step. When one goes back far enough you find that Calvinism has its root in pagan Greek philosophy not Scripture.
Bob Hill has done as good a job of documenting this as anyone that I am aware of. Here are a couple of links to articles that thoroughly cover the subject....



Calvinism vs the Bible (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Calvinism%20versus%20the%20Bible.htm)

And...

Augustine on The Absolute Foreknowledge of God (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Absolute%20Foreknowledge%20of%20God.htm)

Pastor Hill has written several more they can all be found here (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestinationindex.htm)

Resting in Him,
Clete

God_Is_Truth
March 22nd, 2004, 09:01 PM
Clete,

i noticed that for the "U" of TULIP you called it "Unmeritted Favor". it was my understanding that the "U" of TULIP stood for "Unconditional Election". have you always called the "U" unmerrited favor or were you just restating what it was in easy to understand terms?

Clete
March 22nd, 2004, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Clete,

I noticed that for the "U" of TULIP you called it "Unmeritted Favor". It was my understanding that the "U" of TULIP stood for "Unconditional Election". Have you always called the "U" unmerrited favor or were you just restating what it was in easy to understand terms?
I've seen it both ways, I don't really have a preference. It seems that I remember 'unmeritted favor' more easily, I don't know why.
They both are the exact same thing though, sorry if I confused anyone.

Resting in Him,
Clete

geralduk
March 23rd, 2004, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Jesus dying for all people does not mean all will be saved. it means that all people have the option of salvation open to them and they must make the individual decision to accept it in order to be saved.

Another aspect of the truth is this.


ALL are "DEAD in trespases and in sin"
and God calls ALL men to repent.
Those then who RISE UP as it were in repsonse to the WORD justyfy the WORD and are BORNagain.
Those who do not are STILL dead.
AND UNTILL THEY DO RESPOND will remain as they are.
though in truth will grow worse the longer they reject the WORD of life.
It is NOT in the ability of those DEAD TO RAISE UP by thier own power or will.
But it is by that WORD of God and the SPIRIT of God that so quickens them.
They who RECEIVE the WORD receive LIFE.
They who do not but reject it have no life in them.

Therefore those who think in their heart that there MUST be something in them that saves them. are wrong.
and if God did not SPEAK then NO ONE would rise.

Men are in DARKNESS AND THIER "UNDERSDTANDING is darkened" and they are BLIND.
It is not untill the LIGHT comes that men get A TRUE understanding either of themselves or God.
Therefore it has pleased God by the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" what?
The WORD"the ENTRANCE of which giveth LIGHT"
Men here and elsewhere are seekign to understand the things of God by that carnal mind which understands NOTHING about God. and is in fact CONTARY to Him!
"NEITHER can it ACCEPT the things of God"
And just because we may be BORNagain should not lead us to think we do not need STILL to be LED by HIM who first RAISED US UP FROM THE DEAD!
But soem seem to think once we are BORNagain that we can then rely upon "our own understanding" and the "wisdom of men" which neither now or before brought us any light !
Why then do 'we' who have started in the SPIRIT should think we can finish in the flesh"
No.
as we are BORN of the WORD and the SPIRIT.
We cannot GROW in grace and the TRUE and LIVELY knowldge of God by the WORD only for the "letter killeth" but we MUST have the SPIRIT of truth to LEAD us into all truth " for the SPIRIT giveth LIFE"


Those who seek top justyfy themselves before God and to establish thier own rightousness need to look again at the WORD of God.
For God is not at MENS bidding.
bUT MEN if His are HIS SONS.
as such then should fullfill the "LAW OF CHRIST"
for THEN is it that we show we are the "sons of God" for they who are LED by the SPIRIT of God ARE the sons of God"

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I don't blame you for being confused!

Calvinism basically boils down to one issue, the immutability of God.

Calvinism has been broken down into five major points that give a general outline of its basic teachings. These five points are commonly refered to as the TULIP.
Total Depravity - Man is completely incapable of any good action whatsoever including putting their faith in Christ. Unmerited Favor - God chose to grant you saving faith arbitrarily. His choice had nothing to do with who you are or what you do or what you believe. Limited Atonement - Christ's death atoned for the sins of the Elect ONLY, not for the whole world. Irresistable Grace - You have no choice in the matter. If God decides to have Grace on you then you will believe and you will be saved (period). Perseverance of the Saints - Sort of a repeat of the the last one. No matter what happens, if you are Elect, you will be saved. No one can lose their salvation no matter what.

All five of these points are not derived directly from scripture. They are logically derived from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever, that He is utterly immutable. Once the conclusions are drawn then scripture is interpreted in such a way as to prop these ideas up but I submit that reverses the propper order of things. Regardless of how many proof text they site, their entire house of cards crumbles to the ground if God can be shown to change in any way.

And by the way, this is not just my opinion. Calvinism's history can be clearly documented step by step by step. When one goes back far enough you find that Calvinism has its root in pagan Greek philosophy not Scripture.
Bob Hill has done as good a job of documenting this as anyone that I am aware of. Here are a couple of links to articles that thoroughly cover the subject....



Calvinism vs the Bible (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Calvinism%20versus%20the%20Bible.htm)

And...

Augustine on The Absolute Foreknowledge of God (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Absolute%20Foreknowledge%20of%20God.htm)

Pastor Hill has written several more they can all be found here (http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestinationindex.htm)

Resting in Him,
Clete

lost anomaly

As Clete pointed out here of his opinions of Calvinism, I challenge you to seek out the truth for yourself. I've looked over those links provided by Clete and they are of an open theist's view of Calvinism. In other words, you're getting the oppositions' perspective. Nothing wrong with reading it, but try looking at the sovereignty of God and His abounding grace from a Calvinist's perspective. Take a look at http://www.mslick.com/. He has some interesting reading from the Calvinist school of thought. My friend Clete rejects a lot of the truths that Calvinism holds to. And he is wrong in that it is based wholly on Scripture and not of some book author as open theism is.

So I challenge you to seek Him. Pray to Him to show you the truth. The Word is sufficient to show you this as well. Works by Boyd, Sanders, Bob Hill, Chuck Stanley, or any other author are more opinionated at best. Steer clear of false teachers. Seek God for who He is by reading His Word. Read the epistles. Start with Romans. They are full of truths of how God deserves all glory due Him. He is Sovereign above all things. He has chosen whom He pleases for His glory. His grace is irresistable and unattainable by ourselves without His spirit.

Vaya con dios.......

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

:confused: Christ didn't "quote" Isaiah. Christ simply stated that the "prophet" made a statement similar to the statement He made.

Let's take a look...

Doesn't look like a direct quote to me??? :confused:

I don't feel like jumping through hoops with you today. Call it a quote or a paraphrase, whatever. He brought back that verse in Isaiah to His day.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Christ said "It is written in the prophets..." and then goes on to clarify His interpretation of the passage. Christ says everyone who hears and has learned from the Father comes to Him. The point is, all are taught by God. Whoever of the "all" that hears and has learned comes to Him.

All isn't everybody. Isaiah shows you this. "All thy children" is God's children. Not everybody. You can't really draw semantics into this. There's really no argument at this point.




Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Sorry. That's not what John 1:9 says. Christ enlightens every man. Christ gives every man enough light to respond to the gospel. The gospel has been preached "in" every creature under heaven.

OK. Whatever. Only God can speak the truth to you. Not anyone else. Only He can open your eyes. He did for me.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
No, you misrepresent John 6:44,45. Christ does not "quote" Isaiah. Christ clarifies that all are taught by God. Man must respond to the gospel.

Didn't we just beat this dead horse??? You've talked yourself into believing this so much you can't see what the passage is really saying. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Good.

I'm happy that you gave me your stamp of approval. :banana:



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
You fail to substantiate this point with Scripture...

Acts 13:48 illustrates when the Gentiles heard Paul and Barnabas preaching, they believed. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This doesn't sound like they got faith on their own perogative does it? Nope. God creates faith. Not you.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Um, no... As stated before, Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9). The gospel is preached "in" every creature (Col 1:23). The gospel is written on every person's heart (Rom 2:14-16). The heavens devlare God's handiwork (Psa 19; Rom 10:18,19). God does not predestine men to hell. Man freely chooses to reject the truth that God has put in them.

No, you mean man rejects the truth that God deserves ALL the glory for everything. And just by you not understanding what I'm saying here proves my point.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Actually, it doesn't... Romans 8:28-30 refers to the corporate body of Christ. Another discussion I guess...

To YOU it doesn't. Another discussion will not get you to open your eyes and ears. Only God can do this.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Hint, Hint... Paul prays for boldness to preach the mystery. Do you have any idea what Paul is speaking of? Take a look at my siggy for further... :D

--Jeremy

Its a mystery alright. Funny how Paul over and over explains the Gospel to the 1st century churches. A lot of them still didn't get it.


Kinda like today.

Clete
March 23rd, 2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

lost anomaly

As Clete pointed out here of his opinions of Calvinism, I challenge you to seek out the truth for yourself. I've looked over those links provided by Clete and they are of an open theist's view of Calvinism. In other words, you're getting the oppositions' perspective. Nothing wrong with reading it, but try looking at the sovereignty of God and His abounding grace from a Calvinist's perspective. Take a look at http://www.mslick.com/. He has some interesting reading from the Calvinist school of thought. My friend Clete rejects a lot of the truths that Calvinism holds to. And he is wrong in that it is based wholly on Scripture and not of some book author as open theism is.

So I challenge you to seek Him. Pray to Him to show you the truth. The Word is sufficient to show you this as well. Works by Boyd, Sanders, Bob Hill, Chuck Stanley, or any other author are more opinionated at best. Steer clear of false teachers. Seek God for who He is by reading His Word. Read the epistles. Start with Romans. They are full of truths of how God deserves all glory due Him. He is Sovereign above all things. He has chosen whom He pleases for His glory. His grace is irresistable and unattainable by ourselves without His spirit.

Vaya con dios.......

Interesting the differnece between us. I argue against Calvinism not Calvinists, you argue against Open Theists not Open Theism. :think:

Turbo
March 23rd, 2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Didn't we just beat this dead horse??? You've talked yourself into believing this so much you can't see what the passage is really saying. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN.
*Acts9_12Out*,

"God predetermined that we would beat this dead horse. I hope he hasn't predetermined that we will do it again. God has predetermined that you would believe this way, so there's nothing you or I can do about it. Perhaps He has predetermined to open your ears at some point in our future."

Swordsman, if my interpretation of your statement in error, I hope that God has predetermined that you will explain to me how.

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

*Acts9_12Out*,

"God predetermined that we would beat this dead horse. I hope he hasn't predetermined that we will do it again. God has predetermined that you would believe this way, so there's nothing you or I can do about it. Perhaps He has predetermined to open your ears at some point in our future."

Swordsman, if my interpretation of your statement in error, I hope that God has predetermined that you will explain to me how.

And you're a moderator. I would expect a little more leadership qualities flowing out of you. Nonetheless, you mock because you do not believe.

Clete
March 23rd, 2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

And you're a moderator. I would expect a little more leadership qualities flowing out of you. Nonetheless, you mock because you do not believe.
Turbo's point is valid and brilliant! It is a point that I have made to you countless times and you continually ignore it or blow it off (which I suppose you must have been predestined to do, right?)
If Turbo's comments are simple mockery then demonstrate how his logic is flawed. You won't because you can't! Calvinists must all believe that God predestined them to lose debate after debate because according to Calvinism EVERYTHING is predestined.

What did the Calvinist say after breaking his leg?

Boy! I'm glad that's over with! :chuckle:

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I wouldn't have told that corny joke, but it was predestined! :crackup:

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Turbo's point is valid and brilliant!

Of course you believe this. He is of the same "sheep" you are.


It is a point that I have made to you countless times and you continually ignore it or blow it off (which I suppose you must have been predestined to do, right?)

Its time someone stand up to false satanic doctrine that is infiltrating the Christian community. I am called not to tolerate false teachings. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

I gotta be blunt here - Open theism is pleasure in unrighteousness.


If Turbo's comments are simple mockery then demonstrate how his logic is flawed. You won't because you can't! Calvinists must all believe that God predestined them to lose debate after debate because according to Calvinism EVERYTHING is predestined.

LOL. God doesn't destine His people to debate anything. The truth is not a debatable issue. It speaks for itself. Yet you reject it. Then again, it's man nature to reject God.


What did the Calvinist say after breaking his leg?

Boy! I'm glad that's over with! :chuckle:

:ha: What does God say after an open theist prays to Him?

I'd answer your prayer but I don't know what is going to happen.

Clete
March 23rd, 2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Of course you believe this. He is of the same "sheep" you are.
I also believe it because he's right.


Its time someone stand up to false satanic doctrine that is infiltrating the Christian community. I am called not to tolerate false teachings. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
There you go contradicting your own belief system again!
You speak as if your have free will, but Calvinism says that we do not have free will, that everything that happens has been predestined since before the foundation of the world. So which is it?
And by the way, the scripture you quote can be just as easily applied to Calvinism. The difference would be that Open Theism can't trace it's roots back to Aristotle and Plato.


I gotta be blunt here - Open theism is pleasure in unrighteousness.
You are an ignorant fool! Baseless accusations that fly in the face of all reason and logic won't convince anybody. When have I or any open theist taken pleasure in unrighteousness. We haven't and you know it! On the contrary! It is open theist who start threads like 'Nicer than God (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13449)'. A thread which posts an article written by an open theist and a thread which not one single open theist on this board would disagree with in the slightest.


LOL. God doesn't destine His people to debate anything. The truth is not a debatable issue. It speaks for itself. Yet you reject it. Then again, it's man nature to reject God.
Really? Are you sure? Who are you to redefine what Calvinism is?
I suggest you go and do your homework. Calvinism not only teaches that God predestined people to debate but absolutely every single event that takes place! If He didn't then something new would happen that God hadn't already seen and that would be a change in God and God would explode or something because of course God cannot change at all in any way!
If you are going to debate Calvinism, you might at least make sure you are familiar with its teachings.


:ha: What does God say after an open theist prays to Him?

I'd answer your prayer but I don't know what is going to happen.
Nice try, but it just doesn't seem to have as good a ring to it as mine, does it?
Further, at least an open theist would have a logical reason to pray. A Calvinist, on the other hand, has no reason to pray at all! Your prayers can't change anything right? It's all been predestined to happen the way its going to happen regardless of your prayers so why bother?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
March 23rd, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I also believe it because he's right.

He's also a sinner and believes in the teachings of man.


There you go contradicting your own belief system again!

You mean I'm contradicting YOUR belief system.


You speak as if your have free will, but Calvinism says that we do not have free will, that everything that happens has been predestined since before the foundation of the world. So which is it?

So does not having free will mean that I have to tolerate any false doctrines? Surely this isn't what you mean. I was very clear in what I said and the passage from 2 Thessalonians. OPEN YOUR EYES CLETE.


And by the way, the scripture you quote can be just as easily applied to Calvinism. The difference would be that Open Theism can't trace it's roots back to Aristotle and Plato.

And then eventually back to the apostles. Calvin didn't write any of the books in the NT. Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians, Hebrews 2, etc.........

Open theism can be traced back to "The God Who Risks". That sounds like some strong delusion sent by God to authors such as John Sanders, the liberal OVer himself.



You are an ignorant fool!

Matthew 5:22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

Then again, you probably are not my brother.


Baseless accusations that fly in the face of all reason and logic won't convince anybody.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It seems Bob Hill has already reeled you in enough.


When have I or any open theist taken pleasure in unrighteousness. We haven't and you know it! On the contrary! It is open theist who start threads like 'Nicer than God (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13449)'. A thread which posts an article written by an open theist and a thread which not one single open theist on this board would disagree with in the slightest.

What do you want me to do? Give you a cookie?


Really? Are you sure? Who are you to redefine what Calvinism is?
I suggest you go and do your homework. Calvinism not only teaches that God predestined people to debate but absolutely every single event that takes place! If He didn't then something new would happen that God hadn't already seen and that would be a change in God and God would explode or something because of course God cannot change at all in any way!
If you are going to debate Calvinism, you might at least make sure you are familiar with its teachings.

Seriously Clete. Do not draw conclusions into something that you naturally reject. Once you begin to know the truth, it is nonsense to argue with the like of yourself. God does not approve of debate. God's Scriptures are not a political platform as the OVers see it. You see what I'm saying? It's pointless. The truth will never be revealed unto God chooses to. Then again, that last sentence completely goes against your belief. Oh well. Its a lost cause.


Further, at least an open theist would have a logical reason to pray. A Calvinist, on the other hand, has no reason to pray at all! Your prayers can't change anything right? It's all been predestined to happen the way its going to happen regardless of your prayers so why bother?

Is that a quote from Enyart? Sure sounds like something he'd say.

LightSon
March 23rd, 2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

I gotta be blunt here - Open theism is pleasure in unrighteousness.



Whoa. Bluntness observed, but that's harsh Swordsman. I'm not an Open Theist, but I've observed that they are trying to honor the Lord as best they are able. I haven't seen any predilection on their part towards unrighteousness. I think your charge is unfair.

Why can't we debate this issue without launching personal insults?


Originally posted by Swordsman

LOL. God doesn't destine His people to debate anything. The truth is not a debatable issue.


I was under the impression that, under Calvinism, God ordains (or predestines) EVERYTHING. So is that not true?

God_Is_Truth
March 23rd, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by LightSon I was under the impression that, under Calvinism, God ordains (or predestines) EVERYTHING. So is that not true?

“Nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which He has fore-ordained” (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect. 3).

i'd say it's true. what say you Swordsman?

*Acts9_12Out*
March 23rd, 2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

I don't feel like jumping through hoops with you today. Call it a quote or a paraphrase, whatever. He brought back that verse in Isaiah to His day.

Interesting... Don't you agree that if Christ would have meant "All thy children" He would have said, "All thy children"? Instead, Christ said "All are taught by God," not just "All thy children." There are many examples of OT "quotes" in the NT that have dramatically different meanings. For example, feel free to compare Matthew 2:15 with Hosea 11:1. Matthew "quotes" Hosea 11:1. Is Matthew really "quoting" Hosea or not?


All isn't everybody. Isaiah shows you this. "All thy children" is God's children. Not everybody. You can't really draw semantics into this. There's really no argument at this point.

All is everybody. Christ shows you this because He changed the Isaiah "quote" from "All thy children" to a universal All. It really is quite simple.


OK. Whatever. Only God can speak the truth to you. Not anyone else. Only He can open your eyes. He did for me.

You fail to address the passage yet again. Christ enlightens every man, not just you and your elect.


Didn't we just beat this dead horse??? You've talked yourself into believing this so much you can't see what the passage is really saying. OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN.

I simply read the passage. You are the one who attempts to convolute Scripture by importing your own ideas. OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE.


I'm happy that you gave me your stamp of approval. :banana:

You're welcome...


Acts 13:48 illustrates when the Gentiles heard Paul and Barnabas preaching, they believed. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This doesn't sound like they got faith on their own perogative does it? Nope. God creates faith. Not you.

Interesting... If you'd like, I will exegete Acts 13:48. This is also quite simple. Infact, the short version is to back up to verse 46...


Acts 13:46
13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

These Jews "judged themselves" unworthy. Those in Acts 13:48 "appointed themselves" unto eternal life by freely accepting the gospel. I can provide the extended version which deals with the middle voice of the verb if you'd like...


No, you mean man rejects the truth that God deserves ALL the glory for everything. And just by you not understanding what I'm saying here proves my point.

No, I meant what God's Word says. The gospel was "preached in every creature" (Col 1:23). The law was written on every person's heart (Rom 2). The law and the gospel are for everyone, not just your elect supposedly chosen before the foundation of the world...


To YOU it doesn't. Another discussion will not get you to open your eyes and ears. Only God can do this.

Only if God predestined my eyes to be opened. Again, Romans 8:28-30 is corporate. Feel free to establish that it is speaking of individuals....


Its a mystery alright. Funny how Paul over and over explains the Gospel to the 1st century churches. A lot of them still didn't get it. Kinda like today.

What's important is, if you as one of God's elect understands the mystery. Do you share Paul's desire that He states in Ephesians 3:9? How can you if you don't even know what "the mystery" is?

Good Luck,

--Jeremy

Apollo
March 23rd, 2004, 03:11 PM
Clete,

I said…


If the Christian god has made rejecting him a crime, punishable by death, how can we even pretend that we have a “free will” to accept or reject him?

…and you replied


The fact is that we do choose, whether to our own destruction or otherwise.

Adam’s free will decision to eat of the tree was done with full knowledge of the threat, yet, he ate. Odd decision. He had no reason to “doubt” God’s warning, but chose to ignore it. What’s the object lesson of that? That Adam was “dummer’n dum,” or was “outing” latent rebellious tendencies? He was supposedly “perfect.” Yet, the impression remains that we should doubt not only his loyalty, but his reasoning skills.

He ate. He exercised free will. He sided with Eve. He dared question God’s monopoly on “free will.” A possible object lesson is that threats of punishment are insufficient to force a man of principle to commit treason against himself. In that sense, Adam was a patriot of freedom, no different from Patrick Henry. Another possible object lesson is that God is God, and we’re not. How this obvious fact could ever have been lost on Adam, with no biblical explanation, is a mystery.

Was God testing Adam’s loyalty? Or was Adam testing the limits of his freedom? If so, now we know. Man was never free. Not Adam, and especially not us. Free will is the right to say “no,” otherwise our wills are not free. Man has a legal term for threats of destruction. The term is “extortion” -- the modus operandi of the Christian god.

Coerced confessions are not only not admissible in a human court, they are forbidden under biblical law and the New Testament law of love. It appears you have mistaken “God the Father” for God “The Godfather.” Vito would hold a gun to his victim’s head, tell him to sign “or else,” and call that a choice, too. If man does not have the freedom to accept or reject the Christian god without fear of reprisal, we are slaves in the traditional sense. "Blessing" for obedience and "cursing" for disobedience is how you train a dog, not a man.

Someone asked what Calvinism is. This is it: Christian theology’s most vocal opponent of the myth of free will. If you choose to exercise your even marginally "god-given free will” and commit the "thought crime" of thinking for yourself, you will be destroyed. That is not the "Calvinist" god. That is the "Christian" God. Not much of a choice, either.

smaller
March 23rd, 2004, 05:42 PM
It is God's Will and predetermination that people use their freewill to argue with each other, and so shall it be forevermore....

oh, and don't forget to damn your neighbor to burn in torture forever today...

Clete
March 23rd, 2004, 09:08 PM
Apollo,

If you do not repent, you will burn in Hell forever! And, no I'm not making a joke!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. How's that smaller? Oh, and by the way, the same applies to you as well.

Granite
March 23rd, 2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Apollo,

If you do not repent, you will burn in Hell forever! And, no I'm not making a joke!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. How's that smaller? Oh, and by the way, the same applies to you as well.

Clete, no offense but this seems like an extremely lazy response to Apollo's post.

smaller
March 23rd, 2004, 11:43 PM
The hand of the accuser upon your's is no surprise Clete. You are it's slave.

Clete
March 24th, 2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Clete, no offense but this seems like an extremely lazy response to Apollo's post.

Apollo did nothing but repeat himself with a larger number of words this time. More of a response is unessesary.
The post I gave not only responded to Apollo but to smaller as well. I killed two birds with one stone! What you call lazy I call efficient! ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
March 24th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by smaller

The hand of the accuser upon your's is no surprise Clete. You are it's slave.

It is God's law that convicts both you and Apollo. If you are saying that God's hand is upon me then I'll take that as a compliment and urge you to take it as yet another reason to repent.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
March 24th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Shrugging off Apollo's posts as a "house of cards" strikes me as a head in the sand approach, that's all.

lost anomaly
March 24th, 2004, 03:34 PM
Swordsman and Clete,

Thank you both for the resources you have provided. Calvinism has been an interesting religion to research. I must say though I am still slightly confused, but with a little more research I think I can solve that on my own.

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom? Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him? We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us? It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father. If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell?

Clete
March 24th, 2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

Swordsman and Clete,

Thank you both for the resources you have provided. Calvinism has been an interesting religion to research. I must say though I am still slightly confused, but with a little more research I think I can solve that on my own.
Your welcome, and I'm sure you can as well! If you have any questions let me know!
Oh wait a minute...


One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom?
Good question! The answer is He wouldn't!


Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him?
Another very insightful question! Again, He wouldn't!


We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us?
A veritable fountain of great questions! He does!


It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father.
Well that's because it doesn't make sense! :thumb:


If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell?
I assume you mean arbitrarily.
He wouldn't of course, God is just and shall not the Judge of all the Earth do rightly?

BRILLIANT QUESTIONS!
It will be interesting to see if Swordsman will be able to deal with them as easily.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
March 24th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Shrugging off Apollo's posts as a "house of cards" strikes me as a head in the sand approach, that's all.

granite,

I already responded to Apollo's point the last time he made it. He responded by repeating himself. What else do you want me to say to him that hasn't already been said? The bottom line is that Apollo wants a world where he can do what he wants with no consequences which would render life meaningless and even if that weren't so God is the creator and He didn't set it up that way. Apollo as a member of the creation has no grounds to whine about it. He can either do things God's way or He will be sent to Hell forever. The CHOICE is his.
Feel better now?

Resting in Him,
Clete


Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
March 24th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom? Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him? We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us? It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father. If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell? Those are great question, lost anomaly! I'm glad to see that you recognize that Calvinism does not accurately describe the True and Living God, who is revealed in the Bible.


The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; Deuteronomy 30:19

God_Is_Truth
March 24th, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

Swordsman and Clete,

Thank you both for the resources you have provided. Calvinism has been an interesting religion to research. I must say though I am still slightly confused, but with a little more research I think I can solve that on my own.

One thing I don't understand is the predestined part. (1)Why would God only allow certain Elect into his kingdom? (2)Why would he predestined only a few to come home to him? (3)We are his creation, why wouldn't he want all of us? (4)It doesn't make sense to me why we cannot choose to be with our maker and Father. (5)If God loves everyone why would he choose to send someone to hell?

i'm not a calvinist but here go my answers anyways that i believe calvinists would say.

*all answers here are what i believe calvinists would respond with. they are not my own personal beliefs*

1) there are no "certain elect" only the "elect" whom God showed his irresistible grace to.

2) his sovereign right and since all people deserve hell anyways who are we to question God?

3) everything is done for God's glory. God doesn't get lonely so it's not like he created us for fellowship or anything like that. the problem really is that man is totaly depraved and would never want God on his own so God must show him his irresistible grace and save him. God has the right to save whoever he wants and the fact that he has decided to save any is simply amazing! amazing grace....

4) total depravity.

5) God doesn't love everyone and proved it by only dying for the elect. they are the only ones he loves.

well, that's what i believe a calvinist would say. i'll probably get flamed for this but what the hey. :D

In Christ,

God_Is_Truth

smaller
March 25th, 2004, 08:18 AM
Clete



It is God's law that convicts both you and Apollo. If you are saying that God's hand is upon me then I'll take that as a compliment and urge you to take it as yet another reason to repent.

You do know who the accuser of others is Clete? It is not God.

God's Law is very specific. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Anyone who does not do so is LAWLESS. When you condemn others to burn in fire forever you are LAWLESS.

Calvinism and Arminianism adherents are LAWLESS in this respect and as such represent the greatest form of hatred.

Apollo
March 25th, 2004, 08:31 AM
Clete:

I already responded to Apollo's point the last time he made it. He responded by repeating himself. What else do you want me to say to him that hasn't already been said?

You haven’t said anything. All you’re doing is stomping your foot. I said, where there is a law, there is no free will. I didn’t say there was “no” law, or that the law is bad, or that I want a world where I can do whatever I want with no consequences. You are quoting yourself and attributing it to me. Is that how you “win” all your arguments? By pulling the string attached to the side of your neck and squawking, “Repent, or burn! Repent, or burn!” like a Chatty Cathy Doll?

If a will is limited, it’s not free. I said that the law limits man’s will. If limiting man’s will is not the point of law, the law is pointless. I am saying that where there is a law, there can “be” no free will. Threats of punishment are not only the basis of our legal and prison system, it is the basis of the Christian religion. Adam’s will was not “free” if exercising his will cost him his life.

Would you agree that the law is by nature “coercive”? Why is a law necessary? Most laws are obeyed voluntarily. Most of us don’t need a “law” against stealing in order to not steal. If we are obeying the law voluntarily, the law has no affect. Honest citizens are, literally, above the law. The law against stealing only affects thieves. The thief may “choose” to steal, but there is no way his decision is “free’ if the “price” is five-to-ten with no chance of parole. For those contemplating theft, but deterred by the law, obviously their wills have been “hindered” by the law. A will compelled by the force of law, and the threat of punishment, cannot be free. The will is only free if acting without fear of reprisal.

You are implying that if the Godfather holds a gun to my head, and makes me an offer I can’t refuse, that I’m free to choose to submit and live or free to resist and be murdered. The “choice” to live or die is mine, therefore the Godfather’s offer is valid. The freedom to die is not much of an offer, but history is full of heroes and patriots and even martyrs making such “choices” when forced to choose between slavery and freedom. Even Christians can admire those who on principle choose death over life, except when exercising the same “right to choose” when “crossing” the Christian Godfather.

Having a “choice” is not the test of free will. Free will can only exist if choices are made without fear of reprisal. Is the Pepsi Challenge “free” if choosing Coke (perhaps your preferred beverage) is made a capital crime? It is sheer stubbornness to maintain that a law forbidding Coke has not influenced your decision to choose Pepsi. It is likewise folly to insist that Adam was in any way “free” to choose between eating and not eating “forbidden” fruit, any more than you are “free” to choose “forbidden” soft drinks in a Pepsi-controlled police state. Paying our federal income taxes is, supposedly, “voluntary,” too. We don’t “have” to pay our taxes, but we understand that “voluntary” does not mean we are “free” to not pay our taxes. “Voluntary” in this case means we are free to go to jail.

If God’s offer to Adam was legitimate, and Adam’s will was free, Adam’s decision to eat or not eat would have carried no threat of reprisal. True freedom, like true love, is unconditional, or it isn’t free. Did the Christian god create a free man, or a slave? If he created a race of slaves, he is worthy of neither our obedience or our love.

This is not a critique of the nature of the "true" god, but of the mythological "gangster"-god of Christianity.

smaller
March 25th, 2004, 08:41 AM
Most excellent argument Apollo. Most excellent.

I have put up many times in this forum that only God has freewill. If the will of men is LESS then by simple comparative definition it is LESS than FREE.

The Law provides another example of this LESS than free position.

It is also a certainty that FREE will has only been able to produce SIN. If said "wills" were truly FREE they should be able to produce a NON sin effect as well, but these supposedly "free" wills have NOT been able to so produce.

Clete
March 25th, 2004, 02:52 PM
You can play semantic games all day long. The end result is the same.
"Behold I set before you this day, life and death, therfore choose life!"

Whether you like it or not if you do not choose to be on God's side you do choose to be His enemy. If that's the side you want to be on, so be it, just don't blame God for your stupidity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
March 25th, 2004, 03:15 PM
Semantic games are what people who eternally damn other people for what is also in them use Clete. I need no such games.

Your "choice" is what "saves" you? What are you now? A SELF ATONEMENT believer?

They should put all you guys in a room and, you know, see if you could find agreement.

I suspect the lockup would remain indefinate.

Apollo
March 25th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Not so smug, though. Come out from behind the skirts of your god and fight like a man.

Re: your proof text, as far as I'm concerned, even if taken literally, the God of the Hebrews is not speaking to me, he is speaking, or was speaking, to a band of nomadic goat herders, who at one point spent forty years lost in the desert. As for being an enemy of the Christian god, I do not regard this god as my enemy. Make love, not war.

Why, I wonder, is the Christian god so mad? Well, things didn’t work out. You plan and you plan, and it looks like this. Bummer. Or, things did work out, but god planned for failure, and called his name Jesus. (Is Jesus Plan A, or Plan B? Kinda hard to tell.) Now, his son is dead. Is he satisfied? No. He’s still mad. He got mad, and stayed mad. He is so mad, he has a special day set aside when even the dead won’t be safe. If you happen to p**s this god off – even if you never had the pleasure of actually meeting him, or never heard of the guy – you, and all his other “enemies” (the world), will spend eternity being punished in or near (is lakefront property in demand in hell?) a Lake of Fire, plus other remedial attractions, such as the world famous Isolation Room. If you’re lucky, maybe he’ll only “annihilate” you. I was raised on Marvel Comics, but, I dunno. Sounds like you’re worshipping Doctor Doom.

Apollo
March 26th, 2004, 09:01 AM
It is also a certainty that FREE will has only been able to produce SIN. If said "wills" were truly FREE they should be able to produce a NON sin effect as well, but these supposedly "free" wills have NOT been able to so produce.

Smaller, by "sin" you mean a “tendency” toward moral failure? I think it is fair to say that “some” wills (even at times, “our” wills) are capable of producing non-sin effects. The positive side of the law is that you cannot be charged with a crime if (obviously) no crime has been committed. No broken law, no sin. All thoughts or actions that conform to the requirements of the law do not produce sin effects, and are therefore “holy.”

If you are within the law, the law has no power over you. In that sense, the law protects us (e.g., the police can’t pull us over without reasonable cause). I can definitely say that, as a technical matter, even as a non-Christian, I keep the laws of the Christian god vastly more often than not. When keeping the Christian law, I am immune to, or above, the Christian law. I’m not saying I don’t “sin” (“thought” crime issues), or that I’m “perfect” according to the Christian definition of perfection.

But, hells bells, how hard is it to keep the Ten Commandments? Anybody around here planning on killing anybody? Any of us committing adultery? Not me. Been a good boy for over 25 years. Do I need a law punishing infidelity? No. Faithfulness to my wife is my choice. Much confusion (especially among “Christians) could be avoided if Christianity were understood as an adjective, not a noun.

Clete
March 26th, 2004, 12:42 PM
Apollo,

What alternative would you suggest.
You want a world where there is no consequences to ones actions, please tell me how that would work itself out on a day to day basis.
If I wanted to steal everything you own for example, should I be allowed to do so with no fear of reprisal?
What if I wanted your wife to work as a slave and I had the ability to physically force her to do it. Should I be allowed to that without worrying what you thought about it?
Go on, please tell me how this "I can do what ever I want" world of your would work. I really want to know because I don't believe you've ever thought it through that far. I believe that you hate God and have found a convenient excuse to blame Him for a situation that you find distasteful but that which happens to give life meaning. I believe that life the way you think it should work wouldn't be worth living at all and that for God to have done it any other way would have been a waste of time and energy.
Prove me wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. By the way, I’m sorry about having taken so long to respond. I'll try to better!

billwald
March 26th, 2004, 01:08 PM
The bottom line of Calvinism (somewhat different than Reformed theology) is that God decided who would be "saved" before he created the universe. The problem with both is the unintended consequences of this theory.

If God IS love, then the logical conclusion is that everyone is "grandfathered" into Heaven and those who don't want to be there must opt out. The "question" becomes, "What must I do to become unsaved?" This concept is against human nature because humans like to control other humans and because of the "follow the money trail" concept. I have communicated with some Christians who seem more interested in seeing the people who disagree with them in Hell than getting themselves to Heaven. Particularly Reconstructionists/Theonomists? (Any on this list?)

The basic error of the Reformed confessions is the assumption that the Mosiac Covenant applies to gentiles outside of Israel. The only purpose of the Mosiac Covenant was to provide a social contract for the people living in the land. It had NO eternal consequences. ALL the blessings and curses were temporal.

The Main story line in the Bible is that God has chosen people for himself - for Heaven. The Exodus through Deut event is an incidental sub plot that has NOTHING to do with the main theme. Unfortunately, St Paul didn't understand this.

So under the proper Biblical interpretation <G> The purpose of evangelism is to identify people who are alread chosen by God for Heaven and welcome them into the Church. The Church is God's social contract for his post-resurrection people.

Granite
March 26th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by billwald

The bottom line of Calvinism (somewhat different than Reformed theology) is that God decided who would be "saved" before he created the universe. The problem with both is the unintended consequences of this theory.

If God IS love, then the logical conclusion is that everyone is "grandfathered" into Heaven and those who don't want to be there must opt out. The "question" becomes, "What must I do to become unsaved?" This concept is against human nature because humans like to control other humans and because of the "follow the money trail" concept. I have communicated with some Christians who seem more interested in seeing the people who disagree with them in Hell than getting themselves to Heaven. Particularly Reconstructionists/Theonomists? (Any on this list?)

The basic error of the Reformed confessions is the assumption that the Mosiac Covenant applies to gentiles outside of Israel. The only purpose of the Mosiac Covenant was to provide a social contract for the people living in the land. It had NO eternal consequences. ALL the blessings and curses were temporal.

The Main story line in the Bible is that God has chosen people for himself - for Heaven. The Exodus through Deut event is an incidental sub plot that has NOTHING to do with the main theme. Unfortunately, St Paul didn't understand this.

So under the proper Biblical interpretation <G> The purpose of evangelism is to identify people who are alread chosen by God for Heaven and welcome them into the Church. The Church is God's social contract for his post-resurrection people.

Former Reconstructionist. This exact attitude is part of what burned me on CR.

smaller
March 26th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Greetings Apollo


Smaller, by "sin" you mean a “tendency” toward moral failure?

Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness." The Word classifies "lawlessness" as NOT LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR. (multiple texts available.)


I think it is fair to say that “some” wills (even at times, “our” wills) are capable of producing non-sin effects.

Again from a Word perspective what you present is not possible. A. ALL have sinned. B. All HAVE sin. (let me know if you need the texts)


The positive side of the law is that you cannot be charged with a crime if (obviously) no crime has been committed. No broken law, no sin.

Romans 2:12 says otherwise. Paul also said that SIN REIGNED from Adam until Moses. So there was certainly sin without The Law.


All thoughts or actions that conform to the requirements of the law do not produce sin effects, and are therefore “holy.”

Agreed. Glad to see you insert "thoughts." Many equate sin only to acts.


If you are within the law, the law has no power over you.

The Law is not against The Spirit, nor is it against mankind. Quite the contrary.


In that sense, the law protects us (e.g., the police can’t pull us over without reasonable cause). I can definitely say that, as a technical matter, even as a non-Christian, I keep the laws of the Christian god vastly more often than not. When keeping the Christian law, I am immune to, or above, the Christian law. I’m not saying I don’t “sin” (“thought” crime issues), or that I’m “perfect” according to the Christian definition of perfection.

For a professed non you are demonstrating quite a good handle on the concepts.


But, hells bells, how hard is it to keep the Ten Commandments? Anybody around here planning on killing anybody? Any of us committing adultery? Not me. Been a good boy for over 25 years. Do I need a law punishing infidelity? No. Faithfulness to my wife is my choice. Much confusion (especially among “Christians) could be avoided if Christianity were understood as an adjective, not a noun.

As previously stated, the act of "conformance" does not make "immunity." From a Word perspective sin is still present with ALL.

Agreed on the adjective portion.

enjoy!

smaller

Clete
March 26th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by billwald

The bottom line of Calvinism (somewhat different than Reformed theology) is that God decided who would be "saved" before he created the universe. The problem with both is the unintended consequences of this theory.

If God IS love, then the logical conclusion is that everyone is "grandfathered" into Heaven and those who don't want to be there must opt out. The "question" becomes, "What must I do to become unsaved?" This concept is against human nature because humans like to control other humans and because of the "follow the money trail" concept. I have communicated with some Christians who seem more interested in seeing the people who disagree with them in Hell than getting themselves to Heaven. Particularly Reconstructionists/Theonomists? (Any on this list?)

The basic error of the Reformed confessions is the assumption that the Mosiac Covenant applies to gentiles outside of Israel. The only purpose of the Mosiac Covenant was to provide a social contract for the people living in the land. It had NO eternal consequences. ALL the blessings and curses were temporal.

The Main story line in the Bible is that God has chosen people for himself - for Heaven. The Exodus through Deut event is an incidental sub plot that has NOTHING to do with the main theme. Unfortunately, St Paul didn't understand this.

So under the proper Biblical interpretation <G> The purpose of evangelism is to identify people who are alread chosen by God for Heaven and welcome them into the Church. The Church is God's social contract for his post-resurrection people.

Okay! :kookoo:


Hey, I have an idea! :idea:
Let's reject all objective truth found in Scripture and totally make up our own interpretation of the Bible from scatch. But here's the good part! Even though we are going to totally rip all of Paul's writtings out of the Bible, we'll still call ourselves "christian" so that nobody will think we're totally out of our minds!
Anybody with me!
:devil: :devil: :devil:

Turbo
March 27th, 2004, 12:23 AM
:wave: Can we preach a gospel that sounds just like Paul's while we attempt to discredit him? It's OK with me if we have to discredit Luke, Peter, the Holy Spirit, or whomever else necessary in order to thoroughly dismiss Paul.

Clete
March 27th, 2004, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

:wave: Can we preach a gospel that sounds just like Paul's while we attempt to discredit him? It's OK with me if we have to discredit Luke, Peter, the Holy Spirit, or whomever else necessary in order to thoroughly dismiss Paul.

OOOH! GOOOOD IDEA!
But we must keep calling ourselves Christians. Because, you know, just because we are totally redefining the word doesn't mean we can't still use it! :angel:

Apollo
March 27th, 2004, 07:43 AM
You want a world where there is no consequences to ones actions, please tell me how that would work itself out on a day to day basis.

I never said that. I never said that I wanted a world without consequences, or that law doesn’t exist in the real world. You keep “saying” that’s what I’m saying, but that’s because you’re too busy reading between the lines to hear what I’m saying. I said, free will ends where the law begins. Where there is a law, there is no free will. If you’re going to argue, argue about that, okay?

Clete, do you need a law to “compel” you to not steal my things? Are you “not stealing” because stealing is “against the law?” Or do you not steal because as a spiritually enlightened human being you know that stealing causes harm, and is wrong? Not wrong because there is a law; wrong because stealing causes harm. Anyone who needs a “law” to tell them not to steal is a thief in their heart.

By making a law limiting Adam’s options before the fact, the Christian god “presumed” Adam’s guilt, or at least “anticipated” Adam’s guilt. No “crime” had been committed, yet the Christian god’s first recorded words to his perfect creation is a LAW, limiting Adam’s will. God said, “You shall not eat,” assuming Adam would, or at least might, choose to eat, if it were up to him, which clearly it was not. So, Adam’s freedom was limited. From every other tree he could eat -- but not this one. That’s “the law,” and the only purpose of the law is to limit the will. The object lesson of paradise lost and the Fall of man, according to Christian mythology, is that god is god, and man isn’t. But, what evidence is there, even in the Christian Scriptures, that god’s “godship” was ever questioned prior to Adam exercising free will?

Did the Christian god have reason to believe that Adam couldn’t be trusted with the power to discern good and evil? If Adam couldn’t choose freely (at least not without fear of reprisal), then neither can we. If NO one has ever had this freedom, then, at least according to the Christian Scriptures, no one has EVER had a “free will.” If man does not have the freedom to discern good and evil for himself without fear of reprisal, Christian theology is “plantation” theology. Christ has "liberated" us from the penalty of the law, designed by the law-giver to teach us obedience, a lesson unnecessary if man's will was free.

The law is for the guilty, Clete, not the innocent. God made a law in anticipation of Adam’s little war of independence. He knew Adam would eat, he made a law, and Adam ate, right on schedule. In the “real” world of law enforcement, this is called a “sting” operation, and is unlawful. God knew Adam would “fail,” and prepared a law in advance in order to “teach” Adam that, evidence to the contrary, he did NOT have a free will.

As long as we can agree that free will ends where the law begins, and that biblical Christianity teaches that man's will is subordinated (inferior) to god's will, there is no argument.

Apollo
March 27th, 2004, 10:29 AM
Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness." The Word classifies "lawlessness" as NOT LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR.

So, everything a non-Christian thinks and does is sin, even if they love their neighbors and keep the law?


A. ALL have sinned. B. All HAVE sin.

And all non-Christians are SINNING (being incapable of NOT sinning), whether or not they are actually breaking the law. Even if a non-Christian moves beyond the law by keeping the law, works of charity are sinful?


Romans 2:12 says otherwise. Paul also said that SIN REIGNED from Adam until Moses. So there was certainly sin without The Law.

If there was no law until Moses, what was Adam’s “crime”? No law, no law-breaking.

Christian theologians have created an impossible dilemma. Even if (theoretically) man keeps God’s law, unless accompanied by “faith,” man is doomed. In which case, the law is superfluous, and law-keeping redundant. We will be judged at the Final Judgment by a law we are 1) incapable of keeping, and 2) even if we manage to keep the law, without the wildcard of “faith” (in the exclusive truth claims of Christianity), we will be judged as law-breakers, anyway.

In such a system of belief, if a savior didn’t exist, one would have to be invented.

Swordsman
March 27th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Just a word of warning to those who are seeking answers about Calvinism. None of these posts as of late are from any Calvinists.

It's like asking John Kerry what he think the Republican party boils down to. Nonsense. Do not accept the oppositions view as truth.

There now. Clete, Turbo, Apollo, smaller, billwald: back to work.:D

smaller
March 27th, 2004, 11:08 AM
Your final conclusion is no different than Mr. Arminius Swordsman. You limit God's Sovereignty as well, just in a different way.

smaller
March 27th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Greetings Apollo


So, everything a non-Christian thinks and does is sin, even if they love their neighbors and keep the law?

Not at all. In love to our neighbors as ourselves the entire law is fulfilled in us.

These observances will STILL remain in the FLESH.

A. ALL have sinned. B. All HAVE sin.


And all non-Christians are SINNING (being incapable of NOT sinning), whether or not they are actually breaking the law. Even if a non-Christian moves beyond the law by keeping the law, works of charity are sinful?

One can fulfill the law and STILL have sin indwelling/present. SIN is a CONSTANT RESIDENT in the FLESH whether the acts of SIN are seen or not. (remember your thoughts)


If there was no law until Moses, what was Adam’s “crime”? No law, no law-breaking.

You tickled upon a great truth when you saw that the COMMAND from God in the Garden STIRRED UP sin in Adam. Sin REIGNED from Adam until MOSES. Why? Because AFTER the law was given SIN was clearly REVEALED in ALL. The Law is THE REVEALER of SIN indwelling. The COMMAND only arouses it. The LAW reveals it.


Christian theologians have created an impossible dilemma. Even if (theoretically) man keeps God’s law, unless accompanied by “faith,” man is doomed.

Christian theology has failed miserably to DISCERN the difference between sin and MANkind. They are NOT THE SAME. God has BOUND ALL with "disobedience" but these are NOT THE SAME. Some WORD applies to the invisible realm of disobedience, and some to MANkind.

You are correct when you observe the IMPOSSIBILITY of the situation. John, in 1 John, set up what I call a DEMON TRAP. One the one hand we CANNOT SAY WE HAVE NO SIN....and as soon as we say that he doubles back and says that the one who sins DOES NOT KNOW GOD, nor have they ever. THIS is an impossiblility without SEPARATION between sin indwelling/evil present within us and MANkind itself.

This is a rather difficult concept that is not meant for many to see. I suspect you may be meant to see this.

When a man does see this it becomes EASY to both LOVE ALL and RETAIN the condemnation texts. They apply to separate entities.


In which case, the law is superfluous, and law-keeping redundant.

Not at all. The Law was always written only to THE LAWLESS. The lawless are those things that are present with us. The Law brings THEIR condemnation, not OURS.

The flesh of men who are RULED by the lawless will pay THEIR penalty as far a FLESH is concerned. This is an entirely separate question from their eternal fates.


We will be judged at the Final Judgment by a law we are 1) incapable of keeping, and 2) even if we manage to keep the law, without the wildcard of “faith” (in the exclusive truth claims of Christianity), we will be judged as law-breakers, anyway.

We will certainly have learned from THEM in a first hand experience the meaning of ETERNAL MERCY eh? In this SIN and EVIL are God's servants as well. Get it??? By being ATTACHED to them we EXPERIENCE an ETERNAL ATTIBUTE of God.


In such a system of belief, if a savior didn’t exist, one would have to be invented.

Let's not resort to the classics. You have just read what few have seen.

enjoy!

smaller

Clete
March 27th, 2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Just a word of warning to those who are seeking answers about Calvinism. None of these posts as of late are from any Calvinists.

It's like asking John Kerry what he think the Republican party boils down to. Nonsense. Do not accept the oppositions view as truth.

There now. Clete, Turbo, Apollo, smaller, billwald: back to work.:D

:chuckle:

We are a bit off topic aren't we!

Very clever post Swordsman!
Do you suppose that you were predetined to write it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

LightSon
March 27th, 2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by billwald

The bottom line of Calvinism (somewhat different than Reformed theology) is that God decided who would be "saved" before he created the universe.
How would you briefly describe the difference between Calvinism and Reformed theology? I would have thought they were essentially the same.

Clete
March 27th, 2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by LightSon

How would you briefly describe the difference between Calvinism and Reformed theology? I would have thought they were essentially the same.

You would have thought correctly!

Clete
March 27th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Apollo

I never said that. I never said that I wanted a world without consequences, or that law doesn’t exist in the real world. You keep “saying” that’s what I’m saying, but that’s because you’re too busy reading between the lines to hear what I’m saying. I said, free will ends where the law begins. Where there is a law, there is no free will. If you’re going to argue, argue about that, okay?

"free will ends where the law begins"
What does that mean? I submit that it is meaningless unless you advocate anarchy. I'm not reading in-between the lines, I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion.


Clete, do you need a law to “compel” you to not steal my things? Are you “not stealing” because stealing is “against the law?” Or do you not steal because as a spiritually enlightened human being you know that stealing causes harm, and is wrong? Not wrong because there is a law; wrong because stealing causes harm. Anyone who needs a “law” to tell them not to steal is a thief in their heart.
True, but irrelevant to what we are talking about. Motive doesn't speak to freedom. Whether you refrain from stealing because you don't like to steal or because it is against the law, doesn't matter. One can and does decide whether or not to steal. And, more than that, the choice is not only a real one but it is ours to make. The addition of consequences only adds meaning to the choice, it doesn't obliterate it.


By making a law limiting Adam’s options before the fact, the Christian god “presumed” Adam’s guilt, or at least “anticipated” Adam’s guilt. No “crime” had been committed, yet the Christian god’s first recorded words to his perfect creation is a LAW...
Why do you suppose that is the case?

[qoute]God said, “You shall not eat,” assuming Adam would, or at least might, choose to eat, if it were up to him, which clearly it was not.
The highlighted section show where you contradicted yourself. Are you able to see it?


So, Adam’s freedom was limited. From every other tree he could eat -- but not this one. That’s “the law,” and the only purpose of the law is to limit the will.
This is not the purpose of the law or of God's prohibition of eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Try again. This time you might want to try something that doesn't lead you to insult the God who created you.


The object lesson of paradise lost and the Fall of man, according to Christian mythology, is that god is god, and man isn’t.
Wrong again. Where are you getting this idiotic stuff from?
No object lesson is necessary for man to understand that he did not create himself.


But, what evidence is there, even in the Christian Scriptures, that god’s “godship” was ever questioned prior to Adam exercising free will?
There isn't any! That's why your 'object lesson' hypothesis is ridiculous.


Did the Christian god have reason to believe that Adam couldn’t be trusted with the power to discern good and evil?
No


If Adam couldn’t choose freely (at least not without fear of reprisal), then neither can we.
Here we are back at "its not fair that there are consequences to our actions!"
Let me rephrase my previous question.
What would have been God's alternative in His dealings with Adam? What would have happened if there were no way for Adam to have rebelled against God? If God hadn't given Adam any line to cross, how would you think that the scene in Eden would have played out?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Apollo
March 27th, 2004, 07:44 PM
“In such a system of belief, if a savior didn’t exist, one would have to be invented.”


Let's not resort to the classics.

Not sure what classics you have in mind. Eschatologically, Christianity has painted itself into a corner. Christians are waiting on the return of the king to bail them out, but meanwhile the paint is drying. For the sake of future generations who, much like our present generation, are going to have an even tougher time taking biblical Christianity seriously, what kind of an expiration date should we put on all this? Another two thousand years? Ten? Hard to call someone’s bluff if they never have to show their cards.

You,
Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness."

And I said, “So, everything a non-Christian thinks and does is sin, even if they love their neighbors and keep the law?”


Not at all. In love to our neighbors as ourselves the entire law is fulfilled in us. These observances will STILL remain in the FLESH.

But you said that “sin” is ANYthing “not of faith.” Breaking up…observance…still…in flesh?..attempting…to qualify…contradiction?…come back?


One can fulfill the law and STILL have sin indwelling/present. SIN is a CONSTANT RESIDENT in the FLESH whether the acts of SIN are seen or not. (remember your thoughts)

The best argument against the doctrine of self-loathing called by Christians “indwelling sin” is the silence of lawful actions, neighborliness, personal sacrifice, and acts of love lived to the “glory” of a competing system of belief.


You tickled upon a great truth when you saw that the COMMAND from God in the Garden STIRRED UP sin in Adam.

Thus, free will = sin? God wanted a drone, but got a free-thinker instead? God said, “No,” and this command incited Adam to rebellion. So, without the command, there would be no rebellion, and without the law, there would be no “inspiration” to sin. Man didn’t sin until he knew the law. The command of god “provoked” rebellion, in other words, the Christian god picked a fight. Not much of a fight. And the object lesson is…?


The Law was always written only to THE LAWLESS. The lawless are those things that are present with us. The Law brings THEIR condemnation, not OURS.

Correct me where I’m wrong. Lawlessness is not, originally, or initially, a sinful act, but an “entity” (as you called it) or a “force,” not to be mistaken for (or limited to) lawless thoughts or actions. Something near, but “other,” as “grace” is other. What do Christians say? Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more? It is not unlawful to be “stirred” by this force (the presence of the law makes it unavoidable), but unlawful to yield. This is a way of looking at it, but, how does your theory solve the problem of free will?

Why, for example, was it necessary for the Christian god to provoke – stir up – his creature? He set Adam loose in the world, and the first thing he did was set boundaries. Why? For Adam’s own “protection?” In order to exercise his “crown rights” as King of the Universe? To “make a point?” To put Adam in his place? To demonstrate how much this god “loves” him? To prove that man, as created, is so flawed in his judgment that if left to himself – to his own law – the world would degenerate into anarchy and chaos? To prove that man, even in a state of perfect innocence, is inherently incapable of ruling himself without this god’s “help”? The whole world, plunged into sin to prove that this god is – holy? All powerful? All (cough) “merciful”? A history of death washed in fountains of blood, all for his own “glory”?

This may be the story of the Hebrew god, and the story of the Judeo-Christian god, but it is not a very nice story, in fact it reads like a horror story. What you need to ask yourself is, if you HAD a free will, and weren’t being threatened, all systems of belief being equal, would the Hebrew-Christian god be your first “choice”?

lost anomaly
March 27th, 2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Apollo


This may be the story of the Hebrew god, and the story of the Judeo-Christian god, but it is not a very nice story, in fact it reads like a horror story. What you need to ask yourself is, if you HAD a free will, and weren’t being threatened, all systems of belief being equal, would the Hebrew-Christian god be your first “choice”?

Yes

smaller
March 28th, 2004, 10:08 AM
Greetings Apollo


Not sure what classics you have in mind. Eschatologically, Christianity has painted itself into a corner. Christians are waiting on the return of the king to bail them out, but meanwhile the paint is drying. For the sake of future generations who, much like our present generation, are going to have an even tougher time taking biblical Christianity seriously, what kind of an expiration date should we put on all this?

The sooner "traditional christianity" (specifically being the eternal conscious torment of others) passes away the better off CHRISTIANITY will be.


Another two thousand years? Ten? Hard to call someone’s bluff if they never have to show their cards.

A person should always BE READY and WATCH. You can be CALLED UP from this place at any time....so whether you RISE to meet Him or He comes to SEPARATE sheep from goats ALL will have this fate...

quote from smaller:
Sin is Word connotation is known primarily as ANYthing not of faith as well as "lawlessness."


And I said, “So, everything a non-Christian thinks and does is sin, even if they love their neighbors and keep the law?”

quote from smaller:
Not at all. In love to our neighbors as ourselves the entire law is fulfilled in us. These observances will STILL remain in the FLESH.

But you said that “sin” is ANYthing “not of faith.” Breaking up…observance…still…in flesh?..attempting…to qualify…contradiction?…come back?

The Word presents sin indwelling and evil present as a condition of mankind. These things are not the SAME AS mankind. These things RESIDE whether their "works" are evident on the exterior or not. You may not see this as these things INDWELLING are the same things that BLIND PEOPLE from seeing THEM and not believing. Even "christians" will take SIN AND EVIL as being THEM before they would "admit" that these things dwell with them but is NOT THEM.

quote from smaller:
One can fulfill the law and STILL have sin indwelling/present. SIN is a CONSTANT RESIDENT in the FLESH whether the acts of SIN are seen or not. (remember your thoughts)


The best argument against the doctrine of self-loathing called by Christians “indwelling sin” is the silence of lawful actions, neighborliness, personal sacrifice, and acts of love lived to the “glory” of a competing system of belief.

Life by personal disassociation with sin and evil is a good thing in any form eh?

quote from smaller:
You tickled upon a great truth when you saw that the COMMAND from God in the Garden STIRRED UP sin in Adam.


Thus, free will = sin? God wanted a drone, but got a free-thinker instead? God said, “No,” and this command incited Adam to rebellion.

Adam's body was CAPTURED BY evil. Evil was not THE SAME AS Adam. It was ADAMS BODY that was SUBJECTED TO the indwelling of evil, but as we know the body returns to DUST. Adam himself was a SON OF GOD, and as such there was NOTHING WRONG with Adam. He was expanded from the experience and binding to his enemy. The 1st Adam was much different than the LAST Adam. The LAST Adam is much better off.


So, without the command, there would be no rebellion, and without the law, there would be no “inspiration” to sin. Man didn’t sin until he knew the law. The command of god “provoked” rebellion, in other words, the Christian god picked a fight. Not much of a fight. And the object lesson is…?

A simple premise Apollo. Sin, evil, and death get their TRIAL here within HUMANITY. When this exercise is DONE these things that were allowed to EXIST will have their TRIAL and be PUT AWAY forever. In this way NO PERSONS LIFE will have been wasted and the END RESULT will be FAIR AND JUST and GOOD. This is GOD'S WAY. We ALL as His Children will have benefitted by the "exercise."

quote from smaller:
The Law was always written only to THE LAWLESS. The lawless are those things that are present with us. The Law brings THEIR condemnation, not OURS.


Correct me where I’m wrong. Lawlessness is not, originally, or initially, a sinful act, but an “entity” (as you called it) or a “force,” not to be mistaken for (or limited to) lawless thoughts or actions.

Sin is OF THE DEVIL. There is an entity and an action.


Something near, but “other,” as “grace” is other. What do Christians say? Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more? It is not unlawful to be “stirred” by this force (the presence of the law makes it unavoidable), but unlawful to yield.

They were made to BREAK THE LAW. They will NEVER OBEY. It is ONLY BY LOVE one to another that these things are defeated.


This is a way of looking at it, but, how does your theory solve the problem of free will?

I do not believe in freewill. Everything is OF GOD. It is HE who controls the "spirits."


Why, for example, was it necessary for the Christian god to provoke – stir up – his creature?

In the context of "eternity" it is right that God should be allowing ALL THINGS to exist. On a comparative basis HE WILL PREVAIL by virtue of His Pre-Eminence. Love should be able to STAND ANY TEST and PROVE itself. This is what makes HIM WORTHY and brings us GREAT JOY.


He set Adam loose in the world, and the first thing he did was set boundaries. Why? For Adam’s own “protection?” In order to exercise his “crown rights” as King of the Universe? To “make a point?” To put Adam in his place? To demonstrate how much this god “loves” him? To prove that man, as created, is so flawed in his judgment that if left to himself – to his own law – the world would degenerate into anarchy and chaos? To prove that man, even in a state of perfect innocence, is inherently incapable of ruling himself without this god’s “help”? The whole world, plunged into sin to prove that this god is – holy? All powerful? All (cough) “merciful”? A history of death washed in fountains of blood, all for his own “glory”?

You are displaying a remarkable grasp of concepts here. I am impressed for what it is worth. Let us look at these things in this way. 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that God will BE ALL IN ALL. In this way ALL OF THESE THINGS are for our benefits. God is EXPANDING HIMSELF into US and into all things. The "dross" will pass away. In the end we will be closer to NO THING than to any THING. In this way Christianity is very similar to some Eastern forms of thought.


This may be the story of the Hebrew god, and the story of the Judeo-Christian god, but it is not a very nice story, in fact it reads like a horror story. What you need to ask yourself is, if you HAD a free will, and weren’t being threatened, all systems of belief being equal, would the Hebrew-Christian god be your first “choice”?

I see what I see. If I have been lit with His Word, I will walk by the Light thereof.

enjoy!

smaller

Apollo
March 28th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Clete:
"Free will ends where the law begins." What does that mean? I submit that it is meaningless unless you advocate anarchy.

No, it means where there is a law, free will doesn’t exist. How could it? Free will is incompatible with the law, since the purpose of the law is to limit free will. A “free” will is an “unimpaired” will. It may very well be a “theoretical” idea of the will, since the will is always constrained by one thing or another (gravity, for example), but where there is a law, there is a threat of “negative consequences.” A “coerced” will can never be “free,” but is rather a will forced to conform to the law in order to avoid punishment. I would go further and say that where there is no law, there are no consequences. What are the “consequences” of choosing Coke over Pepsi? We make “legitimate” free will choices every day without discernable consequences, “negative” or otherwise. The presence of the law “introduces” consequences where consequences did not previously exist. “Prohibition” is a good example of that. You can argue that drinking alcohol “has consequences,” but you don’t need a “law” to tell you that!

It is your conditioned low view of man that leads you to the conclusion that without God’s law, man would choose “anarchy.” The traditional “Christian” cultures of the West, having the law, are a notoriously war mongering people. The law of the Biblical god has been invoked to justify a long and bloody history of intolerance and persecution. “Christians” killed each other by the millions during World Wars I & II. The “law” is invoked every time you, personally, threaten the opposition with hell. The history of Christianity is riddled with the very lawlessness and moral “anarchy” you lay at the feet of free-thinkers. The word for that is “hypocrisy.”


Motive doesn't speak to freedom. Whether you refrain from stealing because you don't like to steal or because it is against the law, doesn't matter. One can and does decide whether or not to steal. And, more than that, the choice is not only a real one but it is ours to make. The addition of consequences only adds meaning to the choice, it doesn't obliterate it.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I don’t “decide” not to steal; not stealing is my normative moral condition; not stealing is “automatic.” Unlike yourself, apparently, I do not re-examine my “motives” every time I’m presented with an “opportunity” to steal. I don’t make a “choice” not to steal. For me, stealing is not an option, consequences or no consequences. So much for the law.

Re: Adam’s “presumed” guilt, before the fact, you asked,


Why do you suppose that is the case?

Because Adam had been programmed to exercise free will, and fail.

Quoting me,


God said, “You shall not eat,” assuming Adam would, or at least might, choose to eat, if it were up to him, which clearly it was not.

You said,


The highlighted section show where you contradicted yourself. Are you able to see it?

Looking, looking…I’m assuming you’re objecting to me saying that Adam might “choose” to eat, then saying that the “choice” was not really his to make. Yes, I see it. But I never said that man isn’t free to “choose” between Coke and Pepsi; rather that the Pepsi Challenge is “rigged” if choosing Coke over Pepsi is a punishable offense. We make decisions all the time. Threats of punishment, however, prejudices our options, bending us away from the possibility of a “preferred” choice. Our "preference" in this case is not so much "for" Pepsi, as it is "against" Coke and the prospect of punishment. Can you not “see” the distinction between a “free” will and a “coerced” will?


This is not the purpose of the law or of God's prohibition of eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Try again. This time you might want to try something that doesn't lead you to insult the God who created you.

Oh, please, now you’re moralizing. If your god can be “insulted” through a process of honest inquiry, he is not much of a god. What, then, is the purpose of the law, if not to limit the will?

I said,


The object lesson of paradise lost and the Fall of man, according to Christian mythology, is that god is god, and man isn’t.

And you said,


Wrong again. Where are you getting this idiotic stuff from? No object lesson is necessary for man to understand that he did not create himself.

Idiotic? Now you’re just being a sanctimonious blowhard. What, pray tell, is the object lesson of the Fall of man if not to demonstrate once and for all time that god is god, and man isn’t?


What would have been God's alternative in His dealings with Adam? What would have happened if there were no way for Adam to have rebelled against God? If God hadn't given Adam any line to cross, how would you think that the scene in Eden would have played out?

You mean, what would have happened if “Plan A” had succeeded? Well, for one thing, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Adam would have matured in his understanding of causality. If there hadn’t been a law against which Adam “rebelled,” we would still be living in paradise. No original sin. No death. No suffering. Adam and his beautiful bride would have lived happily ever after, peacefully taking dominion of the world to the glory of their god. Awful, ain't it.

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Apollo
This may be the story of the Hebrew god, and the story of the Judeo-Christian god, but it is not a very nice story, in fact it reads like a horror story. What you need to ask yourself is, if you HAD a free will, and weren’t being threatened, all systems of belief being equal, would the Hebrew-Christian god be your first “choice”?

As Christianity is the only religion where it's founder both died AND resurected, I respond to this question with an unqualified YES! No other religion even comes close.

Apollo
March 28th, 2004, 03:20 PM
“The minority who have encountered ancient history at a university know that, 3000 years before the Christian saviour-god rose from the dead, the Egyptian saviour-god Osiris rose from the dead, and thousands of years before Osiris the saviour-goddess Easter rose from the dead. Between Osiris and Jesus there were Greek, Assyrian, Phoenician, Persian, Hittite, Chinese, and a dozen other saviour-gods that rose from the dead.”

Harwood, William, “Mythology’s Last Gods,” pp. 16, 17, Prometheus Books, 1992


I -- AM -- APOLLO! :bannana:

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Apollo

No, it means where there is a law, free will doesn’t exist. How could it? Free will is incompatible with the law, since the purpose of the law is to limit free will. A “free” will is an “unimpaired” will. It may very well be a “theoretical” idea of the will, since the will is always constrained by one thing or another (gravity, for example), but where there is a law, there is a threat of “negative consequences.”
I don't think a better definition of anarchy could be found than what you've stated here.
There does not have to be a stated rule (law) with spelled out consequences for the to be negative consequences to out actions. Our actions have consequences both positive and negative, not because of some arbitrary rule, but because of the nature of reality.


A “coerced” will can never be “free,” but is rather a will forced to conform to the law in order to avoid punishment. I would go further and say that where there is no law, there are no consequences.
And you would be wrong! There may not be any punitive consequences but if you do wrongly there are negative consequences whether a rule book has been written or not. That is why it is wrong.


The presence of the law “introduces” consequences where consequences did not previously exist.
The only time this statement would be true is if the law in question was arbitrary and unjust. You would do better figuring this stuff out, if you knew the difference between right and wrong.


“Prohibition” is a good example of that. You can argue that drinking alcohol “has consequences,” but you don’t need a “law” to tell you that!
Actually, it's getting drunk that has the bad consequences and it would be wrong with or without the law to tell you that, which is basically what you've said here. You would also do better figuring out this stuff if you weren't so self contradictory.


It is your conditioned low view of man that leads you to the conclusion that without God’s law, man would choose “anarchy.”
It is not my conditioned low view of man that taught me that man would choose anarchy, it is the Bible. Were you aware that there was no law until after Noah's Flood? That's right! God is several steps ahead of you on this one! Theologians call it the Dispensation of Conscience, because every man did what was right in his own eyes (just as you are suggesting). The result was disaster.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


The traditional “Christian” cultures of the West, having the law, are a notoriously war mongering people. The law of the Biblical god has been invoked to justify a long and bloody history of intolerance and persecution. “Christians” killed each other by the millions during World Wars I & II. The “law” is invoked every time you, personally, threaten the opposition with hell. The history of Christianity is riddled with the very lawlessness and moral “anarchy” you lay at the feet of free-thinkers. The word for that is “hypocrisy.”
The word for this section of your post is either "ignorance" or "lying"; probably a mixture of both. I leave it to you to figure out why. I don't have the time to waste on it.


Speak for yourself. Personally, I don’t “decide” not to steal; not stealing is my normative moral condition; not stealing is “automatic.” Unlike yourself, apparently, I do not re-examine my “motives” every time I’m presented with an “opportunity” to steal. I don’t make a “choice” not to steal. For me, stealing is not an option, consequences or no consequences. So much for the law.
Even if this were so, which I doubt very much, stealing is only one of many sinful things that one either decides to or not to do. Lying is another, how does that one work for you?


Re: Adam’s “presumed” guilt, before the fact, you asked,

Why do you suppose that is the case?

Because Adam had been programmed to exercise free will, and fail.
Your response both misses the point of the question and is self contradictory.
"programmed to exercise free will" Brilliant! ::kookoo:


Looking, looking…I’m assuming you’re objecting to me saying that Adam might “choose” to eat, then saying that the “choice” was not really his to make. Yes, I see it. But I never said that man isn’t free to “choose” between Coke and Pepsi; rather that the Pepsi Challenge is “rigged” if choosing Coke over Pepsi is a punishable offense. We make decisions all the time. Threats of punishment, however, prejudices our options, bending us away from the possibility of a “preferred” choice.
:think: You are actually getting quite close to the right answer here as to the purpose of the law, but not quite.


Can you not “see” the distinction between a “free” will and a “coerced” will?
Can you not see the difference between coercion and justice?


Oh, please, now you’re moralizing. If your god can be “insulted” through a process of honest inquiry, he is not much of a god.
You are an idiot! Do you not fear the God who made you? Obviously not! I wasn't saying that you hurt God's feelings you knuckle head! I was saying that you're being insulting to a righteous and Holy God that you will one day stand before in judgment and be required to give an account for every idle word you speak (or write)! If you want to heap judgment upon yourself, you go right ahead; just don't say that I didn't warn you.


What, then, is the purpose of the law, if not to limit the will?

What, pray tell, is the object lesson of the Fall of man if not to demonstrate once and for all time that god is god, and man isn’t?
I will not cast pearls before swine. If I had wanted to volunteer the answers I would not have asked you to answer them.


You mean, what would have happened if “Plan A” had succeeded?
Actually, no that's not what I mean! I asked the question three different ways so that you would be sure to understand. You know, if you don't know the answer to a question, just say so! There is no benefit in answering a question that you were not asked.
God's prohibition of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not plan B! He gave the prohibition on the very same day that He created Adam and Eve.

Try again, if you like, just try to keep in mind that "every idle word" thing I mentioned a moment ago.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Apollo

“The minority who have encountered ancient history at a university know that, 3000 years before the Christian saviour-god rose from the dead, the Egyptian saviour-god Osiris rose from the dead, and thousands of years before Osiris the saviour-goddess Easter rose from the dead. Between Osiris and Jesus there were Greek, Assyrian, Phoenician, Persian, Hittite, Chinese, and a dozen other saviour-gods that rose from the dead.”

Harwood, William, “Mythology’s Last Gods,” pp. 16, 17, Prometheus Books, 1992


I -- AM -- APOLLO! :bannana:

The difference is, I can prove that Jesus rose from the dead. There is literally a whole mountain of evidence!

God_Is_Truth
March 28th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

The difference is, I can prove that Jesus rose from the dead. There is literally a whole mountain of evidence!

is Zakath aware of this? :think:

Clete
March 28th, 2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

is Zakath aware of this? :think:

The better question would be...

Does Zakath care?

Apollo
March 28th, 2004, 07:59 PM
Clete:
There does not have to be a stated rule (law) with spelled out consequences for there to be negative consequences to out actions.

Agreed. My point exactly. We don’t need the law.

Just for the fun of it, before you tell me to go to hell again, maybe it would help if we made a distinction between “kinds” of laws:

There are God’s “moral” laws.
There are the “physical” laws governing the physical universe.
There are “man”-made laws, personal “credos,” “convictions,” philosophies, “ideas” about God, native religions, that sort of thing; i.e., “humanism”

Is that fair?

I’m not questioning the reality, or the reasonableness, of the “physical” laws. And clearly, “man”-made laws often serve a legitimate purpose. Sometimes not. I am not advocating the dissolution of the physical universe, or the overthrow of the social order. All I have ever said is that free will ends where the law begins. But, you took exception, gave me the stupid post of the day (or was it the year?) award, and have since called me a stupid idiot knucklehead liar for pressing a point. No big deal.

In “question” is the reality, and therefore the moral authority, of the Christianized Hebrew god you represent. You come, bearing his name. You are his ambassador to the world. Tell us of your god. You say he came down from heaven, and became a man. But there are many such gods. You say he was killed, and rose from the dead. There are many such gods. You say he will one day return, and overcome evil. There are many such gods. You say he speaks to you, from a book. There are many books, and countless stories about God speaking to men. You like your story. This is good. I like mine. Live and let live. Be happy!

But, no. There is the “moral law” of the Christian god. Compliance, or death! Your “choice.” I dunno. I know this upsets you, but Christianity has a track-record of human rights abuse a mile long, and practically by definition won’t rest until everyone agrees with them, everyone is dead, “Jesus” comes, or all god’s “enemies” are burning in hell. Maybe it’s just me, but in my opinion, this sounds unreasonable. Such a god is bound to invite a little skepticism.

Don’t act so surprised. You seem mad about something.

Granite
March 28th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Clete's response is typical, and I've seen it before, almost word for word, when I tangled with that idiot Troy a while back. To whit:

"I won't cast pearls before swine."

"This is so dumb I won't even respond to it."

"You're an idiot!"

Which basically tells me either Clete's in over his head, doesn't have time to articulate why he disagrees with Apollo, or he's had his cage rattled. Either way, he needs to grow up.

Apollo
March 29th, 2004, 07:12 AM
This is classic:

Clete:
As Christianity is the only religion where it's founder both died AND resurected, I respond to this question with an unqualified YES! No other religion even comes close.
Me:
“The minority who have encountered ancient history at a university know that, 3000 years before the Christian saviour-god rose from the dead, the Egyptian saviour-god Osiris rose from the dead, and thousands of years before Osiris the saviour-goddess Easter rose from the dead. Between Osiris and Jesus there were Greek, Assyrian, Phoenician, Persian, Hittite, Chinese, and a dozen other saviour-gods that rose from the dead.”

Harwood, William, “Mythology’s Last Gods,” pp. 16, 17, Prometheus Books, 1992

I -- AM -- APOLLO!:bannana:

Clete:
The difference is, I can prove that Jesus rose from the dead. There is literally a whole mountain of evidence!

Clete, I wasn’t going to rub it in, but you make that impossible. If you’d been as informed on the subject as you claim to be, you NEVER would have said that Christianity is the “only” religion with a resurrected savior-god. Now you know different, and now you’re claiming you can “prove” the savior-god Jesus’ resurrection with “mountains” (not metaphorical mountains, mind you, but “literal” mountains) of “evidence.”

Rather than take your foot out of your mouth gracefully, or (gasp) admit that you’re wrong, you sputter about non-existent “proof.” Okay, you’re on. Let’s see it. Provide “mountains” of evidence “proving” the resurrection of Jesus.

If you don’t, or if you drop back to the pearls before swine cop-out position, or you say you’re “too busy,” you will have exposed yourself as a toothless fraud.

Granite
March 29th, 2004, 07:17 AM
Apollo, just FYI, but it's interesting to see the reaction you get when you direct someone to dig into the Mithra or Sol Invictus cults just a little...

Clete
March 29th, 2004, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

Clete's response is typical, and I've seen it before, almost word for word, when I tangled with that idiot Troy a while back. To whit:

"I won't cast pearls before swine."

"This is so dumb I won't even respond to it."

"You're an idiot!"

Which basically tells me either Clete's in over his head, doesn't have time to articulate why he disagrees with Apollo, or he's had his cage rattled. Either way, he needs to grow up.

You hardly have any room to talk! Your average post as far as I can tell is to tell me how unsatisfactory my posts are!
Besides that you don't know what you are talking about. If I call someone an idiot, it’s because they have said something idiotic. If I call them a knuckle head its because they are acting like one. All Apollo needs to do, is to repent of his stupidity and stop demonstrating his hatred of the living God by insulting Him every chance he gets, then he and I will get along famously! Until then however, I will continue to call a spade a spade and advise you to get over it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
March 29th, 2004, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Apollo
Clete, I wasn’t going to rub it in, but you make that impossible. If you’d been as informed on the subject as you claim to be, you NEVER would have said that Christianity is the “only” religion with a resurrected savior-god. Now you know different, and now you’re claiming you can “prove” the savior-god Jesus’ resurrection with “mountains” (not metaphorical mountains, mind you, but “literal” mountains) of “evidence.”

Rather than take your foot out of your mouth gracefully, or (gasp) admit that you’re wrong, you sputter about non-existent “proof.” Okay, you’re on. Let’s see it. Provide “mountains” of evidence “proving” the resurrection of Jesus.

If you don’t, or if you drop back to the pearls before swine cop-out position, or you say you’re “too busy,” you will have exposed yourself as a toothless fraud.

If you actually want to know go here...
Mount Moriah (http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/video/mountmoriah.html)
If you can't afford the $$ then call 1-888-8ENYART and talk to them about it, if you actually are interested in the information they will work with on the price.
And don't bother whining about Christians making money off of such videos, Bob would happily give you the video if you called and asked for it. The things do cost money to produce though and he is trying to run a ministry with the proceeds.

And by the way, I never, ever bluff.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'll respond to you other post later, I've got a lot of work to do. Thanks for you patience.

Granite
March 29th, 2004, 07:59 AM
More of the Word According to Enyart...

Clete
March 29th, 2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by granite1010

More of the Word According to Enyart...

Every idle word granite, every idle word!

You think it's okay to say such things about people you know little or nothing about, especially Christian people, whom you are supposedly allied with? You do more damge than you could possibly know! How about getting the video yourself and watching it before attempting to discredit it by slandering its producer. Maybe you'll learn something.

Granite
March 29th, 2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Every idle word granite, every idle word!

You think it's okay to say such things about people you know little or nothing about, especially Christian people, whom you are supposedly allied with? You do more damge than you could possibly know! How about getting the video yourself and watching it before attempting to discredit it by slandering its producer. Maybe you'll learn something.

What things? The video's produced by Enyart. So, what I said is accurate. I'm beginning to think this pet phrase of yours is the best thing you have.

By the way: I am NOT allied with all self-professed Christians, and I'm unequivocally opposed to Enyart on most issues. Let's avoid confusion in the future. "Christian people" can be friend and foe. I think you'd agree with me on that.

Apollo
March 29th, 2004, 09:09 PM
Little unfinished business before I move on. Hijacked this thread long enough. Apologies to lost anomaly. Thanks for the ride.

Clete,

If you want Bob to do your thinking for you, not a problem. Lot of that going on around here. Seems like if there was bona fide evidence for something as important as the Resurrection, would have read about it in USA Today. Missed it entirely. Strange world.

If you cannot offer even a remote suggestion of actual evidence on your own, when you have a literal “mountain” of evidence to pick from, next time do your homework, or think twice before handing out “Stupid Person of the Day” awards. Stupid as compared to what, a block of wood, or you?

Doing the best I can. Maybe you’re right. Maybe I am stupid. But, stupid as I may be, I’m smart enough to know there is nothing unique about Christianity’s resurrected savior-god, and that’s saying a lot. That round, I think, goes to me. Let the peanut gallery be the judge.

Wrapping up, you called me a liar. An ignorant liar, as I recall. Don’t much care for that. Ignorant, so sue me. A liar? You also implied that, given the opportunity, I might steal. If anyone’s been acting like a “swine” in this scenario, it’s you. This is what you’ve accomplished. You have committed the cardinal Christian sin of judging someone’s heart. Actions, yes. Motive, no. Not the heart. That’s your “Christian” law. If you don’t know that much, my nine-year-old knows more than you.

Christians seem to have a knack – call it a “gift” – for assuming the worst of people. Original sin, and all. Frankly, for all you know, I’m an angel, and your god sent me to test you. Kinda like ‘this call is being monitored for training purposes’ thing. The customer from hell. Wonder what feedback your boss is going to have. Not going to be pleasant. Slip and fall accident around the house. Downsized at work. The mumps. Someone keys your car. Sowing, reaping, sowing, reaping. God works in mysterious ways, you know.

Other than the liar thing, I’m done. Clete, please explain.

Thanks for engaging.

LightSon
March 30th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Apollo,
It is my heartfelt conviction that the resurrection of Christ is true. His death was witnessed; His post-resurrection state were witnessed; many actually touched Him.

What kind of "evidence" would you accept?

As far as your assertions regarding many pre-christian "resurrected savior-gods," I'm going to put the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that. What is your evidence? The only time I hear these "rumors" is from atheists, hoping to debunk Christianity. It would be just like our arch-enemy to conjure up a myriad of counterfeits, in mythological form, for the purpose of undermining our faith.

One of the most compelling witness-based observations is Peter and the other disciples. A man may die for a cause if he has convinced himself of its veracity, despite evidence to the contrary. But it is not reasonable that a man would die for something he knows to be a lie.

Peter saw Christ die. Peter was a coward during the trial process and denied Jesus multiple times. Something changed Peter into a bold and staunch firebrand. What was it that changed him? Had Peter's last memory of Jesus been one of death and defeat, there would have been no reason to devote himself to Christ. If Peter and the others had conjured up a conspiracy, it would have fallen apart at the first sign of persecution. Given the fact of Christ's death, the only compelling reason, that I can think of, which would compel Peter and company to face down sword and lion, was that they were transformed by experiencing the resurrected Christ.

Your motto is "live and let live". That's fine while you breathe, but that won't help you much once you are pushing up daisies. Will you acknowledge once again that if Christ died and rose again, that this lends insurrmountable veracity to the Christian worldview?

smaller
March 30th, 2004, 12:36 PM
Cephas stood CONDEMNED at Antioch, POST risen Jesus.

He was a continual example of a partial view of Jesus Christ tainted by the adversar(ies.)

None of us are any different, except by degree

Granite
March 30th, 2004, 12:37 PM
"As far as your assertions regarding many pre-christian 'resurrected savior-gods,' I'm going to put the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that."

Look at Osiris and Mithra, to name two. This isn't an atheist-fueled urban legend; this is actual history from Egypt and Rome.

"It would be just like our arch-enemy to conjure up a myriad of counterfeits, in mythological form, for the purpose of undermining our faith."

Examine the effect the Sol Invictus and Mithra cults had on Christianity, thanks to Constantine. Question: why would Satan create myths or counterfeits that were successful enough to sucker the early Christian church and completely change our faith as we know it? Either we failed or he succeeded.

Clete
March 30th, 2004, 09:54 PM
Apollo,

I did not insinuate that you would steal. I don't insinuate much; usually if I want to accuse someone of something I just come right out and do it. I'm not much on beating around the bush. As for the lying accusation, you may have a different understanding of what lying is but and intentional attempt to mislead or deceive is lying, and you are guilty of that with out question.
And by the way, there is no prohibition against judging anyone’s heart in "Christian law" as you put it. Most Christians think that such a "law" exists, but they would be wrong. There is only a prohibition against being a hypocrite when you judge. IN other words, you shouldn't judge if you are doing the same thing that you are judging the other person for. If you do, you will be judged by the same measure you use to judge by.

Judging for dummies...
1. Take the plank out of your own eye.
2. Then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

So, we are to judge rightly! Whether we are judging the actions themselves or the hearts of those committing them is of no consequences. ‘Judge rightly’, applies in either case.

As for the evidence you asked for and were given. If you choose not to take advantage of a complete presentation that has been well produced and is available free of charge to unbelievers like yourself then that's on you. As for my saying that there is a literal mountain of evidence for the resurrection, I meant exactly that. And if you read the description of the video on the web page I linked to, then you know that that phrase is used as a catch line in the video. I used the phrase in hopes of getting the exact reaction from you that I got, specifically so that I could send you to that site and present a video with the same catch phrase in its advertisement so that perhaps your interest would be peaked and that you would get the video. The tactic has worked every single time I have ever used it. And it's really brilliant (if I do say so myself) because whether the individual gets the video or not, I know that I'm getting ready to learn a lot about the persons real motivations.
You see, there is simply no good reason for you not to get that video. You asked for the information and I gave you a simple and free way to get that information and yet you refused it! Why? Well, the only possible reason is that you don't want to know. You are willfully ignorant, which I knew from the moment I read your first post! You totally deserved the stupid post of the day! Not only was the assertion in the post unsubstantiated in the post, it was off topic and more than that it just screamed at me that whoever posted that drivel, HATED God! I knew from the start that you were a knuckle head and that this conversation had almost no possibility of getting anywhere, which is why I had to be prodded several times before I even actively engaged this conversation and is the reason I have been quick and consistent in pointing out when you've said idiotic, sinful things. The fact of the matter is that you hate God for whatever reason and you take every opportunity to slander Him.
And the real tricky thing is that you know better. I don't care how many college classes you take, you will never find ANY religion anywhere in all of recorded history, that is anything but a list of rules by which we can get to god. Christianity is THE ONLY faith in all of the history of mankind where you see God coming to us, and not only that but doing so by GRACE, not via of a list of rules! In this respect Christianity is completely unique and I strongly suspect that you knew that before you posted that nonsense about what you learned at college. I'm not saying that you made it up necessarily. It may be that you are just parroting some idiot college professor that perhaps presented some information in such a way as to insinuate something that is not supported by actual history. Either way, it doesn't matter. Christianity is not a derivation of some prior pagan religion and you know that as well as I do. (Your stating otherwise was an outright lie, by the way.)
Any way, my point is that in my experience when someone goes to such great lengths to slander God in such a convoluted and idiotic ways as you have on this thread, it is generally because that person knows down deep inside that he is a wicked and vile person, guilty of all sorts of things that only he know about (he and God). And God had better not be real or else you're in big trouble. Either that or they blame God for some tragedy that has happened and they're angry and sometimes a little of both mixed in there together. I don't know which applies to you, although, if you continue to post on this site and I have further contact with you, I will figure it out eventually. And yes, there are exceptions, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it very seriously and I'll figure that out too.
So, I will close by asking you again to get that video. PLEASE! Just get it and watch it. It won't cost you anything but the time it takes to watch it and if it's not what it claims to be then you are no worse off than you are right now. On the other hand, however, what if it is exactly what it claims to be and it turns out that Jesus really is God and the He really did die and really did rise from the grave? What then? Well, that prospect may scare the crap out of you because then you have to change everything, right? Everything! I would venture to say that there is not one single aspect of you life that wouldn't have to be turned on its ear if you came to the conclusion that Jesus is the creator God of the universe. Whether you get the video or not that definitely something for you to think about, isn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete


P.S. I've been super busy over the last couple of days and am still very short on time. I didn’t do a lot of editing on this post, so I apologize to those who read it, for any run-on sentences or other annoyances of grammar that I didn't edit out!

Granite
March 30th, 2004, 10:08 PM
Clete: if you have no arguments of your own, and rely solely on some video produced by Enyart, you need to grow up.

Quit judging Apollo, and others, and try to take from him and his experiences what you will.

LightSon
March 31st, 2004, 11:19 AM
granite1010,
For some reason, I had assumed you were a Christian. Please forgive me if I made a wrong assumption.

So instead of assuming, I'll ask you plainly. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Granite
March 31st, 2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by LightSon

granite1010,
For some reason, I had assumed you were a Christian. Please forgive me if I made a wrong assumption.

So instead of assuming, I'll ask you plainly. Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Yes. Why?

LightSon
March 31st, 2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Yes. Why?

Why do I ask?

Because it seems that your recent points on this thread are aimed to lend credibility to the idea that Christianity has borrowed "themes" from pagan religions. I interpret this as an attempt to undermine Christ's authenticity and Biblical authority. I invite you to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. I hope that I am wrong.

I need to ask this question and then will stop pestering you. (for now). ;)

Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins according the the scripture, was buried and rose again?

Granite
March 31st, 2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by LightSon

Why do I ask?

Because it seems that your recent points on this thread are aimed to lend credibility to the idea that Christianity has borrowed "themes" from pagan religions. I interpret this as an attempt to undermine Christ's authenticity and Biblical authority. I invite you to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. I hope that I am wrong.

I need to ask this question and then will stop pestering you. (for now). ;)

Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins according the the scripture, was buried and rose again?

The idea does not need me to lend credibility to it. Christianity HAS borrowed themes from pagan religions; no shame in that. Look at Christmas and Easter--those two are gimmes.

I think many Christians respond with distaste to the idea because we're convinced that Christianity is absolutely and positively unique in every way, shape, and form, and that's simply not true. We are, after all, an off-shoot of Judaism at the very core--the history of our faith is replete with borrowings and amalgamations. The sign of the cross, baptism, the Christmas tree--these are not ideas unique to or original to Christianity.

The issue isn't with me--or others--who point these things out; the issue people have is with church history, and that's not my problem.

Now, how does any of this somehow undermine biblical authority? Well, I don't know if it does. I wouldn't say so. Neither did Augustine: he claimed those who worshipped Mithra worshipped the same God he did, and early Christianity borrowed very heavily from the Mithraic tradition.

I'm an Anglican who recites the Nicean creed every Sunday. I agree with every word of it. Hopefully that answers your last question.

Swordsman
March 31st, 2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

The idea does not need me to lend credibility to it. Christianity HAS borrowed themes from pagan religions; no shame in that. Look at Christmas and Easter--those two are gimmes.

I think many Christians respond with distaste to the idea because we're convinced that Christianity is absolutely and positively unique in every way, shape, and form, and that's simply not true. We are, after all, an off-shoot of Judaism at the very core--the history of our faith is replete with borrowings and amalgamations. The sign of the cross, baptism, the Christmas tree--these are not ideas unique to or original to Christianity.


Great points. I completely concur with you.

LightSon
March 31st, 2004, 01:08 PM
I don't deny certain extra-Biblical additions: i.e. the Christmas tree. I care about the Biblical "truths". The question remains: was Christ who He said He was? Or is he an amalgamated copycat type of Savior?

When atheists bring into the discussion Mithra or Osiris, and the idea that Mithra was "the light of the world, and a savior God who died and resurrected," the implication is clear. The implication is that 1st century Christians simply borrowed these themes as well. If all we did was borrow, then Christ is fantasy. If the Bible is not an authoritative statement from God on the veracity of Jesus and His status as savior-God, then our faith falls over.

Swordsman and granite, is it your intention to demonstrate that Christianity is a copycat religion and that Jesus is a fraud? In this case, the Nicean creed can likewise be jettisoned. It is rooted in scripture; a scripture which you are arguing is a simple amalgamation. These are the conclusions that a naive listener will draw from your position.

It is a good thing I am not so easily swayed, or I would have just dropped kicked Jesus from my world view. Is this really where you want to drag me?

Granite
March 31st, 2004, 01:16 PM
LightSon: no one wants to "drag" you anywhere (at least I don't).

Personally, I find it easy to believe that the rhetoric was lifted from, say, the Mithra cult and blended into what Christianity already had. The similarities between the two--as you demonstrate yourself--simply can't be ignored. The sign of the cross and the wafer-with-wine communion ritual were borrowed from Mithraism. There's no reason to believe that all early Christians lifted from the Mithra cult were the outward liturgical forms; Christianity adapted and blended from a variety of outside influences and this is just one example. The language and rhetoric are strikingly close. Why is it so terrible to admit that?

Swordsman
March 31st, 2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

LightSon: no one wants to "drag" you anywhere (at least I don't).

Personally, I find it easy to believe that the rhetoric was lifted from, say, the Mithra cult and blended into what Christianity already had. The similarities between the two--as you demonstrate yourself--simply can't be ignored. The sign of the cross and the wafer-with-wine communion ritual were borrowed from Mithraism. There's no reason to believe that all early Christians lifted from the Mithra cult were the outward liturgical forms; Christianity adapted and blended from a variety of outside influences and this is just one example. The language and rhetoric are strikingly close. Why is it so terrible to admit that?

Because he, like a number of Christians, are caught up in their traditions passed down the ages.

LightSon, I believe Christ is who He said He is. Anything (crosses, chrismas trees, nativity scenes) other than God Himself are simply icons. You choose to idolize these things or not.

Neither granite or myself have fantasized Christ in any manner. He is God, everything else is just matter.

LightSon
March 31st, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Because he, like a number of Christians, are caught up in their traditions passed down the ages.

LightSon, I believe Christ is who He said He is. Anything (crosses, chrismas trees, nativity scenes) other than God Himself are simply icons. You choose to idolize these things or not.

Neither granite or myself have fantasized Christ in any manner. He is God, everything else is just matter.

As I said, I have no problem dropping extra-Biblical traditions, e.g. chrismas trees, nativity scenes. So let us move past that.

What I care about, as I already said, are Bible-based "truths", like who Christ said He was. That is what is at issue, by bringing in Mithra. You seemed to agree with granite on this point. By suggesting that Christianity has built its faith on the tradition of Mithra, it is you that is undermining Christ, IMO. Please correct me if that is not what you meant. Is Jesus the light of the world of His own authority? Or did this notion come from Mithra?

Swordsman, you claim to believe "Christ is who He said He is." I appreciate that. If I understand granite correctly, he is arguing that the whole concept of the savior-God (as we believe Christ to be) came from the Mithra religion and other religions as well. In other words, the NT writers, borrowed these themes, essentially cobbling together a Mithra-based traditional Christ for us to believe in.

So let me ask you. Do you believe God gave us Christ? Or did Mithra give us Christ? Or both?

Swordsman
March 31st, 2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by LightSon

As I said, I have no problem dropping extra-Biblical traditions, e.g. chrismas trees, nativity scenes. So let us move past that.

What I care about, as I already said, are Bible-based "truths", like who Christ said He was. That is what is at issue, by bringing in Mithra. You seemed to agree with granite on this point. By suggesting that Christianity has built its faith on the tradition of Mithra, it is you that is undermining Christ, IMO. Please correct me if that is not what you meant. Is Jesus the light of the world of His own authority? Or did this notion come from Mithra?

Swordsman, you claim to believe "Christ is who He said He is." I appreciate that. If I understand granite correctly, he is arguing that the whole concept of the savior-God (as we believe Christ to be) came from the Mithra religion and other religions as well. In other words, the NT writers, borrowed these themes, essentially cobbling together a Mithra-based traditional Christ for us to believe in.

So let me ask you. Do you believe God gave us Christ? Or did Mithra give us Christ? Or both?

I do not have faith in the Mithra religious traditions. That is all they are, traditions.

Yes, God gave us Christ. You got me pegged. :)

Granite
March 31st, 2004, 02:44 PM
"If I understand granite correctly, he is arguing that the whole concept of the savior-God (as we believe Christ to be) came from the Mithra religion and other religions as well."

I haven't said this anywhere, ever. If we REALLY want to split hairs, let's point out that the savior-God concept is extremely old--far older than the Mithra cult.

All I've said is that Christianity borrowed some of the traditions and some of the rhetoric of the Mithra cult. And frankly, I don't think it's even up for debate; the information on the Mithraic tradition is out there and speaks for itself.

Mithra didn't give us Christ. Christ gave us himself.

geralduk
April 1st, 2004, 03:44 AM
Your statement is contadictory!

On the one hand you say the salvation of God is OLDER than mythriac 'theology'
Yet then would cede glory to them which is not theres.

ALL religions of the world do in thier OWN way project a means of 'salvation'
But they are NOT Gods way.
Therefore I would not give ANY of them a grain of salt or 'glory' that pertains only to God.
seeing that the ONLY true salvation and hope for man is by GODS way.
and that from CAINE and ABLE onwards you have had FALSE religion running alongside "THE faith that was once and for all delievred unto the saints" and which has ALWAYS been in OPPOSITION to the truth and has persecuted those who uphold it and would like Ciane resort to the same sort of action if they had the liberty to do so.
Therefore false religions and the worlds so called 'faiths' have NOTHING to contribute or have anything that it os the truth as to the WAY of salvtion and reconciliation to God.
For they have PERVERTED the truth of God and "changed the truth into a lie"
That which was proclaimed and promised by God in the garden of Eden and PRACTICED by ABLE and REJECTED by Caine [POINTED to the HIM who was promised and MANIFESTED in "these last days"
The "hope of the wicked dies with them" But he who's hope is in Him who promised has a sure and certain one.
"which maketh not ashamed"
Therefore the glory is Gods who both willed it and fullfilled it and the peace is mans who accepts it.

Granite
April 1st, 2004, 07:16 AM
Gerald, my British friend, I think you need to switch to decaf.

Apollo
April 1st, 2004, 07:41 AM
Lightson:
As far as your assertions regarding many pre-Christian "resurrected savior-gods," I'm going to put the burden of proof on you to demonstrate that. What is your evidence?

“Mountains” of research and books have been written on Christianity’s parallels with “pagan” religion, in particular on the savior-god theme. I cited my source, including everything but the ISBN (0-87975-742-6). Do a Google search for “savior-gods” and see what happens.


The only time I hear these "rumors" is from atheists, hoping to debunk Christianity. It would be just like our arch-enemy to conjure up a myriad of counterfeits, in mythological form, for the purpose of undermining our faith.

These are not “rumors,” any more than what we know about ancient Greece and Rome are “rumors.” It is not intellectually honest to simply pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. What you “do” with the evidence is up to you. Christians once made the case that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil in an attempt to “undermine the faith.” Once you accept the “devil’s counterfeit” thesis, anything is possible, or impossible.


"He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
Inscription from a temple dedicated to the God Mithra. The Vatican was built on the temple’s remains.


One of the most compelling witness-based observations is Peter and the other disciples. A man may die for a cause if he has convinced himself of its veracity, despite evidence to the contrary. But it is not reasonable that a man would die for something he knows to be a lie.

As the story is written, clearly the disciples are portrayed as “believing” it. If the Resurrection is true because the New Testament account says so, I guess that settles it. The internal evidence of the NT, however, is not “evidence,” any more than Homer’s “Odyssey” proves the existence of the Greek pantheon of gods.

Lightson:
When atheists bring into the discussion Mithra or Osiris, and the idea that Mithra was "the light of the world, and a savior God who died and resurrected," the implication is clear. The implication is that 1st century Christians simply borrowed these themes as well. If all we did was borrow, then Christ is fantasy.

My sentiments exactly.


If the Bible is not an authoritative statement from God on the veracity of Jesus and His status as savior-God, then our faith falls over.

The truth shall set you free.


It is a good thing I am not so easily swayed, or I would have just dropped kicked Jesus from my world view. Is this really where you want to drag me?

Believing in Jesus and in the miracles of the Bible is EASY. What’s hard is being asked to DISbelieve your own eyes when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

smaller
April 1st, 2004, 08:00 AM
THE SCRIPTURES preached the Gospel to Abraham.

Enoch was a scribe of righteousness LONG before the usurpers.

The borrowing of the "saviour god" could just as easily have been done by the supposed lenders to Israel....

"He shall crush his head" was written early....

Apollo
April 1st, 2004, 08:49 AM
Clete:

Here’s where you called me a liar:


The word for this section of your post is either "ignorance" or "lying"; probably a mixture of both.

I said “not stealing” is my normative moral condition, and you said.


Even if this were so, which I doubt very much, stealing is only one of many sinful things that one either decides to or not to do. Lying is another…

… with you “implying,” as I said, I’m a thief, and another dangling accusation of “lying.”

As is this one:


As for the lying accusation, you may have a different understanding of what lying is but and intentional attempt to mislead or deceive is lying, and you are guilty of that with out question.

What, specifically, have I lied about?

I’m posting the following quote as a public service announcement, and as a warning to others. This is what a psychotic episode (and visions of grandeur) look like:


As for my saying that there is a literal mountain of evidence for the resurrection, I meant exactly that. And if you read the description of the video on the web page I linked to, then you know that that phrase is used as a catch line in the video. I used the phrase in hopes of getting the exact reaction from you that I got, specifically so that I could send you to that site and present a video with the same catch phrase in its advertisement so that perhaps your interest would be peaked and that you would get the video. The tactic has worked every single time I have ever used it. And it's really brilliant (if I do say so myself) because whether the individual gets the video or not, I know that I'm getting ready to learn a lot about the persons real motivations.

But this really hurt:


You see, there is simply no good reason for you not to get that video. You asked for the information and I gave you a simple and free way to get that information and yet you refused it! Why?

I didn’t say anything about refusing the video. What makes you think I’m refusing the video? Jumping to conclusions again. Always thinking the best about people…


You are willfully ignorant, which I knew from the moment I read your first post! You totally deserved the stupid post of the day! Not only was the assertion in the post unsubstantiated in the post, it was off topic and more than that it just screamed at me that whoever posted that drivel, HATED God!

…he screamed.

Since when doesn’t Calvinism have anything to say about free-will and the law? I don’t hear lost anomaly complaining. You just couldn’t resist springing into action and getting yourself publicly de-panted on your resurrected savior-god claim.

As for hating God, I don’t hate God. I don’t hate Christians. I don’t hate Muslims. I don’t hate Chinamen. I don’t hate you. I don’t “hate” anyone. Few people I don’t “care” much for, but I don’t “hate” them. If anyone's behavior qualifies as "hateful" and "hate-filled," it's yours.


I knew from the start that you were a knuckle head and that this conversation had almost no possibility of getting anywhere, which is why I had to be prodded several times before I even actively engaged this conversation and is the reason I have been quick and consistent in pointing out when you've said idiotic, sinful things. The fact of the matter is that you hate God for whatever reason and you take every opportunity to slander Him.

No one prodded you or asked you to engage, and you’re free to go at any time. Not too soon, I hope. The more you babble and foam at the mouth, the better. YOU are the best argument against Christianity I’ve seen in quite a while. Ranting and name-calling becomes you.

Apollo
April 1st, 2004, 09:03 AM
Granite, please note Clete and Lightson’s “inquisitorial tone” as you are “suspected” of aiding and abetting “the enemy” by merely acknowledging the testimony of verifiable history. Not long ago, fanatics like Clete had the power to silence the opposition, as well as suspected “sympathizers” at a time when merely asking “questions” was considered “heretical.” If I was Clete, I’d ignore Christianity’s dysfunctional family history, too.

Apollo
April 1st, 2004, 09:28 AM
Pre-Christian resurrected Gods:

"Such eerie parallels between the pronouncements of Jesus and Mithras are not the only similarities between the two religions. Mithras was known to his followers as "The light of the world," or "The good shepherd," and exhorted his followers to share ritual communion. Mithras was also reputedly born in a cave, with shepherds in attendance, on the twenty-fifth of December.

"Are these just coincidences? Consider this- several other Gods share the December birthday, and like Mithras, they are also solar deities, who are born in the winter solstices, often of virgin mothers, die, and are reborn. One of these, a pre-Christian deity called Attis, was called "The lamb of God," and his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection were celebrated annually, with ritual communions of bread and wine. His virgin mother, Cybele, was worshipped as "The Queen of heaven." It gets more interesting the further back we look- Attis and Cybele's predecessors are the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar, and her consort Tammuz. It is from their legend that we get the name for the annual celebration of the resurrection of Christ- Easter, a name of the Goddess Ishtar. this is not the only coincidence related to this ancient couple- the earliest use of the cross as a religious symbol is related to Tammuz! In fact, crosses are related to a variety of solar deities.

"Thousands of years before Jesus, there was another passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as a god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him- that is, until he assumes his divine form- as the God Dionysus.

"Common to all of these 'mystery' religions (so called because one was required to be initiated or baptized into the faith to learn its doctrines), including early Christianity, are themes of rebirth, redemption, and the transmission of life-changing information. So many religions in those times shared similar themes with that usually the deities became melded together. Early depictions of Jesus show him holding the Lyre of Orpheus, or driving Apollo's chariot. A talisman bearing the crucified likeness of Osirus-Dionysus is inscribed Orpheus/Bacchus.

"It is impossible to tell just by looking at old artwork which haloed infant gods are cuddled in the arms of which mothers. The Emperor Constantine, who legitimized Christianity in Rome, was a worshipper of Sol Invictus- an amalgamation of solar deities Mithras, Helios, and Apollo-and he recognized Jesus' place in that company almost immediately.

"Of course, later Christians were terribly perturbed by these similarities- these coincidences so disturbed one early Christian church father, Justin Martyr, that he accused the devil of sending an imitator of Christ in advance. Had he paid a little more attention to the past, he might have noted that the association of Jesus with Dionysus is not so strange-philosophers had been making connections between Jehovah and Dionysus for centuries.

"New Testament authors stuck sly references to Pagan gods throughout the gospels. Did early Christians, like their modern descendents, believe that theirs was the one and only true manifestation of religion? Consider the words of Clement, of Alexandria, "There is one river of Truth, which receives tributaries from every side." If only the later followers of the religion listened more closely, these mysteries may not have been lost."

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

Didn't intend on the discussion going in this direction, but you can thank Clete for that. Topic deserves its own thread.

lost anomaly
April 1st, 2004, 08:29 PM
As intrguing as this debate has become would any body be terriblly upset if I asked we went back to the original topic of my post?

Clete
April 1st, 2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

As intrguing as this debate has become would any body be terriblly upset if I asked we went back to the original topic of my post?
I thought you'd never ask!

Where were we exactly?

lost anomaly
April 1st, 2004, 09:13 PM
Well, does anybody know the Calvinsit view on Evangelism? It seems to me that there wouldn't be a need for it if you were a Calvinsit, the elect would come to know God because he willed and the others would just be doomed. But, that's just my thought at the moment.

helmet84
April 1st, 2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

Well, does anybody know the Calvinsit view on Evangelism? It seems to me that there wouldn't be a need for it if you were a Calvinsit, the elect would come to know God because he willed and the others would just be doomed. But, that's just my thought at the moment.

From Arthur Pink's the Sovereignty of God:

"Now in conclusion let us anticipate and dispose of the usual and inevitable objection—Why preach the Gospel if man is powerless to respond? Why bid the sinner come to Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in himself to come? Reply:—We do not preach the Gospel because we believe that men are free moral agents, and therefore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it because we are commanded to do so (Mark 16:15); and though to them that perish it is foolishness, yet, "unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor. 1:25). The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), and a dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything, hence it is that "they that are in the flesh (the unregenerate) cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8).

To fleshly wisdom it appears the height of folly to preach the Gospel to those that are dead, and therefore beyond the reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God’s ways are different from ours. It pleases God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). Man may deem it folly to prophesy to "dead bones" and to say unto them, "O, ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord" (Ezek. 37:4). Ah! but then it is the Word of the Lord, and the words He speaks "they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus might pronounce it an evidence of insanity when the Lord addressed a dead man with the words, "Lazarus, Come forth." Ah! but He who thus spake was and is Himself the Resurrection and the Life, and at His word even the dead live! We go forth to preach the Gospel, then, not because we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to receive the Saviour it proclaims, but because the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, and because we know that "as many as were ordained to eternal life" (Acts 13:48), shall believe (John 6:37; 10:16—note the "shall’s"!) in God’s appointed time, for it is written, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power" (Ps. 110:3)!"

-- helmet84

God_Is_Truth
April 1st, 2004, 11:27 PM
so it comes down to "because God said to" ?

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 07:53 AM
"We do not preach the Gospel because we believe that men are...capable of receiving Christ..." - Pink

Wow! Now that pretty much sounds exactly like the Gospel to me! :rolleyes:

It is interesting to point out that evangelism isn't the only area in which Calvinists have this particular problem of logic. Indeed Calvinists are forced to live their lives exactly as if all of Calvinism isn’t true.
The entire TULIP would seem to indicate that evangelism is unnecessary and yet they evangelize.
All things are predestined and yet they CHOOSE to come to a web site and try to persuade people away from that which they were predestined to believe.
They say we have no free will and yet a thousand times a day we all act precisely as if that were not so. We choose to get up in the morning, we choose which shirt to put on, whether or not to wear a blue tie or a red one, whether to each Cheerios or Lucky Charms, etc, etc, etc. We make a hundred choices every day before 9:00am in the morning, and yet Calvinism would have us believe that its all a fantasy, an illusion.
WHY?!
Why, if the world is the way Calvinism teaches did God hide the facts inside a world that looks exactly as it would if Calvinism were not true?
I submit that not only is there no Biblical requirement for such a belief of the way things are, but that it simply doesn't make any sense to do so. It flies in the face of every single aspect of our existence, as well as the message of the Bible, to suppose that we are just automatons, playing out a preprogrammed set of arbitrary instructions that we have no control over.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
April 2nd, 2004, 08:00 AM
"Why, if the world is the way Calvinism teaches did God hide the facts inside a world that looks exactly as it would if Calvinism were not true?"

That depends on what side you're on, wouldn't you say? To a Calvinist the truth of his theology is self-evident; the same with Arminians.

Apollo
April 2nd, 2004, 08:02 AM
A Calvinist would say that God has ordained the "ends" ("who" would be saved) as well as the "means" ("how" someone is saved, i.e., evangelism). Similar questions: Why "pray" for someone's salvation? Or, why "preach"? Seems that if God "said" to do something, this is reason enough to do it. Calvinists operate under the same Great Commission to disciple the nations as do the Arminians, who, with slight modifications, including man's free-will acceptance (or rejection) of the offer, would also agree that if God has ordained the ends, he has also ordained the means.

"Hyper"-Calvinists, on the other hand, would agree that, God being sovereign, and having predestinated the elect to salvation, evangelism is "theoretically" unnecessary, but this is a minority opinion, even among Calvinists who, as has been pointed out by Granite1010, have a long history of foreign missions.

Apollo
April 2nd, 2004, 08:29 AM
Clete:
The entire TULIP would seem to indicate that evangelism is unnecessary and yet they evangelize.

Man’s word alone cannot penetrate a heart hardened to the things of God. Salvation is accomplished through the hearing of God’s word “mixing” with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The Arminian concludes that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. The Calvinist concludes that, once “chosen” (elected), the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted.

At any rate, how would the “total depravity” of a man be overcome, if not by preaching the Word (i.e., evangelizing), when salvation must come by “hearing” the Word of God? Whether “converted” into Calvinism, or converting into “Arminianism” (both human constructs, or “interpretations” of the conversion event), salvation is Word dependent. Thus, Calvinists are not only motivated by the “call” to evangelize and convert the nations (as all Christians are), they are bolstered by the conviction that their efforts will be successful.

Swordsman
April 2nd, 2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Apollo
At any rate, how would the “total depravity” of a man be overcome, if not by preaching the Word (i.e., evangelizing), when salvation must come by “hearing” the Word of God? Whether “converted” into Calvinism, or converting into “Arminianism” (both human constructs, or “interpretations” of the conversion event), salvation is Word dependent. Thus, Calvinists are not only motivated by the “call” to evangelize and convert the nations (as all Christians are), they are bolstered by the conviction that their efforts will be successful.

Arminians and Calvinists alike believe the Word comes through the Gospel. You are correct saying salvation is Word dependant.

And it isn't by our efforts at all that will convert anybody. It is the Holy Spirit empowering our lifestyle that will send the message of the Gospel to the lost sheep.

Total depravity is only overcome by God's irresistable grace. A.W. Pink puts it this way about the doctrine of sovereign grace:


It magnifies His grace. Grace is unmerited favor, and because grace is shown to the undeserving and Hell-deserving, to those who have no claim upon God, therefore is grace free and can be manifested toward the chief of sinners. But because grace is exercised toward those who are destitute of worthiness or merit grace is Sovereign; that is to say, God bestows grace upon whom He pleases. Divine Sovereignty has ordained that some shall be cast into the Lake of Fire to show that all deserved such a doom. But grace comes in like a dragnet and draws out from a lost humanity a people for God's name, to be throughout all eternity the monuments of His inscrutable favor. Sovereign grace reveals God breaking down the opposition of the human heart, subduing the enmity of the carnal mind, and bringing us to love Him because He first loved us.

lost anomaly
April 2nd, 2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

"Why, if the world is the way Calvinism teaches did God hide the facts inside a world that looks exactly as it would if Calvinism were not true?"

That depends on what side you're on, wouldn't you say? To a Calvinist the truth of his theology is self-evident; the same with Arminians.

Which porbably explains why I'm having trouble comprhending Calvinism?:)

lost anomaly
April 2nd, 2004, 07:02 PM
From what I have bee reading about the Calvinist's view on Evangelism is that they don't evangelize nessessarily to bring people to God but more because they are commanded to. Am I correct in assuming this?

smaller
April 2nd, 2004, 07:43 PM
They will admit they do not know (of course they don't) who is slated for salvation (their term is "THE ELECT,") therefore the(ir) word must be preached to as many as possible in order to reach those who MAY be the ONES who are ELECTED. But then even these ELECTED ONES are not really SURE if they are ELECTED unless they CONTINUE in their faith or then others of the ELECT would simply say they were never really the ELECTED to begin with.

One observation is still WHY BOTHER? If they are ELECT it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of these ELECT to actually be LOST with or without the(ir) word being preached.

See how easy that is?

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

From what I have bee reading about the Calvinist's view on Evangelism is that they don't evangelize necessarily to bring people to God but more because they are commanded to. Am I correct in assuming this?

Well, that's what they say anyway. But even that is inconsistent with their own theology. A more consistent thing for them to say is that they evangelize because they have been predestined to do so.
Being commanded to do so is somewhat irrelevant, because they could refuse to comply with that command and their noncompliance would also be (in their view) a predestined reaction to the command. Therefore, God's own commands are subordinate and in conflict with His predestination which means that God Himself is inconsistent and illogical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
April 2nd, 2004, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Apollo
...Calvinists are not only motivated by the “call” to evangelize and convert the nations (as all Christians are), they are bolstered by the conviction that their efforts will be successful.

This is an overstatement at best.

Calvinist cannot tell who is 'elect' and who is not. They therefore are forced to live as if all are elect when evangelizing. They must assume that any one particular person is elect and therefore that their evangelistic efforts have some possibility of success, or else they would never bother in the first place. And so I make the same point here as I've made many times before, that Calvinist are required to live out their lives in the exact same manner as they would if Calvinism we not so.

And no, Granite, this perception doesn't depend upon your point of view. If it did, then it would be meaningless to say.
Calvinists are forced into acting as though everyone has the opportunity to be saved because they have absolutely no way of telling whether or not someone is "elect" until that person actually gets saved. I, on the other hand actually do believe that everyone has the opportunity to be saved and so my evangelical actions are consistent with my theological world view and the Calvinists actions are in spite of theirs.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 3rd, 2004, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by lost anomaly

From what I have bee reading about the Calvinist's view on Evangelism is that they don't evangelize nessessarily to bring people to God but more because they are commanded to. Am I correct in assuming this?
Lost Anomaly,

Preaching is the means in which God has determined to awaken the elect. It pleases Him to do it this way.

1Co 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Also, please read and consider John Piper's thoughts on the issue of preaching:

How shall the lost believe in whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach unless they are sent (Romans 10:14f.)? Belief in Christ is a gift of God (John 6:65; II Timothy 2:25; Ephesians 2:8), but God has ordained that the means by which men believe on Jesus is through the preaching of men. It is simply naive to say that if no one spread the gospel all those predestined to be sons of God (Ephesians 1:5) would be converted anyway. The reason this is naive is because it overlooks the fact that the preaching of the gospel is just as predestined as is the believing of the gospel: Paul was set apart for his preaching ministry before he was born (Galatians 1:15), as was Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5). Therefore, to ask, "If we don't evangelize, will the elect be saved?" is like asking, "If there is no predestination, will the predestined be saved?" God knows those who are his and he will raise up messengers to win them. If someone refuses to be a part of that plan, because he dislikes the idea of being tampered with before he was born, then he will be the loser, not God and not the elect. "You will certainly carry out God's purpose however you act but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John." (Problem of Pain chapter 7, Anthology, p 910, cf. p 80)

geralduk
April 3rd, 2004, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Calvinism=the belief that God created the majority of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them in fire forever and no matter what these people are powerless to change the course of their eventual eternal tortured destiny in fire.

Of course Arminianism and frewillism has the same belief based upon a nearly identical outcome.

It is in truth YOU who limits God by the NUMBER of saved you so written above declare by what you think of others.
and so reveal your OWN HEART rather than thiers.

For it is YOUR thinking that says the number of lost will be in the majority.and the saved the minority.
In truth I make NO assumption.
For is it not written say or consider not who will go up and who will go down " but the Word is nigh thee even in thy mouth"
and is it not also written that if you SOW sparingly you will REAP SPARINGLY?
Likewise THEN "if you SOW bountifully you will REAP BOUNTIFULLY"
fOR IN THE LIGHT of those mysteries of the kingdom of God it is likened unto a man who "went OUT TO SOW"

So if then (you say) you consider ALL will be saved I hope therefore you are doing ALL you can that ALL might be and are sowing as BOUNTIFULLY as you say your faith reflects.
But here we have a problem in that not ALL the seed falls on good soil.
But soem fell among weeds and others on the pathway and soem upon stony ground.
Now that which is UNFRUITFULL does not mean that the SEED was at fault because it is written it is the GOOD SEED.
Thus it is the condition of the soil that hinders the fruitfullness of the life.
But in truth the seed that IS fruitfull produces MANY other seeds.
But the one seed that falls on hard ground etc brings forth nothing.

So the Harvest is GREAT the trouble and need is for LABOURERS!

lost anomaly
April 3rd, 2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Lost Anomaly,

Preaching is the means in which God has determined to awaken the elect. It pleases Him to do it this way.

1Co 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Also, please read and consider John Piper's thoughts on the issue of preaching:

How shall the lost believe in whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach unless they are sent (Romans 10:14f.)? Belief in Christ is a gift of God (John 6:65; II Timothy 2:25; Ephesians 2:8), but God has ordained that the means by which men believe on Jesus is through the preaching of men. It is simply naive to say that if no one spread the gospel all those predestined to be sons of God (Ephesians 1:5) would be converted anyway. The reason this is naive is because it overlooks the fact that the preaching of the gospel is just as predestined as is the believing of the gospel: Paul was set apart for his preaching ministry before he was born (Galatians 1:15), as was Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5). Therefore, to ask, "If we don't evangelize, will the elect be saved?" is like asking, "If there is no predestination, will the predestined be saved?" God knows those who are his and he will raise up messengers to win them. If someone refuses to be a part of that plan, because he dislikes the idea of being tampered with before he was born, then he will be the loser, not God and not the elect. "You will certainly carry out God's purpose however you act but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John." (Problem of Pain chapter 7, Anthology, p 910, cf. p 80)

That makes sense. Thanks.:)

smaller
April 3rd, 2004, 09:13 AM
Greetings geralduk


It is in truth YOU who limits God by the NUMBER of saved you so written above declare by what you think of others.
and so reveal your OWN HEART rather than thiers.

focus gerald, focus. I believe ALL of mankind are already God's Children.


For it is YOUR thinking that says the number of lost will be in the majority.and the saved the minority.
In truth I make NO assumption.

gerald, are you writing to me?


For is it not written say or consider not who will go up and who will go down " but the Word is nigh thee even in thy mouth"
and is it not also written that if you SOW sparingly you will REAP SPARINGLY?
Likewise THEN "if you SOW bountifully you will REAP BOUNTIFULLY"
fOR IN THE LIGHT of those mysteries of the kingdom of God it is likened unto a man who "went OUT TO SOW"

God sowed good seeds. The good seeds are ALL HIS CHILDREN, that being MANkind.


So if then (you say) you consider ALL will be saved I hope therefore you are doing ALL you can that ALL might be and are sowing as BOUNTIFULLY as you say your faith reflects.

If you are asking if I am making double sons of hell the answer is NO.


But here we have a problem in that not ALL the seed falls on good soil.
But soem fell among weeds and others on the pathway and soem upon stony ground.

Good seeds remain good. If they grow or are gathered makes no difference to God. Not a one is lost. Not a SINGLE SHEEP.


Now that which is UNFRUITFULL does not mean that the SEED was at fault because it is written it is the GOOD SEED.
Thus it is the condition of the soil that hinders the fruitfullness of the life.
But in truth the seed that IS fruitfull produces MANY other seeds.
But the one seed that falls on hard ground etc brings forth nothing.

The seed contains the promise of what is to come. All have this promise from God. In the meantime some are pressed down a little farther into the fertilizer eh?

enjoy!

smaller

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Lost Anomaly,

Preaching is the means in which God has determined to awaken the elect. It pleases Him to do it this way.

1Co 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Also, please read and consider John Piper's thoughts on the issue of preaching:

How shall the lost believe in whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach unless they are sent (Romans 10:14f.)? Belief in Christ is a gift of God (John 6:65; II Timothy 2:25; Ephesians 2:8), but God has ordained that the means by which men believe on Jesus is through the preaching of men. It is simply naive to say that if no one spread the gospel all those predestined to be sons of God (Ephesians 1:5) would be converted anyway. The reason this is naive is because it overlooks the fact that the preaching of the gospel is just as predestined as is the believing of the gospel: Paul was set apart for his preaching ministry before he was born (Galatians 1:15), as was Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5). Therefore, to ask, "If we don't evangelize, will the elect be saved?" is like asking, "If there is no predestination, will the predestined be saved?" God knows those who are his and he will raise up messengers to win them. If someone refuses to be a part of that plan, because he dislikes the idea of being tampered with before he was born, then he will be the loser, not God and not the elect. "You will certainly carry out God's purpose however you act but it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or like John." (Problem of Pain chapter 7, Anthology, p 910, cf. p 80)


Originally posted by lost anomaly

That makes sense. Thanks.:)

Lost Anomaly,

I'm glad this makes sense to you. I would agree with Z man completely.

The point Pink was making however, is that in spite of whether or not we 'think' something makes sense, if God has commanded it, then we should obey -- period.

Blessings,

helmet84

Clete
April 3rd, 2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

Lost Anomaly,

I'm glad this makes sense to you. I would agree with Z man completely.

The point Pink was making however, is that in spite of whether or not we 'think' something makes sense, if God has commanded it, then we should obey -- period.

Blessings,

helmet84

Helmet84,

Are you a Calvinist or not?
If so, what do you mean by "we should"?
What if you don't? Hasn't that been predestined too?

As I said, being commanded to do so is irrelevant, because one could refuse to comply with that command and their noncompliance would also be (in the Calvinist view) a predestined reaction to the command. Therefore, God's own commands are subordinate and in conflict with His predestination which means that God Himself is inconsistent and illogical.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 3rd, 2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Helmet84,

Are you a Calvinist or not?
If so, what do you mean by "we should"?
What if you don't? Hasn't that been predestined too?

As I said, being commanded to do so is irrelevant, because one could refuse to comply with that command and their noncompliance would also be (in the Calvinist view) a predestined reaction to the command. Therefore, God's own commands are subordinate and in conflict with His predestination which means that God Himself is inconsistent and illogical.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,

With all due respect, your ignorance is obvious. I guess you take to heart the saying "ignorance is bliss"...

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

With all due respect, your ignorance is obvious. I guess you take to heart the saying "ignorance is bliss"...

it was predestined :D

Z Man
April 3rd, 2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

it was predestined :D
It sure was!

1 Peter 2:7-8
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Good observation God_Is_Truth! :thumb:

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

It sure was!

1 Peter 2:7-8
Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Good observation God_Is_Truth! :thumb:

thanks. just doing what i was predestined to do :thumb:

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

thanks. just doing what i was predestined to do :thumb:

Yes, and Peter was doing what he was predestined to do when he denied Christ three times, and yet he wept over it.

Judas was also doing what he was predestined to do, yet he is still held responsible. Even Christ said it would have been better for Judas had he never been born.

Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles were also gathered together to do what God's hand and counsel predestined to be done, yet they are also held responsible.

Blessings,

helmet84

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

Yes, and Peter was doing what he was predestined to do when he denied Christ three times, and yet he wept over it.

Judas was also doing what he was predestined to do, yet he is still held responsible. Even Christ said it would have been better for Judas had he never been born.

Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles were also gathered together to do what God's hand and counsel predestined to be done, yet they are also held responsible.

Blessings,

helmet84

see that's one thing i don't get. Christ should never have had to say "it'd have been better if" if in fact God has this one big plan from creation where everything is predestined exactly as he wanted it. if everything was done exactly how God wanted it to be, what reason was there for Christ to say "it'd have been better if"?

also, remember that peter's weeping, judas's hanging himself, thomas doubting, and the unbelief of the jews even after the resurrection was also predestined.

and of course, we can't forget that this post of mine was also predestined :D

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth


and of course, we can't forget that this post of mine was also predestined :D

Yes it was. And you've entirely missed my point. And I don't know how to get you to see it.

I guess it is like trying to describe a rainbow to someone who has been blind all their life.

No offense intended.

Blessings
helmet84

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

Yes it was. And you've entirely missed my point. And I don't know how to get you to see it.

I guess it is like trying to describe a rainbow to someone who has been blind all their life.

No offense intended.

Blessings
helmet84

i understand that you are trying to say that people are still held responsible for what God predestined them to do (which i don't completely understand) and that we still feel bad about doing the things we were predestined to do but what i was saying is that those feelings were also predestined.

perhaps you could address why Christ said "it'd have been better if" if God has this big plan from creation and predestined everything to go exactly as he wanted it to go?

and also address why we would be held responsible for something God predestined us to do? to me it sounds like the puppeteer punishing the puppet for what the puppeteer made the puppet do.

God bless.

God_Is_Truth

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth


and also address why we would be held responsible for something God predestined us to do? to me it sounds like the puppeteer punishing the puppet for what the puppeteer made the puppet do.

God bless.

God_Is_Truth

The very objection you have is addressed by the apostle Paul in the ninth of Romans:

" . . . therefore hath He mercy on whom He'll have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will? (there's your question -- helmet84) Nay but O man, who art thou to reply against God? (there's your answer -- helmet84) Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed him, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter the right over the same lump of clay to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 04:52 PM
It is asserted that God, from all eternity, ordained every sin that is committed but yet is neither the author nor approver of it. How can these things be reconciled? The following remarks, it is thought, will aid us to arrive at a solution of the question.


1. A distinction is to be made, as existing in the divine mind, between the sinful act and the result to be attained by it. The one may be abhorrent to God and forbidden by Him and is sinful, because it is a violation of His law; the other may be good and infinitely worthy of accomplishment. Thus, eating the forbidden fruit was a sinful act, because forbidden by God and, as such, was infinitely abhorrent to Him; while the result attained by it was, in part, at least (and who will venture to say it was not as a whole, taking all things into consideration) a good infinitely valuable. It gave occasion for the advent of Christ; for the manifestation of the divine excellencies; and for the bestowal of that glorious grace which will constitute the theme for the praises of the redeemed, throughout eternity. Again, the outrage upon Joseph was, in the perpetrators of it, an unnatural sin and, as such, offensive in the sight of God; but the result attained by it was good and extorted the gratitude of all those affected by it. Joseph's brethren "meant" it for evil, but God "meant" it for good, to save much people alive. Finally, the crucifixion of Christ was not only a violation of the commands of God against the shedding of innocent blood, but was infinitely heinous as a manifestation of the Jews' hostility to Christ's holiness and was, therefore, an awful act of wickedness; but what Christian is unconscious of the glorious consequences of the crucifixion of Christ? What humble soul does not adopt the language of the Apostle, and say -- "God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ, by which the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."


2. It follows from the above that if God knows that any thing will result in infinite good (as the wicked crucifixion of Christ, for instance), it is not unworthy in Him to decree that it should occur; on the contrary, it is infinitely worthy in Him to do so. Calvinists, therefore, divide the will of God into secret and revealed -- the revealed to govern His creatures, the secret to govern Himself; and the latter will be attained, whether men regard or disregard the former. But here two other objections are started. 1st. "Does not this imply an inconsistency in God; as His secret will is sometimes one thing, and His revealed another?" and 2nd. "Is this not saying that God does evil, that good may come?"


1st. To the first, we answer that God's revealed will is always consistent with itself, and His secret will is always consistent with itself. The former is given in His precepts, and all the commands, warning, threatening, persuasions, &c, are consistent therewith. He never commands anything without sincerely requiring it; and, having commanded it. He never authorizes anything that conflicts with it. His revealed and His secret will have reference to objects that are entirely distinct, and cannot, therefore, be compared together. Thus, as we have shown, His revealed will may be entirely opposed to the violence offered to the Saviour and to the motives and feelings that influenced the Jews in that transaction; and yet His secret will, having another object in view, decreed that event in order that the glorious blessings and results that flow from the atonement of Christ might be secured.


2nd. "Is this not saying that God does evil that good may come?"


God is not the doer of evil -- the most that can be said, therefore, is that He permits evil that good may come. Substitute, therefore, for the word `does', the word `permits', and the question will stand: "Does God permit evil that good may come?" That He does permit evil is indisputable. Only three suppositions, therefore, can be made in the case: Either He permits it without any objection in view and for no reason at all; or He permits it that evil may come; or He permits it that good may come. The first, if we understand them, is the Arminian view; but which is the most honoring to God? Let the reader judge.


Finally, if there is any difficulty in this subject, it grows out of the connection that exists between the omnipotent and sovereign God and finite and responsible men. God's sovereignty and man's free agency are both revealed in the scriptures and, therefore, should be both believed. And if we cannot reconcile them, it is not because they are irreconcilable, but because the subject is above our faculties. We think it has been shown, however, that if the objection considered above can lie against the Calvinistic system, it can be alleged with as much reason against the Bible: and Calvinism is content to stand or fall with the Bible.


Objection 2. "Does not the doctrine which teaches that God foreordained all things even to the sins that wicked men commit, exonerate the sinner from all blame?" This is akin to the objection considered above, viz: that Predestination makes God the author of sin, and the answer to one is applicable to the other. The point of the objection is that, if the creature does what God in His secret counsels ordained should be done and thus becomes an instrument (though unconsciously) for the accomplishment of God's purposes, no blame can be attached to him, and God has no right to find fault. Exactly such an objection and in the same connection is considered and answered by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:5, 6, 7, 8. "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?" If our wickedness tends to the glory of God and to the accomplishment of His purposes, would it not be unjust in God to punish us? Certainly not, says he, "God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world?" "But," says the objector, "if the truth of God hath more abounded through my life unto his glory, why am I also judged as a sinner?" "And not rather," answers the Apostle (as we be slanderously reported, &c), "Let us do evil that good may come." Secret things belong to God; and it is a worthy view of Him that He rules with such an omnipotent sway, then even our rebellion and wickedness cannot happen without His permission and cannot thwart His purposes. His revealed will is the rule of our action, and whenever we violate it thoughtlessly or through enmity to it, we are guilty of sin and are blameworthy, whatever may be the consequence of our act as it relates to God. As well might one say who, with malice aforethought, attempted to injure seriously another whom he hated but was thwarted by the skill or power of the latter and thus the act, that was meant for his injury, was made to subserve his interest in a high degree- as well might such an one say, that he was not blameworthy since his act (though unintentionally) wrought good and not evil. And the case supposed would be more pertinent still, and it would not in the slightest degree affect the moral character of the act, if the assailed, unknown to his adversary, became possessed of his intention before hand and determined to permit it, because he foresaw how he could turn it to a good account. Because the wrath of man is foreseen by God and is made to praise Him, that does not make it the less the wrath of man. That God does ordain particular events and all the minute circumstances connected therewith, and yet men act wickedly in bringing them to pass, is asserted by a multitude of scripture passages. Take the following: "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23). See again, Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27, 28, 27:23, 24, 34 and that remarkable passage John 19:11. "Jesus answered, thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." Our objector, however, differing from the Saviour, would say that, under the circumstances, he had no sin at all!


Objection 3. "But does not Predestination, as explained, destroy free-agency, and make men mere machines?" No, on the contrary, it establishes free-agency. Men are free-agents when they act according to their inclinations. Freedom of action is not opposed to necessity but to compulsion. A being may be necessarily holy or necessarily wicked, and yet a free-agent -- nay, a free-agent for that very reason. Thus, God is a free-agent though He cannot sin and Satan though he cannot but sin. And so it is with men. . . Predestination asserts neither that God makes men serve Him against their consent nor that they disobey Him unwillingly. His chosen people He makes willing in the day of His power and so works in them to will and to do His good pleasure, that they find it to be their meat and their drink to do His will; the rest He leaves to themselves, and, in consequence, they sin against Him freely, and, in following their own inclinations, they work out their own destruction greedily. "But you say God does not infuse into the sinner any active principle of disobedience; how then can he fulfil that which God has appointed, and yet not be a mere machine?" And yet so it is; and my Arminian objector is as much responsible for it as I am. Did not Joseph's brethren act freely in their violence to him? Yet God sent him to Egypt? Did not Pharaoh act freely in refusing to let the Israelites go? Yet God hardened his heart that he might not let them go. Was not the curse which Shimei uttered against David the offspring of the bitter feelings of his heart? Yet God told him to curse David. Did not Absalom and his advisers act in an untrammeled manner in adopting the counsel of Hushai rather than that of Ahithophel? Yet "the Lord had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom" (2 Sam. 17:14). Did not the Jews act freely in crucifying Christ? Yet He was delivered to them by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
-- Patrick Hues Mell


GIT. Take to the time to read the above very carefully. Forgive me for not using my own words, but this save me a lot of typing :)

-- helmet84

Clete
April 3rd, 2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

The very objection you have is addressed by the apostle Paul in the ninth of Romans:

" . . . therefore hath He mercy on whom He'll have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will? (there's your question -- helmet84) Nay but O man, who art thou to reply against God? (there's your answer -- helmet84) Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed him, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter the right over the same lump of clay to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"

The passage you quote in Romans 9 is itself a reference to Jeremiah 18. Read Jeremiah 18 anf you'll find out that God is not talking about individuals but NATIONS!

Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

In fact Rom. 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point. They are in effect the same chapter. That point being, that God does not have to give a kingdom to a nation that does evil even though He said He would. Which, by the way, is a VERY non Calvinistic thing for God to say, don't you think? Rom. 9 is the Calvinists big artillery and yet when read IN CONTEXT it is the most devastating evidence against their position.

Resting in Him,
Clete

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

The very objection you have is addressed by the apostle Paul in the ninth of Romans:

" . . . therefore hath He mercy on whom He'll have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will? (there's your question -- helmet84) Nay but O man, who art thou to reply against God? (there's your answer -- helmet84) Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed him, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter the right over the same lump of clay to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?"

what kind of answer is that? an honest question is asked and an answer of "don't question God" comes back?

Clete
April 3rd, 2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

With all due respect, your ignorance is obvious. I guess you take to heart the saying "ignorance is bliss"...

Z Man,

You know better than this. How long have you and I been going at it over Calvinism? I know Calvinism better than most Calvinist!
If my logic is flawed then show me how. Otherwise, say "Good point Clete, I hadn't ever thought of that before!"
Besides that, if you’re right then God has predestined me to believe in free-will. But you can't tell if that is so or not, can you?
Aren't you forced to assume that I am not predestined to believe what I believe? Aren't you, who believe in predestination, forced to act just as I, who believes in free-will? That is, I get on this web site and try to convince people that what they believe is incorrect because I believe that they might come around and see the error of their ways. Aren't you compelled because of your inability to determine who is and who is not "elect", to do the very same thing?
Your chastisement of me for being ignorant is evidence that you do not even think in a manner consistent with your own beliefs. Which is, I think, the point that God_Is_Truth was trying to make when He said that I had been predestined to say what I had said, which you then promptly agree with!
Do you not see the conflict in your own thinking? How can you not? Unless God predestined that you would not see it, then of course you'd be no more responsible for your ignorance than I am for mine, right?

Resting in Him,
Clete

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

what kind of answer is that? an honest question is asked and an answer of "don't question God" comes back?

Yes, that is undeniably how Paul answers the question.

But I did not mean this as a personal affront to you. Please see my quote from Mel above, which was addressed to you. It's just that Romans nine is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear that question.

BTW, I do appreciate the kindness of you spirit when you discuss things with us. That is why I'm taking time to answer you. I do not expect, however, to persuade you.

-- helmet84

Z Man
April 3rd, 2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

You know better than this. How long have you and I been going at it over Calvinism? I know Calvinism better than most Calvinist!
If my logic is flawed then show me how. Otherwise, say "Good point Clete, I hadn't ever thought of that before!"
Besides that, if you’re right then God has predestined me to believe in free-will. But you can't tell if that is so or not, can you?
Aren't you forced to assume that I am not predestined to believe what I believe? Aren't you, who believe in predestination, forced to act just as I, who believes in free-will? That is, I get on this web site and try to convince people that what they believe is incorrect because I believe that they might come around and see the error of their ways. Aren't you compelled because of your inability to determine who is and who is not "elect", to do the very same thing?
Your chastisement of me for being ignorant is evidence that you do not even think in a manner consistent with your own beliefs. Which is, I think, the point that God_Is_Truth was trying to make when He said that I had been predestined to say what I had said, which you then promptly agree with!
Do you not see the conflict in your own thinking? How can you not? Unless God predestined that you would not see it, then of course you'd be no more responsible for your ignorance than I am for mine, right?

Resting in Him,
Clete





Resting in Him,
Clete
You are far more obsessed with what is NOT important. Before you can understand predestination, you need to understand your salvation. I could care less what you think about predestination, or how I'm suppose to think about predestination. Lay off it for a while and let's talk about what's more important; our salvation. Predestination will follow.

Personally, I could care less about your thoughts on predestination. Whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant. You can sit in your corner all day and whine about how since God predestined it already, there is no need for you or anyone else to do anything. But sitting in your corner pouting about it doesn't upset God. Nor does it change the fact that His purposes will be accomplished, with or without you. Predestination is a fact, and just because God has already determined it does not mean we can sit back and do nothing. But, if that is what you'd rather do, or believe is the only logical thing to do, than go ahead and do it. Your not hurting my feelings, and your definitly not hurting God's. His purpose will be carried out nonetheless.

Now, let me ask you a question Clete, and let's see if you can answer this question correctly:

What is required from us to be saved?

Be careful with what you say. I'll be looking forward to your response. God bless.

:zman:

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

GIT. Take to the time to read the above very carefully. Forgive me for not using my own words, but this save me a lot of typing :)

-- helmet84

well, i read it through a couple of times but most of it didn't make sense to me. i didn't agree with how he defined predestination and didn't quite follow why we would still be responsible, but an interesting read none the less.

perhaps next time you could sort that into more paragraphs as it gets hard to read when some sections are big blocks.

helmet84
April 3rd, 2004, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

well, i read it through a couple of times but most of it didn't make sense to me. i didn't agree with how he defined predestination

How do you disagree with his definition of predestination?





Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
perhaps next time you could sort that into more paragraphs as it gets hard to read when some sections are big blocks.



I realize that, but that was how the author wrote it. It was written back in the 1800s. Back then they used long sentences and paragraphs.

-- helmet84

Clete
April 3rd, 2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

You are far more obsessed with what is NOT important. Before you can understand predestination, you need to understand your salvation. I could care less what you think about predestination, or how I'm suppose to think about predestination. Lay off it for a while and let's talk about what's more important; our salvation. Predestination will follow.
Very well, but isn't it interesting that you, by definition, must believe that such a discussion was predestined to happen, right? As is what I'm "obsessed" with and whether or not I understand salvation. You really must stop contradicting yourself.

And before we get into a discussion on salvation, I simply can't resist...

Personally, I could care less about your thoughts on predestination.
Is this because you've decided on your own that you don't care or was it God who predestined you not to care?


Whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant.
Anything we do or believe is irrelevant in a Calvinist world for it was all predestined before any of it ever came to be.


You can sit in your corner all day and whine about how since God predestined it already, there is no need for you or anyone else to do anything.
I can't sit there and pout unless God has predetermined that I would do so, in which case it is you who have no room for complaining about it.


But sitting in your corner pouting about it doesn't upset God.
Well of course it doesn't, He predestined it, right?


Nor does it change the fact that His purposes will be accomplished, with or without you.
Wow there! Now you’re sounding like me! This isn't a very Calvinistic thing of you to say. After all, I will personally accomplish precisely the number of things God has predestined me to accomplish, no more, no less. Right?


Predestination is a fact, and just because God has already determined it does not mean we can sit back and do nothing.
Come on now, Z Man, I know your capable of clearer thinking than this! Is it not painfully obvious the contradiction that is present in this sentence?
What if God predestined that we sit back and do nothing? Can we do it then?


But, if that is what you'd rather do, or believe is the only logical thing to do, than go ahead and do it. Your not hurting my feelings, and your definitely not hurting God's. His purpose will be carried out nonetheless.
:dizzy: You're making me dizzy! :dizzy:



Now, let me ask you a question Clete, and let's see if you can answer this question correctly:

What is required from us to be saved?

Be careful with what you say. I'll be looking forward to your response. God bless.

:zman:

Okay, hmm, let's see. :think:
If God has predestined me to answer the question correctly then I believe this would be it...

Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."* 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Forgive my sarcasm, I'm in a bit of a squirrelly mood this evening and I just couldn't resist having a little fun. I promise to tone it down. ;)


God bless!

Z Man
April 3rd, 2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Okay, hmm, let's see. :think:
If God has predestined me to answer the question correctly then I believe this would be it...

Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."* 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Forgive my sarcasm, I'm in a bit of a squirrelly mood this evening and I just couldn't resist having a little fun. I promise to tone it down. ;)


God bless!
Nice passage of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. Or, if you think you did, let me see if I understand your answer correctly. Are you suggesting that to be saved, one *MUST* do the things spoken of in Romans? Or, are you suggesting that to do those things means that one is/will be saved?

What requirement is there to be saved?

God_Is_Truth
April 3rd, 2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by helmet84

How do you disagree with his definition of predestination?
I realize that, but that was how the author wrote it. It was written back in the 1800s. Back then they used long sentences and paragraphs.

-- helmet84

he said "Objection 3. "But does not Predestination, as explained, destroy free-agency, and make men mere machines?" No, on the contrary, it establishes free-agency"

and i suppose if you argue that one only has compatablistic free will and that God predestined that will from eternity then you could say predestinatino establishes free agency. but i don't hold to the compatabalistic view. i hold to the libertarian view and thus i disagree that predestination establishes free agency.

that article was from the 1800's? :shocked: wow, old stuff!

Clete
April 4th, 2004, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Nice passage of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. Or, if you think you did, let me see if I understand your answer correctly. Are you suggesting that to be saved, one *MUST* do the things spoken of in Romans? Or, are you suggesting that to do those things means that one is/will be saved?

What requirement is there to be saved?

Romans 10:
9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

I'm not trying to be difficult but there simply isn't any clearer way to say it than to quote this passage of scripture. What is there about it that is in any way cryptic or hard to understand? It directly answers the question no less than five times in five verses. Paul basically repeats himself five times (5 happens to be the symbolic number for Grace) so as to make sure that his point cannot be missed.
If you’re going to launch into a debate about total depravity, this is going to be where you'll have to start. This is my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 4th, 2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Romans 10:
9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

I'm not trying to be difficult but there simply isn't any clearer way to say it than to quote this passage of scripture. What is there about it that is in any way cryptic or hard to understand? It directly answers the question no less than five times in five verses. Paul basically repeats himself five times (5 happens to be the symbolic number for Grace) so as to make sure that his point cannot be missed.
If you’re going to launch into a debate about total depravity, this is going to be where you'll have to start. This is my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,

I understand the passage perfectly clear and what it says. But I want to know how you interpret it yourself. Is Paul saying that doing these things is what saves us, or is he just merely stating the obvious - that those who do profess are/will be saved?

To help clarify my question, here is a quote that could be used in agreement with Romans 10:

The elect are whosoever will; the non-elect are whosoever won’t.
HENRY WARD BEECHER (1813–1887)

I understand what Paul is stating in Romans 10. Henry Beecher does a good job of summing it up. Paul says if an individual professes and believes in their heart, then they're saved (or will be, since technically, salvation in and of itself has not happened for anyone alive yet...). But those that do confess and believe are the elect; the non-elect will never confess or believe. There are some people who fake it and say they believe, but if they're not producing fruit, then they really aren't a "good tree". John says in 1 John 2:19 that those who leave the church after being with them for a while were never really apart of the fellowship of the believer's to begin with because they left! If they had believed, they would have never left!

Anyways, again, my question directly to you is what is required to be saved? Yes, I know what Paul states in Romans 10, but in doing those things he speaks of in that passage of scripture do we then become saved? What is the requirement for salvation, in your own words?

Clete
April 4th, 2004, 01:54 PM
Z Man,

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Your interpretation doesn't square with this passage of scripture.
It is not saying that we believe and confess because we are/will be saved. It says the reverse. We believe UNTO righteousness and confess UNTO salvation. The belief and confession come BEFORE salvation, not after.

Further, your reasoning that those who turn from the faith were never part of it to begin with makes your position unfalsifiable and therefore fundamentally meaningless.

Further still, TODAY is the day of salvation, not tomorrow or next year, or when I die. TODAY! I am as saved today as I will ever be, "technically speaking" or otherwise.

And as for my own words, I can't say it in any other way.

If we confess with our mouths, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved.

I honestly do not know how else to say it! That's the Gospel, isn't it? What else do you want?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 5th, 2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Your interpretation doesn't square with this passage of scripture.
It is not saying that we believe and confess because we are/will be saved. It says the reverse. We believe UNTO righteousness and confess UNTO salvation. The belief and confession come BEFORE salvation, not after.
Wrong. For two reasons:

1) If these actions are what saves us, then you believe in salvation by works.

2) Your going waaaay out on a limb here to say that the word "unto" means that the belief and confession come BEFORE salvation. "Unto" simply means to, or in this case, to the extent of or degree; toward a given state. For instance, one could say in the same context:

I loved her unto distraction.

or

I nursed her back unto health.

In the same way, we believe and confess unto, or towards, righteousness and salvation. It doesn't mean that our belief and confession suddenly create within us salvation. It's always been there since Christ died on the cross. Our belief and confession is an act that leads us towards what always has been.

You don't believe and confess to BECOME saved; to believe and confess means you ARE saved.

Further, your reasoning that those who turn from the faith were never part of it to begin with makes your position unfalsifiable and therefore fundamentally meaningless.
Ok, this makes no sense to me at all, but I really don't care, because it's not vital to the discussion.

Further still, TODAY is the day of salvation, not tomorrow or next year, or when I die. TODAY! I am as saved today as I will ever be, "technically speaking" or otherwise.
I agree. Even though we are not actually in our glorified, saved state, we can count on God's promises to mean exaclty what they mean. He said if we believed, we would have eternal life. So, it is right for us to claim salvation now, because we truely are saved. That's just a confirmation of God's perserverance of the saints. Good, we got the "P" down.

And as for my own words, I can't say it in any other way.

If we confess with our mouths, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved.

I honestly do not know how else to say it! That's the Gospel, isn't it? What else do you want?

Resting in Him,
Clete
It's ok. I don't mean to be confusing or anything. Here, I'll help you out. The answer to my question:

What is required from us to be saved?

is....

NOTHING!

There is nothing required from us to be saved! What could man ever do to earn salvation to begin with? And if we could do something to merit salvation, then Christ would have never took the trouble in coming to earth to get beat up and killed.

I'm not surprised that you did not know this answer. And I wouldn't be even more surprised if you came back screaming NONSENSE because you believe salvation is of man. One of the most impressive notions that I remember being enlightened to after I came to realize that the doctrine of God's Soveriegnty was true was that Grace truely was amazing. There was nothing I did to earn it, and there is nothing I can do to lose it. It's all from God. That was a paradigm shift, because I use to believe the way you do; that we somehow, someway contribute to our salvation. You know why people think that way? Because God's Grace is too amazing! It's mind boggling to think that God saves us 100%, considering our depravity.

This may sound harsh, but don't take this the wrong way, because it's not meant to portray that. Your perception of grace is no different from those that do not believe in Christ. When you ask a non-believer if they're going to heaven, thier response usually is, "Of course I am. I'm a good person." In the same way, if on Open Theist is asked why they are going to heaven, their response is, "Of course I am. I repented and believe. I do my best to love God." What's the difference in that and what, say, someone who believes like I do would say? Well, if asked if I'm saved, my response would be, "Of course I am. God saved me and loved me enough to die for my sins."

See the difference? In your view, it is believed that man must love God either by service or some other way; and through their outward acts such as repentance and confession, then they are saved. However, in my view, there is nothing man can do to be saved. I don't believe that for someone to merely "accept" Christ as their Savior at an alter oneday, asking for forgiveness, is what saves an individual. Saying a cute prayer, or going to the alter to ask for forgiveness, or stating that you've accepted Christ as your Savior does not save. Christ's blood that was shed on the cross is what saved us. When a person repents, it's not to recieve salvation, but to affirm their salvation.

You don't love God so that He will then save you. To love God IS to be saved. It is a gift, not an achievement. You can make yourself moral. You can make yourself religious. But you can't make yourself love. "We love," John says, "because he first loved us."
(1 John 4:19). -Frederick Buechner

God_Is_Truth
April 5th, 2004, 08:14 PM
why are you guys arguing semantics from the KJV? that's a horrible translation as king james lacked many of the manuscripts we have today. how about you use either NASB or NIV, both of which are more accurate and true to the greek than the kjv (NASB more so).

here are the alternate translations:

NIV
Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

NASB
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

or you can totally blow me off and keep using the KJV although i don't recomment it. but hey, it's your choice. or is it....:D

Clete
April 5th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Z Man,

You've as good a job of stating the Calvinist position as I've seen anyone on this site do. However, the following statement shows the primary weakness of the Calvinist position on this issue...

I had said...

Further, your reasoning that those who turn from the faith were never part of it to begin with makes your position unfalsifiable and therefore fundamentally meaningless.

You responded...

Ok, this makes no sense to me at all, but I really don't care, because it's not vital to the discussion.

It is so totally vital that it can hardly be overstated!
We have two issues that have been brought up...
1. The Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.
2. the Calvinist position that one believes and confesses BECAUSE we are saved not in order to be saved.
Both are non-falsifiable.
This is incredibly important because things that cannot be falsified, cannot be verified either. They are meaningless in a pursuit of what is true.

I really want for you to understand this concept and so at the risk of insulting you, which is certainly not my intention, allow me to try and explain what it means to be falsifiable.

You may have never heard of it before but in philosophy there is an idea known as Solipsism. In philosophy, solipsism is, in essence, non-falsifiable. Solipsism has it that the Universe exists entirely in one's own mind. This can straightforwardly be seen not to be falsifiable, because whatever evidence one might adduce that is contrary to solipsism can be, after all, dismissed as something that is "in one's mind." In other words, there is no evidence that one could possibly adduce that would be inconsistent with the proposition that everything that exists, exists in one's own mind.*

Much of Calvinism is in this exact same category. Take perseverance of the saints (hence forth referred to as "POS"). POS says that no one could ever lose their salvation because their election was decided before they even existed and was not decided with any input from the individual that is elected and can therefore not be opted out of by that individual either. Well the only way that this could ever be falsified is if one was ever observed having been saved at one point and then at another point having walked away from the faith. The problem with that is that Calvinists dismiss such a person as having never been elect to begin with. This renders the whole position non-falsifiable because there is no condition that can exist in which evidence could be produced to prove the position incorrect.

Our second issue is equally non-falsifiable for similar reasons. There can be no evidence that your assertion that I believe because I was elected to believe is correct because the only way you have of knowing that I won't one day walk away from the faith is to wait until I die and see if I make it or not. But then it's too late because once dead, no one can come back to testify as to whether or not you were right. It is non-falsifiable and therefore non-verifiable and therefore meaningless in any pursuit of the truth and therefore useless in Christian theology; for what good is it to our theology if we have no way of confirming objectively if our interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Taken from www.wikipedia.org

God_Is_Truth
April 5th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Solipsism sounds like what Berkely believed except he believed that everything existed only in the mind of God.

Clete
April 5th, 2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Solipsism sounds like what Berkely believed except he believed that everything existed only in the mind of God.

Hmm, Theistic Solipsism, that's a good one. I hadn't ever heard of that one before.
I wonder if our ability to think would be enough philosophically to falsify such an assertion? :think:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
April 5th, 2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Why are you guys arguing semantics from the KJV? That’s a horrible translation as King James lacked many of the manuscripts we have today. How about you use either NASB or NIV, both of which are more accurate and true to the Greek than the kjv (NASB more so).

here are the alternate translations:

NIV
Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

NASB
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

or you can totally blow me off and keep using the KJV although I don't recommend it, but hey, it's your choice. Or is it....:D

Clever post GIT! I prefer the Bibles translated from the majority texts; those being the KJV and the NKJV. There are many reasons but pretty much any translation will do for this topic. It seems both of the ones you quote lean even more heavily in my favor but that could just be me reading into it.
Did you know that the translators of all of the modern translations including the NKJV were all Calvinists? Most of them hard core 5 point Calvinists at that. And much of their theology comes shining through in their translations.
I hope one day to be able to read the Bible in the original languages. Being able to do so would really be helpful here because I'd be willing to bet that the Greek words translated "unto" in the NKJV would leave no doubt as to which of our interpretations are correct.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

You've as good a job of stating the Calvinist position as I've seen anyone on this site do. However, the following statement shows the primary weakness of the Calvinist position on this issue...

I had said...


You responded...


It is so totally vital that it can hardly be overstated!
We have two issues that have been brought up...
1. The Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.
2. the Calvinist position that one believes and confesses BECAUSE we are saved not in order to be saved.
Both are non-falsifiable.
This is incredibly important because things that cannot be falsified, cannot be verified either. They are meaningless in a pursuit of what is true.

I really want for you to understand this concept and so at the risk of insulting you, which is certainly not my intention, allow me to try and explain what it means to be falsifiable.

You may have never heard of it before but in philosophy there is an idea known as Solipsism. In philosophy, solipsism is, in essence, non-falsifiable. Solipsism has it that the Universe exists entirely in one's own mind. This can straightforwardly be seen not to be falsifiable, because whatever evidence one might adduce that is contrary to solipsism can be, after all, dismissed as something that is "in one's mind." In other words, there is no evidence that one could possibly adduce that would be inconsistent with the proposition that everything that exists, exists in one's own mind.*

Much of Calvinism is in this exact same category. Take perseverance of the saints (hence forth referred to as "POS"). POS says that no one could ever lose their salvation because their election was decided before they even existed and was not decided with any input from the individual that is elected and can therefore not be opted out of by that individual either. Well the only way that this could ever be falsified is if one was ever observed having been saved at one point and then at another point having walked away from the faith. The problem with that is that Calvinists dismiss such a person as having never been elect to begin with. This renders the whole position non-falsifiable because there is no condition that can exist in which evidence could be produced to prove the position incorrect.

Our second issue is equally non-falsifiable for similar reasons. There can be no evidence that your assertion that I believe because I was elected to believe is correct because the only way you have of knowing that I won't one day walk away from the faith is to wait until I die and see if I make it or not. But then it's too late because once dead, no one can come back to testify as to whether or not you were right. It is non-falsifiable and therefore non-verifiable and therefore meaningless in any pursuit of the truth and therefore useless in Christian theology; for what good is it to our theology if we have no way of confirming objectively if our interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Taken from www.wikipedia.org
What kind of mickey mouse crap is this?! I try to have a descent conversation with you, and the best you can come up with is some kind of pyscho philisophical explanation as to why thinking that the universe is only present in the mind is non-falsifiable?!?!?! COME ON!! Give me a break here! You guys have to work with me here!

Solipsism, in this case, could also prove Christianity as a whole non-falsifiable, thus meaningless to pursue the truth. It's limitless in it's application! This all reminds me of the Salem witch hunts. If someone said or did something that someone else didn't like, they branded them as a witch and had them killed. In like manner, I present a valid argument with valid scripture, and because you don't like what it represents and how it diminishes man's free will, you dismiss it as some sort of non-falsifiable argument, thus meaning it is worthless to pursue!!! You try and kill the theology of God's Sovereignty to preserve your selfish "right of will". Please....

Thanks for pretty much avoiding the context of my last post. That verse from 1 John 2:19 was a tangent off from what we were discussing in regards to what was required to be save. I told you what was required, scripturally I might add, and even explained myself in laymen terms. And then you totally ignore the important issue to tell me about Solipsism?!? Give me a break... :rolleyes:

Clete
April 6th, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

What kind of Mickey Mouse crap is this?! I try to have a descent conversation with you, and the best you can come up with is some kind of psycho-philosophical explanation as to why thinking that the universe is only present in the mind is non-falsifiable?!?!?! COME ON!! Give me a break here! You guys have to work with me here!

Solipsism, in this case, could also prove Christianity as a whole non-falsifiable, thus meaningless to pursue the truth. It's limitless in its application! This all reminds me of the Salem witch hunts. If someone said or did something that someone else didn't like, they branded them as a witch and had them killed. In like manner, I present a valid argument with valid scripture, and because you don't like what it represents and how it diminishes man's free will, you dismiss it as some sort of non-falsifiable argument, thus meaning it is worthless to pursue!!! You try and kill the theology of God's Sovereignty to preserve your selfish "right of will". Please....

Thanks for pretty much avoiding the context of my last post. That verse from 1 John 2:19 was a tangent off from what we were discussing in regards to what was required to be save. I told you what was required, scripturally I might add, and even explained myself in laymen terms. And then you totally ignore the important issue to tell me about Solipsism?!? Give me a break... :rolleyes:
I suggest you cool your jets and sit back and think about things before reacting to them.

I suspect that you've misunderstood my argument. Or at least I'm hoping that you have. It is the only rational explanation for your reaction to it.

The only reason I brought up Solipsism is as an example of something that is really obviously non-falsifiable. I was not comparing Solipsism with Calvinism directly. In other words I was not trying to say that Calvinism is only in your head or anything like that. I was merely pointing out that Calvinism, or at least the two aspects of it that have come up in the last few posts are non-falsifiable. You seemed not to understand the concept of falsifiability and why it is important so I gave an example of something that was really super easy to see why its non-falsifiable in hopes that you would not only see why I say that Calvinism is not falsifiable but understand why it is an important issue.
The fact that you gave a "biblical" response is at this point irrelevant because we are past that point. You and I both have the exact same proof text (Rom. 10). The discussion now has to do with our respective interpretation of that text. You gave your interpretation after I had given mine, then I demonstrated how your interpretation is meaningless because it is non-falsifiable.

Further, Solipsism could not prove anything to be non-falsifiable. It wasn't presented in order to prove anything but merely as an example of something that is undeniably non-falsifiable.

You know as well as anyone (or you ought to know) that Christianity is falsifiable in about a dozen different ways, not the least of which would be to prove that the resurrection did not happen. If that where done, by whatever means, then Christianity would be debunked permanently, without remedy.

Calvinistic soteriology, (to get back to the discussion at hand), cannot make any such claim. The following is a break down of the basic points of Calvinistic soteriology...

1. God has elected those who will believe by fiat, that is without cause, arbitrarily, or because it suited is will to do so.
2. If we genuinely confess Christ we do so because of this election and solely because of it.
3. If one leaves the faith, then this is proof that they are not elect, unless they return to it, then that's proof that they are elect so long as, when they die, they haven't left it again and not come back (again).

You may not have put it in the exact terms but I think that's a far representation of the Calvinist position.
Now to prove my point, I'll ask you to answer a single question.
What aspect of this theology of salvation could ever be proven false and by what means?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 6th, 2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

What aspect of this theology of salvation could ever be proven false and by what means?
Why?

Clete
April 7th, 2004, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Why?

Because if there is no aspect of it that can even hypothetically be proven false then it is meaningless.

If Calvinism left out the part about if a man leaves the faith then he was never a part of it to begin with, then you would have a means by which the theology could be falsified but by including the caveat then you render the theology meaningless because you have in effect said that now matter what circumstance you can come up with, what I say is true is true. Any evidence to the contrary will not disprove my theory but only cause me to modify my theory in such a way as to account for whatever exception that seem to be evident.

In other words, If we start with the following premise...

Only those who are predestined to be saved will confess Christ.

and this is how we leave it then we have a falsifiable premise because all one must do is find someone who believed at one time and now doesn't. So Zakath would be sufficient to falsify this premise.
If, however, we do not allow this evidence to debunk our thesis but make the mistake of assuming that Zakath was never saved to begin with despite all evidence to the contrary then we are suddenly left with a theory that cannot be either proven or disproved. It is non-falsifiable. By adding the addition statement you cut the legs out from under the theological position by rendering it meaningless.

The point is, that there is no requirement either contextually or grammatically to interpret Rom. 10 the way you do. The only thing that requires such an interpretation is your own theology, which I have hopefully shown sufficiently to be non-falsifiable and is therefore an insufficient reason to compel such an interpretation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
April 7th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Whatever.

I'm not here to "prove" or "disprove" who's saved or not. I just wish you would realize the context and truth of Scripture.

In all actuality, no one is "technically" saved yet. And by that I mean that no one is running around in their glorified state right now as perfect beings. However, just because no one is like that now doesn't mean that no one really is saved. The reason I can say that I am saved now is because I put my trust and faith in Christ and what He said. He promised that if I believe and confess, then I am saved. Those who believe have been granted eternal life. That's my hope. Of course I'm not saved "now", physically or anything, but God already saved me on the cross. It was finished. There is nothing I did to earn eternal life, and there is nothing I can do to lose it. The reason I believe is because God granted me faith.

1 John 2:19 specifically says that those who leave the faith cannot be considered saved, or a part of the "group", because if they were truely saved and born-again, and had a genuine believing faith that only comes from God, they would have never left in the first place. Now I know there are people out there who play "Christian" a lot, and may be in church one week, and out partying the next, only to go back to church the following week. I wouldn't be ignorant enough to tell someone that they're not saved, and yet, I wouldn't say they are saved either just because they attend church and said a cute prayer some time ago. The evidence of a true believer in Christ is the fruit they produce. If there is no fruit, then their faith should be questioned.

Going to church does not prove anyone's salvation, and neither does not attending church disprove it. What really matters is thier fruit. We don't have to wait until someone dies to see if they really endured or not; and quite frankly, we shouldn't be occupying our free time going around deceiding who is saved and who isn't. That's not our job.

Clete
April 7th, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
Whatever.

This one word is the only thing you said that was on topic. The rest is so far off topic or is so self-contradictory that it doesn't warrant a response. The whole post is almost unintelligible.
If this is the way our discussion has to end then so be it, but I'm sorely disappointed. My previous conversations with you were far more productive than this. You are capable of clearer thinking than you've demonstrated on this thread. Perhaps next time, we'll have a more productive discussion.

God bless.

Resting in Him,
Clete

LightSon
April 7th, 2004, 01:58 PM
What is required from us to be saved?


Originally posted by Z Man

is....

NOTHING!

There is nothing required from us to be saved! ...

Z Man,
I appreciate the fact that you are defending Calvinism, but perhaps you have pushed this point too far.

What is required from us to be saved?

Interestingly enough the jailer, in Acts 16:30 asked this same question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

Had Paul and Silas wanted to give your answer they would have said "NOTHING!". "There is nothing to do; God does it all."

NO. That isn't what they said. Here is what they said "to do".

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

I think you need to balance your Calvinism with scripture and this question is where the rubber meets the road. If there is "nothing" to do, then there is no need to evangelize. Why give folks the gospel if they don't need to "do" anything with it? In this case folks don't need to respond, or "believe".

I sense you want to quibble about whether "belief" is doing anything or not, or whether "believing" is a work or not. Can we simply accept it is our responsibility to believe- that is what the Bible says we must "do". And let us agree that "believing" is not a work. It is nothing for us to boast in.

Incidentally, I have enjoyed watching your arguments develop and improve over the last few months.

smaller
April 7th, 2004, 03:00 PM
an example of I DO's lightson???

Acts 10
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

I suppose you will say they MUST HEAR?

God_Is_Truth
April 7th, 2004, 03:20 PM
good post LightSon!

:thumb:

Z Man
April 7th, 2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by LightSon

Z Man,
I appreciate the fact that you are defending Calvinism, but perhaps you have pushed this point too far.

What is required from us to be saved?

Interestingly enough the jailer, in Acts 16:30 asked this same question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

Had Paul and Silas wanted to give your answer they would have said "NOTHING!". "There is nothing to do; God does it all."

NO. That isn't what they said. Here is what they said "to do".

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

I think you need to balance your Calvinism with scripture and this question is where the rubber meets the road.
Lightson,

Belief cannot save a person. The act of a person believing is not what cover's their sins. Salvation was bought for us on the cross by Jesus Christ. That's when we were saved. Believing has nothing to do with acquiring salvation. If so, then it becomes a work and it takes away from what Christ did on the cross.

Faith to believe is a gift from God. It's given to us so that we can believe in the One who paid for our sins already, thus ensuring us salvation. God doesn't say, "Oh, so now you believe. Great, here's salvation. You deserve it." Instead, God gives us the faith to believe and trust that Jesus Christ alone has paid for our sins and has granted us salvation alone! People don't believe to become saved at that instant; they believe in Jesus Christ and that He is our salvation!

That's the point I was trying to make. There is nothing we can do to be saved. Salvation is not of man or of works, lest anyman boast. It's all 100% God. Christ saved us when He died on the cross. Our belief/faith is a gift from God that allows us to trust and believe in Christ for our salvation; that He truely paid for our sins on the cross and that we now have an advocate with the Father. When we believe it does not mean that salvation is suddenly granted to us, because of our obediance to believing. That is what would make belief/faith a work.

If there is "nothing" to do, then there is no need to evangelize. Why give folks the gospel if they don't need to "do" anything with it? In this case folks don't need to respond, or "believe".
I'm not suggesting that people not respond or believe; I'm saying that the elect of God WILL believe. But no one believes to acquire or obtain salvation; that was already bought for us on the cross.

As for evangelizing, it is greatly important:

Romans 10:14-17
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

God has chosen the preaching of the gospel as a means to awaken the elect. Why, you might ask? Paul explains:

1 Corinthians 1:18, 21-31
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption--that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."

I sense you want to quibble about whether "belief" is doing anything or not, or whether "believing" is a work or not. Can we simply accept it is our responsibility to believe- that is what the Bible says we must "do". And let us agree that "believing" is not a work. It is nothing for us to boast in.
If believing is the act that saves us, then it becomes a work.

Incidentally, I have enjoyed watching your arguments develop and improve over the last few months.
Thank you Lightson! I have been going to college for the past year. It must be working! :eek: :thumb:

Swordsman
April 7th, 2004, 08:57 PM
Z Man, that last post was just so straight-forward. What a freeing thought to know the truth about our salvation. It also smashes all pride in the believer as well. What an awesome God we serve! :thumb:

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Z Man, that last post was just so straight-forward. What a freeing thought to know the truth about our salvation. It also smashes all pride in the believer as well.

Jesus provided the means by which we can be saved. God saves a person when the believe in him not because they have earned it or because they deserve it but because he made the decision to save all those who came to him through faith.

believe would be a work if it earned us our faith. but the fact is, belief w/o Jesus on the cross would never be enough. thus, it becomes impossible for us to "earn" salvation. all we can do is believe in God and wonder at his amazing grace that sent Jesus down to pay our price for sins allowing those who had faith, to be saved.

bottom line though: the bible says that faith in Jesus is what saves. the bible also says we are not justified by works. because works gain wages because they are earned and deserved. believing in Christ neither earns salvation nor does it make us more deserving. it is simply the condition God has placed to determine who will be saved. if you don't like it, take it up with him.

Z Man
April 8th, 2004, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Jesus provided the means by which we can be saved. God saves a person when the believe in him not because they have earned it or because they deserve it but because he made the decision to save all those who came to him through faith.

believe would be a work if it earned us our faith. but the fact is, belief w/o Jesus on the cross would never be enough. thus, it becomes impossible for us to "earn" salvation. all we can do is believe in God and wonder at his amazing grace that sent Jesus down to pay our price for sins allowing those who had faith, to be saved.

bottom line though: the bible says that faith in Jesus is what saves. the bible also says we are not justified by works. because works gain wages because they are earned and deserved. believing in Christ neither earns salvation nor does it make us more deserving. it is simply the condition God has placed to determine who will be saved. if you don't like it, take it up with him.
That whole post was nothing more than playing with words. If you peel it down to it's core, you are basically saying that belief in Jesus Christ, which comes from within ourselves, is what actually saves us from our sins. That my friend, makes belief a work. If belief in God comes from within ourselves, and it's not from Him, then it's something we MUST create to be saved. We must take the initiative within ourselves to overcome our pride and believe on Christ to receive salvation. Grace then only becomes a gift, or a reward I should say, for our belief. That makes faith a work, and salvation becomes granted to us based on our action, not Christ's.

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 07:00 AM
If the future is really open then, how can one attain the faith needed to believe in God? If God doesn't know who will come to Him, then He takes risks giving faith to some who will never believe. Right? It's crazy to think this way. Open theism doesn't believe in salvation by grace. They will never admit it, but it is salvation by works they believe in.

God gives faith to those who are the elect. He knows exactly who will come to Him. He draws them with His grace. So you see, it isn't our belief at all that triggers salvation. The "believing" is there, but merely a result of the generated faith God gives us.

And I believe Z Man and myself have provided plenty of Scripture on this thread to prove salvation is truly by grace, and grace alone.

Z Man
April 8th, 2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

If the future is really open then, how can one attain the faith needed to believe in God? If God doesn't know who will come to Him, then He takes risks giving faith to some who will never believe. Right?
The Open Theist don't even believe God gives people faith; they believe that people "create" it within themselves.

Good post by the way. :thumb:

Clete
April 8th, 2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Jesus provided the means by which we can be saved. God saves a person when the believe in him not because they have earned it or because they deserve it but because he made the decision to save all those who came to him through faith.

believe would be a work if it earned us our faith. but the fact is, belief w/o Jesus on the cross would never be enough. thus, it becomes impossible for us to "earn" salvation. all we can do is believe in God and wonder at his amazing grace that sent Jesus down to pay our price for sins allowing those who had faith, to be saved.

bottom line though: the bible says that faith in Jesus is what saves. the bible also says we are not justified by works. because works gain wages because they are earned and deserved. believing in Christ neither earns salvation nor does it make us more deserving. it is simply the condition God has placed to determine who will be saved. if you don't like it, take it up with him.

Excellent point GIT!
I would add that since it is clearly Biblical that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and that it is equally clear that works do not save us, then it follows logically that the Bible teaches that faith is not a work, which, by the way, in my estimation aught to be intuitively obvious in the first place.

Further, faith is not a substance that one creates; God does not create faith and neither do we. Faith, like love, is a choice one makes. If one does not have free-will then not only is it impossible to love because love must be volitional to be real but faith also becomes impossible because it cannot be forced or imputed, it must be chosen or it is not faith by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

The Open Theist don't even believe God gives people faith; they believe that people "create" it within themselves.

I know. Its just hard for me to see how a blind, dead, ignorant sinner can on his own turn to God. How can a completely depraved sinner develop saving faith in order to believe Christ died for his sins? The answer is: He can't. That's why the Holy Spirit exists. To inject God-given faith into our lives so that we will believe.

Why is that concept so hard to understand to one who believes in the truth of the Scriptures like the Open Theists do?


Good post by the way. :thumb:

Thanks brother..... :)

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

That whole post was nothing more than playing with words. If you peel it down to it's core, you are basically saying that belief in Jesus Christ, which comes from within ourselves, is what actually saves us from our sins. That my friend, makes belief a work. If belief in God comes from within ourselves, and it's not from Him, then it's something we MUST create to be saved. We must take the initiative within ourselves to overcome our pride and believe on Christ to receive salvation. Grace then only becomes a gift, or a reward I should say, for our belief. That makes faith a work, and salvation becomes granted to us based on our action, not Christ's.

the bible says we are saved by faith in Jesus. it says if we believe he is Lord and Savior and that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved. it says that God is calling ALL men everywhere to repent and put their faith in God.

it also says we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith. what is the grace? Jesus. we did not earn the cross or deserve it in any way and thus, grace saves us. but the verse also says THROUGH FAITH. and this is our responsibility.

faith is not something you "conjure up" so to speak. it's something everyone can already do. we all have faith in something. atheists have faith that God doesn't exist. agnostics have faith that the existence of God can't be known. mormons have faith in Joseph Smith. muslims have faith in Allah. everyone has faith.

God is asking us to turn from our false ways and put our faith (that we already have) in him. this is an action. it's not a work. thus, faith is really a choice. no one would call a choice a work.

thus, it is grace that we are saved because of Jesus and the cross and it is faith that saves us because that is the condition God has put on whom he will save. grace through faith. it's simple really.

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

If the future is really open then, how can one attain the faith needed to believe in God? If God doesn't know who will come to Him, then He takes risks giving faith to some who will never believe. Right? It's crazy to think this way. Open theism doesn't believe in salvation by grace. They will never admit it, but it is salvation by works they believe in.

God gives faith to those who are the elect. He knows exactly who will come to Him. He draws them with His grace. So you see, it isn't our belief at all that triggers salvation. The "believing" is there, but merely a result of the generated faith God gives us.

And I believe Z Man and myself have provided plenty of Scripture on this thread to prove salvation is truly by grace, and grace alone.

faith is not something you "attain". people already have it. faith is more like a conviction. as i said in my post before this, atheists have faith (conviction) that God doesn't exist, mulsims have faith (conviction) in Allah and mormons have faith (conviction) in Joseph Smith. the problem isn't really their faith though. it's that faith is only as good as the object it's placed in. and since all those faiths are in false things, it can't save them. thus, they need to place their faith in the true Jesus, the true God to be saved-just as the bible declares from Genesis to Revelation.

i totally agree that salvation is by grace through faith. we just disagree on what that means.

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Swordsman

I know. Its just hard for me to see how a blind, dead, ignorant sinner can on his own turn to God. How can a completely depraved sinner develop saving faith in order to believe Christ died for his sins? The answer is: He can't. That's why the Holy Spirit exists. To inject God-given faith into our lives so that we will believe.

Why is that concept so hard to understand to one who believes in the truth of the Scriptures like the Open Theists do?

they're not totally depraved, that's why. and if one doesn't hold that, then there's no need for the rest of calvinism. once the base is gone, the rest of house collapses.

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

they're not totally depraved, that's why. and if one doesn't hold that, then there's no need for the rest of calvinism. once the base is gone, the rest of house collapses.

Mark 7:21-23
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.

Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

Romans 3:10-12
There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Ephesians 2:3
among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

I think you have to understand what total depravity means. According to the Scriptures, it means 'without God.'

So you might ask "How is it possible for anyone to choose God after knowing they're totally depraved?" They cannot. That is why God predestines. We are not born of our will, but of God's will.

John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And God "grants" that one believes too.....

Philippians 1:29
For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.

Faith is also a "work" of God.....

John 6:28-29
Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

And God predestines as well.....

Romans 8:29-30
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

So you see, the basis for total depravity isn't a dreamed up concept by man. The ONLY reason for rejected such passages that spell out its truth is simply pride. And that just proves our sinful nature.

"The Bible really can't mean that, can it?"

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 01:13 PM
I think you have to understand what total depravity means. According to the Scriptures, it means 'without God.'

So you might ask "How is it possible for anyone to choose God after knowing they're totally depraved?" They cannot. That is why God predestines. We are not born of our will, but of God's will.


if total depravity just means "without God" then you cannot make the jump to saying it means "unable to choose God". it just does not follow by itself.

it'd be like saying that because someone is "without food" they are "unable to choose food for themselves". it just doesn't follow. you need more steps inbetween or a redefined defintion of total depravity.



1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


the CONTEXT of this verse is about the wisdom of the spirit, NOT the gospel.



And God "grants" that one believes too.....


to grant something is to allow it. so, God has allowed people to believe. no one disagrees with that.



Faith is also a "work" of God.....

John 6:28-29
Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."


if God's "work" is to make people believe, then he isn't doing a very good job as there are countless people who don't believe. if i was God's manager and his job was to do this "work", i'd probably fire him for doing such a lousy job.



And God predestines as well.....

Romans 8:29-30
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.


that is general predestination that is done to each and every person who believes. it states that all who believe in Christ are (not were) predestined to become Christ like. there's really no reason to think it's saying that men were predestined to believe in Christ from eternity past by God's irrestisble grace because they are totally depraved.



So you see, the basis for total depravity isn't a dreamed up concept by man. The ONLY reason for rejected such passages that spell out its truth is simply pride. And that just proves our sinful nature.

"The Bible really can't mean that, can it?"

no, you have not established TOTAL depravity. you established that man is very depraved, which i agree with, but you didn't establish TOTAL depravity.

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 01:43 PM
Well, at least I think you, GIT, and I agree on some the basic essential doctrines (i.e. deity of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ). As for salvation, I think we both know we have salvation, we just differ on how we became saved.

I'm not out to prove the doctrines of grace. It speaks for itself. The only reason I believe what I believe, is because I've searched His Word and its what has been revealed to me by His Spirit.

I do cherish these discussions with you though. Hopefully others seeking His will can get something from it.

Your brother in Christ,
swordsman:)

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Well, at least I think you, GIT, and I agree on some the basic essential doctrines (i.e. deity of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ). As for salvation, I think we both know we have salvation, we just differ on how we became saved.

I'm not out to prove the doctrines of grace. It speaks for itself. The only reason I believe what I believe, is because I've searched His Word and its what has been revealed to me by His Spirit.

I do cherish these discussions with you though. Hopefully others seeking His will can get something from it.

Your brother in Christ,
swordsman:)

amen. we definately agree on the essential doctrines and that we are both saved. the important thing isn't how we were saved, but that we are saved and that we are called to share the good news with others in the hope that they would be saved as well regardless of who can be saved and how it happens.

God bless.

God_Is_Truth

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

amen. we definately agree on the essential doctrines and that we are both saved. the important thing isn't how we were saved, but that we are saved

Well, it is important to me how I am saved. But I agree. It is important that we are.


and that we are called to share the good news with others in the hope that they would be saved as well regardless of who can be saved and how it happens.

God bless.

God_Is_Truth

True. Who are we to determine who God's elect are? Evangelism is key. Good point GIT. :thumb:

This has been a great discussion. Don't think I'm trying to conclude it either. I gave my response to your first comment on total depravity.

"The council rests."

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 04:23 PM
I gave my response to your first comment on total depravity.

"The council rests."

is "The council rests" your response to my comment or was it something else?

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

is "The council rests" your response to my comment or was it something else?

Hehe, no. Its a court term. When a lawyer is done arguing his case, he says "The council rests."

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

Hehe, no. Its a court term. When a lawyer is done arguing his case, he says "The council rests."

ok, that's a relief :D

i didn't think that was what you were saying in response to me, but the way you stated it kinda looked that way.

so, could you please show me what your response to mine was?

thanks.

Swordsman
April 8th, 2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
so, could you please show me what your response to mine was?

thanks.

See post #236. If you're asking if I replied to your reply to my post (#236), I didn't. And I have my reasons. I simply stated passages that back up the doctrine of total depravity. And you disagreed with me. Its ok. I just do not have a rebuttal to your reply simply because I feel the passages do just fine explaining the state of man without God.

God_Is_Truth
April 8th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

See post #236. If you're asking if I replied to your reply to my post (#236), I didn't. And I have my reasons. I simply stated passages that back up the doctrine of total depravity. And you disagreed with me. Its ok. I just do not have a rebuttal to your reply simply because I feel the passages do just fine explaining the state of man without God.

i guess i was thinking you had responded to post #237 and i had just missed it. thanks for clearing it up. i guess sometimes we just agree to disagree.

God bless.

Clete
April 8th, 2004, 09:59 PM
I've started a new thread on this specific issue if anyone would like to weigh in on it.


Faith is not a work! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=500446#post500446)

Z Man
April 9th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

God is asking us to turn from our false ways and put our faith (that we already have) in him. this is an action. it's not a work. thus, faith is really a choice. no one would call a choice a work.
The definition for the word "work" in which Christians use it pertaining to our faith has nothing to do with actual manual labor, persay. "Work" is anything a person does to find favor in the eyes of God and earn His love. Thus, asking a person to put their faith that they have always had in God so that He in turn will save you is asking someone to put forth some sort of effort, or work, in order to find favor in God's eyes and earn salvation. If salvation is only given on the basis of that effort, or in this case, the faith that we succeed in putting in God, then it definitly becomes a work instead of a gift.

Christ's sacrifice is what saved us. Our faith is simply the means in which we believe and have hope that Christ has alread paid for and granted us salvation through His work on the cross alone. His shed blood saves us, not our faith.

You don't love God so that He will then save you. To love God IS to be saved. It is a gift, not an achievement. You can make yourself moral. You can make yourself religious. But you can't make yourself love. "We love," John says, "because he first loved us (1 John 4:19)".
-Frederick Buechner

God_Is_Truth
April 10th, 2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Z Man
Christ's sacrifice is what saved us. Our faith is simply the means in which we believe and have hope that Christ has alread paid for and granted us salvation through His work on the cross alone. His shed blood saves us, not our faith.


Z Man,

the bible clearly declares that faith is what saves us. Jesus had to die so that God would still be declared righteous by not punishing those who came to him in faith. as it is written:

Romans 3
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

and the following verses clearly show that we are justified by faith in Jesus, not just Jesus alone.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Galatians 2:16
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:24
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

also, consider what Paul wrote about Abraham in Romans 4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

God is not "rewarding" someone with salvation when they seek him. nor is he giving someone something they deserve or have earned. it's essentially the same as saying whoever comes to my house, to them i will give 20 dollars. is anyone who comes to my house earning that money? of course not. is anyone who shows up more deserving of it than others? same as before, no. i made a condition and a statement that whoever shows up, to them i will give 20 dollars. it is essentially the same as faith in God. whoever puts their faith in God, God will credit their faith as righteousness. God sent Jesus so that the sins of those who came to him by faith, would be taken care of and paid for so as to be just and the one who justifies.

the bible is clear Z Man, faith in Jesus saves. the sacrifice of Jesus paid the price of sins for all who decide to place their faith in Jesus.

it would be false just to go around saying "Jesus died for your sins so now you are off the hook." the requirement (so to speak, rather a condition) of salvation has been, is now, and will always be faith in God.

and i believe that is why you see faith as a work, because you believe that because Jesus died for the "elect's" sins, then anything done after that would be a work. that's wrong and unbiblical. time after time, the bible declares that one must have faith in Jesus to be saved. faith is the key.

Z Man
April 10th, 2004, 09:38 AM
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

HOLY COW!!! THIS IS MAD!!!

I can't believe this. I mean, I know this is the core of the Open View/Free Will view and stuff, but to see it in writing is absolutely horrid! Can no one else see the heresy in this; the clear and obvious indictation that OV'ers believe that salvation is of man? :shocked: My stomach doesn't feel so good...... :vomit:

Originally posted by God_is_Truth
the bible is clear Z Man, faith in Jesus saves.

the requirement (so to speak, rather a condition) of salvation has been, is now, and will always be faith in God.
GIT,

You beleive that faith originates and comes from man. Thus, to state that our faith in God is what saves us is basically stating that our efforts, our belief, our faith, man's doing, is what saves us. You even said that Jesus's sacrifice isn't what saved us; that there is more to it than just that! :shocked: Now if that isn't taking away from grace, I don't know what is!

it would be false just to go around saying "Jesus died for your sins so now you are off the hook."
I wouldn't go around saying that to everyone I knew, believer or not. For me personally, I know that what Christ did on the cross was all that it took to save me, and that there is nothing I have done, or can do, or will do, that can add or take away from His sacrifice. Christ has already paid the price and finished the job. My salvation is secure in His work alone. How prideful and blasphemous to tell God, "I know you died for my sins already, but I just don't think that that was enough. Therefore, I'm going to believe in you and do my best Lord so that you can truely save me." How sickening!

My faith and my works/fruits are nothing more than the product of my salvation. IT IS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, AS YOU SO PUT IT!!!!!!!

In stating that Christ's sacrifice is not enough, you belittle grace and His work on the cross. You are literally telling God that Jesus wasn't good enough.

Clete
April 10th, 2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Z Man
My faith and my works/fruits are nothing more than the product of my salvation. IT IS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, AS YOU SO PUT IT!!!!!!!

Then why is GIT able to quote verse after verse that says explicitly that it is the other way around?


Originally posted by God_is_Truth
Romans 3
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

and the following verses clearly show that we are justified by faith in Jesus, not just Jesus alone.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Galatians 2:16
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:24
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

also, consider what Paul wrote about Abraham in Romans 4

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Resting in Him,
Clete