|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 4:54:19 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 4017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
quote:
Since I did address the issue, that's simply another lie. Nonsense, kelman. You've NEVER addressed WHY Jesus promised salvation to the non-elect in John 8:24. You deny that He did. That doesn't address it.
kelman, we have here another example of - you haven't addressed or answered the question because you don't agree with the premise of the question.
Some appear to think so stiffly in their own paradigm that they aren't able to see other possibilities. Some are so unwilling to see outside their own world of thinking that they are unable to understand. Sounds kind of like the predicament of fallen man - unwilling and thus unable. Keep up the good posts.
Blessings,
SH
It's really absurd, this business of whining that no one is addressing the questions. And, for no other reason other than the answer given is not to their liking. Although, pure inattentiveness on their part is also a factor.
It's true, there is an inability to even look past their free will momentarily to see another issue. This has never been more apparent as in the inability to see God's omniscience and omnipotence without those attributes first passing through the lens of man's supposed absolute free will.
Speaking of "inability", Mat 12:33 is a real eye-opener. Christ addresses the Pharisees as the "generation of vipers" and asks "how can ye, being evil, speak good things?". Christ says they are evil and cannot speak good things. Still, we find that regardless of their inability to speak "good things", Christ declares they will be judged for "every idle word".
I'd say God is giving us another excellent example of man's "inability".
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 6:37:29 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1707
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
The reason I say that the "unless" is not a major point is because the context shows that it is not. What the Scripture says is what drives my theology and Jesus made it clear what His major point was,
Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” (John 8:21 NASB95)
Jesus made it clear in verse 21, ". . . you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come."
This was NOT Jesus' major point.
Sure it was. The context shows this clearly
Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” (John 8:21 NASB95)
Jesus' point is that these people will die in their sins; they will not be able to find Him for where He is going they cannot come. These are very explicit statements.
What is just as clear and explicit is the promise of dying in their sins IF they do NOT believe in Him. That is a promise that Jesus made to them.
quote:
They will seek Him and will die in their sins. They could not come to where He was going - heaven.
The reason is given in v.24; they will NOT believe in Him.
We agree on that - Jesus knew they did not believe and would not believe. He told them that they would die in their sins twice and then told them the reason for His judgment upon them: FOR unless you believe . . .
The term "FOR" is the one word you keep omitting. You have to omit it in order to maintain your interpretation. But the fact is the term “FOR” is in the text and you have refused to "deal with it".
quote:
quote:
Jesus expounds further why they will die in their sins and cannot go to where He was going. He does not regard them as deserving to be taught, but instead gives them a stern reproof.
Nonsense. He was warning them of where they were heading, and gave them the solution to avoiding that. Yet you deny that.
The term "for" shows your interpretation wrong.
quote:
quote:
And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. (John 8:23 NASB95)
He states that they "are from below" and "are of this world." Their citizenship was not from heaven, but from "this world."
What does this have to do with the issue? None. He was telling them He was from heaven, and they were from earth, just like you and me.
The word "therefore" shows us that this has everything to do with the issue.
And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:23-24 NASB95 emphasis added)
Paul uses the word "therefore" (oun)to connect what he had said in verse 23 with what he said in verse 24. The term is translated by the phrase, "That is why I told you . . ." or a close variant in the New Living Translation, the Living Bible, God's Word, the New Century Version, the Weymouth NT, the Amplified Bible, the Contemporary English Version, the Good News Translation and many more.
Jesus said that they were from below and of this world and then directly connects this thought with verse 24 by saying "this is why I told you, 'you will die in your sins'." Jesus had told them that they would die in their sins because they were from below and of the world.
Why would they die in their sins? Because they are from below and of this world. The connection is obvious; the connecting term "therefore" makes this very clear.
quote:
quote:
Then Jesus uses the term "therefore," showing that what proceeds is directly tied to what went before.
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; . (John 8:24a NASB95)
But don't stop at v.24a.
I didn't. Why would you suggest that I did? You passed right over the obvious – “THEREFORE I said to you that you will die in your sins.” (see above)
quote:
quote:
This is a judgment upon them. They are from below, the are of this world, therefore they will die in their sins.
This is absurd. The judgment is based on the fact that they will NOT believe, not because they are from below. You are from this world as well, yet you are a believer and will NOT die in your sins. Your "logic" is quite fuzzy.
I am sure you get fuzzy feelings when you realize that verse 23 is explaining why they will die in their sins. The term "therefore" proves this.
quote:
quote:
Why is it that this is so? Jesus comes with another reason. We know this is true because he starts His next statement with the word "for."
for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. (John 8:24b NASB)
From the actual Greek, it is better rendered, "IF you will NOT believe that I am who I claim to be". The "unless" is "if" with the negative.
"If" or "unless" makes no difference; the meaning remains the same. Jesus proclaimed that they would die in their sins because they were from below and of this world and as an added indictment he states "FOR" (which is used at the beginning of his statement to show he is explaining why he made the previous statement) "unless you believe . . . you will die in your sins." They will die in their sins, FOR [because of the fact] unless you believe . . . you will die in your sins.
quote:
quote:
The word "unless" is obviously in the sentence. It follows the term "for" which has great significance. The fact that "unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" is a sober fact. But the significance of this statement must be taken in context. It is obvious that they would die in their sins because they did not believe.
From the Greek, He promises them that they WILL die in their sins IF they will NOT believe in Him.
You keep ignoring the term "FOR".
quote:
quote:
If Jesus was offering salvation He would not have put such great stress on the fact that they would die in their sins, that they were from below, and that they were of the world.
Being "from this world" is irrelevant in the issue of salvation. ALL humans are from this world. Your point is absurd. It is only you who are placing ALL emphasis on the warning of dying in their sins. Your point is the absurd one, for Jesus plainly said that they were from below and of the earth THEREFORE I said to you, you will die in your sins. Then for added emphasis Jesus adds, "FOR unless you believe I am, you will die in your sins."
quote:
quote:
These were facts that Jesus pressed upon them. And the reason was because "unless you believe" (which they did not) "you shall die in your sins" (which we are assured they did).
Jesus stated His sentence as a conditional phrase. iow, IF they believed, they would NOT die in their sins. Or, IF they did NOT believe, they WILL die in their sins.
Jesus used a conditional phrase, but it must be seen in context. The conditional phrase was used to show why they will die in their sins not as an offer of salvation. The overall context, word usage and train of thought proves this beyond a doubt.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 6:56:16 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1707
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
It's true, there is an inability to even look past their free will momentarily to see another issue. This has never been more apparent as in the inability to see God's omniscience and omnipotence without those attributes first passing through the lens of man's supposed absolute free will.
I agree. It appears that some are very uncomfortable with the idea that there is a mystery involved with God's omniscience and omnipotence on one hand and man's responsibility and accountability on the other. Many think these contradict each other. I would also if it were not written in the Bible. God's way of accomplishing His purposes and His plans to minute details without disturbing or contradicting the moral choices and accountability of man is something we attribute to God . . . because He is God.
quote:
Speaking of "inability", Mat 12:33 is a real eye-opener. Christ addresses the Pharisees as the "generation of vipers" and asks "how can ye, being evil, speak good things?". Christ says they are evil and cannot speak good things. Still, we find that regardless of their inability to speak "good things", Christ declares they will be judged for "every idle word".
I'd say God is giving us another excellent example of man's "inability".
Great example. Man's "inability" which does not contradict man's "responsibility" and "accountability".
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 7:56:32 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2972
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
I think SureHope made pretty good sense.
“I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
The word "cannot" implies inability not ability.
If there was some proposed solution He would not have used "cannot".
He would have said you "can come" if you "can" meet the following condition.
KJB
Yeah, I'm down with that dude !
I like the way the FWers whiz by the first 23 verses.
Jesus shows us plainly He rescues from condemnation.
The adulterous woman, deserved hell, as we all do.
Yet, Jesus was merciful to her, and not the Pharisees.
_____________________________
Effectus non excedit virtutem suae causae [the effect cannot exceed the power of its cause]
Grace may be free, but it may not be chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 7:57:45 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
rwe,
A couple of thoughts regarding Adam, the Fall, and your comments...
Something I've been thinking about: Do you notice how Adam and Eve answered God?
Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. Even though they knew good and evil,
they still did not take responsibility for their actions. That shows something about the sin nature.
Adam disobeyed and knew God was ticked. He was fearful of the consequences.
I don't think this would be if Adam was 100% depraved.
As for blaming Eve - Adam is a sinful man now. One would expect him to lie.
quote:
It was through Seth's offspring that people began to call upon the Lord.
Eve believed that God gave her Seth (which means appointed) to replace Abel
whom Cain murdered. God was keeping his part of the covenant. My guess is that
they glorified God because he was faithful to the covenant.
I see your point, but wasn't Seth totally depraved, also?
Does Scripture say God somehow enabled these men or the Holy Spirit came upon these men?
quote:
Just some thoughts that have been floating around my mind...
Yes, I have alot of those, too. Some I KNOW didn't come from God! 
I want to know the truth.
I sincerely want you to know if Calvinism is true, I want to believe it.
But the light I walk in tells me depravity, as defined by Calvinism cannot be true.
And determinism cannot be true either.
If total depravity was true, Adam would not have been able to be fearful of God.
All I am saying is Adam had the ability to not only recognize his sin,
but understand the consequences of his sin, even AFTER he sinned.
Either
1) Adam was depraved
2) Adam was not depraved
3) Adam was not 100% depraved
4) Depravity needs to be redefined
5) Depravity is not true
I think #2 is proven by the events surrounding the Fall.
I agree with Timothy George that a better term is 'radical depravity'.
I think a 'radically depraved' man is able to repent. And this is borne out
by Scriptures that tell us it is universal command (Acts 17:30), God desires
men to do it (2Pet 3:9), God rejoices when sinners repent, waits for sinners to
repent, and even relents of certain punishments when men decide to repent.
I can quote you many, many Scriptures that clearly tell us wicked men are called
to repent and that God will relent, change his mind, or repent of a punishment
he was about to inflict.
If man was totally unable, none of this would make sense.
If man is totally unable, what will you do with Rev 2:21?
Which leads to another point Calvinism must deny: God responds to man.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 10:07:57 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1781
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: umcbee
Just like God dangling salvation in the face of the non-elect for no reason at all except He likes to dangle it . Its called Calvinism .
Don't know what your point is.......
But consider these types of "DANGLING"
---God dangles health in front of sick
---food in front of hungry
---security in front hopeless
---peace in front of anxious
---prestige in front of forgotten
How does God dangle health in front of the sick ? I guess by sending physicians to impoverished countries to treat the sick free of charge .
Or food in front of hungry ? I guess by laying on the hearts of His people to supply tons of food to the hungry in every part of the world where they are allowed to take it .
Or security in front of hopeless ? I guess by supplying peace keepers to all parts of the world .
Or peace in front of anxious ? See above .
Or prestige in front of forgotten ? I guess by His saints remembering the forgotten in their prayers .
What planet do you live on ?
To me this is a stupid question , as were the next ones also . Thats why I deleted them .
quote:
But, back to your "insight"...
God dangling salvation in front of the UN elect.
I have given you numerous facts of what God is
really and actually dangling in front of people.
You have given rhetoric .
quote:
Your shaky assessment has no substance or merit.
Certainly there isn't the slightest truth contained in it.
By sending physicians to impoverished countries to treat the sick free of charge .
By laying on the hearts of His people to supply tons of food to the hungry in every part of the world where they are allowed to take it .
By supplying peace keepers to all parts of the world .
By His saints remembering the forgotten in their prayers .
Maybe you don't participate in any of these ministries ; they are Christian ministries none the less . They are of merit , substance , and truth ; no matter how foreign the concept is to you .
quote:
How does the reprobate "SEE" this salvation ?
Maybe you can tell me since your theology says the reprobate can't see anything (remember , they're dead !)
quote:
Why would he or could he care even remotely ?
He can't in your theology .
quote:
You illustrate a man believing in something that
he cannot see, hear, or even acknowledge.
And if he did , would that step on your frozen chosen toes ?
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 11:27:58 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
I think SureHope made pretty good sense.
I don't think so at all.
quote:
“I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
The word "cannot" implies inability not ability.
No it doesn't. That is only your opinion about it. Why can't they come? They won't believe in Him. Where does the passage say that they are unable to believe? No where.
quote:
If there was some proposed solution He would not have used "cannot".
There WAS a solution. Why do you deny that "IF you believe in Him" is a solution? It is clearly a solution. Your failure to see that is amazing.
quote:
He would have said you "can come" if you "can" meet the following condition.
That is just what He did, KJ. Your "if" is used in 8:24, though you all seem unable to see it. He said to the non-elect, "You WILL die in your sins, IF you do NOT believe in Me". There is the warning and the solution.
Unless you somehow think that "if you believe in Me" isn't any solution to dying in your sins. But that would be really absurd if you did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 11:35:32 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Jesus' method of teaching the Gospel is not limited to this verse.
That's right. I never said it was. What the whole point is here is that Jesus EVANGELIZED the non-elect with a promise. Can you address the issue?
Rather, the point is that Jesus did NOT promise salvation to the non-elect. He simply declared the Gospel to both elect and non-elect. What's so difficult to see that this is God's method of reaching the elect?
What you ignore is the significance of the fact that He said the same thing to both. Can you explain why He would give the gospel to those He wouldn't die for?
quote:
If your theory was true, the passage would then contradict other passages.
Actually, my pov IS true, and it demonstrates that it is your interp of other passages that is contradicted. My pov does NOT contradict any part of the Bible. But it sure does contradict your interp of the Bible.
quote:
quote:
What Jesus said to the non-elect can be understood by anyone with an elementary education. Maybe you aren't able to understand what His words meant. Ah, come on FG, sure I went to elementary school...that's the eight year one, right? I mean golly, I even went to that other one, sure was easier too, it only had what?..two three years?
Then why can't you understand the sentence structure here?
quote:
Christ made no promise of salvation to them. You need to go back to the drawing board on this one, FG.
Your blatant denial of His words do not erase His promise.
He said to the non-elect: "You WILL die in your sins, IF you do NOT believe that I am who I claim to be." The "if" introduces potential. iow, if they DO believe, they will NOT die in their sins. But, if they do NOT believe, then they WILL die in their sins.
This is elementary, my dear watson. You have no excuse for not grasping this, gsiving your "extensive" education.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 11:40:00 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
You're stuck in the erroneous belief that you can do other than what God knows you will do.
You are quite confused. Here is an example to demonstrate your confusion.
I am driving down the road and come to a "fork in the road", meaning I have to eiether turn to the left or to the right. Since God is omniscient, He has always known which way I will freely choose. And, of course, He will always be right. But His knowledge of which road I choose does not mean that He chose or caused me to go either way. Also, I remain free to go either way, so your absurd notion that I "cannot do" other than what He knows I will do is not supported. Even though I choose 1 way, I am able to go either way. That is the point, which seems quite a bit over your head.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 11:44:29 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Since I did address the issue, that's simply another lie. Nonsense, kelman. You've NEVER addressed WHY Jesus promised salvation to the non-elect in John 8:24. You deny that He did. That doesn't address it.
You don't pay any attention to what you read, if you even read the post at all. I CLEARLY gave you a reason, one of many, why Christ did NOT make a promise of salvation to the non-elect. Now, should you actually read my last post, you will see where I addressed the issue AGAIN.
This is my last post regarding your notions, kelman. You deny what Jesus said was a promise, but so what? He did.
When He told them "you WILL die in your sins, IF you do NOT believe in Me", he was ]promising that they WILL die IF they do NOT believe. Your failure to understand this changes nothing.
Or, the other side of the promise is this: "you will NOT die in your sins, IF you DO believe in Me". That is a promise that they will NOT die in their sins IF they DO believe.
You must deny that His statements are promises because you realize that it would contradict much of how you interp Scripture. Which is one of my points.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 11:49:04 AM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
It's really absurd, this business of whining that no one is addressing the questions.
No, the whining has been coming from those who keep claiming they have answered the questions when they haven't come close. LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 12:02:18 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
The term "FOR" is the one word you keep omitting. You have to omit it in order to maintain your interpretation. But the fact is the term “FOR” is in the text and you have refused to "deal with it".
What follows "for"? "if". That is a potential. Jesus promised the non-elect they WILL die in their sins IF they do not believe. I don't care where you want to put the "for". How about this: "For you WILL die in your sins, IF you do NOT believe in Me." So, I'm NOT ignoring the "for". You are ignoring the potential of the "if".
quote:
The term "for" shows your interpretation wrong.
Demonstrate that from this sentence: FOR you WILL die in your sins, IF you do NOT believe in Me.
Or, demonstrate that from this sentence: FOR you will NOT die in your sins, IF you DO believe in Me.
quote:
Why would they die in their sins? Because they are from below and of this world.
Oh, I see. OK. btw, just what planet are you from, then? LOL
quote:
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; . (John 8:24a NASB95)
But don't stop at v.24a.
I didn't. Why would you suggest that I did? You passed right over the obvious – “THEREFORE I said to you that you will die in your sins.” (see above)
The "therefore" is a conclusion. What is the conclusion? That they WILL die in their sins IF they do NOT believe. Why do you ignore the potential of "ean"?
quote:
I am sure you get fuzzy feelings when you realize that verse 23 is explaining why they will die in their sins. The term "therefore" proves this.
No, v.24 is the explanation for why they will die in their sins. It is based on the conditoin of NOT believing in Him.
quote:
"If" or "unless" makes no difference; the meaning remains the same. Jesus proclaimed that they would die in their sins because they were from below and of this world and as an added indictment he states "FOR" (which is used at the beginning of his statement to show he is explaining why he made the previous statement) "unless you believe . . . you will die in your sins." They will die in their sins, FOR [because of the fact] unless you believe . . . you will die in your sins.
Since every member of the human race, with the possible exception of your self, is from this world, that would mean, from your pov, that every human being will die in their sins. Your pov is absurd.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If Jesus was offering salvation He would not have put such great stress on the fact that they would die in their sins, that they were from below, and that they were of the world.
Being "from this world" is irrelevant in the issue of salvation. ALL humans are from this world. Your point is absurd. It is only you who are placing ALL emphasis on the warning of dying in their sins. Your point is the absurd one, for Jesus plainly said that they were from below and of the earth THEREFORE I said to you, you will die in your sins. Then for added emphasis Jesus adds, "FOR unless you believe I am, you will die in your sins."
How you keep failing to see the significance of the "unless" or better yet, "if" as a potential, amazes me.
quote:
Jesus used a conditional phrase, but it must be seen in context. The conditional phrase was used to show why they will die in their sins not as an offer of salvation.
That is merely your opinion, but not worthy of consideration. He very clearly CONDITIONED whether one dies in their sins or NOT is based on whether they believe or not.
quote:
The overall context, word usage and train of thought proves this beyond a doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 12:03:23 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
UMCBEE: Maybe you can tell me since your theology
says the reprobate can't see anything (remember , they're dead !)
Bee - Is there Scripture that says man is spiritually dead
and totally unable to understand the gospel?
I am thinking how could Lydia be a worshipper of God
and be spiritually dead?
Nor Cornelius, the Roman soldier, or the thief on the cross.
Is any there evidence they were regenerated prior to believing?
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 12:36:01 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
UMCBEE: Maybe you can tell me since your theology
says the reprobate can't see anything (remember , they're dead !)
Bee - Is there Scripture that says man is spiritually dead
and totally unable to understand the gospel?
No, rw. The calvinists misunderstand what Paul is saying in Eph 2 about being "dead in sins". They only grasp function. But Paul is referring to position. Just count up all the prepositional phrases like "IN Christ", "WITH Christ", "IN sins", etc, in ch 2. Paul's point is that the unregenerate are separate from Christ and God. That's a positional problem, NOT a functional one. whereas, the regenerate are IN Christ and God, again, a positional issue, NOT a functional one.
quote:
I am thinking how could Lydia be a worshipper of God
and be spiritually dead?
She was "separate from Christ" until she believed. She is what we call a "seeker", though the calvinists deny that any exist.
quote:
Nor Cornelius, the Roman soldier, or the thief on the cross.
Seekers all. Acts 17:27.
quote:
Is any there evidence they were regenerated prior to believing?
Absolutely zero.
I'm confident that Bee's answer will be excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 12:52:13 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 8263
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
PROMISES, PROMISES, PROMISES
It's getting kind of weird to see how the calvinists cannot recognize a promise when they come to one. For example, John 8:24.
When Jesus exclaimed, "For you WILL die in your sins", that was a guarantee, which is also called a promise (for those who don't understand what a promise actually is). And this promise/guarantee was conditioned upon an antecedent. Jesus followed the promise/guarantee with "IF you do NOT believe in Me."
iow, He promised them that they WILL die in their sins IF they do NOT believe in Him. And He said that to the children of the devil (v.43). Wow.
kelman finally acknowledged WHY calvinism cannot accept Jesus' words as a promise. He noted that if my "pov were true, that would contradict the rest of the Bible." The truth is that my pov contradicts the calvinistic interpretation of the Bible. At least one of the calvinists has come to grips with my pov and realizes the damage it will do to his understanding of the Bible, which has been my point all along.
So, now I no longer have to tell the calvinists that no one has come close to answering my question. kelman has provided keen insight into WHY calvinism MUST deny my pov, because if true, and it is, their pov of Scripture is contradicted.
What Jesus said in John 8:24 can be stated in two different ways, but both mean the same thing. One is a "negative statement" and the other is a "positive" statement.
Here is the "negative" promise: "For you WILL die in your sins, IF you do NOT believe in Me."
Here is the "positive" promise: "For you will NOT die in your sins, IF you DO believe in Me."
These two statements are equivalent and true promises or guarantees.
The promise/guarantee deals with whether one will die in their sins or not.
The condition is whether one will believe in Him or not. The use of "ean" in the Greek which is translated "if" proves that.
The calvinists deny any potential, but Jesus' use of "if" demonstrates that calvinism is in error, seriously.
The calvinists have to prove that what Jesus said was NOT a promise based on a condition. I would wish them good luck, but I don't believe in luck, AND it won't do them any good anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 1:30:57 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
O:
It is not the lack of wanting; it is the lack of ABILITY. We are born without the ability to believe,we lack the faculties that makes us capable, how can we be without excuse for not believing?
SH:
I disagree here. It is a lack of wanting. A person who does not want God is unable to want Him at the same time. Regeneration directly affects the heart or the source of desire.
Regeneration is more then giving us new desires and wants, those are just the result of it. Reg. is ,as we all agree, the birth of a new eternal spirit within us. So until we have it ,we don’t posess the faculty capable of producing such desire.
So I still hold my belief that C view logically leads to people being held responsible for something they have no faculties , are unable to do. After many debates with some pretty sane Calvinists, reasonable people like you SH, nobody could ever produce an example yet of a person being justly judged for smthing he is unable to do. This idea seem to have no other precedent and goes against my understanding of what Biblical justice is.
For example:
Who is born a man wants to have a woman as his spouse, because his nature (male) dictates his desires. In order for him to have his desires changed- to start desiring to be married to a man to have a monday night football buddy, among other perks - he has to have another nature, to be born as a female. We can’t hold man responsible for not wanting, lets say, to be married to a man, for you have no faculties (nature) to want a husband.
Neither can we held one responsible for his wants. Deeds and acts are another thing, we can master doing something we don’t want but wanting, ordesire is produced by nature.
As i understand justice no one can be responsible for his wants. Only for deeds, if he has ability to do it. We can be responsible for not believing only if he have the ability (to want) to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 1:41:55 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Speaking of "inability", Mat 12:33 is a real eye-opener. Christ addresses the Pharisees as the "generation of vipers" and asks "how can ye, being evil, speak good things?". Christ says they are evil and cannot speak good things. Still, we find that regardless of their inability to speak "good things", Christ declares they will be judged for "every idle word".
I'd say God is giving us another excellent example of man's "inability".
Kel, buddy! I havent annoyed you in a long while, that is inexusable. Here it is:
I disagree with the above. It is not proving inability. In the context it is obvious that even generation of vipers are able to speak good things now and then.
We are rare ,vicious brand of vipers here on C/A but we manage to,for the most part, fly under the radar of ever merciful administration! No, for real, of course they can, i know pharisees that can speak good things and true saved people that can speak evil.
Nobody is always good tree or always evil tree. Not every word that was coming out of yours or mine mouth when we were unsaved was evil.Not all we say now is good.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 2:12:56 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2485
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I understand and respect you in holding your view. I am thankful that we can be born of the same Father, by the same Savior and thus be in the same family and respectfully disagree.
Amen, brother!! Definitely, wise words. I respect and love Manna, KJ, Kel and other calv-s for being smart and interesting to study with, plus grateful for the help as I said in latest post to Manna. I love them just as much as all the decent brothers from the FW camp with whom i surely agree much more.
If we love only those we agree with - no big deal. Unsaved do that as well.
Having too many brothers that you can even choose which one to love is a privilege and luxury only spoiled American brats can afford  .
Calvinism or FW doesn’t effect a person's spiritual maturity level in the slightest, as ample evidence shows.
Mean, nasty, hateful staunch Calvinists as well as mean nasty hateful staunch FWillers followed the dinosaurs on this thread, by being send into oblivion for bad unchristian behaivor. So the debate is great, but I find great peace in knowing that holding to C or FW doesn’t have any influence in making a person more Christ like.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 2:30:43 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
O:
So I still hold my belief that C view logically leads to people
being held responsible for something they have no faculties ,
are unable to do.
Exactly, dear.
Like Brett Favre tell his crippled grandma.........."Go long, Granny"
and when she couldn't, blame her for being a bad mother?
God is just. God will not condemn a person for something he
created them unable to do. Period.
As for inability, please see my posts Re: Adam and his knowledge.
Remember too, this "ability" is not a physical ability we can measure:
No, I cannot bench press 500 pounds.
No, dear, you cannot fly (can you???)
This ability we speak of is moral and intellectual.
Is man 100% depraved/100% unable?
Well, was Adam 100% depraved/unable after the Fall?
If man is intellectually able to understand the gospel,
why did Paul "reason with the Jews"?
(I KNOW you can reason with a Jew because you are reasonable!)
And why did Paul use logic and reason with the Mars Hill crowd?
Did the elect need convincing?
Or say he would become everything to everyman?
Do the elect need to be seduced to the gospel?
I have yet to see an answer as to why moral pagans exist.
Ode - Maybe they don't WANT a choice - you know, life is much easier
if everything is decided for you - like boot camp or nursing home?
They can't answer that either.
I dont' think man is 100% depraved/unable, maybe 95% yes.
If Calvinism is true, I WANT to believe it!!!
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 2:49:48 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2472
Status: offline
|
Free -
You'll never get anywhere arguing Scripture.
Focus on the character issue, both God and man - they
have no answers in their rigid view of sovereignty.
Question: God either determines everything or he doesn't.
Question: Man is either 100% depraved or he is not.
In trying to prove God determines everything so as to nullify
free will, they impune his character by making God out to
be the determiner of our sin.
In trying to prove man is 100% depraved they deny the fact that
man retains a moral witness and is capable of a moral choice.
It is easy to prove God does NOT determine everything -
he is not responsible, nor can he direct our choice to sin.
It is easy to prove man is NOT 100% depraved - there
are moral pagans who make moral decisions everyday.
They have no rational explanation for Adam & his ability to
know he sinned and fear God.
The inability they speak of is moral and intellectual, yet
they must deny eating the fruit gave Adam knowledge of
good and evil. He already possessed the moral ability
to choose to obey or not and he retained it as evidenced
by his ability to understand the consequences of his act.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 9/8/2008 3:38:53 PM
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
