What love is this?

[RichardT]

I hate how the use of such a beautiful flower as the TULIP could to be used to be symbolic for strict predestination, I see no love in calvinism.

[mlqurgw]

I hate how the use of such a beautiful flower as the TULIP could to be used to be symbolic for strict predestination, I see no love in calvinism.
That is because you don't understand it.

[DeaconDean]

That is because you don't understand it.

I'll raise an amen to that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Phileoeklogos]

Then stick with your Daisy.......... He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me kinda, almost, well just enough to make salvation a possibility, if I get lucky enough to hear the Gospel by some good fortune and I'm smart enough to make a decision for Jesus unlike the guy who lives down the road who just never was able to make a good decision, hmmm, that guy must have plucked the wrong petal, He loves me, He loves me not...........



Joining the Dave Hunt fan club Rich?

[MrJim]

I hate how the use of such a beautiful flower as the TULIP could to be used to be symbolic for strict predestination, I see no love in calvinism.

You'll be in the minority little brother, but there are others of us going to baptist churches that don't follow calvinism either. But you set yourself up on this thread, so be prepared to defend what you believe^_^

[eldermike]

I hate how the use of such a beautiful flower as the TULIP could to be used to be symbolic for strict predestination, I see no love in calvinism.
One day back when my son was a child he told me he hated me and wished he was dead. I suppose I could have thrown him out, brought in a son that would say he loved me, but that's not how fathers love their sons.
You are a bright young man, one day you may become a father and understand.

[Hagios17]

How the TULIP came to be is indeed interesting. Yes... very interesting, pleacious *says with Lord of the Ring's golem voice, lol

Most of us here mistakingly call the TULIP Calvinism. No problem, it does trace some of his beliefs, but it is not his entire systematic theology. If you want to read his entire systematic theology go and find: "Calvin's Institutes", which has far more magnitude than 5 points.

So where did the TULIP come from anyway? --- Mmm... the Council of Dort, does it not?

Well, it kinda goes like this:

Calvin was a Roman Catholic who saw too much Hypocracy and ungodliness in his own organisation, and battled with Romish teaching in comparison to the scriptures. Breaking away from Rome, he spoke against their teachings... wow, and he hammered his 93 (I think it was that many points) thesis against the door of Whitenberg speaking against the indulgences and what he thought to be Idolatries and abominations of RCC:eek: . He also thanks that dude for going to the heart of the matter: "free will and predestination." Calvin and many other reformers had a problem with the way the Church was monipulating people and lying. Calvin was an avid reader of God's word, and eventually finished his Institutes which promoted the teachings of grace, etc., and of course denied Free will, the Romish teaching. There was also another dude, Jacubus Arminius, and when he died, his disciples who studied under him were attacking the Institutes. They took 5 themes and taught against those themes:
<LI class=toclevel-2>1.1 Total depravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Total_depravity) <LI class=toclevel-2>1.2 Unconditional election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Unconditional_election) <LI class=toclevel-2>1.3 Limited atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Limited_atonement) <LI class=toclevel-2>1.4 Irresistible grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Irresistible_grace)
1.5 Perseverance of the saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Perseverance_of_the_saints)They taught that human's weren't dead in sin, but rather because they believed God's grace was common (all humanity) that he atoned for all humanity, that repentance isn't given and that it isn't the spirit that calls, but rather that free will is the faculty that brings us to Christ. Also denied election and predestination. They also didn't believe in Preservation of the Saints. Thus what Jacubus' desciples believed were so in line with Romish teaching. I'm not sure, but perhaps they were Catholic too.

Well, the counsil of Dort, and I think that is in Germany weren't that happy about this, so "they" looked through Calvin's institutes and came up with.... the.... :idea: ...TUILP!

Calvin never wrote the TULIP, it was the Council of Dort.

And those who follow in line with a more absolute grace belief are in line with the Reformers, but those who follow free will... they are in line with Rome. Free will is not Protestant.

[arunma]

Then stick with your Daisy.......... He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me kinda, almost, well just enough to make salvation a possibility, if I get lucky enough to hear the Gospel by some good fortune and I'm smart enough to make a decision for Jesus unlike the guy who lives down the road who just never was able to make a good decision, hmmm, that guy must have plucked the wrong petal, He loves me, He loves me not...........

My thoughts exactly. What a frightening thought it must be to rely on one's own ability to believe. I personally know people who have apostacized from the faith because they had some bad life experience, or they were given over to some sin, or something else of this nature. People simply don't have the ability to muster enough faith for salvation on their own.

[JimfromOhio]

I used to be an Arminianist but over the years, the more I studied, the more I understand God's plan of Salvation and the works of the Holy Spirit, I tend to agree with Calvinism.

One of the reason why I am into Reformed theology (i.e. Reformed Baptist like John Piper), is "NO" to works and methods because the Holy Spirit is our source of our salvation. A spiritually dead person is without the Holy Spirit, therefore we do not have the "ability" to get saved on our own. We need the Holy Spirit to prick and quicken us to be alive." Faith comes to the believer as a gift from God. It is not something that individuals are capable of coming up on their own. Were faith a work of man's own doing, man would be in a position to take partial credit for his redemption. Faith comes as a result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit-He quickens our hearts to believe. Apart from the new birth, there can be no true faith.

Reformed/Calvinism is theology of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, James Montgomery Boice, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur (somewhat) and many more. Often people "dislike" Calvinism Doctrine because God's Authority regarding Salvation. I am not going through step-by-step of TULIP or 5 Points of Calvinism. As a calvinist, I do believe we have "free will" but only according to God's will. God will direct our lives as He sees fit. Bible clearly pointed out that God have directed our lives. In Ephesians 1:11, "He works all things according to the purpose of His own will."

[JimfromOhio]

Here's a Reformed Baptist view of Calvinsim by John Piper. What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)
(http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/)

[Hagios17]

No work no method, that deserves an Amen!:amen:

Most of what you said i agree with, but I don't hold any affiliation with free will any more. And we can't call free will protestant or Baptist cause it was a principle that fell out of Rome.

[Hagios17]

Figuring these things out with fear and trembling...

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar143810_2.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar143810_2.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar143810_2.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar143810_2.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar143810_2.gif

[RichardT]

I always thought strict predestination started with Augustine. (Rome)

[JimfromOhio]

I always thought strict predestination started with Augustine. (Rome)

Started with God.

[RichardT]

Joining the Dave Hunt fan club Rich?

I actually saw Dave Hunt preach live. I also talked to him and got his autograph, it was awesome.

[Seeker of the Truth]

I hate how the use of such a beautiful flower as the TULIP could to be used to be symbolic for strict predestination, I see no love in calvinism.

That's because Calvinism isn't Biblical.

Richard, I stand behind you 100%, just as Christ is too.

[JimfromOhio]

That's because Calvinism isn't Biblical.

Richard, I stand behind you 100%, just as Christ is too.

That's a matter of opinion. :wave:

[DeaconDean]

What we have here, is, failure to communicate.

Before this thread gets out of hand, and passions run high, I want to take this time to remind everyone of the rules:

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

Not everybody will see it our way, not everybody will see the other way. Nevertheless, each person has their individual opinions on this matter. It would be greatly appreciated if we would simply remember to say things in love:

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." -Mk. 12:30-31 (KJV)

And something else to remember:

"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." -Col. 4:6 (KJV)

Now having said that, I return you to your regularly scheduled deabte.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Seeker of the Truth]

That's a matter of opinion. :wave:
Like everything else discussed on these boards.

[Erinwilcox]

For those of you who HATE Calvinism but LOVE Spurgeon:


It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism (http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/Calvin.htm), but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me . . . Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church. (Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons, Still Waters Revival Books, p. 170).
I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).
... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men. (C.H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave", 1855).
You must first deny the authenticity and full inspiration of the Holy Scripture before you can legitimately and truly deny election. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p.130).
When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul - when they were as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron; and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man - that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God ... I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, I ascribe my change wholly to God. (Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography: 1, The Early Years, Banner of Truth, pp. 164-165).
George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124).
Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 7, p. 298).
We declare on scriptural authority that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained toward Christ. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 4, p.139).
I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will.
I believe that Christ came into the world not to put men into a salvable state, but into a saved state. Not to put them where they could save themselves, but to do the work in them and for them, from first to last. If I did not believe that there was might going forth with the word of Jesus which makes men willing, and which turns them from the error of their ways by the mighty, overwhelming, constraining force of divine influence, I should cease to glory in the cross of Christ. (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p. 34).
A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved. (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, p. 309).
I question whether we have preached the whole counsel of God, unless predestination with all its solemnity and sureness be continually declared. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 6, p. 26).



All of this applies to my point, but the colored portions are mainly to show you what Spurgeon taught. . .I find it strange that so many can hate Calvinism and yet love Spurgeon. . .who was a Calvinist and a flaming one at that.

[Seeker of the Truth]

I take back what I said about Calvinism being unBiblical.

Sorry to say such a thing.

And no, this has nothing to do with Erin's post.

[RichardT]

I take back what I said about Calvinism being unBiblical.

I do believe it is unbiblical.

[Seeker of the Truth]

I do believe it is unbiblical.
Well, I don't want to bash my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

If I'm going to prove another brother or sister wrong, I'm going to need all the Scriptural evidence I can get and right now I don't have it.

I'm also tired of arguing with people, I just want to fellowship.

[JimfromOhio]

I do believe it is unbiblical.

Here's a challenge.... find the Scriptures that disproves calvinistic teachings.

[RichardT]

Here's a challenge.... find the Scriptures that disproves calvinistic teachings.

John 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

[Erinwilcox]

John 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Uh, no. Does Jesus save everyone in the entire world? Is everyone going to heaven? Any good Baptist would tell you no. Besides, it's one verse and you didn't even put it in context.




16"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18"He that believeth in Him is not condemned; but He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Seems to say that the entire world is NOT going to be saved. . .There are verses in the Bible that show that the doctrines of grace are true (duh, that's where we got them from in the first place)--pulling one verse out of the Bible that might seem at face value to support your point will do nothign to disprove Calvinism.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Uh, no. Does Jesus save everyone in the entire world? Is everyone going to heaven? Any good Baptist would tell you no. Besides, it's one verse and you didn't even put it in context.




16"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18"He that believeth in Him is not condemned; but He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Seems to say that the entire world is NOT going to be saved. . .There are verses in the Bible that show that the doctrines of grace are true (duh, that's where we got them from in the first place)--pulling one verse out of the Bible that might seem at face value to support your point will do nothign to disprove Calvinism.
We're not saying the entire world is going to Heaven. However, we are saying that the entire world has a CHANCE to go to Heaven.

[RichardT]

16"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18"He that believeth in Him is not condemned; but He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Exacly. Calvinists always like to replace "all" and "world" with "elect".

[Erinwilcox]

We're not saying the entire world is going to Heaven. However, we are saying that the entire world has a CHANCE to go to Heaven.

Prove it.

The Calvinists on this board have shown time and time again all of the verses on predestination, election, the whole works. They have shown how John 3:16 really supports Reformed theology (whosoever will believe shall be saved, but who will believe? according to other passages it is the elect).

Salvation is offered to all men. I do not deny it. All men are commanded to repent. This is true. But who will be repent and who will be saved? Those whom God has chosen.

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:

God created all things, including man. Since He is the creator, would He not have control over what He has made? Could He not do with it as He willed? Now for my question: IF, and I am only saying if--I'm not saying it's true, so just answer to if--IF God were to choose some to be saved and not choose others, WOULD HE BE UNJUST?

[Hagios17]

RichardT and spsucj, I don't think you guys are understanding what erwin is saying here. The verse, that is "John 3:16" doesn't mean anything when it is "isolated". You guys are in "error" because you are using isolated shards of the iceberg to support you belief that Christ atoned for all men, (which by implication is the same as saying Christ saved all men--remission of sins=salvation:doh)

(A) John 3:16 says "Jesus" didn't come into the world to Condemn the World, yet
(B) JOhn 3:18 says that he has condemned people who dont believe in him

So Christ Condemned the World, but also didn't condem it? -- Mmm, perhaps "world" refers to a different type of people too. Christ who "condemned" the Pharisees...??? Christ who didn't condemn his desciples and children?

These sort of things, I think, deserve much more thought. John 3:16 alone will not enlighten you to it all. Take your time to read the whole of John, siting verses like John 1:13, where human will is not active in salvation, etc. I have found it far more fair to udnerstanding when you actually read what the book is saying instead of isolating it in certain areas.

Some of my thoughts on the first 3 chapters --- not perfect though:

John 3:16 - Assumption of meaning vs Context


Through my experience with other Christians I have come to realize that John 3:16 is a verse no one dares to questions. When it is quoted- there is utter silence. For silence is expected, almost like suppression. And the understanding promoted is never motivated by the context. World simply refers to all humanity. And this is the accepted way no one questions. Of course there are those who questions, but this makes for good drama. So the question is: How is your understanding of John 3:16 derived? From the common and acceptable supposition or the fair context? (Deduction or induction) And if from the context, motivate how you derive your understanding from the context, but in the mean time here are some of my observations that lead to an understanding of John 3:16.


[John 1:1-9/CREATION & IMAGE OF GOD] Here we are introduced to a name of God, which is in the Greek: Logos. Logos can be translated into over forty different English words, which namely refer to the process of thought. Yet the most common English translation of word Logos is Word, which is why that translation is so vague and inappropriate. A more descriptive and appropriate translation of Logos would be something like: logic, reason, computation, etc. Here we are also introduced to the image of God in man. [John 1:10-13/WORLD] World in this context, refers to those without the willingness to receive, acknowledge or believe in God. (These are those born of the blood, will of the flesh and will of man). Yet those who believe, (receive, believe and acknowledge), are born of God.[John 1:14-18/INCARNATION & LAW AND GRACE AND TRUTH] Here one learns about the incarnation of God, as one in human flesh. Also, “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (The law given by Moses, in that form, acts as the law of sin and death to those meant for perdition and condemnation, as Judas was, but in the form of being inscribed upon a man’s heart is of grace and truth: the law of the spirit. Matthew 5:17, Romans 8:2, Jeremiah 31:33-34, Ezekiel 11:19-20, Hebrews 8:10-11) [John 1:19-28/PHARISEES] Here those sent of the Pharisees mistook John for the Messiah and or some prophet, and his water baptism for the spiritual water baptism. They suspected he was the Messiah because of his water Baptism, not knowing that the Baptism was a sign, preparation, of the Messiah to come, and a sign of his spiritual water Baptism, which is talked about by Jesus to the woman of Samaria. -John 4:5-29 [John 1:35-42/ANDREW & PETER] Andrew and Simon Peter, the gathering of these disciples and the renaming of Simon, as Cephas. (God’s calling upon Andrew and Simon)[John 1:43-51/NATHANAEL]Philip informs Nathanael of Messiah, and when the Messias tells Nathanael, also having said there was no guile in nathanael, that he foresaw him sitting under the fig tree, nathanael believed and said he was the Son of God; the King of Israel. (God’s calling upon Nathanael) [John 2:1-11/MARRIAGE] Here Jesus reproves fallible Mary at a marriage in Cana of Galilee. (Giving this passage more thought) [John 2:12-22/TEMPLE] Jesus condemned those who sold merchandise in the temple, driving them out with their merchandise. And the disciples remembered that it was written: “he zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” Then the Jews asked him what sign he came to show them, and he said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews mistook the temple he was referring to, being his body, for the one in building for forty and six years. And when Jesus was resurrected from the dead his disciples believed. [John 2:23-25/HEART OF MAN]In Jerusalem many believed on him, but he did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men, needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. [John 3:1-12/NICODEMUS] Nicodemus only understands Jesus as good Rabbi. Jesus says that except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus questions the possibility of re-entering his mother’s womb to be born once again. Jesus responds and says: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” The rebirth Jesus referred to was a spiritual rebirth of the water and spirit. Jesus then describes the nature of the Spirit through a wind parable, that it goes wherever it so wills, and that those of the spirit are of the same manner. The understanding is that this spirit-water baptism is God’s anointance on whomever he chooses. Then rebuked nicodemus to tell him that he would not receive their witness. And that if he didn’t believe from these earthly things, how then by the spiritual. [John 3:13-18/WORLD] He then related the ascension of the Son of man with God, that the son of man is God. How that the Son of man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, that whosoever believes in the son of man will not perish and have everlasting life. (This belief is the work of God – John 6:29) And the reason why Christ was lifted up for whosoever of the world to believe was because he loved the world. Thus God didn’t send Christ to condemn the world he so loves, as he sent Jesus to save the world. A person that believes isn’t condemned, and person that doesn’t believe is condemned already. In other words, condemned since the beginning of time. So because Christ came not to condemn the world, those who don’t believe who he condemns are not characterised as part of the “world” in this context. [John 3:19-21/CONDEMNATION] Then Jesus describes the condemnation of men to be their inability to will for God as their deeds are evil; that they hate God and love evil, because their deeds are evil. And that they won’t come to the light, for their deeds will be reproved. But those who “doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

If one understood 3:16, one would know it isn’t referring to all humanity, i.e. it excludes those who are condemned of God.


In Christ, who condemned Judas and the Pharisees, etc.

Hagios17

[Hagios17]

Erwin or anyone else, if you feel this post 32 is is unfair and needs alteration, just PM me. No need to delete the entire thread hey:)

[Seeker of the Truth]

Hagios,

You like to tell people they're wrong, right?

You spend all you time coming on these forums looking for someone you disagree with and then you offer a one-verse explanation of why they're wrong.

Hagios, don't tell me I'm wrong. Call it pride, yes? No, call it, "Jesus told me so." haha.

You should read my other post in the other thread, I already forgot which. But, it deals heavily on one using their own brain. Maybe you should try it?

[Erinwilcox]

Erwin or anyone else, if you feel this post 32 is is unfair and needs alteration, just PM me. No need to delete the entire thread hey:)

Minor correction: My name is Erin W. . .not Erwin. You may now continue with your previously scheduled broadcast. ;)

[Hagios17]

And an even sadder thing is that there are Baptists out there... that hate fundementalists. Christianity is backwards, which is why I don't believe denomination or organisation is right.

[Hagios17]

Denominationalism-congregationalism is what is wrong with Christianity:

1 Corinthians 1:1-31 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which 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 ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Well, this thread has officially gone down the pot.

[Hagios17]

To all the Catholics out there who agree with what I am saying, you have given me a little more hope, cause the way I see it... Christianity is moving toward something devastating. And the more we persist with ecemunism, the closer we bring Gods beloved to the great day of evil.

[Hagios17]

What I mean, is that the more we do this yoking CHrisitians with the world and its rituals, the closer we bring ourselves to the great evils spoken of in the Bible.

[Iosias]

I see no love in Calvinism.

Why not?

Here is Dr John Gill on the love of God;

The Doctrines of God's Everlasting Love to His Elect, and Their Eternal Union with Christ: Together with some other Truths, Stated and Defended, in a Letter to Dr. Abraham Taylor. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_09.htm)

The Love of God, Considered. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_10.htm)

My advice: print, read and learn! :)

[Iosias]

So where did the TULIP come from anyway? --- Mmm... the Council of Dort, does it not?

It was set forth systematically at Dordt but all of what Dordt declared can be found in Calvin :)

But seeing you raise Dordt:

Canons I, 6-12:

That God in time confers the gift of faith on some, and not on others, proceeds from His eternal decree. For all His works He knows from eternity (Act_15:18), and He accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph_1:11). According to this decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, no matter how hard they may be, and inclines them to believe; those not elected, however, He leaves in their own wickedness and hardness by a just judgment. And here especially is disclosed to us the profound, merciful, and at the same time just distinction between men equally worthy of condemnation, or that decree of election and reprobation which has been revealed in God’s Word. Although perverse, impure, and unstable men twist this decree to their own destruction, it provides unspeakable comfort for holy and God-fearing souls.


Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, out of the whole human race, which had fallen by its own fault out of its original integrity into sin and perdition, He has, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His will, out of mere grace, chosen in Christ to salvation a definite number of persons, neither better nor more worthy than others, but with them involved in a common misery. He has also from eternity appointed Christ to be the Mediator and Head of all the elect and the foundation of salvation and thus He decreed to give to Christ those who were to be saved, and effectually to call and draw them into His communion through His Word and Spirit. He decreed to give them true faith in Him, to justify them, to sanctify them, and, after having powerfully kept them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to glorify them, for the demonstration of His mercy and the praise of the riches of his glorious grace. As it is written: God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. He destined us in love to be His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Eph_1:4, Eph_1:5, Eph_1:6). And elsewhere, Those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He justified He also glorified (Rom_8:30).


There are not various decrees of this election, but it is one and the same decree concerning all those that are to be saved under both the Old and the New Testament. For Scripture declares that the good pleasure, purpose, and counsel of the will of God is one. According to this purpose He has chosen us from eternity both to grace and to glory, both to salvation and to the way of salvation, which He prepared for us that we should walk in it (Eph_1:4, Eph_1:5; Eph_2:10).


This election is not based on foreseen faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality of disposition, as a cause or condition in man required for being chosen, but men are chosen to faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, and so on. Election, therefore, is the fountain of every saving good, from which flow faith, holiness, and other saving gifts, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects. This the apostle teaches when he says, He chose us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy and blameless before Him (Eph_1:4).


The cause of this gracious election is solely the good pleasure of God. This good pleasure does not consist in this, that out of all possible conditions God chose certain qualities or actions of men as a condition for salvation, but in this, that out of the common mass of sinners he adopted certain persons to be His own possession. For it is written, Though they (the children) were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, and so on, she (namely, Rebecca), was told, "The elder will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:12, Rom_9:13) And, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Act_13:48).


As God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, allknowing and almighty, so His election can neither be undone and redone, nor changed, revoked, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number be diminished.


The elect in due time, though in various stages and in different measure, are made certain of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation. They attain this assurance, however, not by inquisitively prying into the hidden and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unfailing fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God - such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, and a hungering and thirsting after righteousness.

[Hagios17]

Thanks bru.

[Hagios17]

Oh, i see you just posted about Dort when I said thanks lol... I'll check that out later.

paece

[Seeker of the Truth]

To all the Catholics out there who agree with what I am saying, you have given me a little more hope, cause the way I see it... Christianity is moving toward something devastating. And the more we persist with ecemunism, the closer we bring Gods beloved to the great day of evil.
Yes, and Calvinists are leading the way. :D

[DeaconDean]

Alrighty folks, let me repeat myself, and lets review the rules:

Before this thread gets out of hand, and passions run high, I want to take this time to remind everyone of the rules:


2.1 No Flaming


You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).


Not everybody will see it our way, not everybody will see the other way. Nevertheless, each person has their individual opinions on this matter. It would be greatly appreciated if we would simply remember to say things in love:


"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." -Mk. 12:30-31 (KJV)


And something else to remember:


"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." -Col. 4:6 (KJV)


Now having said that, I return you to your regularly scheduled deabte.


God Bless


Till all are one.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Dean, the little "laughing" emoticon just meant that I'm being sarcastic. I don't mean to offend.

[PETE_]

sar·casm http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fsarcasm) (sär'kāz'əm) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.

A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Perhaps this is not the place for sarcasm

[Seeker of the Truth]

sar·casm http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fsarcasm) (sär'kāz'əm) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.

A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

Perhaps this is not the place for sarcasm
Obviously, if you're going to overreact and pull out a dictionary.

[JimfromOhio]

Sarcasm is one of the oldest military strategies is to "divide and conquer". Many including Christians, have adopted this to practice this to defeat the enemies rather than relying on GRACE.

[MrJim]

Thanks bru.

Hey bru, I watched Blood Diamond the other night, and I always watch movies with subtitles on, and that's what they'd call each other, guess it's short for brother or friend?

[MrJim]

And that is why your people have killed us day and night, and are stained with our blood, because your people hate us.

The reformers you speak so highly of aren't exactly free from persecuting others...ask an anabaptist...from imprisonment to exile to execution they didn't like the anabaptists understanding or interpretation of scripture and denounced them as heretics-no different that the Catholics labeling the reformers as heretics.

And know this, if you lived in the age of Calvin, Zwingli, or Luther, you would be considered a heretic by them if you would not baptize infants, and since wear the baptist icon, it just might be something to consider...

Especially to the Reformed Baptists, you hold these reformers in such high regard--you are a heretic by their standards and would be persecuted if you lived under them in that age. SO if God's teachings are timeless, and these guys would have you exiled, imprisoned, or worse, then maybe they had some other things wrong too. A Christian is a Christian regardless of what age they lived in, and I expect that at the very least if they were truly our brethren they wouldn't want you or me persecuted.

Our minister this morning (Baptist) was speaking about Luther in a positive way and I wanted to jump up and say "You would be in prison if you lived in his day and believed what you preach!!" History has a funny way of getting blurred so we see what we want to see.

Just something to consider...

[DeaconDean]

Dean, the little "laughing" emoticon just meant that I'm being sarcastic. I don't mean to offend.

This was not aimed at anyone in general, rather, it was an attempt to calm things down before they got out of hand.

No offense meant.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

The reformers you speak so highly of aren't exactly free from persecuting others...ask an anabaptist...from imprisonment to exile to execution they didn't like the anabaptists understanding or interpretation of scripture and denounced them as heretics-no different that the Catholics labeling the reformers as heretics.

And know this, if you lived in the age of Calvin, Zwingli, or Luther, you would be considered a heretic by them if you would not baptize infants, and since wear the baptist icon, it just might be something to consider...

Especially to the Reformed Baptists, you hold these reformers in such high regard--you are a heretic by their standards and would be persecuted if you lived under them in that age. SO if God's teachings are timeless, and these guys would have you exiled, imprisoned, or worse, then maybe they had some other things wrong too. A Christian is a Christian regardless of what age they lived in, and I expect that at the very least if they were truly our brethren they wouldn't want you or me persecuted.

Our minister this morning (Baptist) was speaking about Luther in a positive way and I wanted to jump up and say "You would be in prison if you lived in his day and believed what you preach!!" History has a funny way of getting blurred so we see what we want to see.

Just something to consider... You are right, they were wrong on many things. But that in no way means they were wrong on everything. I hold the Reformers and others such as the Puritans in high regard but disagree with them on many things. We ought to take any fallible man as just that.
Where we can agree we ought to and where we can't we ought to try and at least understand their reasons. Especially in the case of those gone before who were fighting different battles and were shaped by a different cultural and providential influences. History must be viewed in its context as well. They were responsible to proclaim the Gospel and defend truth in their generations and we in ours.
Truth never changes but our application of it does as we grow in knowledge and in grace.

[MrJim]

You are right, they were wrong on many things. But that in no way means they were wrong on everything. I hold the Reformers and others such as the Puritans in high regard but disagree with them on many things. We ought to take any fallible man as just that.
Where we can agree we ought to and where we can't we ought to try and at least understand their reasons. Especially in the case of those gone before who were fighting different battles and were shaped by a different cultural and providential influences. History must be viewed in its context as well. They were responsible to proclaim the Gospel and defend truth in their generations and we in ours.
Truth never changes but our application of it does as we grow in knowledge and in grace.

I understand the fallible man part, but those were the doctrines they were teaching as timeless truths of God, and then acting on what they were teaching and believing.

While they may have words that appeal their demonstration of God's truths to others is the fruit they bear...and if their reasoning "in historical context" is enough then it is something that can happen again...and it truly must be an abomination in God's eyes to see those that call his name persecute the innocent. And that would include all on the baptist forum, for again, all here would be under the persecution of the reformers and the Catholic church. Y'all would be out in the hedges with the anabaptists doing your preaching;)

What's that saying about forgotten history gets repeated...

[Seeker of the Truth]

It's funny that you guys are talking about what earlier Christians would think.

Calvinists and the Gnostics actually have a lot in common. Isn't that scary? Oh, how Clement of Alexandria would've reacted if he knew that the present day Church preached the exact opposite of what Christ preached.

[JimfromOhio]

It's funny that you guys are talking about what earlier Christians would think.

Calvinists and the Gnostics actually have a lot in common. Isn't that scary? Oh, how Clement of Alexandria would've reacted if he knew that the present day Church preached the exact opposite of what Christ preached.

Speaking of early Christians, how much did you study and how familiar are you with Church History? I think you need to study more about the difference between Gnotics and Calvinism.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Speaking of early Christians, how much did you study and how familiar are you with Church History? I think you need to study more about the difference between Gnotics and Calvinism.
Actually, I don't have a degree in anything yet, however, I have been doing some extensive reading upon early Christians (pre-Nicene).

If my post contradicts your teachings, please correct me as I am trying to learn as much as I can.

[eldermike]

It's funny that you guys are talking about what earlier Christians would think.

Calvinists and the Gnostics actually have a lot in common. Isn't that scary? Oh, how Clement of Alexandria would've reacted if he knew that the present day Church preached the exact opposite of what Christ preached.
Gnostic Christians? or Gnostics? Not the same subject as Gnosticism existed before Christ.
Early Gnostic Christians were as far from Calvinists as one can get in my opinion.
I guess it would help if you made a specific example of how they might line up to you.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Gnostic Christians? or Gnostics? Not the same subject as Gnosticism existed before Christ.
Early Gnostic Christians were as far from Calvinists as one can get in my opinion.
I guess it would help if you made a specific example of how they might line up to you.
Well, the Gnostic Christians believed that God had Predestined every little action, just as Calvinists do.

[JM]

Well, the Gnostic Christians believed that God had Predestined every little action, just as Calvinists do.

Could you post a few examples, from titles you've read, so we could compare Gnostic to Calvinistic predestination?

Thanks.

j

[Seeker of the Truth]

Could you post a few examples, from titles you've read, so we could compare Gnostic to Calvinistic predestination?

Thanks.

j

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Gnostics and Calvinists are the "same."

I'm just informing the crowd that Gnostics also believed that "God" had predetermined every little thing, just as the Calvinists on these boards are claiming without Scriptural evidence.

After class, I'll post some sites where you can see how they relate.

[Hagios17]

...without scriptural evidence? ...>> :eek: <<

[Hagios17]

The reformers you speak so highly of aren't exactly free from persecuting others...ask an anabaptist...from imprisonment to exile to execution they didn't like the anabaptists understanding or interpretation of scripture and denounced them as heretics-no different that the Catholics labeling the reformers as heretics.

And know this, if you lived in the age of Calvin, Zwingli, or Luther, you would be considered a heretic by them if you would not baptize infants, and since wear the baptist icon, it just might be something to consider...

Especially to the Reformed Baptists, you hold these reformers in such high regard--you are a heretic by their standards and would be persecuted if you lived under them in that age. SO if God's teachings are timeless, and these guys would have you exiled, imprisoned, or worse, then maybe they had some other things wrong too. A Christian is a Christian regardless of what age they lived in, and I expect that at the very least if they were truly our brethren they wouldn't want you or me persecuted.

Our minister this morning (Baptist) was speaking about Luther in a positive way and I wanted to jump up and say "You would be in prison if you lived in his day and believed what you preach!!" History has a funny way of getting blurred so we see what we want to see.

Just something to consider...

Fair enough… the Catholics have done evil and so have the Protestants... so have the Baptists, for even they loose sight of the spiritual (devoured by your carnal washings and communions) And in fact, I will say Amen to that, cause it puts me into perspective… Christ our HIGH PREIST:clap: Corinthians actually heeds us about causing divisions, i.e. following that man, this woman, that title... we don't belong to the Baptist Church or Rick Warren, etc., or any other carnal establishment of "moron" man who thinks he knows and sees and hears, but he doesn't.

But to derive, from this comparison of evils, that Rome and Protestantism are equal in the blame would be ludicrous. Rome has succeed Protestantism tenfold, no… maybe even a hundredfold, through what she has done:

Crusades…
Inquisition (which is still in order, i.e. = ecumenism)…
Hitler (The slaughter of millions of Jews)…
Etc. wait, millions of Protestants were also killed

And if inquisition is still in order… if foolish Protestants are buying Ecumenism, the method which Rome utilises to recruit her lost brethren, (the ends justifies the means; lie=good), then what is stopping Holy Rome from unleashing another tide of relentless killing and rapping and torturing of Protestants and Jews... or just plainly anyone who doesn't want to conform to Rome?

I don’t fear Protestantism friend, I fear what Rome is going to do to us in the distent furture. And I fear for my poor protestant children, if I am unfortunate enough to have any in these last days.

…I will not recant! Declare your peace, declare it! But the Lord shall not grant you peace… even as it says in his word. I will never recant and turn to this false unity which Protestants and Catholics lust after without reason and truth.

[Hagios17]

If there are Protestants and Catholics out there who feel offended by what I have said, then good. I am happy that godliness is an offence. I am happy that righteousness comes to you as "THE ROCK OF OFFENCE". Never loos sight friends. Never loose sight of jesus Christ, crucified... Never loose sight of Yeshua. Don't fall for the enticements of the world. The world desires Babyl and babylon. They desire these religious unities. The children of God are not a unity of diversity but a unity of the mind of Christ... this mind, the mind of Christ. Mutaul faith... we have the same mind.

Nevertheless, I hope I am not seen as someone who is Catholic or Protestant bashing. I am not designating the Catholic Church or the Protestant Church as unsaved and completely heretical or pagan. But in my depths I hope and pray that Catholics and protestants will forsake their foolish organisation, that is... that all Christians would forsake the traditions of their fathers and turn to Yeshua. John the Baptist never saved or died for us, did he Baptists? None of the saints died for us, did they Catholics? Joseph Smith... Mohammed... Mother Teresa... Rick Warren... Mary.. Joseph... Satan... Baal. None of them did what Christ has done. Don't loose sight of yeshua. He has suffered a tremendous thing that no other could suffer or help him suffer. He has done this thing on his own and received such a horrible thing: "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Don't loose sight of his shed blood. His blood is so precious. Reading leviticus and other books you will see... there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Our wonderful and humble meek Jesus who became like a servan. God Almighty... our God who destroyed and killed so many idolatres and haters of God... who became man... who humbled himself for us. Our God who held himself back from consuming us in his holiness. Wow. Is this not a mighty and holy and loving God? Don't loose sight of Jesus through your washings and festivals and all sorts of other traditions. Partakers of the bread and blood, that is... those who eat sound doctrine, turn from unsound and corrupted doctrine, Baptists, Catholics, "Method"ists, Pentecostals, etc.

[Seeker of the Truth]

...without scriptural evidence? ...>> :eek: <<
Well Hagios, Calvinism nor Gnosticism is Biblical so sorry, I won't be able to find any Scriptural evidence there.

[Hagios17]

Hey bru, I watched Blood Diamond the other night, and I always watch movies with subtitles on, and that's what they'd call each other, guess it's short for brother or friend?

lol

*takes menno's hand.:thumbsup:
Ahoi bru, gevaarlik leitie... nee, dadelik my china:confused: lol

Glad to hear you're aquainting yourself with South Afrikan jargon.

[Hagios17]

You are right, they were wrong on many things. But that in no way means they were wrong on everything. I hold the Reformers and others such as the Puritans in high regard but disagree with them on many things. We ought to take any fallible man as just that.
Where we can agree we ought to and where we can't we ought to try and at least understand their reasons. Especially in the case of those gone before who were fighting different battles and were shaped by a different cultural and providential influences. History must be viewed in its context as well. They were responsible to proclaim the Gospel and defend truth in their generations and we in ours.
Truth never changes but our application of it does as we grow in knowledge and in grace.

Amen bru.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Could you post a few examples, from titles you've read, so we could compare Gnostic to Calvinistic predestination?

Thanks.

j

Well, here's a link. Never used it as a reference though.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php?t-10001.html

[Hagios17]

-schism? >>:eek:<<

[Hagios17]

Honestly, i can't see how Predestination is loosing sight of yeshua, and will worship, uhum... *clears throut for about an hour, oh... where was I? -- yes, WILL WORSHIP, I mean..........................................................................................................................................Free will............................... is putting the focus on Jesus... Huh?

[Seeker of the Truth]

Honestly, i can't see how Predestination is loosing sight of yeshua, and will worship, uhum... *clears throut for about an hour, oh... where was I? -- yes, WILL WORSHIP, I mean..........................................................................................................................................Free will............................... is putting the focus on Jesus... Huh?
Hagios, maybe you should get a dog.

[JimfromOhio]

Well, here's a link. Never used it as a reference though.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php?t-10001.html

Response to Dr. Lavender's views..... Referring to Calvinism and how we supposedly misinterpret the Scripture, Lavender says (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/lavender.html)

[JimfromOhio]

Honestly, i can't see how Predestination is loosing sight of yeshua, and will worship, uhum... *clears throut for about an hour, oh... where was I? -- yes, WILL WORSHIP, I mean..........................................................................................................................................Free will............................... is putting the focus on Jesus... Huh?

Freewill and Sovereign, just think about the two words. Whose will is stronger?

[eldermike]

Well, here's a link. Never used it as a reference though.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php?t-10001.html
I would not use this as a reference.
Is there more?

If you study Calvin you will find that his Theology came from bible study and from writing commentaries, extensive massive commentaries on the Bible. That's the whole story on how reformed Theology came to be, it's in the bible.

[Hagios17]

God's of course bru. Thy will be done, not mine, and that my eevry step is determined, and that I was known beforehand... indeed. God's will is spiritual and mine, fleshly. But, by no means do i believe that the human will is not part of God's creation.

[Hagios17]

I think its time you stopped looking at sights that attack the size of Calvin's nose and read the Institutes for yourself. Perhaps it would be better to read his institutes, that way you would be dealing with the "facts" of what he believes and not the "assumptions" and "speculations" of others. And by what I am seeing in the links you provide these "anti-Calvinists" make it seam like they don't even know the man's first name! His name is John dudes... John. No need to tear his head off and rip his heart out still bleeding.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Freewill and Sovereign, just think about the two words. Whose will is stronger?

Oh, brother, who said anything like this? God gives us a choice, sir. It's not about who's will is stronger, it's about love.

I would not use this as a reference.
Is there more?

If you study Calvin you will find that his Theology came from bible study and from writing commentaries, extensive massive commentaries on the Bible. That's the whole story on how reformed Theology came to be, it's in the bible.

Alrighty, I'll have to dig up some stuff. Give me a while. Not to make any excuses, but I'm trying to write an English paper and an Economics paper...

I think its time you stopped looking at sights that attack the size of Calvin's nose and read the Institutes for yourself. Perhaps it would be better to read his institutes, that way you would be dealing with the "facts" of what he believes and not the "assumptions" and "speculations" of others. And by what I am seeing in the links you provide these "anti-Calvinists" make it seam like they don't even know the man's first name! His name is John dudes... John. No need to tear his head off and rip his heart out still bleeding.

Hagios, I'm getting really annoyed at your posts. I blocked you, so if you have something serious you need to tell me, you can PM me.

[Seeker of the Truth]

ElderMike, here's three subjects that Gnosticism and Calvinism have in common:

Total Hereditary Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.
Limited Atonement
Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.
Efficacious Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion.

[JimfromOhio]

ElderMike, here's three subjects that Gnosticism and Calvinism have in common:

Total Hereditary Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.
Limited Atonement
Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.
Efficacious Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion.

That's not how I understood the differences between Gnosticism and Calvinism.

You need to explain in detail with support of why you see the two are the same.

[Seeker of the Truth]

That's not how I understood the differences between Gnosticism and Calvinism.

You need to explain in detail with support of why you see the two are the same.
Okie doke, give me a minute.

[PETE_]

Actually, you probably already believe that God's will rules man's will, but you just didn't know it...




4 Examples How God's Will Rules Man's Will

1. Inspiration of Scripture



2. Infallibility of Bible prophecy3. Eternal security4. Heaven/new earth
1. Inspiration of Scripture: Do you believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture? If so, then you believe God ruled the wills of the Bible authors. They did not have "free will" to write errors in Scripture. Thankfully, the Lord kept their wills from error.
"All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)

2. Infallibility of Bible Prophecy: Do you believe the Bible prophecies are infallible? If so, then you believe God ruled the wills of the prophets. They did not have "free will" to prophesy errors. God inspired the Old Testament prophets to prophesy accurately about the coming Messiah. During the inspiration process, He influenced and ruled their wills to keep them from error:

"no prophecy of the Scripture came into being of its own private interpretation. For prophecy was not borne at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:2-21)

That's why the test of a true prophet vs. a false prophet is the infallibility of their predictions (Deut. 18:21-22.) If the prophets could have exercised their own wills, free from God's control, then they never could have infallibly predicted Christ's virgin birth, city of birth, suffering death, resurrection, second coming, etc.

3. Eternal Security: Do you believe in "eternal security?" If so, then you believe God rules believers' wills. Most Christians agree they can't fall away finally from Christ. Christians don't have "free will" to become atheists or Satan worshippers. Thankfully, the Lord influences our wills to keep us believing and persevering in Him until the end.

"I will give you a new heart (will) and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart (will) of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:26-27)

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)

4. Heaven/New Earth: Finally, even if you don't believe in eternal security in this life, still you probably believe Christians can never leave heaven or the new earth. If so, then you believe God rules His peoples' wills. No one in heaven is free to leave and choose Hell. God will keep them willingly in heaven forever.


So, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, prophetic infallibility, or eternal security, then you already believe man doesn't have a 100% "free will." God's will sovereignly rules our wills.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Concerning Salvation:

Taken from - http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

"The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors."

Now for Calvinism:

Taken from - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm#u (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/dabney/5points.htm#u)

"In our Confession, Chapter 3, Sections 3, 4, and 7, we have this description of it: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death" (3). "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (4).
http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/images/indent.gif"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice" (7).
http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/images/indent.gifThe first and second sections of this tract prove absolutely this sad but stubborn fact, that no sinner ever truly regenerates himself. One sufficient reason is, that none ever wish to do it, but always prefer, while left to themselves by God, to remain as they are, self-willed and worldly. That is to say, no sinner ever makes himself choose God and holiness, because every principle of his soul goes infallibly to decide the opposite preference. Therefore, whenever a sinner is truly regenerated, it must be God that has done it. Take notice, after God has done it, this new-born sinner will, in his subsequent course of repentance and conversion, freely put forth many choices for God and holiness; but it is impossible that this sinner can have put forth the first choice to reverse his own natural principles of choice. Can a child beget its own father? It must have been God that changed the sinner. Then, when he did it he meant to do it. When was this intention to do it born into the divine mind? That same day? The day that sinner was born? The day Adam was made? No! These answers are all foolish. Because God is omniscient and unchangeable he must have known from eternity his own intention to do it. This suggests, second, that no man can date any of God's purposes in time without virtually denying his perfections of omniscience, wisdom, omnipotence, and immutability. Being omniscient, it is impossible he should ever find out afterward anything he did not know from the first. Being all-wise, it is impossible he should take up a purpose for which his knowledge does not see a reason. Being all-powerful, it is impossible he should ever fail in trying to effect one of his purposes. Hence, whatever God does in nature or grace, he intended to do that thing from eternity. Being unchangeable, it is impossible that he should change his mind to a different purpose after he had once made it up aright under the guidance of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and holiness. All the inferior wisdom of good men but illustrates this. Here is a wise and righteous general conducting a defensive war to save his country. At mid-summer an observer says to him, "General, have you not changed your plan of campaign since you began it?" He replies, "I have." Says the observer, "Then you must be a fickle person?" He replies, "No, I have changed it not because I was fickle, but for these two reasons: because I have been unable and have failed in some of the necessary points of my first plan; and second, I have found out things I did not know when I began." We say that is perfect common sense, and clears the general from all charge of fickleness. But suppose he were, in fact, almighty and omniscient? Then he could not use those excuses, and if he changed his plan after the beginning he would be fickle. Reader, dare you charge God with fickleness? This is a sublime conception of God's nature and actions, as far above the wisest man's as the heavens above the earth. But it is the one taught us everywhere in Scripture. Let us beware how in our pride of self-will we blaspheme God by denying it. Third. Arminians themselves virtually admit the force of these views and scriptures; for their doctrinal books expressly admit God's particular personal election of every sinner that reaches heaven. A great many ignorant persons suppose that the Arminian theology denies all particular election. This is a stupid mistake. Nobody can deny it without attacking the Scripture, God's perfections, and common sense. The whole difference between Presbyterians and intelligent Arminians is this: We believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living. But we Presbyterians must dissent for these reasons: It is inconsistent with the eternity, omnipotence, and sovereignty of the great first cause to represent his eternal purposes thus, as grounded in, or conditioned on, anything which one of his dependent creatures would hereafter contingently do or leave undone."

They both clearly state that God has to stimulate man to receive Salvation.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Pete, read my thread about God's will always happening, please. You may find some people, other than yourself, that are very knowledgeable in this area.

[JimfromOhio]

Concerning Salvation:

Taken from - http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

"The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors."

Now for Calvinism:

Taken from - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm#u (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/dabney/5points.htm#u)

"In our Confession, Chapter 3, Sections 3, 4, and 7, we have this description of it: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death" (3). "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (4).
http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/images/indent.gif"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice" (7).
http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/images/indent.gifThe first and second sections of this tract prove absolutely this sad but stubborn fact, that no sinner ever truly regenerates himself. One sufficient reason is, that none ever wish to do it, but always prefer, while left to themselves by God, to remain as they are, self-willed and worldly. That is to say, no sinner ever makes himself choose God and holiness, because every principle of his soul goes infallibly to decide the opposite preference. Therefore, whenever a sinner is truly regenerated, it must be God that has done it. Take notice, after God has done it, this new-born sinner will, in his subsequent course of repentance and conversion, freely put forth many choices for God and holiness; but it is impossible that this sinner can have put forth the first choice to reverse his own natural principles of choice. Can a child beget its own father? It must have been God that changed the sinner. Then, when he did it he meant to do it. When was this intention to do it born into the divine mind? That same day? The day that sinner was born? The day Adam was made? No! These answers are all foolish. Because God is omniscient and unchangeable he must have known from eternity his own intention to do it. This suggests, second, that no man can date any of God's purposes in time without virtually denying his perfections of omniscience, wisdom, omnipotence, and immutability. Being omniscient, it is impossible he should ever find out afterward anything he did not know from the first. Being all-wise, it is impossible he should take up a purpose for which his knowledge does not see a reason. Being all-powerful, it is impossible he should ever fail in trying to effect one of his purposes. Hence, whatever God does in nature or grace, he intended to do that thing from eternity. Being unchangeable, it is impossible that he should change his mind to a different purpose after he had once made it up aright under the guidance of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and holiness. All the inferior wisdom of good men but illustrates this. Here is a wise and righteous general conducting a defensive war to save his country. At mid-summer an observer says to him, "General, have you not changed your plan of campaign since you began it?" He replies, "I have." Says the observer, "Then you must be a fickle person?" He replies, "No, I have changed it not because I was fickle, but for these two reasons: because I have been unable and have failed in some of the necessary points of my first plan; and second, I have found out things I did not know when I began." We say that is perfect common sense, and clears the general from all charge of fickleness. But suppose he were, in fact, almighty and omniscient? Then he could not use those excuses, and if he changed his plan after the beginning he would be fickle. Reader, dare you charge God with fickleness? This is a sublime conception of God's nature and actions, as far above the wisest man's as the heavens above the earth. But it is the one taught us everywhere in Scripture. Let us beware how in our pride of self-will we blaspheme God by denying it. Third. Arminians themselves virtually admit the force of these views and scriptures; for their doctrinal books expressly admit God's particular personal election of every sinner that reaches heaven. A great many ignorant persons suppose that the Arminian theology denies all particular election. This is a stupid mistake. Nobody can deny it without attacking the Scripture, God's perfections, and common sense. The whole difference between Presbyterians and intelligent Arminians is this: We believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living. But we Presbyterians must dissent for these reasons: It is inconsistent with the eternity, omnipotence, and sovereignty of the great first cause to represent his eternal purposes thus, as grounded in, or conditioned on, anything which one of his dependent creatures would hereafter contingently do or leave undone."

They both clearly state that God has to stimulate man to receive Salvation.


Did you know that Charles Spurgeon was Reformed Baptist Calvinist pastor?

Gnosticism, the word gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means "to know". We don't know who are elected to be saved. We just preach the Gospel to ALL and allow God handle the election part. Even though God is in control and He KNOWS who will accept and reject before the earth was even created. Only God through the Holy Spirit that saves the elect. Calvinism is a doctrine. Its a teaching and nothing more than that. "Calvinism" is not God.

Calvinism is a doctrine (not actual salvation). Salvation is open to ALL and only God knows who are HIS. Calvinists believe in the Great Commission. We don't know who are elected to be saved. We just preach the Gospel to ALL and allow God handle the election part. Even though God is in control and He KNOWS who will accept and reject before the earth was even created. Jesus did die for ALL but the atonement is only for the elected (in other words, those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, repented and etc). Calvinism is a doctrine of how we believe salvation work according to God's sovereign and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Love is understanding what God wants and we are to follow God's will. Often people "dislike" Calvinism Doctrine because God's Authority regarding Salvation.

[PETE_]

Pete, read my thread about God's will always happening, please. You may find some people, other than yourself, that are very knowledgeable in this area.
I was once 18 and thought I had everything figured out, so I will just ignore your insults and leave others to discuss this with you.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Calvinism is a doctrine (not actual salvation). Salvation is open to ALL and only God knows who are HIS. Calvinists believe in the Great Commission. We don't know who are elected to be saved. We just preach the Gospel to ALL and allow God handle the election part. Even though God is in control and He KNOWS who will accept and reject before the earth was even created. Jesus did die for ALL but the atonement is only for the elected (in other words, those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, repented and etc). Calvinism is a doctrine of how we believe salvation work according to God's sovereign and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Love is understanding what God wants and we are to follow God's will. Often people "dislike" Calvinism Doctrine because God's Authority regarding Salvation.

Well, now that you put it that way...

See, I have been having a conversation with another Calvinist (whom shall remain nameless) and when we looked at what we believe about Salvation, I realized that it was just a big misunderstanding. I believe that God already knows who will be believe in Him, repent of their sins, and do His will, so He elected them for Salvation.

The only thing I disagree with is that God gives some the faith and others no faith. That, to me, is ridiculous. Nowhere in the Bible do I find this principle.

I was once 18 and thought I had everything figured out, so I will just ignore your insults and leave others to discuss this with you.

Pete, I had no intention to insult you! I said that if you would read the other thread, you will see... ahh, now I see. Pete, I honestly didn't mean to write that. I totally wrote the wrong thing!

I meant to say that in the other thread, you can see where other people, like yourself, who are very knowledgeable in this area, have posted. I also forgot to add that I wanted you to read my responses, but a friend was calling me from down the hall, so I just hit "submit reply" without thinking about it!

lol, I seriously said the wrong thing! I dunno why I said "other than yourself." I'm honestly sorry! please forgive me, Pete.

[JimfromOhio]

Well, now that you put it that way...

See, I have been having a conversation with another Calvinist (whom shall remain nameless) and when we looked at what we believe about Salvation, I realized that it was just a big misunderstanding. I believe that God already knows who will be believe in Him, repent of their sins, and do His will, so He elected them for Salvation.

The only thing I disagree with is that God gives some the faith and others no faith. That, to me, is ridiculous. Nowhere in the Bible do I find this principle.

If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Romans 9:19-20. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not relieve their responsibility continuing in sin and are lost, because they do it willfully, and resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” 1 Thessalonians 4:8 Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit. John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

They are responsible for their sin, not God.

[Seeker of the Truth]

If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Romans 9:19-20. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not relieve their responsibility continuing in sin and are lost, because they do it willfully, and resisting the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” 1 Thessalonians 4:8 Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit. John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

They are responsible for their sin, not God.
Exactly!

[JimfromOhio]

Exactly!

Its man's responsibility for their sin while its God's responsbility for their salvation. Man don't choose salvation, God chose us. Man rejects salvation because of their sins. The only "freewill" we have is whether we acknowledge the "conviction" of the Holy Spirit to turn to God and repent. We don't choose God, God chose us. People are confused about "human decisions" and "God's decisions". Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the same as rejecting salvation.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Its man's responsibility for their sin while its God's responsbility for their salvation. Man don't choose salvation, God chose us. Man rejects salvation because of their sins. The only "freewill" we have is whether we acknowledge the "conviction" of the Holy Spirit to turn to God and repent. We don't choose God, God chose us. People are confused about "human decisions" and "God's decisions". Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the same as rejecting salvation.

Would you agree that God convicts all of us at some point in time?

[eldermike]

Concerning Salvation:

Taken from - http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

"The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors."

Now for Calvinism:

Taken from - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm#u (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/dabney/5points.htm#u)

"In our Confession, Chapter 3, Sections 3, 4, and 7, we have this description of it: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death" (3). "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (4).
http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/images/indent.gif"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice" (7).
http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/images/indent.gifThe first and second sections of this tract prove absolutely this sad but stubborn fact, that no sinner ever truly regenerates himself. One sufficient reason is, that none ever wish to do it, but always prefer, while left to themselves by God, to remain as they are, self-willed and worldly. That is to say, no sinner ever makes himself choose God and holiness, because every principle of his soul goes infallibly to decide the opposite preference. Therefore, whenever a sinner is truly regenerated, it must be God that has done it. Take notice, after God has done it, this new-born sinner will, in his subsequent course of repentance and conversion, freely put forth many choices for God and holiness; but it is impossible that this sinner can have put forth the first choice to reverse his own natural principles of choice. Can a child beget its own father? It must have been God that changed the sinner. Then, when he did it he meant to do it. When was this intention to do it born into the divine mind? That same day? The day that sinner was born? The day Adam was made? No! These answers are all foolish. Because God is omniscient and unchangeable he must have known from eternity his own intention to do it. This suggests, second, that no man can date any of God's purposes in time without virtually denying his perfections of omniscience, wisdom, omnipotence, and immutability. Being omniscient, it is impossible he should ever find out afterward anything he did not know from the first. Being all-wise, it is impossible he should take up a purpose for which his knowledge does not see a reason. Being all-powerful, it is impossible he should ever fail in trying to effect one of his purposes. Hence, whatever God does in nature or grace, he intended to do that thing from eternity. Being unchangeable, it is impossible that he should change his mind to a different purpose after he had once made it up aright under the guidance of infinite knowledge, wisdom, and holiness. All the inferior wisdom of good men but illustrates this. Here is a wise and righteous general conducting a defensive war to save his country. At mid-summer an observer says to him, "General, have you not changed your plan of campaign since you began it?" He replies, "I have." Says the observer, "Then you must be a fickle person?" He replies, "No, I have changed it not because I was fickle, but for these two reasons: because I have been unable and have failed in some of the necessary points of my first plan; and second, I have found out things I did not know when I began." We say that is perfect common sense, and clears the general from all charge of fickleness. But suppose he were, in fact, almighty and omniscient? Then he could not use those excuses, and if he changed his plan after the beginning he would be fickle. Reader, dare you charge God with fickleness? This is a sublime conception of God's nature and actions, as far above the wisest man's as the heavens above the earth. But it is the one taught us everywhere in Scripture. Let us beware how in our pride of self-will we blaspheme God by denying it. Third. Arminians themselves virtually admit the force of these views and scriptures; for their doctrinal books expressly admit God's particular personal election of every sinner that reaches heaven. A great many ignorant persons suppose that the Arminian theology denies all particular election. This is a stupid mistake. Nobody can deny it without attacking the Scripture, God's perfections, and common sense. The whole difference between Presbyterians and intelligent Arminians is this: We believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign. They believe that while eternal and particular, it is on account of God's eternal, omniscient foresight of the given sinner's future faith and repentance, and perseverance in holy living. But we Presbyterians must dissent for these reasons: It is inconsistent with the eternity, omnipotence, and sovereignty of the great first cause to represent his eternal purposes thus, as grounded in, or conditioned on, anything which one of his dependent creatures would hereafter contingently do or leave undone."

They both clearly state that God has to stimulate man to receive Salvation.

If you read these you should find them different, one from the other.

Gnosis is understood to be a form of spirtual knowledge. But even Satan has this, the demons have knowledge but are not saved. Your post states that gnosis yields the potential for salvation. That's not Calvinistic in any way.

Spurgeon said it this way:
We believe that God's election of individuals is unconditioned and sovereign.

Notice, there is no need for the seed of knowledge (gnosis) to be planted in any man. God is after all, God.

Total depravity = Total. Here again we find a difference. If every man had the potential for salvation then some men must be superior to other men based upon how they responded. That would be the election of the bright, smarter people, the ones who make better choices. If you think about it, that's the most unfair of all possible positions on election.
Something like:
"All men can be saved, but some will not take the gift due to character defects that I overcame"
Note: The center of sin is I, the center of pride is I. Not that that means anything but I recall that any time I start taking credit for my slavation.

Huge differences.

[Seeker of the Truth]

If you read these you should find them different, one from the other.

Gnosis is understood to be a form of spirtual knowledge. But even Satan has this, the demons have knowledge but are not saved. Your post states that gnosis yields the potential for salvation. That's not Calvinistic in any way.

Spurgeon said it this way:


Notice, there is no need for the seed of knowledge (gnosis) to be planted in any man. God is after all, God.

Total depravity = Total. Here again we find a difference. If every man had the potential for salvation then some men must be superior to other men based upon how they responded. That would be the election of the bright, smarter people, the ones who make better choices. If you think about it, that's the most unfair of all possible positions on election.
Something like:
"All men can be saved, but some will not take the gift due to character defects that I overcame"
Note: The center of sin is I, the center of pride is I. Not that that means anything but I recall that any time I start taking credit for my slavation.

Huge differences.
Well, sorry for my misconceptions. I figure that the next time I take a stance such as this, I'll actually study it more.

[Erinwilcox]

If you read these you should find them different, one from the other.

Gnosis is understood to be a form of spirtual knowledge. But even Satan has this, the demons have knowledge but are not saved. Your post states that gnosis yields the potential for salvation. That's not Calvinistic in any way.

Spurgeon said it this way:


Notice, there is no need for the seed of knowledge (gnosis) to be planted in any man. God is after all, God.

Total depravity = Total. Here again we find a difference. If every man had the potential for salvation then some men must be superior to other men based upon how they responded. That would be the election of the bright, smarter people, the ones who make better choices. If you think about it, that's the most unfair of all possible positions on election.
Something like:
"All men can be saved, but some will not take the gift due to character defects that I overcame"
Note: The center of sin is I, the center of pride is I. Not that that means anything but I recall that any time I start taking credit for my slavation.

Huge differences.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to eldermike again.


Wow. Great post, brother. I was away for the weekend and so am only now returning to CF, but I really appreciated your post.

[eldermike]

Well, sorry for my misconceptions. I figure that the next time I take a stance such as this, I'll actually study it more.
That's ok young brother, asking questions, is allowed.

[JimfromOhio]

I hate how the use of such a beautiful flower as the TULIP could to be used to be symbolic for strict predestination, I see no love in calvinism.

I was wondering if you were reading Dave Hunt's book titled, What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God?

Here's a response to Dave Hunt's book from Phil Johnson (John MacArthur's staff,Executive Director, Grace to You). A Response to Dave Hunt’s Attack on the Doctrines of Grace (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1022CDNotes.htm)

[Erinwilcox]

And here is James White's response (I think it only fair that it be read since Hunts book is dealing so closely with "The Potter's Freedom" by White):

http://www.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

Please read it. . .

[eldermike]

And here is James White's response (I think it only fair that it be read since Hunts book is dealing so closely with "The Potter's Freedom" by White):

http://www.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

Please read it. . .
James White makes a great point in this letter. The tone of attacks on reformed Theology is always the same. I have always known that a weak argument is always loud, boastful and personal, that alone is enough to reject it.

Another form issue with attacks of reformed Theology is the assumption that if I can prove you wrong then I must be right. That's a total failure of logic.

Great post, thanks for posting this.

[JPPT1974]

When we feel the conviction to
Become saved, that is Jesus knocking
On the door for us to be saved as
We feel our hearts burning with passion
To become saved.

[JimfromOhio]

When we feel the conviction to
Become saved, that is Jesus knocking
On the door for us to be saved as
We feel our hearts burning with passion
To become saved.

One of the perfect examples of the "conviction" is Jesus' knocking in Revelatoin Revelation 3:20, Jesus said:
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

Recognizing the Jesus voice is like a sheep recognizing the shepherd's voice. Only the Holy Spirit can prick a person's heart to cause a person to hear Christ's voice. Jesus said in John 10:14-15 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Acts 10:44
[ The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles ] While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.

Acts 15:7-9
Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

Galatians 3:2
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

1 Thessalonians 1:5
For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance (conviction), as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

Without the Holy Spirit, we ask God for our salvation. It is only when the Holy Spirit convicts us, our salvation is secured.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.

2 Timothy 2:19
Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

[mlqurgw]

Context folks. The passage in Rev. 3:20 isn't in reference to unbelievers. Christ is speaking to His church.

[JimfromOhio]

Context folks. The passage in Rev. 3:20 isn't in reference to unbelievers. Christ is speaking to His church.

In context of Revelations, John is talking about the 7 Churches. a local church is an assembly of believers and is made up of people. When we look in the mirror, we are the part of the spiritual Church. At the same time, we all know there are those who are unbelievers within each local churches.

In context of verse 20, Jesus is talking to individuals. When Christ says, "if anyone," (not church). He's not talking about a collective group, but about individuals instead. Christ is knocking at the door of a person's heart--He wants to come in. This is the concept of Jesus pleading (convicting) that He wants to come into a person's life and change from within.

[Iosias]

Context folks. The passage in Rev. 3:20 isn't in reference to unbelievers. Christ is speaking to His church.

:thumbsup:

[Hagios17]

Actually, you probably already believe that God's will rules man's will, but you just didn't know it...








4 Examples How God's Will Rules Man's Will

1. Inspiration of Scripture



2. Infallibility of Bible prophecy3. Eternal security4. Heaven/new earth1. Inspiration of Scripture: Do you believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture? If so, then you believe God ruled the wills of the Bible authors. They did not have "free will" to write errors in Scripture. Thankfully, the Lord kept their wills from error.
"All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16)

2. Infallibility of Bible Prophecy: Do you believe the Bible prophecies are infallible? If so, then you believe God ruled the wills of the prophets. They did not have "free will" to prophesy errors. God inspired the Old Testament prophets to prophesy accurately about the coming Messiah. During the inspiration process, He influenced and ruled their wills to keep them from error:

"no prophecy of the Scripture came into being of its own private interpretation. For prophecy was not borne at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:2-21)

That's why the test of a true prophet vs. a false prophet is the infallibility of their predictions (Deut. 18:21-22.) If the prophets could have exercised their own wills, free from God's control, then they never could have infallibly predicted Christ's virgin birth, city of birth, suffering death, resurrection, second coming, etc.

3. Eternal Security: Do you believe in "eternal security?" If so, then you believe God rules believers' wills. Most Christians agree they can't fall away finally from Christ. Christians don't have "free will" to become atheists or Satan worshippers. Thankfully, the Lord influences our wills to keep us believing and persevering in Him until the end.

"I will give you a new heart (will) and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart (will) of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:26-27)

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)

4. Heaven/New Earth: Finally, even if you don't believe in eternal security in this life, still you probably believe Christians can never leave heaven or the new earth. If so, then you believe God rules His peoples' wills. No one in heaven is free to leave and choose Hell. God will keep them willingly in heaven forever.



So, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, prophetic infallibility, or eternal security, then you already believe man doesn't have a 100% "free will." God's will sovereignly rules our wills.


Man Pete, whatever you're taking i'l have it too, lol. But seriously, thanks for the delivery:thumbsup:

3 and 4 seamed pretty obvious... had a discussion with a freind about that a year ago, but 1 and 2, thats brilliant. But I'm not saying this to rub it in anyone's face, its just i'm amazed how powerful God is.

...:idea: Oh yes! Another point to consider would be why Christ plays the male and his beloved the female..... cause... have you guessed yet?






.... Cause the male is the dominant and the female is submissive. I am almost completely convinced that the real reason why the law and prophets set up such a principle of wife submission and husband/male dominance, because that earthly statute testifies of the spiritual one. Jesus is out King, and we a