The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

!!!Updated Tally!!!
[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION] will be providing a response
[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] has submitted a scholarly evaluation of the implications of 1 John 2:27 which needs to be understood and evaluated before it is counter debated.
[MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION] has been given an opportunity to get back in the debate, but it is conditional.

OP is being evaluated by Contesting represtitives from the school of reform.
[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is currently sharpening his scriptural sword in the dark, volcanic caves of a secret Island that is off the coast of New Zealand.

#One of these is marginally peppered with a humorous but awesome analogy.

 

[daqq]

This is NOT the sum and substance of my lost post, but what if these Puritans and Calvinists you reject as teachers were also taught by that same Spirit? Would you rob the world of what they have received of God to explain the scriptures?

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
Matthew 13:52

Note also the difference between teaching and exegeting. I am sure you are far more familiar with the Greek than I am, but I John 2:27 speaks of men being taught by the Spirit of God. As does John 6:45 (with clear references to Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34). But exegesis is found in the unfolding of what God has revealed and taught. For example, in Acts 10:8, Cornelius exegetes to his attendants what the angel of God told him. It wasn't teaching, but it was explaining and detailing. Exegesis can be much more than just reading. Stephen's deathbed sermon was an exegesis of most of Israel's history. A condensation, yes, but a retelling for a certain purpose to bring out a point.

But even beyond that, there is a ministry of teaching that works with the Holy Spirit (not instead of it):

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I Corinthians 2:7-14

So a teacher is given wisdom of God. He isn't given it of man. But that doesn't stop Paul from teaching as he does. He is teaching what the Spirit has revealed. That doesn't mean those that hear will understand, but rather that by his teaching, the Spirit can reveal to the hearer what the truth is. By this passage, it can't be any other way. But that doesn't stop a man from teaching, exegeting, expressing the truth of God by his understanding. That man may understand it, but the fact remains that no hearer will receive it unless the Spirit of God opens his eyes and ears and heart. And Paul isn't simply speaking to unbelievers :

For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
I Corinthians 4:17

The teaching John speaks of in his epistle indeed is only the work of God. But he isn't, in one sentence, removing the necessity for teachers in the Body of Christ :

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
Ephesians 3:9-10

(Not that we are necessarily doing what Paul is doing - declaring the purpose of the church - but that teachers are a part of fulfilling what Paul said is the church's purpose)

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Ephesians 4:11-14

I venture to say that this isn't accomplished yet. So I don't see an issue with these teachers.

Well stated,

This is not to be adversarial but simply to state where it fails in my view, that is, because Testimony is Spirit. The Testimony of Yeshua in Gospel accounts is the new Spirit foretold and promised in Eze 11:19, Eze 18:31, Eze 36:26. That is why John 7:39 does not have "given" in any Greek codex, manuscript, or text, but rather given has been inserted into most English translations and placed in italics. The Young's Literal Bible Translation probably provides the most correct reading, (which follows the Textus Receptus), but really no matter what Greek text you look at they all read pretty much the same way and this is where your argument fails in my opinion:

John 7:37-39 YLT (Young's Literal Bible Translation)
37 And in the last, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 'If any one doth thirst, let him come unto me and drink;
38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
39 and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

See what I mean? It does not say anything about the Holy Spirit being given but rather "not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified." And that glorification took place when the Son of man was lifted up at Golgotha. And what are the final words of Messiah at Golgotha in the Gospel of John? Everyone knows, "IT IS FINISHED!" Therefore when the Master says this he speaks of that Holy Spirit-Testimony having been completed as he breathed out his last and commended up his Spirit to the Father. What does this mean to my theology? It means that the Testimony of Yeshua found in the Gospel accounts is the New Covenant Spirit; the same foretold in the Ezekiel passages referenced above. Therefore anyone not having and holding the full Testimony of Yeshua in uprightness and truth neither has Holy Spirit. It all therefore comes down to proper exegesis and understanding of everything we read; and everything we read outside of the Gospel accounts and Testimony of Messiah must be viewed and understood through the lenses of the Testimony of Messiah found in the Gospel accounts. Not even Paul may be understood without first understanding the teachings of the Master Teacher Messiah Yeshua; neither Torah, neither the Prophets, nothing can be understood without the New Covenant Spirit which is the Testimony of Yeshua found in the Gospel accounts. Sorry if I appear to be overstating this point but I feel it cannot be overstated enough. The words that Messiah speaks in the Gospel accounts are Spirit and they are Life: the Testimony of Yeshua is likewise the Spirit of Grace because Yeshua paid for that holy Testimony with his own life and blood. The Spirit of Elohim was upon him from his immersion and therefore the Testimony of Yeshua was given to him from above, (without measure). If he paid for his Doctrine and Testimony which was not even his own, as he says, and he paid for it with his own life and blood, then anyone who tramples it tramples his blood, the blood of our covenant, the Spirit of Grace.

So when you ask, "but what if these Puritans and Calvinists you reject as teachers were also taught by that same Spirit?", it is a good and valid point, imo, and a legitimate question, and it sure comes up often in forum boards such as this where there are those who like to claim "the Holy Spirit told me", or "the Holy Spirit revealed it to me", and so on, but this herein above is the answer to that dilemma although I already understand it is not going to be accepted by the Trinitarian viewpoint. However I also have no doubt that John 7:39 says what it means, and means what it says, and that does not include adding given into the text so as to alter the meaning of the statement. And there is no doubt that it is written the way it is for an extremely critical and vital reason. You really do not need to be able to read Greek to investigate this deeper; simply be willing to ask yourself and God why it might be the way I have shown you or why I might be wrong. The most important thing if you really want the truth is to be willing to question yourself and your understanding, (and if so then you will not turn off your mind and simply tell yourself that I cannot possibly be right). Investigate this one single verse which I have posted; find out whether or not given should be inserted into in the text of most English translations; is it really put there simply to provide "a more smooth delivery" of the text into English? or does it actually change the meaning of the text? (it absolutely does). You might be surprised at what you find; no one has much of anything to say about this because everyone just assumes it is supposed to be there, because of tradition and doctrine, but it is not found in any manuscript or codex and rather says pretty much exactly what the Young's Literal Bible Translation says quoted herein above. And please know that this is not just some "loophole" I dug up to drive a wedge into what you believe, nope, just trying to tell you the truth: for I never find loopholes in the scripture but rather hidden manna and everlasting treasures.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

!!!Thread Update!!!

Enough time has passed and the first respectful response has been submitted by [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION], in reference to [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]'s excellent submission.

counter debate open.

Respect demanded!

Prayerful submissions encouraged.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

This is NOT the sum and substance of my lost post, but what if these Puritans and Calvinists you reject as teachers were also taught by that same Spirit? Would you rob the world of what they have received of God to explain the scriptures?

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
Matthew 13:52

Note also the difference between teaching and exegeting. I am sure you are far more familiar with the Greek than I am, but I John 2:27 speaks of men being taught by the Spirit of God. As does John 6:45 (with clear references to Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34). But exegesis is found in the unfolding of what God has revealed and taught. For example, in Acts 10:8, Cornelius exegetes to his attendants what the angel of God told him. It wasn't teaching, but it was explaining and detailing. Exegesis can be much more than just reading. Stephen's deathbed sermon was an exegesis of most of Israel's history. A condensation, yes, but a retelling for a certain purpose to bring out a point.

But even beyond that, there is a ministry of teaching that works with the Holy Spirit (not instead of it):

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I Corinthians 2:7-14

So a teacher is given wisdom of God. He isn't given it of man. But that doesn't stop Paul from teaching as he does. He is teaching what the Spirit has revealed. That doesn't mean those that hear will understand, but rather that by his teaching, the Spirit can reveal to the hearer what the truth is. By this passage, it can't be any other way. But that doesn't stop a man from teaching, exegeting, expressing the truth of God by his understanding. That man may understand it, but the fact remains that no hearer will receive it unless the Spirit of God opens his eyes and ears and heart. And Paul isn't simply speaking to unbelievers :

For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
I Corinthians 4:17

The teaching John speaks of in his epistle indeed is only the work of God. But he isn't, in one sentence, removing the necessity for teachers in the Body of Christ :

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
Ephesians 3:9-10

(Not that we are necessarily doing what Paul is doing - declaring the purpose of the church - but that teachers are a part of fulfilling what Paul said is the church's purpose)

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Ephesians 4:11-14

I venture to say that this isn't accomplished yet. So I don't see an issue with these teachers.

EDIT : Note that this is not an exhaustive treatment in any sense of the term. The scriptures are the only objective way we have been given to judge the words of others (teachers and otherwise). So saying everyone is "taught of God" isn't saying everyone should be teaching. Just that the Holy Spirit is faithful to bring to mind, apply to heart etc... what each individual needs.

I want to ensure that I fully understand your perspective before I counter debate. This response is my "making sure I understand your assertion" response. Please tweak me and aid me until I express your assertions correctly as you are asserting them.

-You are asserting that exegesis and prophecy are different matters.
-You are asserting that the Spirit Lives and Works through us to this very day
-You are suggesting that just as Paul exegetes in scripture, we may, as well.
-You are asserting that men the Holy Spirit speaks through "post-cannon" to clearify matters may record assistant texts that the "Church" may draw from to further understand scripture.
-You are suggesting that "post-cannon" exegesis on cannon isn't the same as cannon, but can become tangent to Cannon to assist the church in "understanding cannon".
-You assert that "gifts of the Spirit" allow people to write and assert extra-canonical exegete on Cannon and it be a sort of holy-writ to the church

Please check all of my assumed statements in attempt to ensure I fully understand your thrust, because you're sure to see them again.

Ensure you add to my assertions if I missed anything, or set me straight on others if I misunderstood.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

!!!Tally Update!!!

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION] hasn't had a chance to follow through with his response yet.
[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] has received a response from [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] that simultaneously evaluates and expresses differences. (Entered as Counter debate by myself... It's officiated as CD.). Also, I have submitted a response that seeks to ensure I understand [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]'s assertions and points. I am awaiting [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION]'s response before I proceed. I don't want to generate any counter debate until I have fully understood @Nikolai's CD.

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is now laying his sword befor the feet of the Maker, asking for His breath upon it for battle.

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION] has chosen to contest point 1 of the OP
[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] is asserting a contest to point 2 of the OP

OP in evaluation at current.

 

[Crucible]

I have stated that I am done with this thread. Stop racking up my notifications with your mentions :wave2:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I have stated that I am done with this thread. Stop racking up my notifications with your mentions :wave2:

Look at the tally update. I figured as much.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Are there people that are incapable of being saved because God deemed them reprobate and made them "objects of wrath" before they were ever born?

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]

Note.... You said this early on.


You made a comment about extrabiblical commentaries earlier in reference to Puritan books...

However, because of your earlier assertion that God is Love...

I cite 1 Peter 4:8 and thus... you are fully moving forward and contending justly.

I read extra-Biblical stuff. Puritans. Science fiction. ToL.

Christ is sufficient for all, but not efficient for all. But that would be common to almost all. Universalists would of course disagree.

Those God chose not to elect he will not call and so on...Romans 8:29-30. So no, no election, no salvation.

 

[nikolai_42]

{My responses in red within the quote block}

I want to ensure that I fully understand your perspective before I counter debate. This response is my "making sure I understand your assertion" response. Please tweak me and aid me until I express your assertions correctly as you are asserting them.

-You are asserting that exegesis and prophecy are different matters.
Absolutely.
-You are asserting that the Spirit Lives and Works through us to this very day
Yes, in some significant way, though I do believe there is a distinction between the way the Holy Spirit worked through the apostles and the way the Holy Spirit works now (Eph 2:20). It is still necessary for the Holy Spirit to illuminate someone to understand scripture properly per I Cor 2:7-14. No man will do that, but then no man can be certain just when and how the Spirit moves - even using the regenerate man's words (John 3:8).
-You are suggesting that just as Paul exegetes in scripture, we may, as well.
Not "just as Paul", no. He exegeted as one upon whom we are built. Those that come after exegete as those that are faithful stewards of what we have been given. It has not been given to us to be apostles.
-You are asserting that men the Holy Spirit speaks through "post-cannon" to clearify matters may record assistant texts that the "Church" may draw from to further understand scripture.
My ecclesiology (such as it is) causes me to be cautious in that wording. As long as the "Church" is understood to be all those in Christ (the "invisible Church", so to speak), we aren't establishing a human hierarchy that will make unquestioned authorities (in the Roman Catholic sense) of teachers of old. They can still be questioned, but it all goes back to proper use of scripture. Even having the Spirit of God doesn't mean one is infallible (another distinction - regarding authority - from the RCC).
-You are suggesting that "post-cannon" exegesis on cannon isn't the same as cannon, but can become tangent to Cannon to assist the church in "understanding cannon".
Yes. And while I wasn't brought up in a church where any sort of catechism was employed, I can see how Catechism would be a useful exegesis for establishing whether there is a basis for fellowship or not. Could catechisms be wrong? Sure. But who is going to be Pope - or make a universal "Thus saith the Lord" declaration - and tell us all which is right and which is wrong? So we are back to either private interpretation or scriptural reliability. And no statement that simply says "We believe what's in the bible" will fly. Remember, even Jesus' own disciples weren't perfect in understanding...
-You assert that "gifts of the Spirit" allow people to write and assert extra-canonical exegete on Cannon and it be a sort of holy-writ to the church.
I think "extra-canonical exegesis" is possibly repetitious. If it is proper exegesis, it is not going outside the bounds of scripture, but it is elucidating and explaining scripture. If it is not, it could be improper exegesis, lead to improper conclusions and then you would have unbiblical doctrines. That is extra-canonical in a bad way.

Please check all of my assumed statements in attempt to ensure I fully understand your thrust, because you're sure to see them again.

Ensure you add to my assertions if I missed anything, or set me straight on others if I misunderstood.

I have a nuanced view of scripture and what Hebrews 4:19 calls the Living Word. As far as I can tell it doesn't violate Reformed Theology, but it's hard to properly relate (much to my frustration).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

{My responses in red within the quote block}



I have a nuanced view of scripture and what Hebrews 4:19 calls the Living Word. As far as I can tell it doesn't violate Reformed Theology, but it's hard to properly relate (much to my frustration).

I actually understand what you are saying. Jesus is the True Living Word. However, He affirms the scriptures by proclaiming that they testify of Him. Cannon is special. It condemns and saves simultaneously. With the addition of the Spirit of Christ or (The Holy Spirit) in-dwelling us, the Spirit teaches us. I beleave you are attempting to work this into your verbiage.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your intended assertion.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I read extra-Biblical stuff. Puritans. Science fiction. ToL.

Christ is sufficient for all, but not efficient for all. But that would be common to almost all. Universalists would of course disagree.

Those God chose not to elect he will not call and so on...Romans 8:29-30. So no, no election, no salvation.

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION],

Excellent point. I affirm that I too Love science fiction, movies, music and all the likes. But Theology is a personal matter. Would you agree that how we perceive God, shifts how we perceive ourselves and others? Enjoying Donnie Darko, or reading exciting books is different than knowingly investing works of men that tell us how we should understand scripture.

When we adopt, extra biblical teachings of man to our heart, and bypass the Holy Spirit, we have now depersonalized our understanding of God for a one size fits all relationship.

Everyone has different spiritual needs. Theology is extremely potent! It's like the flavor extract of the Spirit. One tiny squeeze and drop here or there and our very Spirit of Love towards humanity is altered. 1 John 4 in entirety explains this intimately, along with all of 1 John 2.

Now back to our discussion.

I have a challenge for you. You just acknowledged that your influence of theology has younexpressing that the predestination aspect of Romans dovetails into your Reformed understanding. Look at your last words to me about the "Lost". Does the Good shepherd say screw the 1 lost sheep, or does He drop everything and go look for him.

Again... compare your last statement with point 6 of the OP. One teaching says God, who is Love, never gives up and never stops hoping, while the other teaching says God gave up before some were born.

Imagine a father knowing one child would be good and the other child would grow up to be a steadfast farm hand.

Now you tell me [MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]... what did the Prodigal son's Father do for His reprobate, prostitute loving hell raiser that squandered his entire inheritance?

Test my Spirit Brother Ducky. I'm alive, so you can reason with me. You're not reading the extra biblical assertions of a dead man. Your talking to a live man that Loves God and believes God is Love Just like you. You can question me and judge my Spirit and intent because I am alive. You can press me to answer all sorts of question and we can clang scriptural swords to grow. (I've buried a counter point in the previous 3 sentences that I will be scripturally supporting in response to Nikolai_42's post of contest.)

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION],

I referenced Allagories from our Beautiful, Lord God and Saviour.

Please forgive me for challenging your theological understanding. But, please... hate me, call me names, but seriously look at your words and compare them to the scripture for OP point 6 and the allagories I had "foreknew" would help assert its point.

I pray this strikes you with Love and doesn't change the civility and loving nature of our dialogue.

I excitedly look forward to your reply.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

!!!Brief Tally Update!!!

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION] has delivered excellent responses. He now has some very specific verbiage to reply to that ties his verbiage to the contrasted assertion of the OP.

[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] is building a strong point and is languishing over the correct expressive verbiage. I have provided him with a list of points that I perceive he is struggling intellectually to assert as well as provided a suggested possible expression of the extra verbiage he is trying to assert. I will not counter debate his post until he smiles and says, "yes, that was what I was expressing" to mean ole [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION].

 

[Brother Ducky]

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION],

Excellent point. I affirm that I too Love science fiction, movies, music and all the likes. But Theology is a personal matter. Would you agree that how we perceive God, shifts how we perceive ourselves and others? Enjoying Donnie Darko, or reading exciting books is different than knowingly investing works of men that tell us how we should understand scripture.

When we adopt, extra biblical teachings of man to our heart, and bypass the Holy Spirit, we have now depersonalized our understanding of God for a one size fits all relationship.

Everyone has different spiritual needs. Theology is extremely potent! It's like the flavor extract of the Spirit. One tiny squeeze and drop here or there and our very Spirit of Love towards humanity is altered. 1 John 4 in entirety explains this intimately, along with all of 1 John 2.

Now back to our discussion.

I have a challenge for you. You just acknowledged that your influence of theology has younexpressing that the predestination aspect of Romans dovetails into your Reformed understanding. Look at your last words to me about the "Lost". Does the Good shepherd say screw the 1 lost sheep, or does He drop everything and go look for him.

Again... compare your last statement with point 6 of the OP. One teaching says God, who is Love, never gives up and never stops hoping, while the other teaching says God gave up before some were born.

Imagine a father knowing one child would be good and the other child would grow up to be a steadfast farm hand.

Now you tell me [MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]... what did the Prodigal son's Father do for His reprobate, prostitute loving hell raiser that squandered his entire inheritance?

Test my Spirit Brother Ducky. I'm alive, so you can reason with me. You're not reading the extra biblical assertions of a dead man. Your talking to a live man that Loves God and believes God is Love Just like you. You can question me and judge my Spirit and intent because I am alive. You can press me to answer all sorts of question and we can clang scriptural swords to grow. (I've buried a counter point in the previous 3 sentences that I will be scripturally supporting in response to Nikolai_42's post of contest.)

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION],

I referenced Allagories from our Beautiful, Lord God and Saviour.

Please forgive me for challenging your theological understanding. But, please... hate me, call me names, but seriously look at your words and compare them to the scripture for OP point 6 and the allagories I had "foreknew" would help assert its point.

I pray this strikes you with Love and doesn't change the civility and loving nature of our dialogue.

I excitedly look forward to your reply.

The lost sheep was a sheep, not a goat. The prodigal son was a son of the father.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The lost sheep was a sheep, not a goat. The prodigal son was a son of the father.

What good father abandon's their children?

Are we not all products of the Master's provision?

Don't even dog's eat the scraps from the Master's table?

 

[freelight]

Original Sin,...busted.......

Original Sin,...busted.......

1: Is God a promoter of Sin? Absolutely Not
Scripture for 1

I think many mainline or conservative Calvinists will reject this first premise, and accept that God is not the promoter, originator or enforcer of 'sin', and there are great efforts in modifying their doctrine to 'protect' God's sanctity, goodness, holiness, etc. by not inferring that God is the author or sustainer of 'sin', but that man is doomed by his own fallen nature, sin and its proclivities ultimately producing death, disintegration, destruction. As I noted in my 'The God who passes you over' post,...R C Sproul shows here how the more extreme view of 'double predestination' is not the official reformed view, and such a 'hyper' view is considered 'heretical'. However as I shared earlier, what is sad, is that by 'Preterition', they assume 'God' passes over, abandons, wholly leaves out of his good will....the great hordes of sinners (heaven knows how many), and leaves them for dry! - these poor souls who happen to be 'penalized' for Adams sin, get punished for no fault of their own, no choice of their own! and are deprived of God's saving grace, all because this 'God' (Calvinist version) simply wills that it be so. (the insanity here is baffling). Love could never will such a thing, much less take pride over such and demand the 'saved' count Love all the more glorious for damning the rest. Its mind boggling.

This is what many reasonable, logical persons just cannot believe or accept. I'd say the 'Preterition' thing is a 'biggie' for me, and does not resonate or appropriate with my own 'conscience'. There are better theologies available, but this one is 'attractive' to some, for the components therein, which reflect something within their own psychology, naturally speaking, or its become a fashionable belief system, still serving some disposition within, somehow justifying it.

Also, for #1....which corresponds with the "T" in TULIP under 'Total depravity' (notice how extreme they have to be, to make the reactive parts of the doctrine appear more 'necessary'),...the concept of 'Original Sin' is not even taught, espoused or articulated in the Torah, neither is it a doctrinal tenet in Judaism. This is a Christian innovation, which later theologians and church councils have formulated using passages in the NT (mostly Paul), then cross-correlating them with a few OT passages (shake and back as you please). So, I think u'd have to clarify point #1 a bit more, and how it even applies to Calvinism, and the descrepancies within Reformed Theology which differ from one another.

Another good article (biblical treatise) on Original Sin (Are men born sinners?) is by Overstreet here.

 

[Brother Ducky]

What good father abandon's their children?

Are we not all products of the Master's provision?

Don't even dog's eat the scraps from the Master's table?

God gives rain to all, but that is at his grace and mercy. It does not obligate him to treat all the same.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I think many mainline or conservative Calvinists will reject this first premise, and accept that God is not the promoter, originator or enforcer of 'sin', and there are great efforts in modifying their doctrine to 'protect' God's sanctity, goodness, holiness, etc. by not inferring that God is the author or sustainer of 'sin', but that man is doomed by his own fallen nature, sin and its proclivities ultimately producing death, disintegration, destruction. As I noted in my 'The God who passes you over' post,...R C Sproul shows here how the more extreme view of 'double predestination' is not the official reformed view, and such a 'hyper' view is considered 'heretical'. However as I shared earlier, what is sad, is that by 'Preterition', they assume 'God' passes over, abandons, wholly leaves out of his good will....the great hordes of sinners (heaven knows how many), and leaves them for dry! - these poor souls who happen to be 'penalized' for Adams sin, get punished for no fault of their own, no choice of their own! and are deprived of God's saving grace, all because this 'God' (Calvinist version) simply wills that it be so. (the insanity here is baffling). Love could never will such a thing, much less take pride over such and demand the 'saved' count Love all the more glorious for damning the rest. Its mind boggling.

This is what many reasonable, logical persons just cannot believe or accept. I'd say the 'Preterition' thing is a 'biggie' for me, and does not resonate or appropriate with my own 'conscience'. There are better theologies available, but this one is 'attractive' to some, for the components therein, which reflect something within their own psychology, naturally speaking, or its become a fashionable belief system, still serving some disposition within, somehow justifying it.

Also, for #1....which corresponds with the "T" in TULIP under 'Total depravity' (notice how extreme they have to be, to make the reactive parts of the doctrine appear more 'necessary'),...the concept of 'Original Sin' is not even taught, espoused or articulated in the Torah, neither is it a doctrinal tenet in Judaism. This is a Christian innovation, which later theologians and church councils have formulated using passages in the NT (mostly Paul), then cross-correlating them with a few OT passages (shake and back as you please). So, I think u'd have to clarify point #1 a bit more, and how it even applies to Calvinism, and the descrepancies within the Calvinistic school which differ from one another.

Another good article (biblical treatise) on Original Sin (Are men born sinners?) is by Overstreet here.

You are correct and I love the way you expressed this. This is there for a rapid end in debate with an orthodox Calvinist.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

God gives rain to all, but that is at his grace and mercy. It does not obligate him to treat all the same.

[MENTION=10685]Brother Ducky[/MENTION]

I was wrong. You are a Calvinist. You have limited the scope of God's Love to All humanity and declared election the cause of salvation. You have attributed cold heartedness towards God.

You have forgotten "what" measure He divides His sheep from the goats with.

Mat. 25:37-40

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

5: God is Love
Scripture for 5
6: Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything. It is, in fact, the one thing that still stands when all else has fallen.
Scripture for 6

Jesus who said "Love your enemies" would not hold a single human to His contempt, before birth. If election saves us instead of faith, hope, Love and grace, then we are doomed.

You have limited the scope of God's Love because of your choice addition to the pure scriptural water.

It is with heavy heart that I assert you have validated points 5 and 6 of the OP. You cannot limit the scope of God's Love. This will impact the way you treat your fellow man. We all have fallen short and are all forgiven, but to limit Love in reference to God has a catastrophic impact on one's personal Love towards those perceived as "reprobate".

If the dogs are the least, then even the dog's are loved. 2 Peter 3:9

Mat. 15:10-20

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.”
23 But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27“Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28“O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

-I am still open for dialogue, but your answer is telling of your scriptural lens.

-I count you my sibling in Christ, but you have brought the very points upon you that I thought you would never fall under.

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]... if you have time to exegete portions of your choice from 1 John 4, 1 Cor. 13 and John 3, or anywhere you feel impressed, to assert the call, I would appreciate it. If you don't have the time... it's ok. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

!!!Update!!!

[MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] is still assisting me in understanding his Contest of the OP's assertion behind 1 John 2:27's use

I'll be off for the night.

 

[freelight]

God gives rain to all, but that is at his grace and mercy. It does not obligate him to treat all the same.

Hello BD,

Adding to my recent post here,

Why wouldn't Love act as Love to all, 'God' being the Universal Creator, Originator of all things and beings? Why would God's love be partial, imperfect, exclusively divided, misproportionally distributed? The rain falls and sun shines on ALL.